quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I'm with you on that Ken. I thought they were a part of NATO, which may have American elements but there are a couple of other nations in there who may have a say in that

quote:

Socialism could be good, but it is not a stable system long term.

quote:

Are you not aware that the scandinavian nations, all socialist, have a much lower debt level than the US?

Also you seem to have confused communism and socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Socialism could be good, but it is not a stable system long term.

Which particular periods of instability were you thinking of in Sweden's history, FellowSlave - in contrast to which periods of stability in the USA?

[I think I'm going to enjoy this thread. ]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dolphin2

> " Sweden has been socialist what perhaps 50 years? or more or less 5% of its existence? "

I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't speak on the topic. Sweden NEVER was socialist, for 50 years or even 1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I'm with you on that Ken. I thought they were a part of NATO, which may have American elements but there are a couple of other nations in there who may have a say in that

"Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole...it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom together represent more than 50 per cent of the non-US Allies defence spending, which creates another kind of over-reliance within Europe on a few capable European Allies."

All from the Nato site.

Clearly, neither you nor DomKen paid attention to recent european missions - for example in mali, where the EU lacked cruise missiles, air lift capability, intel, satellite infrastructure, and even ammunition - and relied on the US for these things.
The Europeans have, in general, been slashing defense spending. The French for example had to retrofit american weapons mounts on their fighters as they lacked suitable munitions.

Regardless. There is no question that the bulk of the deterrent effect of nato is provided by the United States.
Within the EU more than 50% of the spending is done by France, the Uk and germany. So if you wish to say that the nordic states also have a reliance on other member nations - I have no problem with that.

The point however remains. That social spending as practices in the nordic area is not long term stable.

quote:

How many people emigrate from USA to UK? Canada? Sweden? Or especially Cuba, for the blowhards who like socialism so much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I'm with you on that Ken. I thought they were a part of NATO, which may have American elements but there are a couple of other nations in there who may have a say in that

"Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole...it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom together represent more than 50 per cent of the non-US Allies defence spending, which creates another kind of over-reliance within Europe on a few capable European Allies."

All from the Nato site.

Clearly, neither you nor DomKen paid attention to recent european missions - for example in mali, where the EU lacked cruise missiles, air lift capability, intel, satellite infrastructure, and even ammunition - and relied on the US for these things.
The Europeans have, in general, been slashing defense spending. The French for example had to retrofit american weapons mounts on their fighters as they lacked suitable munitions.

Regardless. There is no question that the bulk of the deterrent effect of nato is provided by the United States.
Within the EU more than 50% of the spending is done by France, the Uk and germany. So if you wish to say that the nordic states also have a reliance on other member nations - I have no problem with that.

The point however remains. That social spending as practices in the nordic area is not long term stable.

That's all very interesting but Sweden and Finland are not in NATO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dolphin2

> " Sweden has been socialist what perhaps 50 years? or more or less 5% of its existence? "

I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't speak on the topic. Sweden NEVER was socialist, for 50 years or even 1.

Socialism is an economic and political system where means of production are in public ownership, and the entire economy is centrally planned. NEITHER has ever been true in Sweden.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

I'm with you on that Ken. I thought they were a part of NATO, which may have American elements but there are a couple of other nations in there who may have a say in that

"Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole...it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom together represent more than 50 per cent of the non-US Allies defence spending, which creates another kind of over-reliance within Europe on a few capable European Allies."

All from the Nato site.

Clearly, neither you nor DomKen paid attention to recent european missions - for example in mali, where the EU lacked cruise missiles, air lift capability, intel, satellite infrastructure, and even ammunition - and relied on the US for these things.
The Europeans have, in general, been slashing defense spending. The French for example had to retrofit american weapons mounts on their fighters as they lacked suitable munitions.

Regardless. There is no question that the bulk of the deterrent effect of nato is provided by the United States.
Within the EU more than 50% of the spending is done by France, the Uk and germany. So if you wish to say that the nordic states also have a reliance on other member nations - I have no problem with that.

The point however remains. That social spending as practices in the nordic area is not long term stable.

That's all very interesting but Sweden and Finland are not in NATO.

Which is irrelevent.
The EU have mutual self defense treaties, treating an attack on one as an attack on all. Since NATO nations also have self defense treaties, an attack on, for example Sweden would indeed bring NATO (and the US) into the war.

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

You really can't google?

The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity of the Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU))

Among others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874
Whether or not it would be easier on your wallet or not, would surely depend on whether you are sick or have an ongoing illness that requires a long course of treatment ?