Is Lindsey Graham right that someone should Assassinate Pooten?

[brianpatrick]

So you posit that without the US maintaining the national security of Europe they will collapse? I don't think that will happen.

Of course I am. That's for them to do, not the US. If we are going to do it for them then they can pay us, and it better cover the costs.

They won’t collapse. Instability though is bad for US business. If supply routes are blocked or manufacturing gets delayed, or anything funny happens, we lose money or opportunity. We need a stable world economy in key parts of the world, and that requires that their people are also stable and happy.

I think you’re looking at it backwards. The US is maintaining this system. We want it, because it makes for stability. To then say: we’re going to protect you for our own good and oh by the way we now want you to pay more for our service (which serves us) sounds like paying protection money to gangsters. We’re not gangsters. Telling other countries they should cut back on social services (and pissing off their populations) doesn’t make for anything but a talking point which is, when examined, not rational or in line with anything realistic.

 

[Fishking]

They won’t collapse. Instability though is bad for US business. If supply routes are blocked or manufacturing gets delayed, or anything funny happens, we lose money or opportunity. We need a stable world economy in key parts of the world, and that requires that their people are also stable and happy.

How are supply routes going to be blocked without the US military carrying everyone else's burden?

I think you’re looking at it backwards. The US is maintaining this system. We want it, because it makes for stability. To then say: we’re going to protect you for our own good and oh by the way we now want you to pay more for our service (which serves us) sounds like paying protection money to gangsters. We’re not gangsters. Telling other countries they should cut back on social services (and pissing off their populations) doesn’t make for anything but a talking point which is, when examined, not rational or in line with anything realistic.

I'm not looking at it backwards at all. We don't have the money for it, so they pay us or we leave. It's that simple. Your position is backwards in that you're expecting the US to not only be responsible for everyone else's security, but to pay for it as well. That's crazy.

 

[brianpatrick]

How are supply routes going to be blocked without the US military carrying everyone else's burden?

I'm not looking at it backwards at all. We don't have the money for it, so they pay us or we leave. It's that simple. Your position is backwards in that you're expecting the US to not only be responsible for everyone else's security, but to pay for it as well. That's crazy.

Ok, never mind.