Recommended Posts

Will NATO survive Trump?

Putin is winning it seems.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/world/europe/trump-nato.html

In Pointed Letters, Trump Demands More Defense Spending From NATO Allies

Excerpt -

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump has written sharply worded letters to the leaders of several NATO allies, including Germany, Belgium, Norway and Canada, taking them to task for spending too little on their own defense and warning that the United States is losing patience with their failure to meet security obligations shared by the alliance.

The letters, which went out last month, are the latest sign of acrimony between Mr. Trump and American allies as he heads to a NATO summit meeting next week in Brussels that will be a closely watched test of the president’s commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance after he has repeatedly questioned its value and claimed that its members are taking advantage of the United States.

They raised the prospect of a second bitterly contentious confrontation between the president and United States allies after a blowup by Mr. Trump at the Group of 7 gathering last month in Quebec, and highlighted the worries of European alliesthat far from projecting solidarity in the face of threats from Russia, their meeting will highlight divisions within the alliance. That would play into the hands of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who is to meet with Mr. Trump in Helsinki after the NATO meeting, and whose prime goal is sowing divisions within NATO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Who would benefit from NATO discord/disintegration?

Thats a very interesting question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Who would benefit from NATO discord/disintegration?

 

image.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Thats a very interesting question.

Not nearly as thought provoking as the authenticity of the Kenyan’s Birth Certificate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still waiting for the us to reduce our spending to 2% GDP.   As long as we ridiculously spend nearly twice that why should everybody else waste their hard earned money.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

I’m still waiting for the us to reduce our spending to 2% GDP.   As long as we ridiculously spend nearly twice that why should everybody else waste their hard earned money.  

Another interesting question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lark said:

I’m still waiting for the us to reduce our spending to 2% GDP.   As long as we ridiculously spend nearly twice that why should everybody else waste their hard earned money.  

Where Trump's figures lie (of course), is that the NATO countries' defense spending is virtually all on NATO.  US 'defense' spending also includes the entire Pacific, in addition to various imperialistic 'adventures' and Holy Crusades. The portion of US defense spending on NATO is likely a lower percentage of GDP than the other NATO countries spend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Where Trump's figures lie (of course), is that the NATO countries' defense spending is virtually all on NATO.  US 'defense' spending also includes the entire Pacific, in addition to various imperialistic 'adventures' and Holy Crusades. The portion of US defense spending on NATO is likely a lower percentage of GDP than the other NATO countries spend. 

You are the one lying.  The NATO agreement is on total defense spending re GDP.  It is not just spending committed to NATO.

Quote

NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or more members is considered an attack against all. So far that has only been invoked once -- in response to the September 11 attacks.

To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Comprehension problems?  What defense spending does Germany have besides NATO? Do they maintain a Pacific Fleet? Do they have troops permanently stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc?  No. Virtually all their defense spending is on self defense of Europe...NATO. 

OTOH, NATO commitment is only a part of US defense spending...and it's likely a lower % of GDP than Germany et al spend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Who would benefit from NATO discord/disintegration?

Trump's financiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

I’m still waiting for the us to reduce our spending to 2% GDP.   As long as we ridiculously spend nearly twice that why should everybody else waste their hard earned money.  

Beat me to it. I approve of Trump's suggestion that NATO members spend 2% of GDP, at least as applied to the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Beat me to it. I approve of Trump's suggestion that NATO members spend 2% of GDP, at least as applied to the US.

In spending on NATOs primary mission of the defense of Europe/North Atlantic , the US is probably well under the 2% of GDP figure. The number is difficult to pull up, b/c the US also uses its NATO assets to conduct its Middle East wars. Maybe NATO should charge the US for using its bases for non-NATO missions? Seems reasonable. It doesn't seem reasonable for the US to claim Pacific Fleet and oil war imperialism  budgets to reach the 3.81% of GDP claim, when Luxemburg has no Pacific Fleet or imperial ambitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATO is 2%, not 2% on *NATO* :rolleyes:

Trump is like a troop of syphilitic monkeys banging on typewriters, every now and again an English word comes out. The EU in general HAS coasted on our defense budget for decades. NOW is not the time to deal with it with a Russian plant in the White House :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

NATO is 2%, not 2% on *NATO* :rolleyes:

Trump is like a troop of syphilitic monkeys banging on typewriters, every now and again an English word comes out. The EU in general HAS coasted on our defense budget for decades. NOW is not the time to deal with it with a Russian plant in the White House :wacko:

Coasted implies that the US cared. In reality the US liked the dependence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

NATO is 2%, not 2% on *NATO* :rolleyes:

Trump is like a troop of syphilitic monkeys banging on typewriters, every now and again an English word comes out. The EU in general HAS coasted on our defense budget for decades. NOW is not the time to deal with it with a Russian plant in the White House :wacko:

Coasted implies that the US cared. In reality the US liked the dependence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

NATO is 2%, not 2% on *NATO* :rolleyes:

Trump is like a troop of syphilitic monkeys banging on typewriters, every now and again an English word comes out. The EU in general HAS coasted on our defense budget for decades. NOW is not the time to deal with it with a Russian plant in the White House :wacko:

What the NATO request is, is that each country spend 2% of their GDP on defense spending. In the case of the European countries, that budget is spent on their own homeland defense, and those assets are available to provide for Europes defense...the basic NATO mission. The U.K. And France do have a small naval presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. But basically, the entire 2% is available to NATO.

The US spends 3.81% (latest figure I have) of GDP on defense spending. But a large amount of that is on Pacific operations, thus mostly unavailable to NATO. And the US spends a large amount on its wars. Thus, the 3.81% figure is vastly overblown when it comes to calculating for NATO requirements. 

Should Europe increase defense spending? I would agree, given Putins history and now Trump's irrationality and unreliability. They can probably do so more cost effective by dumping their F-35 orders and producing their own aircraft, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, RKoch said:

What the NATO request is, is that each country spend 2% of their GDP on defense spending. In the case of the European countries, that budget is spent on their own homeland defense, and those assets are available to provide for Europes defense...the basic NATO mission. The U.K. And France do have a small naval presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. But basically, the entire 2% is available to NATO.

The US spends 3.81% (latest figure I have) of GDP on defense spending. But a large amount of that is on Pacific operations, thus mostly unavailable to NATO. And the US spends a large amount on its wars. Thus, the 3.81% figure is vastly overblown when it comes to calculating for NATO requirements. 

Should Europe increase defense spending? I would agree, given Putins history and now Trump's irrationality and unreliability. They can probably do so more cost effective by dumping their F-35 orders and producing their own aircraft, etc.

Yes, and Trumps minions will wonder WTF happened...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Liked? We fucking loved the dependence and the cash it brought in.

Well, yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RKoch said:

What the NATO request is, is that each country spend 2% of their GDP on defense spending. In the case of the European countries, that budget is spent on their own homeland defense, and those assets are available to provide for Europes defense...the basic NATO mission. The U.K. And France do have a small naval presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. But basically, the entire 2% is available to NATO.

The US spends 3.81% (latest figure I have) of GDP on defense spending. But a large amount of that is on Pacific operations, thus mostly unavailable to NATO. And the US spends a large amount on its wars. Thus, the 3.81% figure is vastly overblown when it comes to calculating for NATO requirements. 

Should Europe increase defense spending? I would agree, given Putins history and now Trump's irrationality and unreliability. They can probably do so more cost effective by dumping their F-35 orders and producing their own aircraft, etc.

Our GDP is YUUUGE.

2% of it should be plenty for all of our defensive needs, of which NATO obligations are a part. The fact that we have others and create yet more for ourselves has no real bearing on your opening sentence. 2% on defense is not 2% on NATO defense. It's 2% on defense.

Meaning, cut our bloated defense budget by about half. With any luck, we wouldn't have spare military power with which to re-regime shitholes and somehow make them even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RKoch said:

Comprehension problems?  What defense spending does Germany have besides NATO? Do they maintain a Pacific Fleet? Do they have troops permanently stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc?  No. Virtually all their defense spending is on self defense of Europe...NATO. 

OTOH, NATO commitment is only a part of US defense spending...and it's likely a lower % of GDP than Germany et al spend.

Why pick Germany?  They're the one that starts the wars.  Why don't you go by NATOs own charter and statements.  You are the one with the comprehension problem.  They are also the ones with fewer commitments to supporting former colonies.

If they were spending their 2% we could reallocate troops in Europe to all the other places where we have committed troops.

Did you see this part?  " and those assets are available to provide for Europe's defense." 

Had they maintained their military as required perhaps the collapse of Yugoslavia would not have been a NATO problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been the mantra of the Military Industrial Complex for a few years now.

The greedy cunts have their bonus's affected if countries don't place orders.

Simple stuff really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

This is the G7, which Canada so generously hosted and which left us a remnant I will laugh over all night.

FGFWKWv.png

That is fucking funni!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why pick Germany?  They're the one that starts the wars.  Why don't you go by NATOs own charter and statements.  You are the one with the comprehension problem.  They are also the ones with fewer commitments to supporting former colonies.

If they were spending their 2% we could reallocate troops in Europe to all the other places where we have committed troops.

Did you see this part?  " and those assets are available to provide for Europe's defense." 

Had they maintained their military as required perhaps the collapse of Yugoslavia would not have been a NATO problem.

Ah yes. I see you do have a comprehension problem. Germany was an example used for comparison, and 'et al' means 'and the rest'.  If you wish to participate in discussions, you'll find it helpful to be fairly competent at literacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATO is just a stalking horse for the US.

Everyone can see that including the country being stalked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good!....Our NATO allies should honor their commitments. It's not only the right thing to do but will make NATO will be stronger. A stronger NATO is a detriment to who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Why pick Germany?  They're the one that starts the wars.  Why don't you go by NATOs own charter and statements.  You are the one with the comprehension problem.  They are also the ones with fewer commitments to supporting former colonies.

If they were spending their 2% we could reallocate troops in Europe to all the other places where we have committed troops.

Did you see this part?  " and those assets are available to provide for Europe's defense." 

Had they maintained their military as required perhaps the collapse of Yugoslavia would not have been a NATO problem.

Such an idiot. 

Why does the US want troops in Germany? To defend them. Yes. 

Because they started the last one? Absolutely!

its called empire and peace. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dog said:

Good!....Our NATO allies should honor their commitments. It's not only the right thing to do but will make NATO will be stronger. A stronger NATO is a detriment to who?

US out of NATO will not make NATO stronger. Sorry for your confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

US out of NATO will not make NATO stronger. Sorry for your confusion.

Duh! ....But what Trump wants is for our NATO partners to honor their committments which will make NATO stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dog said:

Duh! ....But what Trump wants is for our NATO partners to honor their committments which will make NATO stronger.

Hahahahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RKoch said:

Ah yes. I see you do have a comprehension problem. Germany was an example used for comparison, and 'et al' means 'and the rest'.  If you wish to participate in discussions, you'll find it helpful to be fairly competent at literacy.

You still picked a stupid example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

US out of NATO will not make NATO stronger. Sorry for your confusion.

Given that Europe loves Russian oil, what is the purpose of NATO?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Why pick Germany?  They're the one that starts the wars.  Why don't you go by NATOs own charter and statements.  You are the one with the comprehension problem.  They are also the ones with fewer commitments to supporting former colonies.

If they were spending their 2% we could reallocate troops in Europe to all the other places where we have committed troops.

Did you see this part?  " and those assets are available to provide for Europe's defense." 

Had they maintained their military as required perhaps the collapse of Yugoslavia would not have been a NATO problem.

Germany used to start wars.   They haven’t since 1939 or so.   Only one of my living relatives even was even alive when they did that kind of thing,    We hold that honor now, as well as bombing arracks without wars (Obama and Bush especially) or jumping in on somebody else’s war if we can’t find one of our own (Vietnam, etc).    Germany initially won its wars, conquered territory, gained massive loot.   We just fight forever.   Hobby Lobby tried to loot but got caught.  There is no profit in these wars, unless you sell weapons.

Putin has learned its cheaper to meddle with politics then invade.    We need enough military to make war unpredictable and expensive, the rest is just waste that ignores the current threats.  

North Korea hardly spends any real money on its military, but even the White House realizes invasion would be an ugly mess.   That was true even before he got Nukes, but with Nukes Kim is quite safe from regime change.    Unless he holds an election.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

Germany used to start wars.   They haven’t since 1939 or so.   Only one of my living relatives even was even alive when they did that kind of thing,    We hold that honor now, as well as bombing arracks without wars (Obama and Bush especially) or jumping in on somebody else’s war if we can’t find one of our own (Vietnam, etc).    Germany initially won its wars, conquered territory, gained massive loot.   We just fight forever.   Hobby Lobby tried to loot but got caught.  There is no profit in these wars, unless you sell weapons.

Putin has learned its cheaper to meddle with politics then invade.    We need enough military to make war unpredictable and expensive, the rest is just waste that ignores the current threats.  

North Korea hardly spends any real money on its military, but even the White House realizes invasion would be an ugly mess.   That was true even before he got Nukes, but with Nukes Kim is quite safe from regime change.    Unless he holds an election.   

What was our interest in the countries formerly known as Yugoslavia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Given that Europe loves Russian oil, what is the purpose of NATO?

 

Mutual defense of the signatories? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Mutual defense of the signatories? 

What was our interest in the countries formerly known as Yugoslavia?

From who?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Duh! ....But what Trump wants is for our NATO partners to honor their committments which will make NATO stronger.

You fucking fool.

That's the excuse Trump has. The goal is to weaken NATO. You cheer.

He finds immigration excuses for his "crackdowns" because his goal is to end immigration. You cheer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

What was our interest in the countries formerly known as Yugoslavia?

Personally, not much.    I likened it to the American civil war.    We fought and killed each other over the right to abuse our fellow human beings on ethnic lines.   If an European power had meddled we might have kept enslaving people.   Europe of that era was unlikely to intervene for human rights, but I don't know how we'd have felt if they had.   I admit the Dayton accord did seem to work, so maybe the solution to civil war really is to blow the combatants up until they get tired of it.   The arms embargo clearly had holes in it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Who would benefit from NATO discord/disintegration?

So I take it by your post that you disagree that our NATO allies should not pull their own weight and pay their fare share for the defense of their own continent?  

The stark fact of the matter is that NATO countries have benefited Yugely from our defense umbrella for the last 75 years and have been able to spend a tiny fraction of their GDP compared to the US on defense knowing Uncle Sam is paying for the lion's share of their security.  And that money NOT spent has gone right back into their economy and made some of them (Germany for instance) an economic powerhouse.  In addition, the EU has erected trade barriers and tariffs on US goods even before Il Cheetolini came to power.  And those same countries are now bitching and moaning that we are finally holding them to their commitments that they agreed to???  Two FUCKING %????  Really?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You fucking fool.

That's the excuse Trump has. The goal is to weaken NATO. You cheer.

He finds immigration excuses for his "crackdowns" because his goal is to end immigration. You cheer.

Trump's letter to NATO partners prompts them to spend more on defense. In the real world doing so would make NATO stronger.

In the real world the point of enforcing our immigration laws is not to stop immigration, it's to control and manage immigration as the law intends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lark said:

I’m still waiting for the us to reduce our spending to 2% GDP.   As long as we ridiculously spend nearly twice that why should everybody else waste their hard earned money.  

Why shouldn't they?  Did it ever occur to you Morains that one of the reasons we spend so much is because no one else is stepping up to the plate and has not for 50+ years.  Certainly not much at all since the Berlin wall fell.  

Nothing wrong with a little tough love for the whiney children......  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why shouldn't they?  Did it ever occur to you Morains that one of the reasons we spend so much is because no one else is stepping up to the plate and has not for 50+ years. 

yeah, that's totally the reason we are spending billions on shit the military doesn't want.

your "no one else has stepped up to the plate" is bullshit. Stupid, hyperbolic, whiny bitch bullshit that makes you sound like Trump. Ignorant, whiny, entitled.

So have a participation star and an orange slice and take your seat back on the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Trump's letter to NATO partners prompts them to spend more on defense. In the real world doing so would make NATO stronger.

In the real world the point of enforcing our immigration laws is not to stop immigration, it's to control and manage immigration as the law intends.

That's not why Trump is doing this, you know it, you just lie and doggystyle about it daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That's not why Trump is doing this, you know it, you just lie and doggystyle about it daily.

Make a logical, fact based arguement and I will consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RKoch said:

The US spends 3.81% (latest figure I have) of GDP on defense spending. But a large amount of that is on Pacific operations, thus mostly unavailable to NATO. And the US spends a large amount on its wars. Thus, the 3.81% figure is vastly overblown when it comes to calculating for NATO requirements. 

You lie!  All or most of our defense assets are available to NATO should the need arise.  That's the beauty of a highly mobile military like the US.  We can move huge amounts of troops and assets anywhere in the world in a short time.  We have war plans to be able to move assets from any theater to any other theater as required.  Where do you think most of the troops came from in the early days of Desert Storm when we thought Saddam was going to turn right and go into Saudi?  They were rushed there from Europe.  We can move troops TO Europe from the ME, the pacific or the US as necessary.  You're an idiot if you think that they are fixed in place and dedicated to only one AOR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Everyone knows that's a lie Dog.

Everyone knows that's a duck Jiblet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

yeah, that's totally the reason we are spending billions on shit the military doesn't want.

your "no one else has stepped up to the plate" is bullshit. Stupid, hyperbolic, whiny bitch bullshit that makes you sound like Trump. Ignorant, whiny, entitled.

So have a participation star and an orange slice and take your seat back on the bench.

Really?  How many NATO countries have met their 2% target so far?  And once you're done looking that up, don't forget to finish your homework.  You know how your mom gets bitchy when you put it off......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Everyone knows that's a lie Dog.

Many people are saying it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I take it by your post that you disagree that our NATO allies should not pull their own weight and pay their fare share for the defense of their own continent?  

The stark fact of the matter is that NATO countries have benefited Yugely from our defense umbrella for the last 75 years and have been able to spend a tiny fraction of their GDP compared to the US on defense knowing Uncle Sam is paying for the lion's share of their security.  And that money NOT spent has gone right back into their economy and made some of them (Germany for instance) an economic powerhouse.  In addition, the EU has erected trade barriers and tariffs on US goods even before Il Cheetolini came to power.  And those same countries are now bitching and moaning that we are finally holding them to their commitments that they agreed to???  Two FUCKING %????  Really?  

What? You mean defense spending doesn’t make the economy stronger? You should tell the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Really?  How many NATO countries have met their 2% target so far?  

A 2014 agreement for a 10 year goal of military spending showcases they haven't lifted their fair share how Jeff?

How about we look back in time to the Cold War lets pick the 1980s. Whats that? For 1980-85 everyone of those countrys was spending more than 2% except luxembourg? Germany was spending 4+% when you include subsidizing Berlin and the US was only spending ~6% of GDP? 

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_1985_12/20100830_1985-025.pdf

You want to walk back that Trumpian bullshit now Jeff? Or you going to be your usual bitch self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You lie!  All or most of our defense assets are available to NATO should the need arise.  That's the beauty of a highly mobile military like the US.  We can move huge amounts of troops and assets anywhere in the world in a short time.  We have war plans to be able to move assets from any theater to any other theater as required.  Where do you think most of the troops came from in the early days of Desert Storm when we thought Saddam was going to turn right and go into Saudi?  They were rushed there from Europe.  We can move troops TO Europe from the ME, the pacific or the US as necessary.  You're an idiot if you think that they are fixed in place and dedicated to only one AOR.

Jesus, what a tool. If war broke out in Europe, the US  isn't going to abandon the Pacific. Only a moron would do that.  It would be an invitation for China to fill the void, and ultimately result in war vs them too. Since current Pacific Fleet ship and manpower levels are stretched to the limit (in peacetime, no less), it's unlikely much if any assets could be relocated to a European theatre. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Whats that? For 1980-85 everyone of those countrys was spending more than 2% except luxembourg?

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_1985_12/20100830_1985-025.pdf

 

Luxembourg, two friends and I were going to overthrow them in that timeframe but lucky for them, that would have been a two front war for us with Lichtenstein.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Really?  How many NATO countries have met their 2% target so far?  

A 2014 agreement for a 10 year goal of military spending showcases they haven't lifted their fair share how Jeff?

How about we look back in time to the Cold War lets pick the 1980s. Whats that? For 1980-85 everyone of those countrys was spending more than 2% except luxembourg?

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_1985_12/20100830_1985-025.pdf

Except. little boy, its not 1985 anymore.  You make my point for me.  AS soon as the wall came down, everyone stopped trying and made only token efforts at defense knowing the big brother Unca Sam was there to protect them from any bullies.  It was since 85 that they EU started fucking with us on Trade and their economy boomed.  Good on em, but we certainly didn't get much favored nation status when it came to trade and stuff - those ungrateful shits.  

And the 2% target agreement was well after the cold war as a RESPONSE to the fact they had been slacking.  So I could not give two shits what they did before 1985.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except. little boy, its not 1985 anymore.  You make my point for me.  AS soon as the wall came down, everyone stopped trying and made only token efforts at defense knowing the big brother Unca Sam was there to protect them from any bullies.  It was since 85 that they EU started fucking with us on Trade and their economy boomed.  Good on em, but we certainly didn't get much favored nation status when it came to trade and stuff - those ungrateful shits.  

And the 2% target agreement was well after the cold war as a RESPONSE to the fact they had been slacking.  So I could not give two shits what they did before 1985.  

So it's little bitch jeff? I pointed out your assertions quoted below were bullshit and you pretend you never cared and change your argument.

Yeah, the 2% was well after the cold war. It was 2014 - I FUCKING MENTIONED THAT ALREADY IN THIS THREAD YOU STUPID FUCK. So how about you fuck off back to your 30mm buttplug.

35 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The stark fact of the matter is that NATO countries have benefited Yugely from our defense umbrella for the last 75 years and have been able to spend a tiny fraction of their GDP compared to the US on defense knowing Uncle Sam is paying for the lion's share of their security.  

 

31 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why shouldn't they?  Did it ever occur to you Morains that one of the reasons we spend so much is because no one else is stepping up to the plate and has not for 50+ years.  Certainly not much at all since the Berlin wall fell.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I take it by your post that you disagree that our NATO allies should not pull their own weight and pay their fare share for the defense of their own continent?  

The stark fact of the matter is that NATO countries have benefited Yugely from our defense umbrella for the last 75 years and have been able to spend a tiny fraction of their GDP compared to the US on defense knowing Uncle Sam is paying for the lion's share of their security.  And that money NOT spent has gone right back into their economy and made some of them (Germany for instance) an economic powerhouse.  In addition, the EU has erected trade barriers and tariffs on US goods even before Il Cheetolini came to power.  And those same countries are now bitching and moaning that we are finally holding them to their commitments that they agreed to???  Two FUCKING %????  Really?  

That’s quite a straw man. Kick his ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except. little boy, its not 1985 anymore.  You make my point for me.  AS soon as the wall came down, everyone stopped trying and made only token efforts at defense knowing the big brother Unca Sam was there to protect them from any bullies.  It was since 85 that they EU started fucking with us on Trade and their economy boomed.  Good on em, but we certainly didn't get much favored nation status when it came to trade and stuff - those ungrateful shits.  

And the 2% target agreement was well after the cold war as a RESPONSE to the fact they had been slacking.  So I could not give two shits what they did before 1985.  

What you're ignoring, pea-brain, is that Germany spent a huge amount of money in reunification. That limited the budget available elsewhere. Since reunification was a significant step in adding stability to Europe in general, and Germany in particular, it was a worthwhile security investment. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia was so wracked with economic turmoil, they were no military threat whatsoever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Jesus, what a tool. If war broke out in Europe, the US  isn't going to abandon the Pacific. Only a moron would do that.  It would be an invitation for China to fill the void, and ultimately result in war vs them too. Since current Pacific Fleet ship and manpower levels are stretched to the limit (in peacetime, no less), it's unlikely much if any assets could be relocated to a European theatre. 

Jesus, you're proof you can't fix stupid.  Did I say abandon?  But If war broke out in Europe - say an invasion from Russia, we would do whatever it took to deal with the threat while reminding China that they'd better not fuck with us.  

Seriously, posts like yours - and I mean this in the most respectful way - remind me how the majority of the people out there are simply FUCKING IGNORANT about how the military works.  Grrrrrrrrr.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
39 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I take it by your post that you disagree that our NATO allies should not pull their own weight and pay their fare share for the defense of their own continent?  

The stark fact of the matter is that NATO countries have benefited Yugely from our defense umbrella for the last 75 years and have been able to spend a tiny fraction of their GDP compared to the US on defense knowing Uncle Sam is paying for the lion's share of their security.  And that money NOT spent has gone right back into their economy and made some of them (Germany for instance) an economic powerhouse.  In addition, the EU has erected trade barriers and tariffs on US goods even before Il Cheetolini came to power.  And those same countries are now bitching and moaning that we are finally holding them to their commitments that they agreed to???  Two FUCKING %????  Really?  

That’s quite a straw man. Kick his ass!

OK, Sol.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  How do you feel about the US carrying the burden of NATO defense spending and the Euros benefiting greatly since the collapse of the Russkies by allowing the US to provide the vast majority of NATOs defense???  No straw here, just looking to see where you stand on this.  Why is trump wrong on this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RKoch said:

What the NATO request is, is that each country spend 2% of their GDP on defense spending. In the case of the European countries, that budget is spent on their own homeland defense, and those assets are available to provide for Europes defense...the basic NATO mission. The U.K. And France do have a small naval presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. But basically, the entire 2% is available to NATO.

The US spends 3.81% (latest figure I have) of GDP on defense spending. But a large amount of that is on Pacific operations, thus mostly unavailable to NATO. And the US spends a large amount on its wars. Thus, the 3.81% figure is vastly overblown when it comes to calculating for NATO requirements. 

Should Europe increase defense spending? I would agree, given Putins history and now Trump's irrationality and unreliability. They can probably do so more cost effective by dumping their F-35 orders and producing their own aircraft, etc.

Try again, the basic NATO mission is to protect the member of NATO, not just European members. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RKoch said:

The portion of US defense spending on NATO is likely a lower percentage of GDP than the other NATO countries spend. 

Sounds like wishful thinking at best, you could have easily googled it. No need to look like a jackass. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mickey Rat said:

Sounds like wishful thinking at best, you could have easily googled it. No need to look like a jackass. <_<

I did google it. The information is not available, largely because the assets the US stations in support of NATO is also used in the Middle East wars, and it's difficult to assign costs between the two roles. All that can be done is make an approximate guess, which I did. Of US military spending, I estimate 1/3 is in support of NATO, 1/3 is maintaining Pacific/Indian Ocean presence, and 1/3 in war operations (inc current operations plus equip and manpower replacement costs). Dividing the 3.81% of GDP by 3 results in 1.27%  of GDP in maintaining NATO defense presence in Europe. That is far below 2%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Try again, the basic NATO mission is to protect the member of NATO, not just European members. 

Neither Canada nor the US is under any threat of  invasion, at any time during NATO's existence. NATO's primary role is mutual defense of Europe. Secondary role, at NATOs inception, was to provide military assistance to West Germany so they wouldn't start another arms buildup. That is a much lower threat now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Try again, the basic NATO mission is to protect the member of NATO, not just European members. 

no. it was "to keep the russians out, the americans in, and the germans down"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

no. it was "to keep the russians out, the americans in, and the germans down"

Bingo. And much more succinctly than I put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Neither Canada nor the US is under any threat of  invasion, at any time during NATO's existence. NATO's primary role is mutual defense of Europe. Secondary role, at NATOs inception, was to provide military assistance to West Germany so they wouldn't start another arms buildup. That is a much lower threat now. 

That may be NATO's noticeable result. But the Role of NATO is to defend its members. USA is a member, what we spend to defend ourselves, benefits all of NATO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Nothing wrong with a little tough love for the whiney children......  Just saying. 

Most of EU agrees, we were a bit behind in paying the landlord.

Gain for EU of Nato, US would come to help if Russia invaded, which ended after iron curtain came down.
Gain for the US of Nato, if they started a war somewhere and needed allies, Nato was used as leverage.
And made Nato buy a lot of US weapons. (that comes to an end)
And it s handy to have bases for the US in Spain, Italy and Turkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

OK, Sol.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  How do you feel about the US carrying the burden of NATO defense spending and the Euros benefiting greatly since the collapse of the Russkies by allowing the US to provide the vast majority of NATOs defense???  No straw here, just looking to see where you stand on this.  Why is trump wrong on this issue?

I want everyone to pay their fair share, but before I conclude that somebody isn’t, I would like to see the data that demonstrates it. Rhetoric from the Most Honest Republican in history won’t cut it. 

Now, as to my point and question....  The Pride of the GOP likes to sow chaos in meetings of such groups, as he did with the G10, to keep his opponents (ie our allies) back on their heels. Who benefits from discord and dissent in NATO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

That may be NATO's noticeable result. But the Role of NATO is to defend its members. USA is a member, what we spend to defend ourselves, benefits all of NATO.  

And when was the SINGLE instance that the Mutual Defence article was used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Really?  How many NATO countries have met their 2% target so far?  And once you're done looking that up, don't forget to finish your homework.  You know how your mom gets bitchy when you put it off......

The danger is Poland flirting with Fascism, the EU weakened by Russian political actions, and the US fraying old alliances by looking unsavory and untrustworthy while Syrian refugees from US and Russian military actions destabilise the gulf.    A cold war tank battle rolling across Germany until the nukes flew might have been credible in 1980.    Now it seems about as likely as the Maginot line being rebuilt.    Military spending needs to be sufficient to make it clear battle will have casualties and missiles will lob beyond the front lines to destroy infrastructure.   If we cannot do that while spending as much as five other nations, plus the other NATO countries, we need to reevaluate our spending.   Spending beyond that point is counterproductive because it leaves us economically  irrelevant and vulnerable to our debts,  cyber-warfare, and political meddling.  These new threats are as credible as Russian Mechanized infantry.   We are WW II Britain preparing for the battle of Jutland part II with our massive fleets of HMS Hoods while strangely oboblivious to unseen threats beneath the waves.   There is no online equivalent to lend lease so NATO can give us obsolete destroyers to protect ourselves from the real threats of 2018.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

And when was the SINGLE instance that the Mutual Defence article was used?

I'm not sure how this fits in the discussion I was in, but I will play along.

9/11 and what was NATO's response? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I'm not sure how this fits in the discussion I was in, but I will play along.

9/11 and what was NATO's response? 

I was agreeing with you - lots of folks seem to think it's only for defending Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

The danger is Poland flirting with Fascism, the EU weakened by Russian political actions, and the US fraying old alliances by looking unsavory and untrustworthy while Syrian refugees from US and Russian military actions destabilise the gulf.    A cold war tank battle rolling across Germany until the nukes flew might have been credible in 1980.    Now it seems about as likely as the Maginot line being rebuilt.    Military spending needs to be sufficient to make it clear battle will have casualties and missiles will lob beyond the front lines to destroy infrastructure.   If we cannot do that while spending as much as five other nations, plus the other NATO countries, we need to reevaluate our spending.   Spending beyond that point is counterproductive because it leaves us economically  irrelevant and vulnerable to our debts,  cyber-warfare, and political meddling.  These new threats are as credible as Russian Mechanized infantry.   We are WW II Britain preparing for the battle of Jutland part II with our massive fleets of HMS Hoods while strangely oboblivious to unseen threats beneath the waves.   There is no online equivalent to lend lease so NATO can give us obsolete destroyers to protect ourselves from the real threats of 2018.   

So can we assume from that that you support Trump's efforts to get our NATO partners to honor their committments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Seriously, posts like yours - and I mean this in the most respectful way - remind me how the majority of the people out there are simply FUCKING IGNORANT about how the military works.  Grrrrrrrrr.......

But I know how it works Jeffy!

It targets defenseless countries and trashes them.  Important to make sure they don't have an Airforce.  Bombing yellow or brown people who have no air defenses is a skill that has to be refined, until you don't  need pilots at all.

So there is no fucking way that the US is going to fuck with any country that can actually hurt them.  Kimmy has it worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dog said:

So can we assume from that that you support Trump's efforts to get our NATO partners to honor their committments?

DogLovesTrump.jpg.5701b61b3bd246b19b0533a94a55414c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, random said:

But I know how it works Jeffy!

Sure, you and your ilk know how it works. You and your ilk think the threat to NATO comes not from the members who have refused to honor their commitments. You think the threat to NATO come from the country that has honored its commitments and the guy who insists other members do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dog said:

Sure, you and your ilk know how it works. You and your ilk think the threat to NATO comes not from the members who have refused to honor their commitments. You think the threat to NATO come from the country that has honored its commitments and the guy who insists other members do the same.

Dogmedal.thumb.jpg.6390a9d5ff004f80b3dc880577788a0c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dog said:

So can we assume from that that you support Trump's efforts to get our NATO partners to honor their committments?

Ah the loaded question. Why not ask him if he stopped beating his wife yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Ah the loaded question. Why not ask him if he stopped beating his wife yet?

Loaded how? Answering my question is not incriminating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

Loaded how? Answering my question is not incriminating.

Answering your question presumes that our allies are not shouldering their fair share.  I asked for you to demonstrate that our allies have not met their obligations and have yet to see it substantiated.  Would you care to substantiate it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Answering your question presumes that our allies are not shouldering their fair share.  I asked for you to demonstrate that our allies have not met their obligations and have yet to see it substantiated.  Would you care to substantiate it?  

Ok...I get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites