Like I said above, our friends the Brits sent combat units. I can't say about the Canadians.
My thoughts on our NATO friends.
- Thread starter Rockport Zebra
- Start date
You forgot that the West also values Capitalism, Judeo-Christian values, and strict constitutionalism. But that doesn't jive with your Trump/ Conservatives are Russian apologists narrative.
We had a good thread going on the merits of NATO, but you couldn't resist the urge to take lazy potshots could you.
Yeah, but communist Russia fell in 1992. UK and France now have nuclear weapons and they'd certainly use them if invaded. The threat posed by Russia is greatly diminished vs Cold War days.
Only five of the 28 NATO members pay the promised 2% of GDP for its own defense forces: United States, Greece, Britain, Estonia and Poland. Poland has invited the US to establish a military base in country. We should do that and tell the rest of the NATO allies (excluding Greece, Britain and Estonia) that they're on their own.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-trump-spending.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...d-trump-establish-permanent-us-military-base/
I didn't forget that the West values capitalism: I said the West if pro-free trade which is the core of capitalism. As for religion, the West values religious liberty. Putin, Hungary, Poland authoritarians don't value religious liberty, rather they value the conservative Christian sects too. There have always been issues with the institutions of the West but, until Trumpism, we have never had a serious question that the countries of the democratic West were our closest and most valuable allies.
The alliance that defeated Hitler and the Soviet Union was an alliance of liberal and conservatives. That alliance constructed and maintained the "West".
Trump is not a conservative in the spirit of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II. He is not a liberal either.
Had Trump been in power at the start of WWII there would be no West at all. There may not be a recognizable West by the time he is done.
I believe that both the Bush and Obama administrations asked the countries not paying their 2 percent to please do so. Of course when they did nothing happened. So now Trump is calling them out and of course that is met with us being pro Russia and abandoning our allies. How about just living up to your treaty obligations.
The Russian/Maga bots left a few things out when they trained you. Not that you're completely wrong, but your narrative is misleading.
NYT...
NATO has a budget to cover common civilian and military costs, and some NATO-owned assets are also commonly funded when they are used in operations. The United States pays 22 percent of those costs, according to a formula based on national income. None of the NATO allies are in arrears on these contributions.
Mr. Trump is referring imprecisely to a goal NATO has set for each member to spend at least 2 percent of its gross domestic product on its own defense each year. He is correct that only five of the 28 members currently meet that goal, and they are the United States, Greece, Britain, Estonia and Poland.
And Trump being a possible Russian asset has only a little to do with NATO. There's 100's of other reasons that are very questionable.
Last edited:
Did you continue reading the NY Times article to see how they came up with this conclusion? Here it is "The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement."
Right, it is something countries agreed to move to. It is not codified into NATO bylaws. Germany increased defense spending 6% this year. Should we not be happy most countries upped their spending?
Marvin, are you serious? Read your own link. The US spent 3.57% of GRP on NATO last year while European nations increase NATO spending from 1.44% to a whopping 1.46%. We're being played for schmucks.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Yeah great idea. We’ll align with Greece, Estonia, and Poland to take on global threats. With them we’ll be unbeatable.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I love how Trumpers and the #NewGOP think. They can’t possibly fathom that any issue or problem is multivariate and therefore all must be binary on who’s right and whos wrong.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe we spend too much and it’s not just that the others spend too little? Is that too complex of a thought?
But the Greeks are so fearsome ..
Its now proven that you are a sexist Feminaphobe. Hell, those guys having assault weapon should be your real fear.
I am amazed that so many of you didn't realize that the only NATO countries sending combat units were the Brits, Canadians , Poland and us.
I am amazed you think it matters. Every new nation adds complexity. If you do not need that complexity, do not add it. I wonder if any general, who does not have dire need, has wanted to deal with more nationalities to command.
And why did they up their spending?
Let's be real here, when most people talk about being pissed at NATO, they are talking about the overbearing central European country with an oversized presence in the E.U. and an undersized presence in NATO given their size and economy.
Second on that list is another continental power who also has a bigger mouth than their contributions, though they do better than Frau Frumples.
Twelve hours later and you are still banging on about this? The fact that many countries had sent and contributed to the coalition only can add legitimacy to the cause. It wouldn't have mattered whether they were front-line troops. The more the merrier for that coalition. That's political legitimacy. To attack and invade another country cannot be taken lightly, not unless you are Putin.
My question posed earlier was that if, let's say the Greeks were under attack, would Trump support Article 5? Well, the NATO members did not hesitate for Afganistan. That's what friends do. (In fact, non-Nato members contributed too.) I am not sure under a Trump regime, he would do the same thing as the other Nato members did under Article 5. Would Americans die for a Greek cause? So all this talk about budgetary contributions, frontline fatality rations would be moot.
Finally, to start counting frontline troops fatality ratios is just petty and disrespectful for those who died. It's just crass.
I am at the Indy Indians game and am not looking it up. I thought there was a vote that nations needed to be at 2% before a specific date that was like 2021. I might EASILY be wrong, but if that is right, why the rending of clothes in 2018?
I was wrong, here is the exact wording. Not the strongest wording I have ever seen.
- Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.
- Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
- halt any decline in defence expenditure;
- aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
- aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
Look on YouTube or LiveLeak. There are plenty of videos of Canadian special forces fighting in Afghanistan.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
That’s why Trump won’t ask “his generals” to deploy the Canucks on the battlefield. He prefers troops that don’t take casualties.
They all agreed to 2% back in friggin' 2006. We are being played for schmucks.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/nato-defence-spending-europe-america/
Not to mention that whole national security thing with those guys...
We spend the amount we do because we are schmucks. We should spend 2%. If Germany then doesn't, we have a beef. As it is, we are the guy at the restaurant that always grabs for the check then gets mad no one fights him for it.
Spend 2% and see if Germany et al picks up the slack
No, we'd still be schmucks. What we should do is take up Poland's offer for a permanent US base in that country and pull out everywhere else. The only viable route for a Russian land invasion of Europe is through Poland.
True, they are usually in the same mode as us. The EU has 500 million people overall and was more than happy to let us do all the heavy lifting for their defense while at the same time maintain economic barriers to insure they have a positive trade balance with us. It is way past time for change.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html
Last edited:
It amazes me how so many people fail to see that our allies are more than happy with the status quo of us providing military defense for them while they happily take advantage of our lax trade policies. We are like the rich kid in high school what’s the most popular kid because he had a fancy car and bought burgers for all of us. We were his best friends until he asked us to chip in for gas and food. He then found out who his true friends were.
You make a good point. Financially, they should help pay the costs. If they are going to ride in our caddy they should pay for the gas.
I hope you are as hot as Keri Russell on Americans......when betrayal is worth it.....
Which is why an American base will probably never happen. Tactically I don’t see it.No, we'd still be schmucks. What we should do is take up Poland's offer for a permanent US base in that country and pull out everywhere else. The only viable route for a Russian land invasion of Europe is through Poland.
No, we'd still be schmucks. What we should do is take up Poland's offer for a permanent US base in that country and pull out everywhere else. The only viable route for a Russian land invasion of Europe is through Poland.
How does us being in Poland solve the free rider problem? Germany would still be getting our defense against Russia for no cost to Germany.
Conservatives seem to discount the free rider problem when it is, say, labor unions. But it is a real issue.
Similar threads
