US Diplomat says "EU countrie need to spend more on Defence"

[Genivaria]

You seem to be under some strange idea that any military deterrence is the same as imperialism and intervention.
I'm not sure who the fuck taught you this but they need to be slapped.

I'm sorry, but are you referring to me?

Because I am not sure I've loosed a whine about "Imperialism" and interventionism. Do forgive me if I have an allergy to this "lol yurop up yah game" tract however, as I am quite certain Europe can't force America at gunpoint to provide protection.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about do you?
NATO members signed a treaty saying they would fund 2% of their GDP in exchange for collective defense.
This was consented to by all member nations.
If you're country is a member state then it joined willingly.

America has never forced anyone into NATO, we do however expect our partners to meet the funding requirements that they AGREED TO.

[Camelza]

A council of defense ministers and its chosen president, similar to Eurogroup.

And when you run into the inevitable differences in foreign policy? Who decides?

The European parliament.

[Fartsniffage]

ABM Treaty.

From what I'm reading, we withdrew from that treaty in full accordance to the terms laid out in it, by giving six months notice. We even extended the treaty after the dissolution of the other major signer, to the successor states of the Soviet Union.

I'm not passing a value judgement on the withdrawal, it just met the requirements for the request.

[The balkens]

I'm sorry, but are you referring to me?

Because I am not sure I've loosed a whine about "Imperialism" and interventionism. Do forgive me if I have an allergy to this "lol yurop up yah game" tract however, as I am quite certain Europe can't force America at gunpoint to provide protection.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about do you?
NATO members signed a treaty saying they would fund 2% of their GDP in exchange for collective defense.
This was consented to by all member nations.
If you're country is a member state then it joined willingly.

America has never forced anyone into NATO, we do however expect our partners to meet the funding requirements that they AGREED TO.

NATO:

Needs
Americans
To
Operate

*nods*

[Memell]

Why? The Americans sign treaties just to immediately discard them when they don't benefit from them anymore.... I don't see why we couldn't do the same.

Any recent examples of that, as in since WWII?

Like the Kyoto Protocol and that masquerade of the Copenhagen Accord? Or Nixon directing the suspension of the dollar's convertibility into gold?

[Blakullar]

America wants other people to spend their money for America's purposes that will benefit America.

Nothing new here, but I despair of the brain-dead politicians in my home country that actually pander to this insanity.

[Mefpan]

I'm sorry, but are you referring to me?

Because I am not sure I've loosed a whine about "Imperialism" and interventionism. Do forgive me if I have an allergy to this "lol yurop up yah game" tract however, as I am quite certain Europe can't force America at gunpoint to provide protection.

Are you saying that you think we'll abandon you if the shit hits the fan?

I'm saying that Europe couldn't force America to keep carrying the team. We are not forcing you.

And I'm thinking that Europe's current combined assets ought to be deterrent enough to keep neighbours from applying military force. It ought to be sufficient as defensive force.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you saying that you think we'll abandon you if the shit hits the fan?

I'm saying that Europe couldn't force America to keep carrying the team. We are not forcing you.

And I'm thinking that Europe's current combined assets ought to be deterrent enough to keep neighbours from applying military force. It ought to be sufficient as defensive force.

If that's the case, then we need to renegotiate the treaty to a more adequate %. Simply breaking it is not acceptable.
I doubt it's the case incidentally, and we need power projection in addition to defense.
We don't just defend ourselves.
We defend the rights of all humans on this planet. (At least, the ones we can defend without launching WW3.) Noone else seems willing, except NATO and it's allied associates.

[Fartsniffage]

And when you run into the inevitable differences in foreign policy? Who decides?

The European parliament.

And you've just lost the two most powerful militaries in Europe. Britain would never agree to that sort of loss of national sovereignty and the French have not exactly been happy with losing control of their military historically.

[Genivaria]

America wants other people to spend their money for America's purposes that will benefit America.

Nothing new here, but I despair of the brain-dead politicians in my home country that actually pander to this insanity.

I suppose a Russia supporter WOULD oppose Europe having any defenses.

[Memell]

I'm saying that Europe couldn't force America to keep carrying the team. We are not forcing you.

And I'm thinking that Europe's current combined assets ought to be deterrent enough to keep neighbours from applying military force. It ought to be sufficient as defensive force.

If that's the case, then we need to renegotiate the treaty to a more adequate %. Simply breaking it is not acceptable.
I doubt it's the case incidentally, and we need power projection in addition to defense.
We don't just defend ourselves.
We defend the rights of all humans on this planet. (At least, the ones we can defend without launching WW3.) Noone else seems willing, except NATO and it's allied associates.

Yeah, we have seen how that has worked out.... ISIS being on a rampage in Iraq and Syria, while Lybia is about to becoem the 2° Caliphate of the 21st Century.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I'm not passing a value judgement on the withdrawal, it just met the requirements for the request.

I dispute that. The request was for something that fit this:

The Americans sign treaties just to immediately discard them when they don't benefit from them anymore.

We didn't immediately discard the ABM, we withdrew with 6 months notice after 30 years when the treaty was really no longer relevant.

[Memell]

America wants other people to spend their money for America's purposes that will benefit America.

Nothing new here, but I despair of the brain-dead politicians in my home country that actually pander to this insanity.

I suppose a Russia supporter WOULD oppose Europe having any defenses.

Is it mccarthyism all over again? "If you disagree, you are a communist"

[Ostroeuropa]

If that's the case, then we need to renegotiate the treaty to a more adequate %. Simply breaking it is not acceptable.
I doubt it's the case incidentally, and we need power projection in addition to defense.
We don't just defend ourselves.
We defend the rights of all humans on this planet. (At least, the ones we can defend without launching WW3.) Noone else seems willing, except NATO and it's allied associates.

Yeah, we have seen how that has worked out.... ISIS being on a rampage in Iraq and Syria, while Lybia is about to becoem the 2° Caliphate of the 21st Century.

I once fucked up baking a cake, I didn't decide that baking was an inherently terrible process.

[Slakonian]

So tell me what it's like to hate the only shield you have?
Seriously I thought two World Wars would've made Europe vigilant, instead many Europeans have become complacent.

Is "complacent" the new word for "tired of wars"?

this^

Europe has 3 real options.
1.Pay up their fair share for the protection that all NATO member nations get.
2. Create their own defense force to either properly supplement or even relieve NATO of European obligations.

Opposing both of these options is picking option 3 by default.
3. Spread your legs, bite down, and invite the Russian Bear.
Because America is getting tired of paying the share of ungrateful nations.

I coudln't pretend I didn't see that. The US funded dictatorships half across the Europe so fend off communism by following the fucking McArthy doctrine with the result innocent people ending up in prison or relatives ending up in prison as well due to their blood association.

Oh, let us not forget the fact that the Americans won't let their military bases even if we leave NATO due they "guarantee the regional peace" my ass.

Us ain't better than Russia here. When you told us to sanction Russia did you know what happened? They cut the gas lines and prices skyrocketed in the cities and having our asses freeze.... some even to death, the best part is that the US weren't influenced by this factor as it wasn't their ass that freezed but ours. So don't point you finger calling us ungreatful. We need their gas and other natural resources, they gladly gave it to us in very friendly prices which was good enough for some time but now thanks to our "good" allies, now we can't pass winter. Yesterday a littile girl died from freezing as the gas was to expensive. so yeah thanks 'Murica

[Memell]

Yeah, we have seen how that has worked out.... ISIS being on a rampage in Iraq and Syria, while Lybia is about to becoem the 2° Caliphate of the 21st Century.

I once fucked up baking a cake, I didn't decide that baking was an inherently terrible process.

Well, keep on baking shit then, just don't ask me to partake...let alone have me suffer the consequences

[Genivaria]

If that's the case, then we need to renegotiate the treaty to a more adequate %. Simply breaking it is not acceptable.
I doubt it's the case incidentally, and we need power projection in addition to defense.
We don't just defend ourselves.
We defend the rights of all humans on this planet. (At least, the ones we can defend without launching WW3.) Noone else seems willing, except NATO and it's allied associates.

Yeah, we have seen how that has worked out.... ISIS being on a rampage in Iraq and Syria, while Lybia is about to becoem the 2° Caliphate of the 21st Century.

Yeah that's what happens when there's no commited international force. You've got your side of the argument to blame for that.

[Slakonian]

I suppose a Russia supporter WOULD oppose Europe having any defenses.

Is it mccarthyism all over again? "If you disagree, you are a communist"

It seems cold war all over again.... and we are paying the price not they due they are on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Oneracon]

Samantha Power can choke on a dick. The fact that European nations aren't spending huge percentages on defense isn't a bad thing.

2% of GDP is NATO's target for defence spending. Piss or get off the pot - only a few European members of NATO pull their weight.

The only country to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has been the United States... and the other NATO member states all pitched in to ISAF operations as a result of that (with many states also contributing separately to Operation Enduring Freedom), and continued to do so even after many experiencing disproportionately high casualty rates relative to their populations.

All NATO member states have been pulling their relative weights, the issue is that there are drastic size differences between them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Is it mccarthyism all over again? "If you disagree, you are a communist"

It seems cold war all over again.... and we are paying the price not they due they are on the other side of the Atlantic.

*sees your signature*

*Sigh*

We don't even need to bring Russia into this frankly.
This is a treaty we freely entered into. If we disagree with the percentage the treaty demands, we should renegotiate the treaty. Just breaking it is not acceptable.

[The Almighty Bob]

US Diplomat says "EU countries need to spend more on Defence"
Well isn't she adorable. We (the U.S.) have no business telling the EU what to do, particularly if it's spending to much money on fancy toys for the military to play with instead of funding education.

[Ostroeuropa]

US Diplomat says "EU countries need to spend more on Defence"
Well isn't she adorable. We (the U.S.) have no business telling the EU what to do, particularly if it's spending to much money on fancy toys for the military to play with instead of funding education.

It is her business.
We're violating our treaty with the Americans and Canada. (And eachother, incidentally.)
It's her job to tell us we're violating that treaty, I would think.
If there was no NATO treaty, you'd be right.
But there is, so you're wrong.

[Memell]

US Diplomat says "EU countries need to spend more on Defence"
Well isn't she adorable. We (the U.S.) have no business telling the EU what to do, particularly if it's spending to much money on fancy toys for the military to play with instead of funding education.

It is her business.
We're violating our treaty with the Americans and Canada.
It's her job to tell us we're violating that treaty, I would think.
If there was no NATO treaty, you'd be right.
But there is, so you're wrong.

I don't see how we are to respect a treaty with the very faction that spied on virtually every single citizen of ours, including governments ...

[The Almighty Bob]

US Diplomat says "EU countries need to spend more on Defence"
Well isn't she adorable. We (the U.S.) have no business telling the EU what to do, particularly if it's spending to much money on fancy toys for the military to play with instead of funding education.

It is her business.
We're violating our treaty with the Americans and Canada.
It's her job to tell us we're violating that treaty, I would think.
If there was no NATO treaty, you'd be right.
But there is, so you're wrong.

I was under the impression that they were falling within the required percentages.

[Camelza]

The European parliament.

And you've just lost the two most powerful militaries in Europe. Britain would never agree to that sort of loss of national sovereignty and the French have not exactly been happy with losing control of their military historically.

As I said, since the EU is a pacifist organisation, its united army would act only in self-defence and I doubt any European leader would deny a call to aid a fellow EU member being attacked by a foreign force. Do note than I used mostly the word alliance, therefore what I support is not a united army of an organisation but many national armies allied and coordinated by the EU in cooperation with their respective governments, thus the aforementioned council of national defence ministers and its role.
France denied to aid Nato in Iraq because it had the right to, if however Norway was invaded by Finland it would be obligated to aid them, same rules would apply to a European military alliance with the sole difference that it would always act in self-defence.
Of course, I'm making mere hypotheses and the political ground most certainly isn't yet ready for that step into further European integration at the moment.