Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

At the end of the day it just doesn’t matter whether these countries buy F-35s or not except as additional profit streams for US defense companies and in some ways it’s good that they are looking to buy EU jets instead since the EU needs to invest more in its “domestic” defense industry.

Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic.

Canada is going to buy still*

* https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-...

View on HN

1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?

2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.

1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?

How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.

And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?

2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.

They’ll buy. Also the OP said

“Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.”

Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.

>How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.

It's a perfect argument. You declared that Spain (and Portugal) would likely not help in a NATO action. Yet, recent history proves you directly and unequivocally wrong. Spanish blood was spilled to prove that point, so maybe have some respect?

>How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.

>...

>And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?

You answered your own question. Well done.

Note: I'm not supporting their decision, just pointing out that it's arguably quite rational from a certain point of view.

Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.

> It's a perfect argument. You declared that Spain (and Portugal) would likely not help in a NATO action. Yet, recent history proves you directly and unequivocally wrong. Spanish blood was spilled to prove that point, so maybe have some respect?

Not all wars are created equal. It’s not the same thing. You either are unrealistic about how the world works or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

> Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.

> Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.

Canada’s military

> we Strongly recommend and encourage buying F-35s

But hey you know at least I provided a source… so I’ll just throw the OP’s claim away since they are unable to provide a source.

> You answered your own question. Well done.

Yes, and it demonstrated the point that I made. QED

>Not all wars are created equal. It’s not the same thing. You either are unrealistic about how the world works or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

It's very simple. You said you didn't think Spain would ever "fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere". I pointed out that recent history unequivocally proves you wrong. But instead of conceding the point you're changing the criteria to some imaginary scenario that makes it impossible for anyone to counter-argue.

So yes, you're right... I have no idea how Spain would respond to some imaginary scenario playing out in your head right now. But I do know what their actual, historical record is. There are dead and maimed soldiers that prove it.

It's such a disgrace for American civilians to make up some vague hidden criteria for why allied deaths and injuries don't "count". Furthermore, it's exactly this kind of demeaning talk that might makes allies not want to help in the future.

>Yes, and it demonstrated the point that I made.

Lol. Sure.

There is a lot more proof for the Europeans fighting alongside the USA than for the reverse if we ignore WWII. And even in WWII the USA would have stayed out much longer if not for Pearl Harbor.

I don’t really know what you mean, nor why we would selectively exclude the most important war which requires the most contributions from any nation, but regardless past actions don’t guarantee future actions.

But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example. So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.

> I don’t really know what you mean

That's ok.

> nor why we would selectively exclude the most important war which requires the most contributions from any nation

Because the United States from back then is completely gone now.

All that's left is people who had nothing to do with it claiming the heritage while acting in the opposite spirit.

> But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example.

Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.

> So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.

No, let's not.

> Because the United States from back then is completely gone now.

Aaaand Europe from then is different too? Poor argument.

> Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.

Please do us a favor and read the OP. I didn’t bring up Switzerland, I responded to the OP.

> No, let's not.

So don’t do it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com