Europe Worried Trump Will Make Them Share Cost

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, Mar 17, 2016.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Just a thought, spit-balling so to speak....

    Perhaps European nation's wouldn't be able to provide universal healthcare, 8 months of paid maternity leave, etc., etc. (and all of the other things that liberals like to prop up as "proof" of how much more advanced and better Europe is than the US.), were they required to shoulder all - or even a portion - of the cost to maintain our standing defense force, or to field their own, instead.

    And perhaps if more of that money stayed in the US, instead of spending billions to defend those others, and elsewhere, who could either pay to field their own defense forces, or share in the cost of our doing so....we could afford to do things like give our own people free tuition, healthcare, and all the rest - but without the need to further cripple our own economy with increasingly higher taxes, so as to pay for them.

    I don't care which side of the aisle you're on, or love / hate Trump, this seems like the most sensible thing in the world to me.

    From the article:

  2. y2korth

    y2korth Contributor

    Sounding a lot like fortress amarica.
  3. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    I am all for it. Have been for years.
  4. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator

    The navy would be in the black if it was paid for the services they provided by keeping shipping lanes open
  5. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    First, and to be sure, if anyone threatened an ally (particularly in Europe) or its interests - or even threatened it - we'd be at the forefront of knocking the piss out them, in any scenario.

    And anyone can label it as they want, but if we have as many egregiously unmet needs amongst our own people, as many know and believe to be quite true (and it is) - then it seems that this should be our first priority. Not our only priority, by any means, but our first, for sure.

    There is an enormous middle ground between "leave allies unprotected" and "we are burdened with the entire cost", ostensibly, kn doing for them, what they could do for themselves, or at least kick in to cover some of its cost....they just...don't want to, I guess.

    That's the most European thing in the history of things.

    If we want entitlement reform, this may be the rare exception where the best change doesn't happen at home, but across the Atlantic, instead.

    Rarely is something so obviously in need of change, as this, IMO.
  6. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    When it was NATO vs Warsaw Pact, yeah, it was needed. There was the fear of a land invasion by the Soviet Block.

    But it has been 25 damn years. I don't think most of Europe is in fear of a land invasion any time soon. Europe can take care of itself now.

    Personally, I am for shutting down most foreign soil bases and building 10 new smaller carriers to project power if needed. Also, with around-the-world range of b-2 and b-52 bombers (with refueling), I see no need for ground bases at this time.

    This from a non-military person who's only learning in strategy and warfare is from chess and Command and Conquer.
  7. y2korth

    y2korth Contributor

    I say fortress america because that phrase has been the mantra of libertarian foreign policy for decades. Like most libertarian principles, they're great on paper. As I have long been a sympathizer (first five presidential votes,)I like what trump is saying, and, as I often do, also agree with norris.

    Putin would steamroll Europe without American protection.
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
  8. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    From another article, here's what we're talking about (article is just from a month or so ago):

    And this:
    Emphasis mine.

    We spend more on defense that the next 15(!) militaries combined. Worse, at a time when we've cut our overall defense budget by 16%, we're increasing our defense spending in Europe by 333%!

    Also, as a happy coincidence, the article also gives a good and recent example of how the defense budget typically gets cut by Dems, more often than not. See the underlined part.

    This is absolutely indefensible.

    And love him or hate him, but Trump is the only one talking about this, or has shown signs of even wanting to.

  9. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Smaller carriers?

    Carriers are floating phallus, and like the appendage it represents, they can never be too big.
  10. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    You can build 10 small ones for the cost of 2 big ones, cover more area and not be at risk of one stray missile sinking 1/7th of your carrier force.

    IMHO, of course.
  11. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot


    Same with the money we spend in Europe, East Asia, and Israel. The American tax payer is funding the security of the western world, at the cost of social welfare. We don't have to kick over the cart over night, but the status quo must change.
  12. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Area? Our ability to project force is going well beyond the difference in spacing out 10 carriers vs 2. Carriers are a show of dominance now. We'll be flying unmanned bombers from the mainland US to anywhere and back within the decade. We can loiter drones with immense offensive abilities for long periods of time right now. If someone could and did attack one of our super carriers, it would only mean things would escalate from conventional warfare to space age star wars shit immediately. Droid armies comin'.
  13. GahLee

    GahLee Director of Conspiracy Theories, 8th Maxim

    We've got to stop trying to be everyone's big brother. We're practically footing an insurance policy for all our allies. Should something significant happen, then we can help, we shouldn't be spending ungodly amounts of money abroad protecting countries that are capable of defending themselves or at least feigning said protection knowing we have their back.

    I like some of the things Trump has proposed, I just wish it was coming from someone else.
  14. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Quit being reasonable. It's infuriating.
  15. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    But of course, I fully believe we should build this:


    Because battleships are completely badass.
  16. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    Screw that. Let's build a battleship that orbits the Earth.
  17. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    Loved that show as a kid.

  18. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    That's the fairest opinion I've ever read, and one which about 200 million people would likely agree with.

    But I'm unwilling to wait for another billionaire who cares enough to run for office, would finance their own campaign, so as to do what s/he felt was right and best for the America, and who put its people unquestionably first.

    Scanning both our recent history and the foreseeable horizon, Trump stands as the singular hope to do that.

    He's several dozen and sizeable rungs below what I want to see in a candidate, and that may ultimately cost him, but I agree with a great many things that he has unequivocally stated that he intends to do - and believe that he'll cut through more stupid bullshit by accident, than the most finely tuned candidate would hope to accomplish, strongly consider or have the audacity to attempt.

    Many think that myself and a great many others simply want to "stick it to the establishment", alone. That's part of it, for sure, but purely speaking for myself, I sincerely agree with a lot of what he says, even despite his occasionally bombastic statements.

    I'm perfectly ok being in the minority who support him of those here, believing that the establishment of both Parties must change, and so too must our government itself. And if they won't do it in their own - which, continuing to hope for that, at this late hour, is the height of foolishness - then I'm for someone who will.
  19. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Let's just make the earth a giant Death Star.
  20. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    What show was that from?

Share This Page