• theangryseal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    Ā·
    12 days ago

    Yeah because a magic border makes it so that things donā€™t affect all of us. Isnā€™t that wonderful?

    I legit donā€™t understand how anyone can think so small.

    If a fire starts in a city where everyone has your attitude, how long before it all burns down?

    Whether we like it or not, borders arenā€™t magical lines that protect us from the damage done behind one of those lines. Humanity is responsible for the wellbeing of humanity. No silly little line is going to change that.

    Imagine the consequences weā€™d still be suffering (yes, we. All of us) if the US hadnā€™t joined in WWII.

    I honestly donā€™t understand how anyone can think of their fellow humans as parasites. Weā€™re all in this together. One big ego with enough support can destroy all of our lives and throw us back into the dark ages.

    We have thousands of years of history to guide us. Look into it.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      11 days ago

      Sure, but itā€™s not the USā€™s job to protect the world. Iā€™m a US citizen, and Iā€™m not a fan of us spending ~5x vs Germany on defense, especially when Germany is such an economic powerhouse in the EU.

      I would really like to cut defense spending, but for that to happen, other NATO countries need to increase their defense spending. I absolutely think we should stay in NATO (for the reasons you stated), but NATO is supposed to be an alliance, not a set of countries protected by the US. Yes, itā€™s in our interest to protect the EU, but itā€™s also in the EUā€™s interest to protect the US. We should have each otherā€™s back.

      • migo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        11 days ago

        No, they donā€™t. The US military spending far outpaces any other country. The US spends more than the next 10 countries combined! You donā€™t ā€œneedā€ that much spending, but your GDP is happy for that extra trillion every year that some day will trickle down for sure wink wink.

        In summary, your rhetoric is pure propaganda of conservative talking points, unfortunately.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          11 days ago

          Itā€™s really not.

          While I agree we need to drastically reduce military spending, that decision has consequences. Weā€™d need to shut down foreign bases, reduce naval presence around the globe, and increase our reliance on reserves instead of standing military. If we do that, thatā€™ll embolden other countries (like China, Iran, and Russia) to fill that void unless other partners step up.

          Military spending (and deficit spending in general) is a major issue Iā€™m concerned about, and Iā€™m unhappy with both major parties here. I like Trumpā€™s pressure on the EU to step up their part, but I donā€™t like his increases to military spending. I like Bidenā€™s and Harris focus on social programs instead of military spending, but I donā€™t like their lack of cuts. Neither party is actually interested in turning swords into plow shears, they just court the military industrial complex differently.

          We need to increase taxes and cut spending, yet both parties seem to do the opposite.