Here’s the thing, there isn’t a South African on this Board who doesn’t condemn Apartheid today,
What a claim, what a claim.
Here’s the thing, there isn’t a South African on this Board who doesn’t condemn Apartheid today,
Liberalism is all about submission. One way to gauge submission is to force this kind of claims on people.
Incredible stuff.
The cowardly hypocrisy….be a man of principle and condemn Ireland’s neutrality towards the biggest villain in history.
Since it is about condemning neutrality, what about condemning the support of countries to South Africa under the Apartheid.... Starting with the US, the UK, France, Israel that was a very big supporter to the Apartheid in South Africa. Should be easy since there is no South African on this board who does not condemn the Apartheid.
All of those countries condemned Apartheid doofus...including Israel...
So Moz is gone from I don't need to defend Trump turning the world against the US, because the economic data is good and his tariffs are good, too well bad economic data and a supreme court ruling against Trump's tariffs is a good thing because the ruling proves Trump's not fascist, to if it wasn't for America you'd all be eating borscht and Ireland was neutral during World War 2 so apologise.
Tell me do you talk this much crap in real life?
Diversion….I am asking you to condemn Ireland’s neutrality towards the the Nazis. It’s a simple thing if you disagree with neutrality simply say so. If you support messages of sympathy being sent to Germany because Hitler was dead just say so.
ZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZ.
Don’t you mean NaZZZzzzi?
& I am asking you to condemn the USA’s neutrality towards the Russians (more relevant)
They are not neutral Bob...anything but...
Those who want the war to go on and more Ukranians to die can condemn efforts to reach a peace. I’m not one of them.
Those who want to escalate the conflict with an unpredictable nuclear power and bring the risk of a nuclear mistake into the equation can condemn the efforts to reach a peace. I’m not one of them,
Clear?
Stav's victorious ... 6-0 6-0 6-0
Mozart your return of serve's letting you down.
A shame really.
Those who want the war to go on and more Ukranians to die can condemn efforts to reach a peace.
Disingenuous twaddle, its not an effort to reach peace, it's an effort to force Ukraine to surrender.
Those who want to escalate the conflict with an unpredictable nuclear power and bring the risk of a nuclear mistake into the equation can condemn the efforts to reach a peace. I’m not one of them,
And over on the Flim-Flam thread Moz is prompting a Boris Johnson article that mocks the Germans over their fears of escalation and calls for escalation yet here he is saying he supports Trump's so called peace efforts because of fears of escalation. Goes to show the man is absolutely two faced with his standards.
Everyone wants peace in Ukraine, a proper peace deal, not this shite Trump is serving up.
Disingenuous twaddle, its not an effort to reach peace, it's an effort to force Ukraine to surrender
Semantics….any deal will be a balance between more deaths and concessions. One major Russian success shifts the balance, time doesn’t favor Ukraine.
And over on the Flim-Flam thread Moz is prompting a Boris Johnson article that mocks the Germans over their fears of escalation and calls for escalation yet here he is saying he supports Trump's so called peace efforts because of fears of escalation. Goes to show the man is absolutely two faced with his standards
Promoting is the word you want not prompting. And no I don’t support Trump’s efforts because of fears of escalation. There won’t be any, even the little men in suits know escalation is an unwarranted risk. I support the peace efforts because the equation is time negative for the Ukraine.
Boris calls for 4 things….providing missiles to take out the Russian drone factories, impounding the shadow fleet, sending non combat European troops into the Ukraine and unfreezing Putin’s assets in European banks and using those funds to help Ukraine.
He is right that if Europe was serious they could do those things. And way back when Europe failed to impound Putin’s assets I pointed out that failure. I support that 100%.
The other three suggestions involve escalation to some degree and invite a response. Sending in non combat European troops will irritate Putin and will accomplish nothing, I see that as counter productive.
Providing missiles to take out drone factories might have a temporary effect, but will quickly result in relocation of the factories. And it crosses the line of the West enabling attacks on Russia. Only worth doing if it delivers a significant blow.
Impounding the shadow fleet is likely to have the most effect if it can be executed. But Russian warships could provide escorts and I doubt the Theme Park fleets are ready for that confrontation, particularly if China the likely customer gets involved.
So I completely agree with Boris that this European posturing is pathetic and there is no intention to do anything but talk. But I only agree with one of his actions. I reject the shadow fleet because it involves escalation and I doubt Europe can do it clinically. And I reject the other two because they won’t accomplish much.
If agreeing with much of an article, including it’s basic thrust that Europe is just talking, but rejecting some of it’s remedies, is ‘two faced’ call me Dr Jekyll.
All of those countries condemned Apartheid doofus...including Israel...
Huh no, all the quoted countries supported South Africa under the Apartheid. Israel believed that the apartheid would last forever in South Africa. How can South Africans on this board be that dismissal of the history of the country they claim to be theirs? Oh, wait, that is because they have kept praising South Africans under the Apartheid....
Beside, the core claim is the following one:
Here’s the thing, there isn’t a South African on this Board who doesn’t condemn Apartheid today,
Which board is that? Because well, on this board, there is semantics twisting to manage to support this claim.
"Here’s the thing, there isn’t a South African on this Board who doesn’t condemn Apartheid today"
Yes, but how many of those always condemned apartheid? That's the question.
Similar question we'll be asking in decades to come, who can say he always despised Bozo?
Semantics….any deal will be a balance between more deaths and concessions. One major Russian success shifts the balance, time doesn’t favor Ukraine.
And Trump's peace proposals are imbalanced, skewed towards concessions on Ukraine's part. Russia was originally supposed to defeat Ukraine in a matter of days to a few weeks, and since it's initial invasion where they advanced rapidly after catching Ukraine somewhat by surprise and were also helped by some Ukrainian collaborators, what have they achieved over the next nearly 4 years. Glacial advances, capturing fields, villages and some small to medium size towns no one had even heard of before the war. A major success for Russia could indeed shift the balance but that's been the case for the last 4 years, yet there is no sign of one and the current situation on the battlefield doesn't indicate there will be a major one any time soon. Hell right now Ukraine is making hay while the Russian's have lost access to Starlink and gone on a mini offensive in the South retaking several towns.
Promoting is the word you want not prompting. And no I don’t support Trump’s efforts because of fears of escalation. There won’t be any, even the little men in suits know escalation is an unwarranted risk. I support the peace efforts because the equation is time negative for the Ukraine.
You have brought up nuclear escalation multiple times when defending Trump's attempted deal. I'm more than a little sceptical when you say it's not a factor in your support of Trump's deals. You're also assuming time is against Ukraine. That's not necessarily the case.
Boris calls for 4 things….providing missiles to take out the Russian drone factories, impounding the shadow fleet, sending non combat European troops into the Ukraine and unfreezing Putin’s assets in European banks and using those funds to help Ukraine.
He is right that if Europe was serious they could do those things. And way back when Europe failed to impound Putin’s assets I pointed out that failure. I support that 100%.
So let me get this straight, you post an article where Boris Johnson calls for Europe to do more yet of the 4 things he wants Europe to do you don't agree with three of them, and of the one you do agree with you're not going to acknowledge Europe has an alternative solution that fulfils the same role. You also don't agree with him when he calls the White House delusional. Why did you post this article again. Ah yes to criticize Europe for the sake of it.
So I completely agree with Boris that this European posturing is pathetic and there is no intention to do anything but talk.
Posturing? Absolute rubbish. Should we go through all the various ways, Europe has assisted and provided aid to Ukraine since the start of the war, how it stepped up last year and what it plans to do this year for Ukraine. Could and should Europe do more, yes it should. But European leaders are at least grounded in reality that they understand Putin is not interested in a peace that will be remotely acceptable to Ukraine (and yes both they and Ukraine understand their not going to get everything they want).
The ironic thing is that since Trump has come back to power, he's massively scaled back aid to Ukraine and done nothing but talk to little effect.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2026/feb/24/four-years-of-war-in-ukraine-in-pictures
Could and should Europe do more, yes it should. But European leaders are at least grounded in reality that they understand Putin is not interested in a peace that will be remotely acceptable to Ukraine (and yes both they and Ukraine understand their not going to get everything they want).
Yes they could theoretically do more, but only through NATO which the US has mostly funded. By themselves Europe won’t risk getting involved in a ground war with Russia. It’s all hot air. Their most recent failure to attach Putin’s assets is a measure of their impotence.
Lots of hot air while boys are dying with no prospect of a better result. Even if the propaganda machine insists that’s helping the Ukraine, it’s not. Will Europe rebuild their cities, I doubt it.
Pretending to be tough with the lives of others and with no actionable plan to change the result.
Yes they could theoretically do more, but only through NATO which the US has mostly funded.
Yet somehow Europe has kept Ukraine going even after America stopped providing aid.
By themselves Europe won’t risk getting involved in a ground war with Russia.
You say that like the American's are any different.
It’s all hot air. Their most recent failure to attach Putin’s assets is a measure of their impotence.
Ah the Ostrich technique of sticking your head in the ground and shouting lalalala, I already told you that Europe found another way of funding Ukraine. But talking of hot air, how did ending the war on day 1 go again?
Lots of hot air while boys are dying with no prospect of a better result. Even if the propaganda machine insists that’s helping the Ukraine, it’s not.
It's a propaganda machine eh. I can guarantee you the average Ukrainian be they military personal or civilian has a lot higher regard for European support then do for Trump's surrender plan. You of course have to believe they can't get a better result because you know how terrible Trump's plan is, again another coping mechanism. Ukraine give's up its strongest defensive card on a trust me bro from Donald Trump a senile moron a man with the attention span of a goldfish and who breaks his word on the drop of a dime and Vladimir Putin a murderous dictator who has already broken numerous agreements with Ukraine.
Will Europe rebuild their cities, I doubt it.
Of course it will and Europe has already committed too doing it. The estimated cost is going to be over €500 billion Euro's over 10 years to do so. Between January and October 2025 Europe gave Ukraine almost €76 billion in aid, so don't try and tell me the numbers aren't manageable.
Pretending to be tough with the lives of others and with no actionable plan to change the result.
Again this ignorant disrespect you show towards Ukraine is telling. Ukraine chooses to fight not because others are pretending to be tough, They know their very existence is at stake and they know Trump's plan is a pile of shit. Surrender is not an actionable plan.
Ah the Ostrich technique of sticking your head in the ground and shouting lalalala, I already told you that Europe found another way of funding Ukraine. But talking of hot air, how did ending the war on day 1 go again?
It’s not just a question of funding, it’s the impact of seizing Russian assets. But of course the little men in suits are concerned that would set a bad precedent for the Theme Park’s banks….so they limit themselves to interest. You are so confident but so clueless.
Surrender is not an actionable plan
Surrender later is a worse plan and unless French and heaven forbid Irish boys are willing to fight, that’s what is going to happen.
Speaking about Ireland, there’s this:
The Government’s financial contributions to Ukraine are “well below” the amount of support provided by most other European Union states, including countries with smaller economies than Ireland, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs’ top civil servant.
Internal correspondence between Government departments, seen by The Irish Times, acknowledged the State has extended far less financial aid to Kyiv, since Russia’s full-scale invasion four years ago, when compared with many other European countries.
Joe Hackett, Department of Foreign Affairs secretary general, sought space in the budget for a further €100 million package of “non-lethal” military aid for Kyiv, in an August 28th, 2025 letter to his counterpart, David Moloney, in the Department of Public Expenditure.
The letter said while the Republic’s support to Ukraine was “substantial”, it was “well below the contributions of most EU member states, including many with smaller economies”.
It’s not just a question of funding, it’s the impact of seizing Russian assets. But of course the little men in suits are concerned that would set a bad precedent for the Theme Park’s banks….so they limit themselves to interest. You are so confident but so clueless.
What impact would that be, Ukraine is still getting the financial support it needs. The EU have made it perfectly clear that those assets will remain frozen until after Russia pays reparations to Ukraine, and those reparations are going to be a lot more than what the the total value of the frozen assets. While I don't agree with the decision not to unfreeze the assets myself I do note your scorn for countries following the rule of law. As for confident yet clueless, if a face could be put on the Dunning-Kruger Effect it would be yours.
Surrender later is a worse plan and unless French and heaven forbid Irish boys are willing to fight, that’s what is going to happen.
I'd like to give you some credit and say Putin's sold you the myth of inevitable Russian victory, but going by the extreme disingenuous of your arguments, we all know you don't give a shit about Ukraine or it's people, you want them to take Trump's deal regardless of how it turns out just so you can say Trump got it done so suck it Europe. It's 100% political ideology with you. You have to believe Ukraine will lose because that way you don't have to look at the content of the deal because it reflects so awfully on Trump and by extension MAGA America. Looking forward to the faux outrage.
Speaking about Ireland, there’s this:
By all mean's Ireland should be doing more, I've said that in the past. But we are not an active hindrance unlike the Trump administration. Ukraine, Europe, Ireland, myself we are all grateful for the American aid that was delivered under the Biden administration, which the Trump administration's and its sycophants like yourself have so unjustly demanded credit for. Shall we compare Ireland's relatively small contribution to Ukraine, to the Trump administration war profiteering from Ukraine, how many billions has Trump extracted from Europe in weapons sales to give to Ukraine and at a 10% mark up. War profiteering, disgusting, truly the lowest of the low.
Trump, Vance and MAGA are a celebration of darkness, anger, fear & resentment.
Goppies, what kind of America do you want to live in?
photograph of Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin, above another of Trump and a grandchild, in the Palm Room of the White House on Tuesday.
Ironically, the president of the United States — the country that did more than any other to shape the post-1945 international order — is now the most prominent of the demolition men,” the authors wrote. “As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the postwar international order is now under destruction.”
“Under Donald Trump,” they said, “the United States has largely abandoned the role of the ‘leader of the free world.’”
European Security experts….you mean the guys who came up with the model that Europe could pay 30% of their own defense while America pays 70%?
While I don't agree with the decision not to unfreeze the assets myself I do note your scorn for countries following the rule of law.
What do you note…..the politicians unwilling to do what we both agree is right…or the application of the rule of law, a concept that doesn’t apply to a nation that illegally attacks a neighbor, to defend the assets of the aggressor? Is the rule of law defending Ukranian cities?
the extreme disingenuous of your arguments
You do butcher the language when you get excited. But not disingenuous, the most probable result without intervention.
By all mean's Ireland should be doing more,
Stop there, no need for the diversions. And much of the little Ireland the tax haven contributes is just redirected American tax payer money. Will you also finally admit the Irish President sending condolences to Germany for the death of Hitler is a stain on the nation?
"Here’s the thing, there isn’t a South African on this Board who doesn’t condemn Apartheid today"
I'm not convinced that the statement is true, few have, but to say everyone has is a bit of a stretch, if anything most have continued in silence.
'Yes, but how many of those always condemned apartheid? That's the question.'
Remember Sharkie?
He, 'Twilly' and yourself were the only ones I can remember condemning Apartheid.
.you mean the guys who came up with the model that Europe could pay 30% of their own defense while America pays 70%?
As if that 70% of American military spending is all directed towards Europe, such brainless nonsense. Tell me again how the US operation in Venezuela to remove a dictator to leave his second in command in place was money spent defending Europe. From what I can find, the US directs about 5-10% of its military budget towards Europe. So its more like Europe pays for 86% of its own defence spending assuming the US sends the upper end of 10% and this before we get to something else you conveniently ignore the fact that a not insubstantial part of European defence spending is used to purchase America equipment.
Come back if you want another schooling.
You do butcher the language when you get excited. But not disingenuous, the most probable result without intervention.
A Ukrainian surrender isn't actually that high a probability. A worse outcome than what's on offer is possible but again unlikely considering what's on offer is so bad.
stop there, no need for the diversions. And much of the little Ireland the tax haven contributes is just redirected American tax payer money. Will you also finally admit the Irish President sending condolences to Germany for the death of Hitler is a stain on the nation?
What's the matter, you love historical diversions that are unrelated to the topic at hand. It's fair criticism to note Ireland's relatively small contribution to Ukrainian aid (outside of taking in refugees) and it's relevant to the topic, just as relevant for me to point out that the Trump administration is happy to profiteer from the war. Care to call out that present stain on your nation?
Remember Sharkie?
He, 'Twilly' and yourself were the only ones I can remember condemning Apartheid
I have condemend Apartheid a few times on this forum already, and I remember that so has Draad more than once.... not that it matters at all really, because it actually doesn't.
For example....most people on this forum haven't at some point openly condemned Hitler and what he did to the millions of Jews, but that does not make me automatically think that they then supported what Hitler did then... or even now....
It would be a very stupid assumption to think that people who have not yet come out on this forum and outright or openly condemned Apartheid, must have in some way supported it then and still do now....
Like a lot of people, they might not just want to get involved with something so sensitive.
"Remember Sharkie?
He, 'Twilly' and yourself were the only ones I can remember condemning Apartheid."
I can specifically remember Pakie and myself doing so...I also apologized and voiced my regret that it ever happened...as I'm sure DA also did numerous times ..Ou Maaik was against it since I can remember, was even a member of the ANC...I wonder if anyone of the ANC supporters will ever have the guts to apologize for the atrocious failure the so called liberators turned out to be...rebooted Apartheid met n mombakkies and called it freedom...neglecting the masses on a larger scale than ever before... destroying a fantastic country in the process...trane...
I wonder if anyone of the ANC supporters will ever have the guts to apologize for the atrocious failure the so called liberators turned out to be...rebooted Apartheid met n mombakkies and called it freedom...neglecting the masses on a larger scale than ever before... destroying a fantastic country in the process...trane...
Yep, true words
Turnaround is fair play….so let me school you a bit Paddy.Here is a pretty decent Trump comment on European military spending:
Trump had the obvious answer to the Journal: “We protect them. They don’t protect us.” He added ominously, “I’m not sure we should be spending anything at all.” After all, take a look at geography. “Europe is in for a tiny fraction of the money that we’re in [for],” declared Trump: “We have a thing called the ocean in between us, right? Why are we in for billions and billions of dollars more money than Europe?” Which is why the world, though seeming more dangerous and frightening than ever, is not particularly dangerous or frightening for America. Russia isn’t going to attack America. China isn’t going to attack America. Iran isn’t going to attack America. Nor is North Korea going to attack America. The chief responsibility to defend those who fear being attacked—European states, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and South Korea—falls on them. If they feel more vulnerable, they should be spending more, much more, than America on the military.
But you probably won’t read that, you are just too Woke to take on any Trump comment, so let’s look at your’s:
As if that 70% of American military spending is all directed towards Europe, such brainless nonsense
No 70% is directed at the joint defense of the Treaty countries, but as the Ukraine demonstrates, Europe is likely to be a disproportionately high recipient. Still your argument is that money the US spends to be the world’s strongest military power doesn’t make Europe safer. Not something many would agree with, but let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion:
According to Chat the US is 15% to 25% of direct spending for Europe, as large as Germany.
Now, what does Europe contribute directly to direct Defense of the USA?
Essentially none.
European governments do not pay into the U.S. Department of Defense budget and do not fund:
So Europe’s direct financial contribution to defending U.S. territory = near zero.
……
Are you schooled….the US provides $100 billion a year for Europe directly ….Europe provides nothing for the USA. The USA provides blanket spending equal to 70% of NATO….Europe and Canada provide blanket spending of 30%. That blanket spending has massive security implications not zero as you assume.
Europe is massively beholden to the US, this unequal relationship has been funded by the US tax payer for 80 years. The dumb Yanks are your benefactors in an act of generosity unequalled in history.
Trump had the obvious answer to the Journal: “We protect them. They don’t protect us.” He added ominously, “I’m not sure we should be spending anything at all.” After all, take a look at geography. “Europe is in for a tiny fraction of the money that we’re in [for],” declared Trump: “We have a thing called the ocean in between us, right? Why are we in for billions and billions of dollars more money than Europe?” Which is why the world, though seeming more dangerous and frightening than ever, is not particularly dangerous or frightening for America. Russia isn’t going to attack America. China isn’t going to attack America. Iran isn’t going to attack America. Nor is North Korea going to attack America. The chief responsibility to defend those who fear being attacked—European states, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and South Korea—falls on them. If they feel more vulnerable, they should be spending more, much more, than America on the military.
So who came calling when the US triggered article 5 of NATO?
As for the US protecting Europe. Not under Trump, its cut off aid and pressured Europe into a bad deal. At the first sign of serious issue in Europe and the US might have to go up something more challenging than curb stomping some third world countries palace army, the US chickens and runs.
No 70% is directed at the joint defense of the Treaty countries, but as the Ukraine demonstrates, Europe is likely to be a disproportionately high recipient. Still your argument is that money the US spends to be the world’s strongest military power doesn’t make Europe safer. Not something many would agree with, but let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion:
Oh's off on another strawman.
Now, what does Europe contribute directly to direct Defense of the USA?
Do you think the European forces what deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the United States cost nothing to be deployed.
Do you think the consequences of America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't have indirect consequences for Europe that didn't cost them money
Tell me in the last 50 years how many American's have died in European conflicts? A handful (mostly in training accidents and friendly fire incidents) Because about 1,200 Europeans have died in America war's in addition to suffering around 10,000 casualties. Tell me what's the monetary value of those lives in dollars? What about the civilian lives lost sustained when US wars caused a surge of terrorism in mainland Europe. What about the knock affects of America's war that contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe.
Europe is massively beholden to the US, this unequal relationship has been funded by the US tax payer for 80 years. The dumb Yanks are your benefactors in an act of generosity unequalled in history.
The US built the current global world order and financial system, a system that's kept them at the top for around 80 years. US military spending while having security benefits to US allies up till now was never spent with that purpose in mind, that was secondary and also beneficial to the US. It was of course spent primarily to keep America as the unchallenged global military super power as well as maintain massive political influence in several key regions in the world.
Now some in the US are worried about the level of debt it's sustained and want to blame the rest of the world for the US living beyond it's mean's. So they are happy that a incredible obnoxious moron with a laughably simplistic view of economics is now trying to bully and blackmail the world into bailing them out of the hole they perceive themselves to be in but are somehow shocked that the rest of the world think's they're assholes.
Do you think the European forces what deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in support of the United States cost nothing to be deployed.
I think those costs are general NATOcosts….they have nothing to do with the defense of USA domestically. And the European costs there were a fraction of the American costs….try again.
Tell me in the last 50 years how many American's have died in European conflicts? A handful (mostly in training accidents and friendly fire incidents) Because about 1,200 Europeans have died in America war's in addition to suffering around 10,000 casualties. Tell me what's the monetary value of those lives in dollars? What about the civilian lives lost sustained when US wars caused a surge of terrorism in mainland Europe. What about the knock affects of America's war that contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe.
Tell me how many Americans died in WW2? Tell me how many Irishmen died in WW2. Tell me why America got into Vietnam in the first place….try again
So they are happy that a incredible obnoxious moron with a laughably simplistic view of economics is now trying to bully and blackmail the world into bailing them out of the hole they perceive themselves to be in but are somehow shocked that the rest of the world think's they're assholes.
The incredibly obnoxious moron is running rings around the little men in suits.
…….
You haven’t explained why 80 years of supporting Europe’s internal defense at $100 billion a year in current dollars….$ 8 trillion …..shouldn’t deserve a bit of gratitude.
I think those costs are general NATOcosts….they have nothing to do with the defense of USA domestically.
You think, that's convenient.
Okay so when since World War 2 has the domestic United States been under the threat of an attack by anyone, tell you what when the North Korean's invade Red Dawn Remake style Europe will come and help you defend.
What non existent threat was Europe suppose to help you defend against?
Tell me how many Americans died in WW2? Tell me how many Irishmen died in WW2. Tell me why America got into Vietnam in the first place….try again
About 420,000 or 0.32 of its then population. Irish numbers are not so clear, I've seen numbers range from 5,000 to 10,000 so between 0.17% and 0.34% of it's then population. Try again.
American got involved in Vietnam because it wanted to prevent a communist take over of Vietnam that they viewed would trigger a domino like fall of other south east Asian countries to communism.
The incredibly obnoxious moron is running rings around the little men in suits.
LOL, just LOL.
You haven’t explained why 80 years of supporting Europe’s internal defense at $100 billion a year in current dollars….$ 8 trillion …..shouldn’t deserve a bit of gratitude.
Can you come up with a less bullshit number please. Europe was and is grateful to the support US gave Europe over the years, but lets not pretend for a second the United States did not benefit from the arrangement as well nor does previous US defence spending in Europe give the current administration the right to blackmail Europe.
American got involved in Vietnam because it wanted to prevent a communist take over of Vietnam that they viewed would trigger a domino like fall of other south east Asian countries to communism.
And why was that deemed necessary ….because the Frogs were in desperate trouble and once again the US had to come in and take over from these perennial losers.
Can you come up with a less bullshit number please. Europe was and is grateful to the support US gave Europe over the years, but lets not pretend for a second the United States did not benefit from the arrangement as well
Certainly…..let me help:
We have already established the US is paying $100 billion a year in 2025 dollars for strictly European defense. And has taken on this burden since WW2 for 80 years. In the absence of a deep search to establish the number for each year, let’s assume it’s $100 billion in 2026 dollars.
If those numbers were in actual dollars and invested they would increase at a rate reflecting inflation and a real return. To simplify we assume the rate of inflation at 3.6% and a starting equivalent of $5.9 billion, the inflation adjusted number for $100 billion today.
So if the US chose to invest the money it spent on Europe the $ 5.9 billion a year would grow at 3.6% plus a real growth number. Let’s pick 4% as a reasonable real growth.
‘
So rather than nothing the US could now have the cumulative value of $5.9 billion invested inflated at a rate of 3.6% to keep up with inflation.
If the US made those inflation adjusted payments this is the result:
If something cost:
Then over 1945–2025 the cumulative equivalent spending would total:
? $2.7 trillion
with a 2025 annual equivalent of about $100–105B/year
Magically the formula produces exactly the amount the US is providing in 2025 for all European defense.
But of course if it didn’t give all that money to Europe it could have been invested …..let’s say at a real return (return above inflation) of 4%. Here’s the value of the reinvested European defense money, reinvested at 4%.
If payments starting at $5.9B in 1945 and rising 3.6% annually were invested at 4%,
the cumulative value by 2025 would be roughly:
$9–9.5 trillionBut one wonders, what the resulting number have been if those funds had simply been reinvested at the real (after inflation) growth of the US stock market between those years.
What would that be? This is Chat’s conclusion:
Chat estimates the real rate of growth at 7%, achievable by simply investing funds given to Europe in the broadest basket of American companies.
Now suppose we go back to the model and use the attainable 7% real investment rate for the funds diverted from European defense. What would that number be? Here is your answer:
And it’s a stunner. By simply diverting US tax payer dollars from European defense into investments in the S&P 500, the US would now have $38 trillion dollars
You fuckers owe us $38 trillion of gratitude.
And magically again, there is this:
As of late 2025 and early 2026, the U.S. national debt has surpassed
$38 trillion. This amount represents the total outstanding borrowing by the federal government, with a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 120%. The debt has grown significantly due to a structural imbalance between federal spending and revenue.
Peter G. Peterson Foundation +4
If we had simply left Europe to pay for all of it’s own exclusive defense, rather than sharing about a quarter of that burden, and invested those funds in our own companies…..THE WHOLE US NATIONAL DEBT WOULD BE WIPED OUT.
This is the model Donald Trump should share with the little men in suits. No hyperbole, just the numbers. THEY SPEAK VOLUMES