Yes that funding for the military for that "exceptional" country should absolutely be cut down in size.
There is all kinds of waste in the budget, like the funding for the 50-60 helicopters and all the troops the US provides in northern Afghanistan. But then the country in charge in the north would have to pay more to support their troops with the basics, or just pull out and return home, further avoiding their responsiblities to NATO.
Biting the hand that feeds you is an excellent way to not get fed the next time you need food. It's a good thing you don't make any policy decisions.
Indeed, that's why that country should not bite my country's hand.
After all, article 5 was against AQ, not against Taliban. Our current involvement in ISAF is a perfectly voluntary act of friendship and not the least required by the North Atlantic Treaty (which I happened to have read several times). In fact, said treaty is extremely ambiguous on what kind of response to threat can be demanded from members, while it isn't ambiguous at all in its ban of wars of aggression that a certain country committed multiple times, including during the time of ISAF.
Said 'exceptional' country is exceptional in being a terrible, overly aggressive ally that violated its obligations to NATO multiple times during the last generation.
The only time my country did so was -ironically- during the NATO air war against Yugoslavia.
LOL. That anon is always on your case, sven. He seems to be a germany basher, with a strong undercurrent of prejudice against europeans at large. How do you put up with that prick? I don't understand how he can justify the U.S' outrageous response to september 11th. Occupying an unfriendly, backwater shithole like afghanistan for a DECADE in an effort to prevent a similiar attack is just about the stupidist line of action undertaken.
Did, "That country is truly "exceptional", ..."
ReplyDeletehave anything to do with the "american exceptionalism" i hear about time to time?
Yes that funding for the military for that "exceptional" country should absolutely be cut down in size.
ReplyDeleteThere is all kinds of waste in the budget, like the funding for the 50-60 helicopters and all the troops the US provides in northern Afghanistan. But then the country in charge in the north would have to pay more to support their troops with the basics, or just pull out and return home, further avoiding their responsiblities to NATO.
Biting the hand that feeds you is an excellent way to not get fed the next time you need food. It's a good thing you don't make any policy decisions.
Indeed, that's why that country should not bite my country's hand.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, article 5 was against AQ, not against Taliban. Our current involvement in ISAF is a perfectly voluntary act of friendship and not the least required by the North Atlantic Treaty (which I happened to have read several times). In fact, said treaty is extremely ambiguous on what kind of response to threat can be demanded from members, while it isn't ambiguous at all in its ban of wars of aggression that a certain country committed multiple times, including during the time of ISAF.
Said 'exceptional' country is exceptional in being a terrible, overly aggressive ally that violated its obligations to NATO multiple times during the last generation.
The only time my country did so was -ironically- during the NATO air war against Yugoslavia.
You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.
ReplyDeleteQED.
Luckily, I don't need them.
ReplyDeleteThere's a published treaty text, for everyone to see and easily understandable.
LOL. That anon is always on your case, sven. He seems to be a germany basher, with a strong undercurrent of prejudice against europeans at large. How do you put up with that prick? I don't understand how he can justify the U.S' outrageous response to september 11th. Occupying an unfriendly, backwater shithole like afghanistan for a DECADE in an effort to prevent a similiar attack is just about the stupidist line of action undertaken.
ReplyDelete