- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Finland has one of the most comprehensive welfare systems in Europe.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:43 pm
Why do the reigning elite in the Washington Beltway expect U.S. taxpayers to subsidize the defense of the wealthy and prosperous European Welfare States into perpetuity?
And is further seeking to expand NATO’s footprint?
NATO is an affront to Patriotism.
Pat Buchanan: Why Would US Give a War Guarantee – to Finland?
….A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War ended, are we still expanding NATO?
Russia does not threaten the United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let them deal with it. Together, NATO Europe is far more populous and economically powerful than Russia, and militarily capable of providing for their own defense.
Why should this be our obligation more than 30 years after the Cold War – and counting?
With small but modernized military forces, Finland, if attacked, can resist Russia. Why, then, let ourselves be obligated to go to war on Finland’s behalf, a war that could result in an escalation to nuclear war, the avoidance of which was a goal of every president, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan?
And is further seeking to expand NATO’s footprint?
NATO is an affront to Patriotism.
Pat Buchanan: Why Would US Give a War Guarantee – to Finland?
….A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War ended, are we still expanding NATO?
Russia does not threaten the United States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors, let them deal with it. Together, NATO Europe is far more populous and economically powerful than Russia, and militarily capable of providing for their own defense.
Why should this be our obligation more than 30 years after the Cold War – and counting?
With small but modernized military forces, Finland, if attacked, can resist Russia. Why, then, let ourselves be obligated to go to war on Finland’s behalf, a war that could result in an escalation to nuclear war, the avoidance of which was a goal of every president, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan?
7
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:45 pm to Toomer Deplorable
Should’ve let Russia in and we’d be kicking Ukraine with them.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:48 pm to Toomer Deplorable
Republicans chose George HW Bush over principled Uncle Pat. He was marginalized and made a pariah by the neocons because of his sane foreign policy.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:53 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:Finland’s military budget already exceeds the NATO 2% guideline. It will be one of only 8 countries that does so. We won’t be subsidizing them.
Finland has one of the most comprehensive welfare systems in Europe. Why do the reigning elite in the Washington Beltway expect U.S. taxpayers to subsidize the defense of the wealthy and prosperous European Welfare States into perpetuity?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:11 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Russia does not threaten the United States.
Kennedy says they are threatening Louisiana!
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Finland’s military budget already exceeds the NATO 2% guideline. It will be one of only 8 countries that does so. We won’t be subsidizing them.
So freaking what? Putting aside the fact that NATO is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of the United State’s military industrial complex which itself is wholly subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, the U.S. spends nearly double that percentage.
This post was edited on 5/19/22 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:53 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:We have chosen to be a global power and to project our might onto every continent on this rock.
Putting aside the fact that NATO is largely a wholly owned subsidiary of the United State’s military industrial complex which itself is wholly subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, the U.S. spends nearly double that percentage.
Of course we spend more on our military than a small country with no desire to extend the reach of its military beyond its own limited borders.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 9:18 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We have chosen
I can almost hear the Imperial “We” in a snarled and affected Mid-Atlantic accent.
This post was edited on 5/19/22 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 5/19/22 at 9:22 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:Americans have sought Empire since at least the 1820s ... arguably 1803, and we were well on our way by the 1840s. You can't blame Buckley.
I can almost hear the Imperial “We” in a snarled and affected Mid-Atlantic accent.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 9:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You can't blame Buckley.
I suppose in the same way, Obama can’t be blamed for Obamacare.
Yet any lifelong apologist for the CIA certainly shares at least some blame for the current crisis.
Especially one that was the de facto leader of the “conservative” intelligentsia and a supposed opponent of the Leviathan State.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 10:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Finland’s military budget already exceeds the NATO 2% guideline. It will be one of only 8 countries that does so. We won’t be subsidizing them.
Yeah, we will.
How much would it otherwise cost them to have the full force of a military like ours as a deterrent?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 10:33 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
He was marginalized and made a pariah by the neocons because of his sane foreign policy.
Neocons are literal Satanists
Posted on 5/19/22 at 10:37 pm to Malik Agar
NATO is just another way to disperse tax paying citizens hard earned money into DC connected pockets. This shite is a farce .
Posted on 5/19/22 at 10:45 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Russia does not threaten the United States.
Stopped reading there.
I suppose that nuclear stockpile poses no threat what so ever. Or committing assassinations in other countries. And it was just a defensive precaution to invade Ukraine.
Most of you may be too young to remember the Cold War, but Russia hasn't. And you can be damn sure Putin hasn't.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 4:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:We are not talking criteria for membership. We are discussing rationale. What national interest do we have that is represented by Finland other than wanting to encircle and threaten Russia? When will this madness end?
Finland’s military budget already exceeds the NATO 2% guideline. It will be one of only 8 countries that does so. We won’t be subsidizing them.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 4:26 am to Toomer Deplorable
Over 50% of Americans on some type of government assistance.
We aren’t far off.
We aren’t far off.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 7:32 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Finland’s military budget already exceeds the NATO 2% guideline. It will be one of only 8 countries that does so. We won’t be subsidizing them.
You think meeting the NATO minimum means we aren’t subsidizing them? That’s funny. Sad too.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 7:39 am to David_DJS
quote:So, they spend exactly what they were spending anyway, and we spend exactly what we were spending anyway. They get the benefit of deterrent. You consider that to be a “subsidy,” when we have incurred absolutely no marginal expenditure. That may fit your definition of “subsidy.” It does not fit mine.
How much would it otherwise cost them to have the full force of a military like ours as a deterrent?
Edit: “Free Rider?” Yeah, maybe that.
This post was edited on 5/20/22 at 8:09 am
Posted on 5/20/22 at 7:43 am to Wolfhound45
quote:no, the OP specifically asserted that we would be subsidizing Finland‘s social welfare system. That is the subject of this thread.
We are not talking criteria for membership. We are discussing rationale.
If you wish to discuss the rationale for admitting Finland to the alliance, that is certainly worth discussing, but it is not the subject of this thread.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 8:54 am to Revelator
The Russians don't want any part of Louisiana's dysfunction. They'd get sued in the first week.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News