Their fair share - Trump is right.

[resident_evil]

Members of NATO have not been paying their fair share for many years now. SO WHAT THE [Unwelcome language removed] IS WRONG ABOUT ASKING THEM TO PAY UP OR FVCK OFF!!!

Nothing. Trump is right and is starting at the right negotiation point. The Europeans need to get off the American military dole.

 

[as seen on tv]

I'm inclined to believe we're being taken advantage of in NATO (similar to how we are in the UN).

but where's the link supporting this?

 

[resident_evil]

I'm inclined to believe we're being taken advantage of in NATO (similar to how we are in the UN).

but where's the link supporting this?

This free loading has been true for years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/only-us-and-estonia-meeting-nato-budget-goal-2015-2

Google search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Eur...8#q=Europe+not+spending+fair+share+in+defense

 

[Queen Titania]

Members of NATO have not been paying their fair share for many years now. SO WHAT THE [Unwelcome language removed] IS WRONG ABOUT ASKING THEM TO PAY UP OR FVCK OFF!!!

Nothing. Trump is right and is starting at the right negotiation point. The Europeans need to get off the American military dole.

NATO = American military control on the world - only America has a say of what happens in NATO and do we want thousands of US/NAO bases in our lands? No ---- No no no no no! Do we want to be bombing poor people in their own countries because the US tells us we must? No no no no no no

Disband NATO - it is the US Empire.

 

[resident_evil]

NATO = American military control on the world - only America has a say of what happens in NATO and do we want thousands of US/NAO bases in our lands? No ---- No no no no no! Do we want to be bombing poor people in their own countries because the US tells us we must? No no no no no no

Disband NATO - it is the US Empire.

And Putin will overrun Europe. Europe can't even stop unarmed Muslims from taking them down a rat hole. Europe desperately needs to step up for themselves.

 

[connieb]

Members of NATO have not been paying their fair share for many years now. SO WHAT THE [Unwelcome language removed] IS WRONG ABOUT ASKING THEM TO PAY UP OR FVCK OFF!!!

Nothing. Trump is right and is starting at the right negotiation point. The Europeans need to get off the American military dole.

The reality is NATO was started largely to protect us. We talked these nations into joining, so that we could keep them unmilitarized on their own, or decrease their military spending. What does that mean? They can't fight us. They can't side with Russia to fight us - or they can but they won't have much military, weapons and money to do it.

Its the Democrat plantation mentality - exported worldwide. Keep them dumb, dependent, and just happy enough that they don't rebel.

So, its disingenuous at this point, in my opinion to be screaming "freeloader" to someone you intentionally kept down, for the purpose of your own security. That does not mean its not time to re-evaluate our commitment, etc. But, once we do, expect these countries to ramp up their own military......

connie

 

[Arkady]

This free loading has been true for years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/only-us-and-estonia-meeting-nato-budget-goal-2015-2

Google search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=European defense spending&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS686US686&oq=European defense spending&aqs=chrome..69i57.31063j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Europe not spending fair share in defense

2% is excessive today, and the level shouldn't have been set there. That may have made sense back in the 1970s and 1980s, when we were facing off against a powerful Warsaw Pact with massive military spending of its own. But the world has changed dramatically.
For example, in 1974, the US spent less than $80 billion on our military, compared to over $90 billion for the USSR and about $105 billion for the Warsaw Pact. To ensure against Soviet aggression in our allied nations, the rest of NATO had to spend a lot.... and they did, bringing the total NATO spending up to around $120 billion, which was enough to deter any aggression. But look at the situation today. Some of the Warsaw Pact is in NATO now, and Russia is essentially isolated from any international assistance. What does it take to deter their aggression today? The IISS puts their spending at just $65.6 billion, compared to $598 billion for the US alone.

To give you a sense for just how little that current Russian spending is, if Russia were to go to war with France and Italy, at their current spending levels, without the help of any other European ally, France and Italy would STILL hold a spending advantage in that war. Throw in Germany, and those three would outspend Russia by over 60%. If NATO went to war with Russia, and for some reason the US and the UK sat it out, NATO would have nearly a 4-to-1 military spending advantage.

Here's another way to look at it. Do you know how much of their GDPs just the continental European members of NATO would have to spend to have total military spending equal to Russia's? 0.6%. That's it. With 1.2%, they'd DOUBLE Russia's spending. Yet, for some reason, we think they should be spending 2%. 1% is a more sensible target.

 

[resident_evil]

The reality is NATO was started largely to protect us. We talked these nations into joining, so that we could keep them unmilitarized on their own, or decrease their military spending. What does that mean? They can't fight us. They can't side with Russia to fight us - or they can but they won't have much military, weapons and money to do it.

Its the Democrat plantation mentality - exported worldwide. Keep them dumb, dependent, and just happy enough that they don't rebel.

So, its disingenuous at this point, in my opinion to be screaming "freeloader" to someone you intentionally kept down, for the purpose of your own security. That does not mean its not time to re-evaluate our commitment, etc. But, once we do, expect these countries to ramp up their own military......

connie

No. They agreed to pay 2% of GDP for some time now and they haven't. Not disingenuous at all.

 

[resident_evil]

2% is excessive today, and the level shouldn't have been set there. That may have made sense back in the 1970s and 1980s, when we were facing off against a powerful Warsaw Pact with massive military spending of its own. But the world has changed dramatically.
For example, in 1974, the US spent less than $80 billion on our military, compared to over $90 billion for the USSR and about $105 billion for the Warsaw Pact. To ensure against Soviet aggression in our allied nations, the rest of NATO had to spend a lot.... and they did, bringing the total NATO spending up to around $120 billion, which was enough to deter any aggression. But look at the situation today. Some of the Warsaw Pact is in NATO now, and Russia is essentially isolated from any international assistance. What does it take to deter their aggression today? The IISS puts their spending at just $65.6 billion, compared to $598 billion for the US alone.

To give you a sense for just how little that current Russian spending is, if Russia were to go to war with France and Italy, at their current spending levels, without the help of any other European ally, France and Italy would STILL hold a spending advantage in that war. Throw in Germany, and those three would outspend Russia by over 60%. If NATO went to war with Russia, and for some reason the US and the UK sat it out, NATO would have nearly a 4-to-1 military spending advantage.

Here's another way to look at it. Do you know how much of their GDPs just the continental European members of NATO would have to spend to have total military spending equal to Russia's? 0.6%. That's it. With 1.2%, they'd DOUBLE Russia's spending. Yet, for some reason, we think they should be spending 2%. 1% is a more sensible target.

No, it is not excessive. NATO nations wanted to get rid of Qaddafi and couldn't and so compelled us to do a major lift for them in Libya (proof enough of lack of capacity). They've got to defend themselves so that we can pivot to Asia let alone cut back like you would have us do on the Defense budget. Funny now that Russia is resurgent Europe has decided to once again raise their spending. If they are advantaged as you say they are why are they doing that?

 

[Arkady]

No, it is not excessive. NATO nations wanted to get rid of Qaddafi and couldn't and so compelled us to do a major lift for them in Libya (proof enough of lack of capacity)

You misunderstood events. NATO had more than enough forces to oust Qadaffi without any help from us if they'd wanted. But why would they waste their money on that when they know they've got a bloodthirsty ally that absolutely can't resist the temptation to throw its military and money at any problem that pops up?

A little parable. I hate doing the dishes. I like having clean dishes, but there's just something about it that grosses me out. So, I'll hold out until the sink is overflowing before doing them. My wife has a lower threshold for clutter, so long before we run out of clean dishes, she'll give up and do the dishes. With other chores, it works the other way -- I give in first and do it, because I have a lower threshold for leaving it undone. That's basically what's happening with our allies and these foreign concerns. It's not that they're incapable of getting things done with their military. They just don't care enough to bother..... and when they know we have an itchy trigger finger for that kind of thing, they have all the more incentive to just wait until we incur the expense instead. If we ever learn a little self control, we and they will both figure out where their line actually is. But as long as we're on a hair trigger, we won't.

If they are advantaged as you say they are why are they doing that?

They have their overreacting hawks and hungry defense contractors, too. Give them an excuse to push for higher military spending and they will. But at least they're spanning between more sane levels.

 

[resident_evil]

You misunderstood events. NATO had more than enough forces to oust Qadaffi without any help from us if they'd wanted. But why would they waste their money on that when they know they've got a bloodthirsty ally that absolutely can't resist the temptation to throw its military and money at any problem that pops up?

Who are you talking about Obama or Clinton!?!? lol ha ha ha thanks...hmmmmm

A little parable. I hate doing the dishes. I like having clean dishes, but there's just something about it that grosses me out. So, I'll hold out until the sink is overflowing before doing them. My wife has a lower threshold for clutter, so long before we run out of clean dishes, she'll give up and do the dishes. With other chores, it works the other way -- I give in first and do it, because I have a lower threshold for leaving it undone. That's basically what's happening with our allies and these foreign concerns. It's not that they're incapable of getting things done with their military. They just don't care enough to bother..... and when they know we have an itchy trigger finger for that kind of thing, they have all the more incentive to just wait until we incur the expense instead. If we ever learn a little self control, we and they will both figure out where their line actually is. But as long as we're on a hair trigger, we won't.

Fact is they were incapable.

They have their overreacting hawks and hungry defense contractors, too. Give them an excuse to push for higher military spending and they will. But at least they're spanning between more sane levels.

Here it sounds like you're talking about Hillary.

 

[Queen Titania]

And Putin will overrun Europe. Europe can't even stop unarmed Muslims from taking them down a rat hole. Europe desperately needs to step up for themselves.

What on earth for? Financially Russia has already taken Europe.

If it were not for NATO wars we would have no refugee crisis at all. If Turkey were not blackmailing the EU few refugees would have travelled to Europe at all. Do you really think that if our Armies/Military had been used we would have any refugees here at all? I know military men in Britain have asked to be allowed to control our coastal borders - No, is always the answer.

 

[Queen Titania]

No. They agreed to pay 2% of GDP for some time now and they haven't. Not disingenuous at all.

Will you leave and allow us our independence if we pay up?

Do you know that in some Eastern Bloc countries to protest against US military presence in any way carries a possible 5 year prison sentence?

 

[Arkady]

Who are you talking about Obama or Clinton!?!?

I'm talking about the US. No matter who is president, we're always over a leader to throw our military at a problem. So, even when Europe is more than capable of acting, why wouldn't they just sit back, knowing we'd end up taking on the expense and risk?

 

[Arkady]

What on earth for? Financially Russia has already taken Europe.

If it were not for NATO wars we would have no refugee crisis at all. If Turkey were not blackmailing the EU few refugees would have travelled to Europe at all. Do you really think that if our Armies/Military had been used we would have any refugees here at all? I know military men in Britain have asked to be allowed to control our coastal borders - No, is always the answer.

Financially Russia is a shithole. Under the incompetent leadership of Putin, they relied on high oil prices to float their economy and were left badly positioned when the price of oil fell. That's the problem with having an idiot for a leader.

 

[Queen Titania]

Financially Russia is a shithole. Under the incompetent leadership of Putin, they relied on high oil prices to float their economy and were left badly positioned when the price of oil fell. That's the problem with having an idiot for a leader.

Oh and of course all the wars in the MD and all opf the nonsensical Sanctions have nothing to do with it? - I do not know where you get your info but Russian investments abroad are doing very nicely ---- I am not too happy about them in London and elsewhere in Britain but ----- they come and they go.

As a ps - 7 Chinooks just flew over ( there are never more than 2 ) - crossing the channel and a friend who works on new vehicles for the military has said that a truly massive order is just being finished off for the DoD to be used in Europe - Something is about to kick off,

 

[Queen Titania]

No, it is not excessive. NATO nations wanted to get rid of Qaddafi and couldn't and so compelled us to do a major lift for them in Libya (proof enough of lack of capacity). They've got to defend themselves so that we can pivot to Asia let alone cut back like you would have us do on the Defense budget. Funny now that Russia is resurgent Europe has decided to once again raise their spending. If they are advantaged as you say they are why are they doing that?

Goldman Sachs wanted to get rid of Gaddafi ---- I believe for the ' acting part' the French played in the 'theatre production' they got Libya's water -

 

[resident_evil]

What on earth for? Financially Russia has already taken Europe.

How's that?

If it were not for NATO wars we would have no refugee crisis at all. If Turkey were not blackmailing the EU few refugees would have travelled to Europe at all. Do you really think that if our Armies/Military had been used we would have any refugees here at all? I know military men in Britain have asked to be allowed to control our coastal borders - No, is always the answer.

There are millions of Turks in Germany. Have been for decades. If Europe hadn't colonized and murdered millions of brown people there would be no Muslims in Europe.

 

[Arkady]

Oh and of course all the wars in the MD and all opf the nonsensical Sanctions have nothing to do with it? - I do not know where you get your info but Russian investments abroad are doing very nicely

I made no comment about how Russian investments abroad are doing. I'm talking about the Russian economy. It's in horrible shape. For 2015, GDP was less than $1.33 trillion, down 35% from the prior year, which was down 9% from the year before. And it's still shrinking.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp

We're talking about a country of about 143 million, so GDP per capita is now down to $9,300. That makes them poorer than, say, Swaziland. Putin was handed the tools to build Russia into a great nation, when oil prices sky rocketed. He could have used that money to build infrastructure, improve education, and mend fences with the rest of the world, to become a diversified modern economy. Instead, he stood by while a huge chunk of it flowed into the bank accounts of friendly kleptocrats, and from there abroad to buy up personal real estate and luxuries. Plus he pissed away a lot on his pathetic military ambitions. The Russian people are paying for that now, with oil prices no longer high enough to counterbalance his incompetence. This is what happens when an idiot leads your nation.

 

[Queen Titania]

I made no comment about how Russian investments are doing. I'm talking about the Russian economy. It's in horrible shape. For 2015, GDP was less than $1.33 trillion, down 35% from last year, which was down 9% from the year before. And it's still shrinking.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp

We're talking about a country of about 143 million, so GDP per capita is now down to $9,300. That makes them poorer than, say, Swaziland. Putin was handed the tools to build Russia into a great nation, when oil prices sky rocketed. He could have used that money to build infrastructure, improve education, and mend fences with the rest of the world, to become a diversified modern economy. Instead, he stood by while a huge chunk of it flowed into the bank accounts of friendly kleptocrats, and from there abroad to buy up personal real estate and luxuries, plus he pissed away a lot on his pathetic military ambitions. The Russian people are paying for that now, with oil prices no longer high enough to counterbalance his incompetence. This is what happens when an idiot leads your nation.

But they have no debt and are now more or less feeding themselves - for a country under siege ( sanctions) they are not doing badly at all.