Possible WW3 thread

[sonofdaxjones]

It's sad to see idiots like ChumDummy wanting to add more countries to the list the United States taxpayer will have to pay to protect, of which many have little if any geo-strategic significance to the United States and its citizens.   Just another potential place for our finest to possibly be sent off and die over for no reason.   

#blueanonGe:  The most NeoCon of the NeoCon's

 

[Kat Kid]

It doesn’t appear to be working with preventing an invasion currently

Lol. That is, it prevents invasions into its member nations.

This is why Putin, Trump, Tucker, dax, and KK don't want NATO to expand. Because it means Putin can't invade as many countries.

Come on man.

[chum1]

It doesn’t appear to be working with preventing an invasion currently

Lol. That is, it prevents invasions into its member nations.

This is why Putin, Trump, Tucker, dax, and KK don't want NATO to expand. Because it means Putin can't invade as many countries.

Come on man.

JK!

[nicname]

The one truly good thing Trump did was to ignore all of this dumb IR consensus crap and Biden has mostly followed through on the best parts of what trump started and it is the one thing that everyone is mad about?  That sucks!

:alonzomourning gif

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's sad to see idiots like ChumDummy wanting to add more countries to the list the United States taxpayer will have to pay to protect, of which many have little if any geo-strategic significance to the United States and its citizens.   Just another potential place for our finest to possibly be sent off and die over for no reason.   

#blueanonGe:  The most NeoCon of the NeoCon's

 

Yes, before NATO, the USA was the wealthiest, most powerful country on earth. Clearly, NATO is a welfare princess that is turning us into a third world crap hole.

[sonofdaxjones]

It's sad to see idiots like ChumDummy wanting to add more countries to the list the United States taxpayer will have to pay to protect, of which many have little if any geo-strategic significance to the United States and its citizens.   Just another potential place for our finest to possibly be sent off and die over for no reason.   

#blueanonGe:  The most NeoCon of the NeoCon's

 

Yes, before NATO, the USA was the wealthiest, most powerful country on earth. Clearly, NATO is a welfare princess that is turning us into a third world crap hole.

LOL. 

That’s not what was said nor even implied.

But it’s good to know that you’re for the expenditure of upwards of $800 billion dollars a year for the military-intelligence complex. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm fairly certain we spend much more than NATO requires of its members, dax. Do you think we'd spend less on defense without NATO?

[sonofdaxjones]

I'm fairly certain we spend much more than NATO requires of its members, dax. Do you think we'd spend less on defense without NATO?

Do you think I’m dumb?   Of course the military industrial complex is going to find a way to keep spending the same amount of money.   Remember, for the Federal government a decrease in the asked for increase is classified as a budget cut. 

I know full well that the NeoCon’s both on here and elsewhere will still demand that the US continue to spend 3.77% of its GDP on the military. (The rest of NATO averages 1.77%) and you’ll clearly keep telling us that’s  good policy.   Which is what you’re clearly implying right now. 

We’ll put rage down on the side of guns in the guns/butter equation. 

[wetwillie]

Dax Yes!

[sonofdaxjones]

I think the same about you. 

Particularly when you come slobbering in late to the discussion.   Like now.

[wetwillie]

I think the same about you. 

Particularly when you come slobbering in late to the discussion.   Like now.

No I’m serious you are winning this thread big time.  I’m really surprised at some of the stances being taken in this thread and who is taking them.

[MakeItRain]

I think the same about you. 

Particularly when you come slobbering in late to the discussion.   Like now.

No I’m serious you are winning this thread big time.  I’m really surprised at some of the stances being taken in this thread and who is taking them.

I'm interested in reading an expansion of this thought.

[star seed 7]

There is nothing that infuriates dax more than when someone agrees with him lmfao

[chum1]

Don't let the fact that literally everyone in this thread agrees on military spending stop you from kicking that straw man's ass, dax.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm fairly certain we spend much more than NATO requires of its members, dax. Do you think we'd spend less on defense without NATO?

Do you think I’m dumb?   Of course the military industrial complex is going to find a way to keep spending the same amount of money.   Remember, for the Federal government a decrease in the asked for increase is classified as a budget cut. 

I know full well that the NeoCon’s both on here and elsewhere will still demand that the US continue to spend 3.77% of its GDP on the military. (The rest of NATO averages 1.77%) and you’ll clearly keep telling us that’s  good policy.   Which is what you’re clearly implying right now. 

We’ll put rage down on the side of guns in the guns/butter equation.

It's sad to see idiots like ChumDummy wanting to add more countries to the list the United States taxpayer will have to pay to protect, of which many have little if any geo-strategic significance to the United States and its citizens.   Just another potential place for our finest to possibly be sent off and die over for no reason.   

#blueanonGe:  The most NeoCon of the NeoCon's

 

So if spending doesn't change based on being in NATO, then what does it cost the US taxpayer if Ukraine joins?

[wetwillie]

I think the same about you. 

Particularly when you come slobbering in late to the discussion.   Like now.

No I’m serious you are winning this thread big time.  I’m really surprised at some of the stances being taken in this thread and who is taking them.

I'm interested in reading an expansion of this thought.

I think chum1 has successfully trolled me so probably much ado about nothing.  Im a little surprised by your stance but you have said you may be a bit bias based on personal relationships with folks that would be directly impacted in Ukraine.   

[sonofdaxjones]

 

You cannot agree that the expansion of NATO is good and then also claim you're for less military spending.

If that's your stance, then you're even more clueless than we already know.

That's never how it works.   They'll be up on Capital Hill in minutes talking about how the mission has expanded, how their obligations have expanded,  how there's no way the U.S. military could be expected to meet the demands  of (insert 1 of 1000's of scenarios here) without more funding.    This is particularly the case since this clown car administration is making no push for the other members of NATO to meet their expenditure promises.    It will be up the U.S. (as always) to pick up the slack.   

Goodness 

[Phil Titola]

for context through 2019

[Sandstone Outcropping]

for context through 2019

That is a staggering amount of money. I assume it includes $$$ paid out to private contractors who do logistics, etc for the DOD.

Too lazy to look  but I would be curious how US defense spending compares GDP vs other leading nations.

[chum1]

I think chum1 has successfully trolled me

I'm not really taking a stance on what we should do. My concern is more about people actually reckoning with the force of the argument against doing nothing.

[Phil Titola]

for context through 2019

That is a staggering amount of money. I assume it includes $$$ paid out to private contractors who do logistics, etc for the DOD.

Too lazy to look  but I would be curious how US defense spending compares GDP vs other leading nations.

4th
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266892/military-expenditure-as-percentage-of-gdp-in-highest-spending-countries/

[Sandstone Outcropping]

for context through 2019

That is a staggering amount of money. I assume it includes $$$ paid out to private contractors who do logistics, etc for the DOD.

Too lazy to look  but I would be curious how US defense spending compares GDP vs other leading nations.

4th
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266892/military-expenditure-as-percentage-of-gdp-in-highest-spending-countries/

Very interesting. Surprised Saudi leads by such a large margin. Surprised at how low China is.

[wetwillie]

Eisenhower warned us all

[Spracne]

There is nothing that infuriates dax more than when someone agrees with him lmfao

It really is a sight to behold. Like, he can't process the fact that someone might not be rough ridin' with or insulting him.

[sonofdaxjones]

There is nothing that infuriates dax more than when someone agrees with him lmfao

It really is a sight to behold. Like, he can't process the fact that someone might not be rough ridin' with or insulting him.

I know you guys always struggle.   But if you look at my post you can see a rhetorical question.   I thought WW was answering that rhetorical question.

Just part of #blueanonGe's constant struggle to track nuance