View Poll Results: Should the US charge nations for protection?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 61.54%
  • No

    5 38.46%
  • Other (please state)

    0 0%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Charge Nations For Protection?

  1. #11
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Charge Nations For Protection?

    Absolutely if they can afford to pay...but I want to add we need to get out of the business of protecting everyone else..

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Charge Nations For Protection?

    Well... we already do, just not in obvious ways. We have strategic and/or economic power over the places we provide protection to.

    It does seem like a bit of a cop out though to go after our protectorates and treaty allies for money because we put ourselves in a risky financial situation.

    We can't back out of our treaty commitments.

  3. #13
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,248

    Re: Charge Nations For Protection?

    The US has been running a protection racket for years. How would this new extortion scheme be different?
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Charge Nations For Protection?

    The problem would be how to determine what "protection" was in the interest of the defended nation and what was in the interest of the US?

    Then it would also come down to how much was the protection needed if at all. Is the US defending France from any real threat for example, or Germany for that matter? South Korea definately faces a realistic threat from NK, but SK should be able to win in any war with NK (at high levels of loses) without aid from US forces. (US forces are an added deterent)

    Japan has not faced a realistic threat since the decline of the USSR. Taiwan does gain benifits from its association with the US, but if I am not mistaken US presence in Taiwan is very limited, meaning low actual cost to the US
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  5. #15
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: Charge Nations For Protection?

    I think we should just cut foreign aide altogether.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  6. #16
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Charge Nations For Protection?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Tonight I was having a discussion with friends about the national debt and the ways to potentially solve it and one of my friends bought up the subject that the US should go and charge nations such as Great Britain, France, and Japan for the US protecting them. I thought about it for a bit and realized that he does in fact have a point. The US has been underwriting the security of Europe, Japan, and several other nations for decades and it may be time that they pay us back.

    What do the rest of you think?
    No, because:

    1. The US isn't protecting them out of the goodness of its heart. It's protecting them because it believes that it is in the geopolitical interests of the United States to do so (or in the personal political interests of US politicians). As such, you might as well propose that those nations start charging the US for the opportunity to fulfill its geopolitical ambitions.

    2. The US already charges them, in the form of diplomatic/political support. Anytime a national leader reconsiders his position on an issue for fear of pissing off his greatest ally, the United States, the US has charged that nation.

    3. Our foreign policy is already disgusting enough as it is. Do we really want to literally get in the business of protecting loathesome regimes in exchange for money? How does that make us any better than the mafia?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •