Same idea mainly. We project power so much because 1) our GDP is just bigger than everyone elses so a similar percentage pays dividends others cannot hope to match (and it shouldn't be something I have to explain but just in case: BEING THE GUY WITH THE MOST FIREPOWER IS BETTER THAN NOT BEING THAT GUY. THE MORE PRONOUNCED THE ADVANTAGE THE LESS LIKELY YOU ARE TO BE CHALLENGED) and 2) we prefer wars to occur "over there" not "over here".
I dont think it's that absolute. We spend more to ensure our interests are protected and our enemies are at bay. Assuming that responsibility allows our allies to reduce their contribution and that taxes us more. Do you really believe US allies don't base their military funding on the US's ability to protect them as an ally? It goes both ways.
I understand just fine. Liberal Europeans love to pat themselves on the back for their social programs all while hiding behind the US defense systems that allows them to defer funding. Answer this. If NATO is disbanded... who feels the hurt more. The US or other members?
Clearly no one else does either, looking around at one war and another on the brink.. Hey I get it, good way to funnel money that's the real purpose and the most obvious
It does when the question arose on hamas ended up armed with military weapons, same ones given to the Ukraine's
LOL NATO has no obligation to get involved with what is happening in Ukraine and Israel. Why do you think Finland joined this year? What money is funneled? Are you against your government funding your military?
This thread is about NATO and your post quoted Butterballs post attempting to blame NATO for American weapons ending up in Ukraine and Hamas
Sorry... its an OPEN FORUM and if I wish to mention Afghanistan... I will. Oh, I forgot. Liberals censor free speech anywhere and anytime they want.