Musk on USAID: ‘Time for it to die’

[Chesterton]

That's silly. Ukraine isn't even a NATO country.
If Russia has a beef with NATO, then shouldn't they be attacking a NATO country?

Oh, that's right, they are too scared to do that. This is why NATO is needed.

Ukraine is a de facto NATO country, else why would the U.S. spend a gazillion dollars to fight Russia over it?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, by NATO, I mean NATO. Glad to clarify, if there was some confusion there.

If the US left NATO... apart from maybe the UK, the rest of the countries on the list wouldn't be a fly on a cow's bottom to Russia. Can we stop pretending that it's a "collective effort"? lol.

Every media outlet has acknowledged that the US is the primary player in that organization (with no close 2nd)

Thus the reason why they all had a "hair on fire" moment when he had made vague threats to leave NATO. Let's just be honest here, do you think anyone cares if Luxembourg or North Macedonia threatened to leave NATO?

The reason NATO is a deterrent is because of the notion that "Big Brother US" is there playing goal line defense.

NATO, in essence, is the US, the UK, ......and then some other countries that don't hit their GDP commitments.

 

[stevil]

Ukraine is a de facto NATO country, else why would the U.S. spend a gazillion dollars to fight Russia over it?

Ukraine is not in NATO, if it was then USA would be obligated to have deployed their full military might against Russia.

 

[stevil]

If the US left NATO... apart from maybe the UK, the rest of the countries on the list wouldn't be a fly on a cow's bottom to Russia. Can we stop pretending that it's a "collective effort"? lol.

Are you one of those USA people that think USA is everything and no one else counts?
It's a despicable attitude, full of ego and arrogance.. But anyway, do go on...

 

[Chesterton]

Ukraine is not in NATO, if it was then USA would be obligated to have deployed their full military might against Russia.

There is the threat that it would join NATO. And the U.S. would not necessarily be obligated to defend it. Need I remind you that NATO's purpose was to defend Western Europe? And that was a long time ago.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are you one of those USA people that think USA is everything and no one else counts?
It's a despicable attitude, full of ego and arrogance.. But anyway, do go on...

In terms of military contributions to NATO, it's very much a US-centric endeavor.

A) we have the biggest military

B) many of the countries aren't even meeting the 2% GDP defense spending target

Let's just be honest here, the US military is more powerful than the next 10 combined.

 

[stevil]

In terms of military contributions to NATO, it's very much a US-centric endeavor.

I don't really care. NATO isn't just USA. Please stop the self aggrandising nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't really care. NATO isn't just USA. Please stop the self grandising nonsense.

Statistics don't lie

In terms of spending, technology, manpower, weaponry, equipment, etc... US ranks #1 in terms of being a military superpower.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's not whataboutism...it's cynical, yes, but also realistic.

These 20-somethings with their "I stand with Ukraine" Facebook borders couldn't have found Ukraine on a map 2 years prior.

They want to support Ukraine (and reverse their previous anti-war stance) because "Putin help Orange man, and Orange man bad".

You spend an awful lot of characters on this board to try desperately not been seen in agreement with Dems/libs. I don't know why. You're clearly not "far right" (like so many here.)

It is also the case that the pro-Ukraine movement was spontaneous and largely non-partisan and not an expression of "anti-Trump". Only those who'd already thrown in for putin were fully against it. Just search for "republicans with Ukraine flag pins" in your favorite search engine. When I did that I found the *Republican* chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee wearing one during the nomination hearing for Pete Hegseth just last month.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If the US left NATO... apart from maybe the UK, the rest of the countries on the list wouldn't be a fly on a cow's bottom to Russia. Can we stop pretending that it's a "collective effort"? lol.

Russia is a third rate military power with nuclear weapons. They need N. Korean and Iranian weapons to stay afloat in their war and more recently, N. Korea troops to defend their own territory.

 

[stevil]

Statistics don't lie

In terms of spending, technology, manpower, weaponry, equipment, etc... US ranks #1 in terms of being a military superpower.

Whoopie for USA, you guys have the most WMD's. can we move on now? NATO is a thing, it includes lots of countries. When I talk about NATO, I mean NATO. Do we have to endure more posts from you about how much weapons USA has?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Whoopie for USA, you guys have the most WMD's. can we move on now? NATO is a thing, it includes lots of countries. When I talk about NATO, I mean NATO. Do we have to endure more posts from you about how much weapons USA has?

...but what you're saying is an open acknowledgement, that the importance of NATO involves me paying more taxes (considering my country is a member and yours is not)

It's not New Zealand that has to pay a dime extra should a full scale conflict with Russia ensue.

It's easy to armchair quarterback this thing when you don't have any skin in the game.

 

[stevil]

...but what you're saying is an open acknowledgement, that the importance of NATO involves me paying more taxes (considering my country is a member and yours is not)

It's not New Zealand that has to pay a dime extra should a full scale conflict with Russia ensue.

It's easy to armchair quarterback this thing when you don't have any skin in the game.

IF UK gets caught into a war with Russia, NZ will likely sign up to the war also.

When Germany invaded Poland, NZ declared war on them almost immediately. USA stood back and did nothing for a very long time.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You spend an awful lot of characters on this board to try desperately not been seen in agreement with Dems/libs. I don't know why. You're clearly not "far right" (like so many here.)

It is also the case that the pro-Ukraine movement was spontaneous and largely non-partisan and not an expression of "anti-Trump". Only those who'd already thrown in for putin were fully against it. Just search for "republicans with Ukraine flag pins" in your favorite search engine. When I did that I found the *Republican* chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee wearing one during the nomination hearing for Pete Hegseth just last month.

Because I'm a stickler for consistency...and I see the democrats as being more inconsistent than the republicans at the current juncture. I have a lot of issues with the Republicans, but at least it's not a series of moving targets based on whether or not one guy (Trump) likes or dislikes something.

That's what I see as the critical difference between Democrats and Republicans in present times. Republicans aren't under any misapprehensions about their opposition being limited to "just one guy" (IE: "If we just got this one person out of there, we'd have no more opposition"). Democrats do seem to be under that misconception.

To the degree where they'll regularly label certain Republicans as the "good ones" that they absolutely despised a few years ago. Nowadays, they almost speak fondly of Mitt Romney and John McCain...two guys they bashed like crazy not that long ago.

It's almost like they're under the impression that "If Trump were out of the way, the GOP would just revert to picking a bunch of squishes that we can easily beat". They see Trump as a "cause" rather than a "symptom".


To the other part
Something can be spontaneous but based misguided reasoning. Speaking personally, all of my friends/family that are staunchly 'pro-Ukraine against Russia' didn't seem to have that 'come to Jesus' moment until after it was already well-implanted in their psyche that 'Russia is the reason why Trump won in 2016'. They've definitely expressed the notion that "It's important to help Ukraine beat Russia, because Russia meddled in our 2016 election and helped Trump beat Hillary"

Which comes across as "It's important to help the people who are fighting against the people who stopped us from getting what we want, domestically"


As far as it being non-partisan, "anti-Trump at all costs" folks on the left and John Bolton/Lindsey Graham types on the right, isn't exactly what I'd call a durable form of bipartisanship. At best, it's a strange bedfellows situation where two opposing factions want the same thing, but for very different reasons.

 

[Chesterton]

IF UK gets caught into a war with Russia, NZ will likely sign up to the war also.

When Germany invaded Poland, NZ declared war on them almost immediately. USA stood back and did nothing for a very long time.

I'm surprised you don't know this bit of trivia, but NZ is part of the Commonwealth, and the U.S. is not.

 

[BPPLEE]

Russia is a third rate military power with nuclear weapons. They need N. Korean and Iranian weapons to stay afloat in their war and more recently, N. Korea troops to defend their own territory.

And they’re getting what they need

 

[stevil]

I'm surprised you don't know this bit of trivia, but NZ is part of the Commonwealth, and the U.S. is not.

Are you trolling again?
What makes you think I don't know NZ is part of the Commonwealth?
Why are we devolving into nonsense and not being engaged in considered conversation?

 

[Chesterton]

Are you trolling again?
What makes you think I don't know NZ is part of the Commonwealth?
Why are we devolving into nonsense and not being engaged in considered conversation?

Why are you trying to insult the U.S. by saying they "didn't do anything for a very long time"? We didn't go to war until war was brought to us.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because I'm a stickler for consistency...and I see the democrats as being more inconsistent than the republicans at the current juncture. I have a lot of issues with the Republicans, but at least it's not a series of moving targets based on whether or not one guy (Trump) likes or dislikes something.

Do you even pay attention to what the Trump fans say?

That's what I see as the critical difference between Democrats and Republicans in present times. Republicans aren't under any misapprehensions about their opposition being limited to "just one guy" (IE: "If we just got this one person out of there, we'd have no more opposition"). Democrats do seem to be under that misconception.

What?

To the degree where they'll regularly label certain Republicans as the "good ones" that they absolutely despised a few years ago. Nowadays, they almost speak fondly of Mitt Romney and John McCain...two guys they bashed like crazy not that long ago.

It's almost like they're under the impression that "If Trump were out of the way, the GOP would just revert to picking a bunch of squishes that we can easily beat". They see Trump as a "cause" rather than a "symptom".


To the other part
Something can be spontaneous but based misguided reasoning. Speaking personally, all of my friends/family that are staunchly 'pro-Ukraine against Russia' didn't seem to have that 'come to Jesus' moment until after it was already well-implanted in their psyche that 'Russia is the reason why Trump won in 2016'. They've definitely expressed the notion that "It's important to help Ukraine beat Russia, because Russia meddled in our 2016 election and helped Trump beat Hillary"

do you know the difference between an eyeopener and "enemy of my enemy"?

Which comes across as "It's important to help the people who are fighting against the people who stopped us from getting what we want, domestically"


As far as it being non-partisan, "anti-Trump at all costs" folks on the left and John Bolton/Lindsey Graham types on the right, isn't exactly what I'd call a durable form of bipartisanship. At best, it's a strange bedfellows situation where two opposing factions want the same thing, but for very different reasons.

 

[Bradskii]

NATO is a dinosaur. It has no reason to exist in the modern world. The only purpose it serves is to agitate and provoke Russia. It's past time for it to die.

I'm sure Putin would agree with you.

Maybe in the modern world in which you live there's no danger of a foreign power invading another country. Maybe in the world in which you live it's not the done thing to promise your friends 'Hey, if someone comes for you, then I'll be there to help'. Maybe the world in which you live is a very long way from eastern Europe. Maybe your world has never been invaded.