The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine?
Are you implying that two different countries facing the same threat should be treated exactly the same?
Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.
Again. You have proposed a catch-22. You are only accepting a valid joining of NATO if a country is undergoing conflict, however NATO does not accept nations that are currently undergoing conflict. Surely you understand that is essentially a declaration of war for all members against the other party.
In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.
I am still waiting for you to provide some historical examples that show how feasible it is for you to require examples of things that were prevented by deterrence. By definition deterrence inhibits behavior. You will not see inhibited behavior, because it is…inhibited.
If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine
Goalposts moved - initial claim was that the US defense budget protects european countries, not all European countries. If that was the case, even Russia would be included as needing American protection.
How many historical examples of this can you come up with, across the world? I’m currently thinking that’s an unreasonable set of requirements.
In my books, having the big gun in the room is deterrence. You don’t need for someone to attempt shit for it to count as deterrence - if nobody is stupid enough to try anything at all you have successfully deterred others.
Once a country is involved in a conflict, they cannot join NATO. You are proposing a logical catch 22 in which countries that join NATO only do so out of fear mongering (in your opinion), and countries that actually are involved in conflicts cannot join NATO, and thus will not be protected by the US. Finally, NATO countries aren’t being attacked, so unless you recognize the value of deterrence, there will never really be a chance to provide examples that fit into the framework you’ve set up.
I hope you do recognize the value of deterrence, and I also hope you recognize someone can’t provide examples of things that were prevented due to deterrence, since they never happened.
I’d argue that the additional funding has allowed the US to leverage the investments they’ve previously paid for in their regular budget to help Ukraine.
You cannot throw the money congress has budgeted for Ukraine at a vacuum to get nearly as much support - you need the logistics of a ready to go military industrial complex that everyone loves to hate.
I’m glad tipping culture isn’t required for you. I agree with the cons of tipping. If you have practical advice I will consider it, but I don’t think not tipping workers who are currently depending on the tip for income is the play. I do not have a magic wand that will change payment schemes. I can lower said unpredictability by not tipping at all I suppose, but that doesn’t seem the right approach either.
Fwiw, tipping based on price is probably intended to be a heuristic for tipping based on volume or difficulty - someone who orders 4 meals from McDonald’s should tip more than someone who orders one.