I would like to see more land east of the Rockies and east of the Mississippi turned into protected federal land. So much of the western states (often more than 50% of total land area) is federal land.
It feels like the easterners ruined their beautiful land and now want to tell us in the west how to live.
Go spend on your own backyard and leave ours to us.
Of course not, how could we be prepared unless we continuously invest? In what other sphere does life continue to flourish in the face of evolving threats without continuous co-evolution?
As an American I am not an at all concerned about the total amount spent. I am highly concerned that it gets spent effectively.
> to the detriment of their health and education
The US is starting to realize that Europe has neglected its own defense in favor of social projects, while relying on US taxpayer defense spending.
> The US is starting to realize that Europe has neglected its own defense in favor of social projects, while relying on US taxpayer defense spending.
It's not that simple. Our social programs matter more to our citizens. The US wastes a lot of money on feeding its military industrial complex, including waging totally unnecessary and inconsequential wars like the second Iraq war or Afghanistan. As soon as they pull out after wasting trillions, things are back the way they were. And in the case of Iraq a lot worse (ISIS). The money for those wars would have been better spent on health and education, and less lives would be lost as well.
What is most important for our safety against countries like Russia is the nuclear umbrella. And the US doesn't want to see more than France and Britain have nuclear capabilities.
Partially correct. Given the US taxpayer funding Europe's defense, the European public wants social programs rather than spending their own gold on their own defense.
Europe's security needs are being met, so they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security.
>And the US doesn't want to see
Yes, the US gets to make the choices when we're the ones paying for Europe's defense. If Europe (as a whole or individually) could match or exceed the US's military might, then Europe would not need the US's permission to make a nuclear umbrella.
>The US wastes a lot of money on feeding its military industrial complex
100% agree. We waste a simply breathtaking amount of money. But again, I am less concerned about the total spend and more concerned with the effectiveness of the spend. I agree that we don't always spend effectively.
> Partially correct. Given the US taxpayer funding Europe's defense, the European public wants social programs rather than spending their own gold on their own defense.
> Europe's security needs are being met, so they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security.
It's just that we don't really have a serious security problem. A bit more so now since Russian agression. But military is not about showing muscle, it's about having sufficient to do the job and not more. Having a military is a prerequisite of freedom but not an end goal in itself. In the US it does seem to be like that.
> Yes, the US gets to make the choices when we're the ones paying for Europe's defense. If Europe (as a whole or individually) could match or exceed the US's military might, then Europe would not need the US's permission to make a nuclear umbrella.
This is the thing about the US. It's always about money and war. Not about quality of life.
In Europe we don't care as much about having a powerful military because we're not looking to march all over the world protecting our interests. It just needs to be powerful enough to protect our borders and meet NATO commitments (which it does now).
Don't forget the US offered us to join NATO, partly in an attempt to prevent us from aligning with other geopolitical entities. If we hadn't had that, we would have built more.
This quality of life take is something that can be talked about only in the context of security needs being met. Since WWII Europe's security needs have been met by the US taxpayer. Everything else is built on that (i.e. Maslow's hierarchy of needs).
And yes, I agree that the US does have a geopolitical interest in paying for Europe's defense, but if we didn't, it's likely that Europe would look very different today than it now does. My guess is that it would be a lot more militarized and that there would be less money for QoL programs.
Well, Europe did look very differently for a long time, with the iron curtain and all. And we did spend a lot on the military during the cold war.
I have to say though that the cold war wouldn't have gotten so out of hand in Europe if it weren't for the US. I think the USSR would have happily let us lie because we didn't have any beef with communism (and in fact during the cold war many Western Europe countries were pretty socialist). We do with dictatorships (which the USSR really was), but not in a sense that we'd want to invade them. Like how Belarus is being left alone as well.
It's the US that was afraid of the world turning communist and willing to fight for capitalism. This caused the arms race. Of course it came from both sides but ever continuing escalation was really the wrong move.
This is the problem I have with the US, they often get themselves into wars that aren't really needed. War should be a last resort and most of them have been far from that. The second Iraq war was based on pure lies. The invasion of Afghanistan accomplished nothing (and Bin Laden was even trained by the US in an earlier war against the soviets). Then there's Vietnam (Admittedly started by France), Korea etc. And of course citizens of other countries start hating you if you blow their countries to bits, increasing terrorism threats. The only one I think was justified was the first gulf war as it was a direct result of Hussein invading Kuwait.
For us "defense" doesn't reach beyond our own borders. The only time it does is under NATO commitments or international pressure.
> they don't want to spend incremental funds on more security.
You could argue that at some point the "security" is the main threat against your security. It is like if I had some armed guard at a post outside my front door. The risk of him shooting me, or my drunk kids crawling through the bushes to avoid discovery, by mistake or at will due to some dispute surely out weight him protecting me from a 1/100 000 risk or what ever of lethal home invasion.
The comment I'm replying to said that and it was said frequently about Vietnam. What they didn't do is use the clear language I used and instead blamed the public for not wanting to spend every last penny on a pyrrhic victory as if that isn't attrition.
I agree that the dollar cost is real attrition too. Vietnam and Afghanistan were so wildly costly because we made the (political) choice to limit how we could engage the enemy, while our enemies were not limiting themselves
Vietnam: limiting Cambodia ops, the DMZ, limiting bombing of N Vietnam
Afghanistan: limiting Pakistan ops, focusing on creating a stable democracy rather than killing Taliban then leaving
We made political choices on how to wage war, and then blamed the military for those poor choices.
A war effort involves the entire country: The entire economy beyond just the military industrial complex, all branches of politics, and the military including both officers and rank-and-file soldiers.
Yeah, we could use biological weapons or drop hydrogen bombs as a few examples. We could send marines house to house executing anyone who even looks like a bad guy. Trouble is giving a few million civilians radiation poisoning or the bubonic plaque to "stop communism" or to "spread democracy" is evil and insane.
Disagree on point #1. We occupied Afghanistan for 20 years. We operated with nearly absolute impunity in all population centers, through all trade routes, and all agricultural areas. Our casualties were a minuscule amount our total forces. Our culture completely transformed theirs (in a way that old school hardliners lament publicly). We killed a huge number of Taliban (and foreign fighters).
Clausewitz says that "the political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it." Can you tell articulate what the political goal of the war was?
Thinking back to 2001 (I was in middle school), the goal was retribution. I believe the military achieved that in spades. Yes, in the end Afghanistan did not turn into a US vassal state or a US colony. But was that the goal?
>Can you tell articulate what the political goal of the war was?
The goal was to eradicate the Taliban, remove terroristic sentiments, rebuild Afghanistan, bring the country to 21st century democratic standards, and prevent future 9/11s.
Did we achieve it? Hell no.
Verdict: We lost. Over 20 years of bloodshed and misery on both sides for fucking nothing. We failed on every single fucking count. Every. Single. Count.
The discussion was more about if the military fumbled Afghanistan or if it was a political failure.
You haven't shown a military failure.
I also disagree with that list of objectives and their current status. Let's go through 1 by 1:
+Eradicate Taliban. Complete. This is a new gen of fighters and the movement shares very little outside the name. Nearly all the Taliban from 2001 are dead of violent causes.
+Remove terroristic sentiments. Not a goal, but also has Afghanistan committed many terror acts in the last 15 years? Current status is trending green.
+Rebuild Afghanistan. Not an original goal (ie in Oct-2001). Also not a DoD goal, this was a State Dept goal after the military victory was secured. Also I'd argue that Afghanistan today has better infra than it did in Aug-2001, so this is complete.
+Democratic standards. Not an original goal. Also not a DoD goal, this was a State Dept goal after the military victory was secured. Not met.
+Prevent future 9/11s. Current status is trending green.
So we met all but 1 goal. That's not bad as wars go.
>The discussion was more about if the military fumbled Afghanistan or if it was a political failure.
While I started off with the former, overall it is both.
>You haven't shown a military failure.
It has been demonstrated by Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and others that the best way to defeat America is to engage in low tech guerilla warfare. We have lost every single one of them.
Even more embarrasing is that the Houthi are demonstrating that the age old adage of "Don't touch America's ships!" also isn't true anymore. Our Navy hasn't adequately responded to some deranged goat herders lobbing missiles into one of the world's biggest sea lanes.
>Eradicate Taliban. Complete.
Are you drunk? The Taliban is literally back in power ruling over Afghanistan with an iron fist.
>Remove terroristic sentiments. Not a goal,
Lest we forget, we waged "The War On Terror".
>Rebuild Afghanistan. Not an original goal
You can not remove hate until the people thereof can live comfortable lives, which is still not the case.
>Democratic standards. Not an original goal.
See above.
>Prevent future 9/11s. Current status is trending green.
I've lost count on the acts of terror we've seen across the west, America and otherwise.
You've moved the goal posts of this discussion. We've been talking about military success or failure.
Democracy (and "comfortable lives") was not a military objective. The military provided security for the State Dept and NGOs to pursue those goals.
Since 9/11, Afghanistan has not prosecuted any terrorist acts on the West in my recent memory.
The Taliban of 2001 was largely killed off. Yes, there are people in charge of Afghanistan today who call themselves Taliban, have some limited pre-9/11 leadership, but are largely a completely different set of people than existed back then and this occurred because of military action, not old age.
I'll also add that NPR's argument is "this water is used to grow crops which feed beef/dairy, therefore if we reduce beef/dairy cows, these crops and the corresponding water will be reduced proportionately".
Their conclusion is not grounded in microeconomic logic. If the demand for alfalfa and hay decrease, that will affect only the marginal farmer/seller, not all alfalfa/hay farmers/sellers equally. In other words, the most expensive seller of cattle feed in the market may no longer have a buyer, but other less expensive sellers will be totally unaffected.
Imperial Valley farmers are likely not the the marginal seller in the cattle feed market (ie the most expensive sellers who still have buyers), so this argument that reducing beef/dairy consumption is flawed.
INSKEEP: OK, so now the bottom line. After doing all this reporting, did you conclude that one less hamburger a week really could save the Colorado River?
STONE: Honestly, Steve, it's really hard to say. The food system is so complicated, and it's not just beef. Actually, yogurt and cheese is what's driving more hay to be grown in the Colorado River basin. But it is true that if we shift our diets just a little, that can have a long-term impact.
No, countries have the right to regulate businesses that operate in their jurisdiction. It's up to the companies to square that with their business model, or choose to do business elsewhere. I'm pretty free market, but this is common sense stuff: it has to work that way, or we've got the much bigger problem of either a techno dystopia with corporate nation-states, or else corporations becoming extensions of a government, waging war by other means on foreign shores.
I don't like the "battle against big tech" framing, but I think that's just what the publisher went with to make it sound dramatic.
I 100% agree that the EU has the right to do this. It may even be in their best interest to do so (idk, I'm not European).
My point is more that it's not "justice" in the criminal-justice sense (eg: consequences for murder/robbery). It's economic policy, largely orthogonal to "justice".
It might not be "justice" to you in the narrow definition you are creating, but fair economic and user privacy rules are justice to me and likely to most. I don't find it orthogonal to justice at all.
The EU council is composed mainly of the heads of state or heads of government of each member state.
All EU countries are democracies (at least supposedly, we have Hungary after all).
The heads of state/government on democracies are not conjured up from thin air buddy, those are elected.
You might be thinking of the European Commission, those are appointment by members of the council (that are elected) and confirmed by the European Parliament (also elected). The European Commissioners are more like ministers in a regular country. So saying they are unelected is as silly as saying that the minister of defense or minister of internal affairs in a country was unelected.
The EU Council is mainly composed by heads of state or government.
In some countries that may be a president (which is directly elected), in others a prime minister (which you may argue is indirectly elected by a elected parliament).
We may argue if presidentialism is somehow more democratic than parliamentarism, but prime ministers are undeniably elected (they are in the parliament after all).
Also, whatever regulations proposed by the EU council or commission, they have to be approved by the parliament. That's their whole job.
You are, honestly, just speaking bullshit about something you clearly don't understand, probably regurgitating bad takes you read online somewhere.
You literally just agreed with me in your first few sentences and then ended by saying I'm talking bullshit. Weird hill for you to die on since it's a minor detail and not even the main point in my original argument.
It just reads like you want to argue with someone online.
it's gonna get much harder to keep on pretending that unelected opereatives based out of the USA have attacked with violence, prejudice, and overall imperialistic intent all kinds of governments all over the world, including purported american "allies"
Not really, antitrust is far from being a new concept. It predates all the major tech companies. In fact, a cursory web search traces it back all the way to the Roman empire. and Google is definitely not the first to be hit by it.
However, if Google (or any major US tech company) believe they are being wrongfully targeted, they can always stop operating in EU.
Or you know, they can continue operating there, but follow the rules instead. Again, a very weird concept. Not sure you will understand it.
My argument is that the law in question is an EU economic policy targeting large US companies, not "justice" in the "law & order" sense of that word. This is a real position, not a straw man.
In return I've gotten mostly insulting responses (though some thoughtful ones have now filtered in). I'm not even complaining about any of these, mostly just curious why this topic riles so many people up.
In my reply I used some light sarcasm to convey my dismay at how wrong your original post was. If you read that as hostility or "heavy emotional reaction", well, that is a you problem.
We can refer back to your original post:
> The law here isn't some neutral concept of justice, but rather a regulation tailor-made by unelected officials to target large US companies.
1 - It ignores that antitrust law is a concept of justice, created to protect society against economic abuse that would otherwise harm it.
2 - It uses an old, boring, and plain wrong rhetoric about "unelected EU officials". Sorry, this is plain bullshit.
3 - It has a subtext of "poor US big tech company being unfairly targeted by mean EU government". Again, another boring and plain wrong rhetoric. Companies like Google are horribly abusive both to users and to the societies where they operate. I wouldn't be surprised if Google willingly ignored untitrust law in a cold calculation where they figured they make more in revenue then they lose in fines.
This is a wholly new concept of "antitrust" law which relies on market competition rather than consumer harm.
There is no overlap with prior antitrust except for the name and "big = bad". Even your point 3 exposes the real problem. People don't like google (neither do I, actually), impute ill intent to them, and want them punished.
My entire point has been that this is an EU economic policy, not traditional "justice" (e.g. punishment for robbery).
Doing some light googling, the basis of these antitrust laws is from "Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty" [1]
Article 86 of the Treaty begins, "In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union"[2]...
This is where it gets complex, buddy, but hang with me..."financial interests" is another way of saying "economic interests", so the EU itself explicitly calls this an economic policy.
And why wouldn't they? They can and should protect their interests. So why are ou are all over the place trying to shut down conversations about them doing so?
Yes, those pure, angelic and kind trillion dollar tech companies are being bullied by the big bad evil EU government because they are jealous of their success. They're just haters
Its not like it has anything to do with them consistently violating people's rights and having the biggest monopoly in the history of the world. Get it twisted, you must defend them tooth and nail because one day, it could be you. /s
Definitely. You start by showing me a comment defending google. All I could find is:
>People don't like google (neither do I, actually)
For the record, I am very confident that google is guilty with regard to these laws. I just also think that these laws are tailored by the EU to target large US companies like google as part of the EU's broader, anti-US tech economic policy.
What's the problem with regulations aimed at US big tech? If something it came too late. And for sure they don't need ahmeneeroe-v2 to defend them online for free.
I've answered this elsewhere in the replies: the EU has the right to form an independent economic policy and to write regulations in support of that economic policy and to prosecute/punish companies in accordance with those regulations.
I am just calling it by that: EU protectionism against big US tech cos.
The EU doesn't need meiraleal patrolling the internet helping them masquerade as punishing the evildoers.
That's not really relevant to the licensor/licensee relationship, but from an academic perspective, how long would it have taken without the underlying US-taxpayer-funded research?
I got interested and started googling. Guess what I have found: "The EUV story begins in the mid-1980s in Japan when, building on multilayer mirror research done in Russia in the 70s, Hiroo Kinoshita projected the first EUV images." [0]
reply