It is a double edged sword. On the one side it's the neoliberal agenda coming from Washington telling its European lackeys "Don't spend on the people, spend on the military to keep funding the military-industrial complex" and on the other hand it's material reality showing itself of a debilitated Europe who has accustomed to get its fair share through colonialist and extractionists policies enforced by the bigger player, the US, and now has end up without neither a strong military nor economical presence in the global sphere.
That post seems to be missing.
gary_host_laptop 7 points 3 years ago
Munrock 11 points 3 years ago
The British army only needs to be strong enough to perform its two real roles: performative presence to lend 'international' credibility to American projects, and suppressing the people of the British Isles.
Rumblestiltskin 4 points 3 years ago
These articles are in every country's news media these days. The military industrial complex pushing tax payers in every country to ever increase their revenues.
gary_host_laptop 4 points 3 years ago
I've only seen this kind of news regarding countries with imperial past, I have not seen much of "Raise the funds that go to the Bolivian Army" kind of stuff. Go figure.
Rumblestiltskin 2 points 3 years ago
In Canada it is non stop.
Rumblestiltskin 4 points 3 years ago
Nukes don't matter when the UK isn't being directly invaded. They can never use nukes in a war that does not involve their possible destruction.
solargeek -8 points 3 years ago
NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It's meant to be a collective defense. What's happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.
gary_host_laptop 10 points 3 years ago
It's something the US has basically enforced, it's their excuse to things like military bases in Okinawa, which goes against Japan's ideas of not having an army (even though the JSDF has broken this promise of sorts). More military spending it's not going to bring any good to anyone, specially coming from Europe and its record, specially the Brits.
gary_host_laptop 3 points 3 years ago
Ask any of this countries, also include a couple more, Argentina specially, and since we're are it include all of Latin America since nobody wants them here, how they feel about the Brits. Ah, yeah, I forgot, one European country counts as x100 in contrast with a shitty third world country like ours in your book.
emerty -1 points 3 years ago
Argentina? Lol. You invaded UK territory that has oil reserves, what did you expect? A cucumber sandwich and some tea?
Neighbours mean more than strangers, pre Russian invasion no one really cared about Ukraine either. But when they asked for help in 2014 the UK, Canada etc helped.
solargeek -10 points 3 years ago
We've had multiple presidents get on their soapbox about defense budgets in Europe. One fat orange man in particular. He's a corrupt idiot but he wasn't wrong about that. The NATO % GDP benchmark is not onerous. Only military capability will deter some actors as clearly evidenced most recently in Ukraine.
redditors_re_racist 6 points 3 years ago path: 0 21822 22005 23114 27108, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 3
gary_host_laptop 6 points 3 years ago
Left wing liberals agreeing with right wing liberals when it is convenient for them. A tale as old as gold.
fomo_erotic -5 points 3 years ago
NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It’s meant to be a collective defense. What’s happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.
I'm fine with NATO members relying on the US defense budget as long as they spend their money on socialist programs at home. The US could provide the best socialist safety net on the planet, and still outspend the rest of the world 40:1 on defense if it would just tax the rich. Tax capitol gains like income as well, and 80% tax on everything over 20 million a year, 95% tax on everything over 200 million a year, and 99% tax on everything over 1 billion a year.
Boom now we can do the best socialized medicine on the plan and have enough left over to build a couple hundred new NATO bases where ever member states want them.
PolandIsAStateOfMind 3 points 3 years ago
Welfare programs in capitalist countries are not socialism. "Socialism program" would be collectivisiation of the means of production.
CompassInspector -5 points 3 years ago path: 0 21822 22793 29111 29260, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 8
CannotSleep420 4 points 3 years ago
Socialism according to leftcoms.
PolandIsAStateOfMind 3 points 3 years ago
You want to abolish commodity production in the low phase of socialism? Lol.
fomo_erotic -7 points 3 years ago
Welfare programs in capitalist countries can be socialism.
PolandIsAStateOfMind 3 points 3 years ago
No, by definition they aren't. You added the "-ism" incorrectly, you should stop at "social programs".
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
This is an article intending to manufacture consent for larger military spending even as the UK public watches the NHS get slowly privatized right in front of them through ubderfunding. Observe the pattern of sourcing, of who gets a voice, and why this article was written in the first place.
save