Hacker News Reader

> What's the point of a defense treaty with a partner that has demonstrated itself to be completely untrustworthy?

Some NATO member states until recently were actively avoiding meeting their defense spending commitments as agreed to in the treaty. Would that indicate that they were untrustworthy or unreliable?

> Also, it's spending rather than funding.

Care to explain the difference when it comes to being ready to fight a war?

View on HN

To what extent are you pretending to be obtuse?

I am just trying to clarify exactly what actions you find untrustworthy among principals involved in a treaty.

Regarding spending vs funding as it relates to war, I would seriously like you to try and explain the distinction. I don’t think you can.

You responded to my question about the guy that shits on the floor with a question about a guy who breathes loud. Why would I bother addressing your questions?

You are calling someone “untrustworthy” who by their actions so far…hasn’t been. Rhetoric is just words. Not abiding by the terms of your treaty, intentionally…is action.

So your analogy should probably be rewritten to be more like A guy who says he might shit on the floor vs the guy with skid marks in his drawers”

I mean, it is obviously a statement about the likely consequences of a hypothetical action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com