- cross-posted to:
- greenandpleasant
- cross-posted to:
- greenandpleasant
You must log in or register to comment.
This is an article intending to manufacture consent for larger military spending even as the UK public watches the NHS get slowly privatized right in front of them through ubderfunding. Observe the pattern of sourcing, of who gets a voice, and why this article was written in the first place.
It is a double edged sword. On the one side it’s the neoliberal agenda coming from Washington telling its European lackeys “Don’t spend on the people, spend on the military to keep funding the military-industrial complex” and on the other hand it’s material reality showing itself of a debilitated Europe who has accustomed to get its fair share through colonialist and extractionists policies enforced by the bigger player, the US, and now has end up without neither a strong military nor economical presence in the global sphere.
The British army only needs to be strong enough to perform its two real roles: performative presence to lend ‘international’ credibility to American projects, and suppressing the people of the British Isles.
These articles are in every country’s news media these days. The military industrial complex pushing tax payers in every country to ever increase their revenues.
I’ve only seen this kind of news regarding countries with imperial past, I have not seen much of “Raise the funds that go to the Bolivian Army” kind of stuff. Go figure.
In Canada it is non stop.
Nice. Do you have an article? It would be soothing for me to see that my country isn’t the only one with a shitty army.
The UK kas nukes, they don’t need an army. There’s never been a country with nukes that’s had their mainland invaded.
Nukes don’t matter when the UK isn’t being directly invaded. They can never use nukes in a war that does not involve their possible destruction.
Agree. It’s an easily defended island, the days of having a standing army of 100k are well over.
It’s going to be AI and drones, not boots on the ground.
NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It’s meant to be a collective defense. What’s happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.
It’s something the US has basically enforced, it’s their excuse to things like military bases in Okinawa, which goes against Japan’s ideas of not having an army (even though the JSDF has broken this promise of sorts). More military spending it’s not going to bring any good to anyone, specially coming from Europe and its record, specially the Brits.
More military spending it’s not going to bring any good to anyone, specially coming from Europe and its record, specially the Brits.
Ask the Ukrainians how they feel about the Brits rn
Ask any of this countries, also include a couple more, Argentina specially, and since we’re are it include all of Latin America since nobody wants them here, how they feel about the Brits. Ah, yeah, I forgot, one European country counts as x100 in contrast with a shitty third world country like ours in your book.
Argentina? Lol. You invaded UK territory that has oil reserves, what did you expect? A cucumber sandwich and some tea?
Neighbours mean more than strangers, pre Russian invasion no one really cared about Ukraine either. But when they asked for help in 2014 the UK, Canada etc helped.
The fucking what? How the hell is a fucking island that is next to my country UK territory you imperialist apologiser, you literally invaded as that’s the only thing you have done in the last 300 years and all of a sudden is our fault? What a way to justify yourself, give back the fucking Malvinas. You have the more twisted mental gymnastics to justify the robbery of land, don’t you?
Of course, because fascists with imperial past like to help out modern fascists.
Didn’t the people living there want to stay part of the UK?
Ultimately that should be what decides it in all situations really, not stuff that happened in the past.
Ok, so we can claim any territory as long as it’s next door? Pretty sure Germany tried that.
Btw your sarcasm detector is broken mate.
Also
The National Reorganization Process (Spanish: Proceso de Reorganización Nacional, often simply el Proceso, “the Process”) was the military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, which received support from the United States until 1982.
Actual fascists…lol
😂
Ok, so we can claim any territory as long as it’s next door?
when the brits stole that land it wasn’t even next door
We’ve had multiple presidents get on their soapbox about defense budgets in Europe. One fat orange man in particular. He’s a corrupt idiot but he wasn’t wrong about that. The NATO % GDP benchmark is not onerous. Only military capability will deter some actors as clearly evidenced most recently in Ukraine.
Left wing liberals agreeing with right wing liberals when it is convenient for them. A tale as old as gold.
Only military capability will deter some actors as clearly evidenced most recently in Ukraine.
the ukraine was invaded therefore more military spending would deter russians from invading the ukraine?
Has Russia invaded a NATO country? No
Should Europe have done more in 2014? Yes
Would Ukraine have been destroyed if they hadn’t received training from NATO members since 2014? Maybe
Ukraine is not a NATO member.
Yet
NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It’s meant to be a collective defense. What’s happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.
I’m fine with NATO members relying on the US defense budget as long as they spend their money on socialist programs at home. The US could provide the best socialist safety net on the planet, and still outspend the rest of the world 40:1 on defense if it would just tax the rich. Tax capitol gains like income as well, and 80% tax on everything over 20 million a year, 95% tax on everything over 200 million a year, and 99% tax on everything over 1 billion a year.
Boom now we can do the best socialized medicine on the plan and have enough left over to build a couple hundred new NATO bases where ever member states want them.
Welfare programs in capitalist countries are not socialism. “Socialism program” would be collectivisiation of the means of production.
deleted by creator
Socialism according to leftcoms.
deleted by creator
Whether you like Assad or not, bad things mysteriously happen to those who say he has to go. I’d rather not take the gamble.
deleted by creator
You want to abolish commodity production in the low phase of socialism? Lol.
deleted by creator
The material reality of each country calls for specific actions according to the specific needs of that territory, there is no ordered check list a socialist country needs to achieve to be considered one.
deleted by creator
Welfare programs in capitalist countries can be socialism.
No, by definition they aren’t. You added the “-ism” incorrectly, you should stop at “social programs”.
Sure they are.
Must of missed the whole market socialism thing in the Nordics and under Blair in the UK?
Market socialism examples are Yugoslavia and Poland in the 70’s. Nordics have capitalism with (currently being cut) social safety nets, one of prime characteristics of socialdemocracy, ideology that do not promote socialism but capitalism with “human face”, as Nomad said, based on Keynes work. Blair and his followers in many countries went much off even that into the neoliberalism.
Yep, I was wrong.
That’s not market socialism, at best it’s called Keynesianism.
Yeah you’re right. I think it originated from Adam Smith? Vietnam would probably be described as market socialist
The Nordic model has social policies
Blair described his as an alternative to socialism
In the United Kingdom, Third Way social-democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism and said: “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice. … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly.”[7] Blair referred to it as a “social-ism” involving politics that recognised individuals as socially interdependent and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen and equal opportunity.
You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of socialism. I think most people would not use the term as narrow as you do no matter what quoted text you are about to post in response.
Oh? Share yours then so we can compare.
From simple Wikipedia: “Socialism is a political ideology that aims to make people equal. It generally focuses on equality of wealth (eg. similar wages, housing, education, healthcare), although since the 1960s, it has often focused on equality of power. It is normally considered left-wing, because it seeks to change society.”
