[go: up one dir, main page]

Humanius

  • 10 Posts
  • 583 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • NATO’s troop presence peaked in 2011, with more than 130,000 foreign troops from 51 allied and partner countries in Afghanistan. Since 2003, NATO has trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan troops and police officers, including establishing an Afghan air force.

    The international military coalition has suffered over 3,500 fatalities since 2001, among them around 2,400 Americans, according to U.S. Congress data. More than 20,000 U.S. troops were wounded in action. The website www.icasulaties.org, puts the total number of fatalities at 3,577. Tens of thousands of Afghan police and soldiers were killed.

    From your own source…

    Stop pretending America’s allies did not do anything in Afghanistan. It is disrespectful to the veterans and those that lost their lives there.


  • It is true that Afghanistan was a direct consequence of the US triggering Article 5 following 9/11, so it makes sense that that would be considered a NATO mission.

    Iraq is not a NATO mission on paper, but NATO allies backing up the US in Iraq is still an example of NATO allies backing up the US militarily as part of the unspoken agreement of NATO.

    The US provides security guarantees for Europe, and in exchange Europe backs up the US in their escapades.





  • NATO being used offensively is part of the unspoken agreement. America would guarantee European defence, and in exchange Europe would back America up in their many escapades around the world.

    Trump has repeatedly threatened not to come to Europe’s defence in case of a Russian invasion, and has even threatened to invade a fellow NATO member himself. He also does not treat his European allies as allies, but rather as vassals who have to do exactly as he says. The US and Israel unilaterally invading Iran without discussing this with NATO is another example of that.

    This kind of behaviour erodes the trust and goodwill that the NATO alliance is based on. It breaks the unspoken agreement.
    So why would Europe come and rescue the US out of the mess they made?

    Trump gets to slowly figure out what it means for America to lose its soft power.



  • There is also a discussion on whether to (temporarily) lower the fuel tax to lower the cost of petrol here in the Netherlands.

    Basically all experts and institutions point out that blanket lowering the fuel tax will cost the government a lot of money (through lost tax revenue), while disproportionally helping the middle and upper classes. These people can eat the higher cost of petrol without getting into financial trouble.

    It also doesn’t really incentivise people to drive less or travel with alternative modes of transport (public transport, bikes, alternative vehicles with better fuel mileage), even though in the face of fuel shortages that would be good policy.

    A more effective solution that gets proposed would be a energy subsidy to people with low income, who would otherwise get into trouble paying the bills. Everyone else would basically just have to ride it out and pay the higher prices until things normalize again.




  • Ranked choice voting is more relevant for elections where one winner must take all (for instance presidential elections or voting districts with only one representative) which will always suffer from not being able to represent everyone

    Direct proportional representation gets around that problem by avoiding situations where one person has to “win” an election

    As for the president problem, you can get around that by simply not having a president with any meaningful power. The prime minister can be appointed by the cabinet, and the head of state (be it king or president) can be a purely ceremonial role.


  • Direct proportional representation, like we have in the Netherlands, preferably with minimal seat threshold for a party to get into parliament.

    It doesn’t have regional representation or voting districts, but I don’t think that that really matters much on the national level. Instead you get an as close to accurate as possible representation of which parties the people voted for.

    The low seat threshold also allows people to vote for small parties that may be closer to their political views. And it allows people to feel confident punishing a big party by voting for a close alternative, if they fail to listen to their voters.