European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says EU countries must purchase military equipment made in Europe under a new loan plan meant to help the continent provide for its own security.
If all you have to offer is “weapons are bad,war is bad”, you need to think about the consequences of not re-arming.
Ok, what are the consequences?
The world has relied on America to be the one that is heavily armed so that we can all sit here in Europe and pretend that we don’t need weapons and war is bad.
That’s obviously untrue. The Europeans were involved in a lot of the USA’s wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
We got to feel morally superior and peace loving but in reality we had the biggest kid in the playground on call whenever trouble showed it’s face.
Also untrue. Nobody serious thinks Europeans are “morally superior and peace loving”. What times are you talking about when you say “whenever trouble showed it’s face”?
It reminds me of a friend I used to know who told everyone he didn’t wear a watch because he didn’t need one. He spent all day asking everyone else what the time was. So he did need a watch, it just wasn’t on his wrist.
When has Europe done this?
So when you have a country like Russia invading neighbours and threatening others with their weapons and you don’t have any, what is your solution?
Why are you bringing Russia into it? The von der Leyens and Macrons and Starmers are arming up countries 1000km+ from Russia.
Just to reiterate, I don’t like the fact that weapons are necessary but I will take the lesser of two evils because in one of them, I might not exist anymore.
What’s the greater of two evils? Your case is based on saying it’s better than “the alternative”, but you haven’t made your case because you haven’t said what “the alternative” is. The purpose of weapons is to make people not exist anymore, so obviously the more armed Europe is, the more Europeans get killed; you’d have to have a very short memory not to know this.
I’m answering on faith that you are arguing a sincerely held belief.
It is exactly because Europe remembers what happens when you have an unchecked aggressive neighbour who is better armed than you that rearing is necessary.
You seem to be victim blaming.
“The more armed Europe is the more Europeans get killed.”
Sounds like “we wouldn’t have to kill you if you’d just stop fighting for your survival.”
Against enemies like nazi Germany or nazi Russia you don’t just let them take what they want because they will just keep taking until you have nothing left.
Now the threat IS Russia. It is the fact that you ask why I am bringing them into it that makes me think you either are Russian, are pro Russian, or are trolling me. Why do I bring them in to it? They invaded a country on the edge of the European Union and have shown no honour on the battlefield, committing war crimes. They have a desire to bring back the USSR and many of those countries are now members of the European Union.
They have shown willingness to take what they want, and they want to bring back the USSR.
So more guns means more dead Europeans? Really. Sounds like an argument from Russia to encourage disarming their enemies, because more funds in Europe more likely means a stand off, or fewer dead Europeans and more dead Russians.
P.S. I didn’t say what the alternative is because it is bloody obvious. Obvious to me, to Ukraine, to the USA, to the world leaders, and to Russia, but not you.
How did you come to this conclusion? I don’t see how anyone could realistically believe that.
P.S. I didn’t say what the alternative is because it is bloody obvious. Obvious to me, to Ukraine, to the USA, to the world leaders, and to Russia, but not you.
Your whole point is “we need to take up arms because of the alternative”… but you’re not saying what it is so nobody can possibly be convinced by your prematurely aborted line-of-reasoning.
von de Leyen raised the figure of €850 billion. The money could house 6,500,000 families.
Do you believe that the arms will be used to A) defend the homelands, or B) do things like this and this?
“The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Vladimir Putin
That’s reasonable. Most people believe that.
The alternative is a deeper Russian invasion of Europe.
Oh come on, they failed in three years of trying to invade even half of a country with a smaller GDP than Greece. I’m not gonna be persuaded to support sending nearly a trillion euro to right-wing militaries by that. We both know they’ll use it to project power to the Middle East and Africa.
I might read your links after the Madrid derby finishes up.
Most people in Eastern Europe think about the Soviet occupation as one of the greatest tragedies of modern history. I don’t know which world you live in where they weren’t an oppressive power.
They came raping and pillaging, they took people away in trains never to be seen again, and they ravaged our countries in more ways than one.
And to be honest, Russia is currently doing more than its share of power projection and destabilization in Africa and the Middle East.
Ok, what are the consequences?
That’s obviously untrue. The Europeans were involved in a lot of the USA’s wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Also untrue. Nobody serious thinks Europeans are “morally superior and peace loving”. What times are you talking about when you say “whenever trouble showed it’s face”?
When has Europe done this?
Why are you bringing Russia into it? The von der Leyens and Macrons and Starmers are arming up countries 1000km+ from Russia.
What’s the greater of two evils? Your case is based on saying it’s better than “the alternative”, but you haven’t made your case because you haven’t said what “the alternative” is. The purpose of weapons is to make people not exist anymore, so obviously the more armed Europe is, the more Europeans get killed; you’d have to have a very short memory not to know this.
I’m answering on faith that you are arguing a sincerely held belief.
It is exactly because Europe remembers what happens when you have an unchecked aggressive neighbour who is better armed than you that rearing is necessary. You seem to be victim blaming. “The more armed Europe is the more Europeans get killed.” Sounds like “we wouldn’t have to kill you if you’d just stop fighting for your survival.” Against enemies like nazi Germany or nazi Russia you don’t just let them take what they want because they will just keep taking until you have nothing left.
Now the threat IS Russia. It is the fact that you ask why I am bringing them into it that makes me think you either are Russian, are pro Russian, or are trolling me. Why do I bring them in to it? They invaded a country on the edge of the European Union and have shown no honour on the battlefield, committing war crimes. They have a desire to bring back the USSR and many of those countries are now members of the European Union. They have shown willingness to take what they want, and they want to bring back the USSR.
So more guns means more dead Europeans? Really. Sounds like an argument from Russia to encourage disarming their enemies, because more funds in Europe more likely means a stand off, or fewer dead Europeans and more dead Russians.
P.S. I didn’t say what the alternative is because it is bloody obvious. Obvious to me, to Ukraine, to the USA, to the world leaders, and to Russia, but not you.
How did you come to this conclusion? I don’t see how anyone could realistically believe that.
Your whole point is “we need to take up arms because of the alternative”… but you’re not saying what it is so nobody can possibly be convinced by your prematurely aborted line-of-reasoning.
von de Leyen raised the figure of €850 billion. The money could house 6,500,000 families.
Do you believe that the arms will be used to A) defend the homelands, or B) do things like this and this?
How did I come to that conclusion… “The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Vladimir Putin
And this And this And this etc. etc. etc. Needless to say I am far from the lone conspiracy theorist your are trying to paint me as.
No I think they will be used to defend against things like this
Edit: Oh and since you seem to be deliberately avoiding acknowledging it. The alternative is a deeper Russian invasion of Europe.
That’s reasonable. Most people believe that.
Oh come on, they failed in three years of trying to invade even half of a country with a smaller GDP than Greece. I’m not gonna be persuaded to support sending nearly a trillion euro to right-wing militaries by that. We both know they’ll use it to project power to the Middle East and Africa.
I might read your links after the Madrid derby finishes up.
Most people in Eastern Europe think about the Soviet occupation as one of the greatest tragedies of modern history. I don’t know which world you live in where they weren’t an oppressive power.
They came raping and pillaging, they took people away in trains never to be seen again, and they ravaged our countries in more ways than one.
And to be honest, Russia is currently doing more than its share of power projection and destabilization in Africa and the Middle East.