and how can she be jewish when both of her parents are not?

Here y’all saying there ain’t no hell, ain’t sure about heaven. And if you do something wrong you got to figure it out yourself. And as far as God’s concerned, it’s your job to keep asking questions and to keep learning and to keep arguing. It’s like a verb. It’s like you do God.

Because Trump decides who is Jewish and who isn't.

I'd vanka.

and how can she be jewish when both of her parents are not?

Because it's good for business.

Here y’all saying there ain’t no hell, ain’t sure about heaven. And if you do something wrong you got to figure it out yourself. And as far as God’s concerned, it’s your job to keep asking questions and to keep learning and to keep arguing. It’s like a verb. It’s like you do God.

wahhh??

Because Trump decides who is Jewish and who isn't.

I remembering reading of trump's books. he said he should pull all the american military forces out of europe and rely on the threat of nuclear missiles in order to control europe. do you really want this guy as president?

I remembering reading of trump's books. he said he should pull all the american military forces out of europe and rely on the threat of nuclear missiles in order to control europe. do you really want this guy as president?

He wants the U.S. military to stop occupying other countries? What an idiot. Truly the least intelligent proposal I've ever heard.

As for the question of how it is that she's Jewish without either of her parents being Jewish, she married a Jewish man and converted.

Yeh, I'm definitely no fan of Trump, but the withdrawal of American troops from Europe sounds perfectly fine to me. We should be using that money to take care of our problems.

should we pull our forces out of japan, too?

We should certainly be willing to significantly lower our presence there, or at least consider it.

When it comes to Europe, our presence is wasted money. We're part of NATO, and an invasion of Europe guarantees our involvement no matter what, so whether we maintain a bunch of bases or not isn't incredibly relevant because the invader (in this climate) is totally fucked as soon as they step over the line.

With Japan... China as it currently stands isn't going to risk the economic damage of a war like that, but I suppose you could make the argument that the relationship could shift at some point in the future. I don't know. I'm not going to say that I know we should pull out of Asia because I don't know this. But I do think that we shouldn't be maintaining military bases based on momentum alone. There needs to be a meaningful threat.

I got mahz to post in my thread, yay me!!!

We should certainly be willing to significantly lower our presence there, or at least consider it.

When it comes to Europe, our presence is wasted money. We're part of NATO, and an invasion of Europe guarantees our involvement no matter what, so whether we maintain a bunch of bases or not isn't incredibly relevant because the invader (in this climate) is totally fucked as soon as they step over the line.

With Japan... China as it currently stands isn't going to risk the economic damage of a war like that, but I suppose you could make the argument that the relationship could shift at some point in the future. I don't know. I'm not going to say that I know we should pull out of Asia because I don't know this. But I do think that we shouldn't be maintaining military bases based on momentum alone. There needs to be a meaningful threat.

i don't think you make a good argument by saying the existence (or not) of our bases in europe makes no difference if we suddenly need military force in that region (europe)

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

i don't think you make a good argument by saying the existence (or not) of our bases in europe makes no difference if we suddenly need military force in that region (europe)

Expand on that? What I am saying is that we have to pay for this, so we have to consider its worth. What are we getting out of this exactly? Is the presence of American troops in Germany the only thing stopping Putin from raising the red flag and charging across the border? Do you think that a Russian Blitz could overrun Europe before American troops arrived?

@Lunamaria The main contention is generally that Europeans should be footing the bill to defend Europe, rather than Americans. When U.S. forces are deployed in bases in Germany, it isn't the citizens of Berlin and Munich that are paying for them, it's the citizens of New York City and Houston.

The NATO recommendation for defence spending is 2% of GDP. The only European member of NATO that spends that much is the United Kingdom. The American taxpayer is left to pay, literally, for Europe's pacifism.

@Lunamaria The main contention is generally that Europeans should be footing the bill to defend Europe, rather than Americans. When U.S. forces are deployed in bases in Germany, it isn't the citizens of Berlin and Munich that are paying for them, it's the citizens of New York City and Houston.

The NATO recommendation for defence spending is 2% of GDP. The only European member of NATO that spends that much is the United Kingdom. The American taxpayer is left to pay, literally, for Europe's pacifism.

Fucking cheap-ass Europeans.

@Vilageidiotx
@The Nexerus
we should be footing the bill. We are the world's most developed country. America is the symbol of world wellness and morality. As such, we should be the ones who should most invest in the well-being of others. It's why we have such a big military -- why members of our military are the most educated soldiers on the planet. For the past sixty years, we have taught ourselves in schools that america's virtuous place in the world is a symbol as well as a real force.

If we suddenly decide that we are no longer responsible for the well-being of others (japan, europe, everywhere else where we have military bases and military presence), we might as well start teaching in our schools that the wars that we've fought since and including World War II (Korean, Vietnam) were also wrong as well. How can we suddenly decide it's no longer our duty or our task when our very history has shown ourselves to be exactly the opposite? When the people in charge of our nation and thus the people who voted those politicians in have decided that we ought to take a very active role in maintaining the world's well-being?

Isn't the end goal of paternalism to foster independence?

@Vilageidiotx
@The Nexerus
we should be footing the bill. We are the world's most developed country. America is the symbol of world wellness and morality. As such, we should be the ones who should most invest in the well-being of others. It's why we have such a big military -- why members of our military are the most educated soldiers on the planet. For the past sixty years, we have taught ourselves in schools that america's virtuous place in the world is a symbol as well as a real force.

If we suddenly decide that we are no longer responsible for the well-being of others (japan, europe, everywhere else where we have military bases and military presence), we might as well start teaching in our schools that the wars that we've fought since and including World War II (Korean, Vietnam) were also wrong as well. How can we suddenly decide it's no longer our duty or our task when our very history has shown ourselves to be exactly the opposite? When the people in charge of our nation and thus the people who voted those politicians in have decided that we ought to take a very active role in maintaining the world's well-being?

What you are advocating is basically Imperialism. We are not that. We were never supposed to be that. It's entirely emotional, impractical, and suggests that somehow all the nations of the world are our children.

We aren't a symbol, we are people. I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from to be honest. Either the titles you have conferred are opinions, or somebody has made an attempt to rate them. For instance, we are not the most developed nation according to the Human Development Index. That would be Norway. So if we are going to say that development can be quantified, then we are the fifth most developed nation.

But the thing is, we still have the world's largest economy as far as nations go. We can achieve amazing things. We can be the greatest place on the planet, but we have to make an effort. We have to shed the symbolism and the buzzwords. And part of that means drawing away all the patriotic fluff that doesn't do anything for us. I think that money spent maintaining foreign bases would be better spent in the United States maintaining and bettering the lives of people here. A lot of people think the same, and that is across the isle, not limited to political party.

@The Nexerus our goal is to foster the well-being of the nations within our influence as long as we are fit to do so. We have the budget and the revenue to do so. These other countries in that we have military bases in, most of them do not. When they are as prosperous economically as the US, then we should consider pulling out.

@Vilageidiotx

if we are not imperialistic by name, why is it that all our actions show that we are? -- That we do have a responsibility, symbolically and financially to the world's well-being?
Why do we have more aircraft carriers than all the other nations combined? Why do we have such a big budget for humanitarian aid? Why is our professional military such that we can basically dethrone nearly any national leader that we deem unfit?
Don't tell me we do it simply to protect ourselves. We develop a 100 million dollar fighter just so we can protect ourselves better? We fight wars in asia and middle east simply to protect our interests but not the world's interests? We form coalitions with dozens of other countries simply to borrow their military strength in a desperate, sneaky attempt at self-benefit?