No one cares how aesthetically appealing someone's post is. Anything that someone else says is placed in italics. Its really quite a simple system.

Obviously Atlee cares, and so many folk. I'm usually fine with it, but GeneralPE's replies in particular are badly formatted.

Most of our debate has descended into historical revisionism and interpretation at this point.

Some of it is, some isn't, certainly not all of it is.

Take this for example. While no doubt several variables contributed to the fall of the USSR in 1991, no doubt that US foreign and economic policy was a major driving force behind bankrupting the Soviet Union

Soviet Union was in slipspace. The average Soviet (and average with little spread - this is communism) lived ok, and was stable under the system they were (though nationally, America was quickly catching up). The median Soviet lived on more than the median American in the Brezhnev times.

And that's all there is to it. Some international competition, yes, and what later turned into an awful economy with the introduction of capitalism. Think of it this way: a government GDP PPP is basically how much they can buy within their own country. If a government runs on 90% slave work, then their GDP PPP must be off the charts, since A country can get a car for the costs of giving the energy (food) and maybe supervision to make the car, while B government has to pay loads for that same car.

Is it economically bad when slavery is banned? Yes, definitely. But the banning only came from Russia itself, with Gorbachöv, America and the outside had nothing to do with it (despite much propoganda elsewise saying).

Your interpretation of history is very interesting hahaha. I have to call it interpretation not because I doubt your honesty, but because what you call propaganda I call history and what you call history I call incorrect interpretation. Perhaps you've just read different materials (textbooks, novels, etc) then what I have. History is 50% subjective interpretation and 50% is actual fact.

For example take this argument from one historian about how Ronald Reagan helped speed up the collapse of the USSR: "A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan’s massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels."

Now the actual statistics may be correct, what's up to interpretation is whether the USSR increased its own defense spending in direct response or reply to America's increase in defense spending. The only way to prove that interpretation would be primary and secondary sources.

A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan’s massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.

America is/was in a kind of slipspace (but unstable within), come to think of it. Paying debt would not be a good day, but it's all ok as long as you never pay debt.

Anyhow, this likely happened, so? It's a bold jump to say that this in any significant way helped the Soviet Union fall. Germany did much more (proportionally) hurting in the Second World War, and Soviet Union was in (literal) debt to America, too. But Stalin was not Gorbachöv.

NATO is so weak. The US should have withdrawn from it years ago. NATO fights proxy wars that increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks happening back home, and has no clear goals to end Islamic terrorism. The amount of money will spend on military is not going to put a significant dent in ISIS. We could defeat ISIS for less; we could carpet bomb countries like Syria and lay them to utter waste. Instead we waste our time with precision drone strikes that take out a few men, men easily replaceable in a matter of days.

Trump is absolutely right, we need to cut military costs so the government can fund education and social security. We need to rethink our strategy against fighting ISIS because the current one is not designed to destroy ISIS, it is designed to keep us in perpetual war.

Lastly, we need to cut all military funding to Israel (ONE FIFTH OF THE US MILITARY BUDGET). Israel is not our ally and its role in the middle east has ruined OUR reputation with Muslims. If Israel cannot fund its own existence then it needs to disappear.

Furthermore, the original intent of NATO was to suppress Communism. It was a coalition of states that agreed to undermine the influence of other states. States can negotiate with one another and NATO was a perfect negotiation tool. Do you think ISIS gives a shit about nation states? The men of ISIS do not have a rationale for those kinds of situations.

NATO wasn't designed to destroy it was designed to deter. That's precisely why it's failing, the alliance uses cold war logic to fight modern terrorists. You can't deter ISIS you have to completely destroy it and kill everyone in it to succeed. We've seen how relentless and insane ISIS is.

Edited 3/24/2016 02:15:17

Lastly, we need to cut all military funding to Israel (ONE FIFTH OF THE US MILITARY BUDGET)

Just wanted to correct some facts. The US defense spending budget for FY 2015 was $598.5 billion. US aid (nonmilitary and military) to Israel per year (according to a 10 year agreement set to expire in 2017) is $3.1 billion. That means that funding to Israel accounts for .52% of the US Defense Budget.

Also why take aim specifically at Israel? If you don't like foreign aid, cut it to ALL nations. If you don't think there's a reason to prop up the Jewish State then cut off foreign aid to everyone and everything, including Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Tanzania. Most of these are failed nation states anyway and our money won't make a dent in fixing them. We'll decrease defense spending and we'll be able to invest in domestic spending.

the alliance uses cold war logic to fight modern terrorists.

^This. +1. Asymmetrical warfare is always the death of the US (see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria). Disband NATO.

I'd rather just drop out and let European countries ruin their budgets by paying for it so the EU will be sent its way and Europe will never become a unified strong thing. Say what you want about Europe but they're much less dangerous to us and the world when their economy is bad.

NATO is an outdated affair.

I believe it needs to be disbanded.

Well if the US withdraw from NATO, NATO will cease to exist, because NATO was designed and created by and for the US. I agree with most of you, NATO should just be dismantled right now. But sadly this won't happen in the near future.

Obviously Atlee cares, and so many folk. I'm usually fine with it, but GeneralPE's replies in particular are badly formatted.

I just do the quote with brackets thing :(

I'd rather just drop out and let European countries ruin their budgets by paying for it so the EU will be sent its way and Europe will never become a unified strong thing. Say what you want about Europe but they're much less dangerous to us and the world when their economy is bad.

That's a poor thought. Why do you think there's no European army yet? Because there's NATO. Most EU members already are in NATO and don't feel like it's necessary to have one unified army, as they already cooperate in the clauses of the alliance.

That been said, europe should definetly leave NATO and stop being an american puppet when it comes to international crisis. The total budget of the armed forces in the EU is ~200 billion euros (so a bit more in dollars), with 1.7 million active soldiers and more as reservists and paramilitary organisations.

An unified EU army would have more soldiers then the US and the second budget in the world, while spending less then 2% of the GNP. TOTALLY FINE FOR ME!

@JaiBharat

Why should we be financing the armed services and national protection of Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Eastern Europe, Israel, Canada, and parts of Western Europe.

I hate to pop your dream bubble but America isn't doing this out of altruism. Pakistan is a very strategically-located country (as well as a nuclear one) and if the US does not make attempts to appease/bribe Pakistani leaders, they will turn to other rival sponsors, namely China and the US will lose its most important foothold in South Asia.
As for Japan, America itself, naturally, dissolved the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy following their defeat in WWII and the American occupation. And ever since it has kept a permanent foothold in Japan to check potential aggression - and of course to prevent the Soviet Union (now Russia) from extending its sphere of influence there.
South Korea - the US hates those communists up north.
Etc.

Edited 3/24/2016 15:55:33

I think NATO should give everyone free chocolate every meeting. I think an increase of meetings would happen.

I hate to pop your dream bubble but America isn't doing this out of altruism. Pakistan is a very strategically-located country (as well as a nuclear one) and if the US does not make attempts to appease/bribe Pakistani leaders, they will turn to other rival sponsors, namely China and the US will lose its most important foothold in South Asia.

Its not strategic. You really think Pakistani leaders listen to the US government? That's laughable. If that was the case the US would tell them to stop sending ISI funded terrorists to India and would get them to stop harboring Al Qaeda operatives in their tribal region. China already has a closer relationship to to Pakistan than we do, even since the 1950s they have been strategic and military allies. China is Pakistan's largest arms supplier and its third largest trading partner. Who do you think gave Pakistan the technology and equipment to build nuclear weapons? According to a 2014 Pew Research Survey, Pakistanis had the highest approval or opinion of the Chinese. Pakistan is scamming the US by thinking they're our puppet, when in reality they're China's. That's why China owns a huge Pakistani port and supporters their claim to India-Controlled Kashmir. If the US really wants a foothold in South Asia maybe they should think about giving the middle finger to Pakistan and standing strong with India for a chance.

Edited 3/24/2016 14:56:28

Don't get so worked up. Now then.

1-The US gives aid to the Pakistani government (the large part of which goes towards the military), to prop it and have a say in how it is run. If Pakistan falls into chaos and radicals' hands, it would be extremely dangerous to US interests as it has nuclear weapons. Also keep in mind that little of that money filters down to the commoners. Most of the "economic aid" goes into the pockets of the elite.

2-This aid propels a continuous arms race cycle between India, China and Pakistan. If these three divert more and more money towards arms from other domestic sectors, their economic and political progress is slowed. By this, the US checks India's rise as a regional power and China's as a superpower as it obviously wants to retain its supremacy and to reduce potential threats so it can focus on Russia if it rises again.

3-The aid allows the US to have enough influence to prevent a catastrophic situation like Pakistan preemptively striking with atomic bombs at India, which could pull in China and thus send the world careening into chaos.

4-Pakistan's location is VERY strategic. Next to Iran, the Hormuz oil-shipping lane, the Central Asian oil and gas reserves, western China, Afghanistan and of course, India. Naturally the US wants to keep down hostility against it there so that it may benefit in the future from Pakistan's location.

There are lots of other reasons. Don't have time to list them all. Oh, the US does help India. It wheels and deals to keep a balance of power and its own interests secure, namely to check China's growth. Incidentally it also uses Japan to check China's growth.

What was your point actually? That the US is giving aid to Pakistan (and those other countries you mentioned) out of generosity?

Edited 3/24/2016 16:46:13

What was your point actually? That the US is giving aid to Pakistan (and those other countries you mentioned) out of generosity?

It doesn't really matter if they give aid to these countries out of generosity or strategic/military reasons. My point was that in addition tot withdrawing from NATO the US should cut the foreign aid budget to $0. The government has no right to take my taxpayer money to help line the pockets of corrupt Pakistani officials nor use it to build Israel's Iron Dome.

That is what worries me, teamguns. A centralized European army would be as warmongering as America was, and even more dangerous to stability.

Not sure major, I believe it'd be the opposite. Europeans aren't as akin as america to use their military strenght in large military operations. The population disaproves it, mostly because of europe's past of doing so.

The countries that are there right now and do make a lot of international interventions are France and Britain. I actually believe that if they'd merge with the other european countries in the military, they'd be unable to make such interventions anymore because of the democratic vote needed to ensure interventions of any kind. Their voices would be easily suplanted by the many non-interventionist countries in the union by vote.

Anyway, the Europe should leave NATO for sure, it's just controlled by the US and it does more evil then good. In 2003, when america wanted to invade the Irak and called for NATO support, 70-90% of European citizens were against the war, many countries did go because of their NATO engagements, while France for example was totally opposed to the war, and was free to do so, as it wasn't a member of the alliance.

http://www.eurocorps.org/

The Eurocorps isn't really an european army, but just a 5 european countries giving a few of their troops to it. It's still a bit of a joke compared to an united european army.

Indeed it is, just an embryo of what it could be.