The U.S. spends more than double in defense spending for NATO
than all other NATO members spend combined
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
*"So, we're protecting Germany, we're protecting France, we're protecting all of these countries," Trump said. "And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia. So, we are supposed to protect you against Russia."
Why should the US continue to do that?
Bring our Troops home. Leave Europe to take care of itself.
Do you hate europeans?
I haven't met many Europeans, if any, personally since I got out of the AirForce thirty years ago.
In the last ten or twenty years All I've heard on the News is American Bashing from europe.
The Europeans apparently hate US.
Russia is part of Europe isn't it? That would make it a local matter. Why should the US get involved in local politics.
Isn't that frowned upon?
I don't think Russia is considered part of Europe, just saying. Doesn't change anything about you response tho! ;)
@everittdmickey,
Europe is a mess. If they are American bashing then our best move is to give it all the credibility you'd give your little brother as he struggled thru puberty.
I want to start by acknowledging or accepting the chart at the beginning of your post as fact (or close enough for me to not need to verify).
I'd like to see the NATO countries get to the 2% of GDP level and I don't mind seeing them get slapped around a bit to get them focused on it. I don't like Trump's methods much but won't complain if he gets results. (I consider myself apolitical but probably appear pretty Libertarian mostly.)
I've got two big reasons for not caring much about how much we spend on NATO in absolute or relative terms. We can afford it and here is what we get for it:
I'd rather see us fight the Russians in Europe than have to try to take it back after they fold. Defense in depth beats holding them off at the wall, every fucking time.
Our fighting forces are mostly young people and I think they get huge lifelong benefits from being stationed anywhere overseas. I think I did.
Should we be trying to get a better deal in NATO? Of course! But a strong NATO is such an obvious advantage for us, for US, that it is no surprise we're paying for it.
Regards,
Rick
Mhmm, from what I see, Russia can be the enemy of any country..
Between Russia and US myself I choose US even if Russia is near my country. And I am sure more people from my country has the same thought.
The first word which come in my mind when I am thinking to a region
Europe: Boring
U.S: Fat
Australia: Cool
Africa: Poor
Japan/China/Koreea: Smart
Russia: Crazy
Tell me yours pls
@jwolf, interesting exercise. I applaud your choices but I have to offer some alternatives.
I believe it is an error to lump Japan/China/Korea together because the most relevant one is China and they differ significantly from Japan and Korea.
With that caveat:
China: stressed (the government)
or
China: cautious (the people)
The government is stressed because they want to continue to be a command economy but they can see how beneficial the freedoms have been. They don't know how to maintain the balance and won't accept that freedoms will win every time in the long run.
Russia: insecure
Russia is dangerous and is our enemy because they are a huge, but 2nd tier, power. They want to be a superpower again and are stirring the pot to get there.
JMHO,
Rick
i'm agree to you Why should the US continue to do that?
It should not.
We can't because government has a huge bureaucraty problem. Which leads to all kinds of trouble.
For example, their's no oversight on how much is spend on things like ICT.
Every once in a while, a news article shows up with something like : 'failed IT projects costs XX million.'
Worst part is, usually it's just straight incompetence. The decision-makers don't understand what they pay for. Which is easily exploitable by the contracted companies.
If stuff like that would be fixed. We could easily hit that 2% GDP.
sounds like you got a problem
tell me again why the US should continue to pay ?
lmfao, just five minutes ago I read a dutch thread with people ranting basically like:
And than this post is the first to show up at my steem feed.
LOL, not to mention those "bombs" don't come out of the NATO budget.
The argument that they are trying to push is that expenses that aren't related to NATO, are being calculated in to the defense budget.
Where other European countries don't have a lot of resources on foreign soil.
Are they adding expenses not related to NATO? Or did someone just dream that up? It kinda matters. America spends almost 4% of it's GDP.
All it asked is that other group nation's spend 2%. Or is that minus the Yemen bombs? I'm sure it makes a huge difference.....Pay what you owe! Only a handful of nation's ACTUALLY pay that 2%. This is the point that the Donald was making. Especially now that everyone insists that Russia is the New/old boogey man again. THAT'S WHY NATO WAS MADE!
More reason to pull out of NATO.
phosphate bombs?
real munitions expert is he?
phosphate bombsphosphorus bombs
oh...so we're not dropping fertilizer.
The figures refer to defense budgets, not what each country is spending on NATO. The US are not spending that amount of money for our protection in Europe. As I said in a post a few days ago, nobody is forcing the US spend more than the 2% of GDP agreed upon by NATO members, but than the big arms producers would be earning less.
And I do agree with you in the bring the troops home bit. Nobody asked me if I wanted an American base on the southern coast, yet we do have one and it was used in the Iraq war, just like the NATO bases in Turkey, also used in that war, although it was not a NATO war.
we agree then.
The US should bring all our troops home.
Germany has practically no army. The other day I read a note that said that your army was doing some military exercises with wood sticks because they did not have enough guns.
you read that did you?
heh..
just keep believing it..
here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40172317
another reason to terminate all military spending for NATO or any other nation.
Pres.Trump makes a lot of sense in his statement of the expenditures.time to let them go.
If we can have 10,000 troops anywhere in the world in 3 days, why do we need bases overseas? (The 10,000 number is something I recall hearing during the First Bush era), so that number could be wrong.
During the first go around in the middle east were there not a few "NATO" countries said no launching offensives from the bases in our country. So what could did it do back then, if we were not able to fully utilize our overseas bases.
Please explain how we can get 10,000 troops, and presumeably their equipment since they'd be useless without it, anywhere in the world in three days. That's 72 hrs
anywhere in the world would mean 18,000 miles or less. that's 18,000/72 = 250 mph..(average speed)
Consider how fast transport planes fly, (since nothing else is fast enough) how much they carry, how many of them are available, how fast it takes to load them. how far the planes can travel before refuelingf, how to refuel them, how to supply ten thousand troops with coffee...oh..and food, while in transit. Pottie stops.... etc.
show your work.
I was unable to find the story about deployment times, seems that the 82nd airborne is the only ones that can get anywhere they want with equipment in 48 to 72 hours by one report thats 5,000 men and their equipment.
But they do not have very much heavy equipment. it takes two week to reach the mediterranean by ship, from a few things I read, so I do not recall when I heard that, figure from a politician. I do know that the along with the 82nd airborne the 101st Airborne in the 80's had the ability to be deployed at a pretty rapid pace also.
With C5's range unloaded, I could not find a range listed when fully loaded: 6,320 nm (11,705km) without cargo; Unlimited with inflight refueling. Is a pretty good reach.
Found a second site 3500 nm 151,000 pounds of cargo, upto 2 CH47 helicopters.
But it has been a long time since I was in the military, and I am sure things have changed. For my unit to deploy took three to five days. Thats break down, pack, and rebuild what was broken down for transport.
Load time would vary depending on items. trucks and people not to long to load a C5.
So I don't think I can come up with any hard and fast figures, for time scale to deploy troops. So Like one report I read, 45 days would be about it. So a 3 day deployment is only going to happen when it is the 82nd Airborne, or a marine detachment, that need little support from the desk sitters.
yup..just a tiny bit of an exaggeration?
question:
why would we WANT to have 10K troopies anywhere in the world in three days?
when did we take on the job of being the world's daddy?
That is the problem, we should not be babysitting the world. When if we or any country goes to war, it should be for conquest. Not for he called me fat reasons, or he kicked sand in my face. Once a war is won, then they are a conquered populace. This go in give a country a bloody nose, then just leave is bull. We need to return to, or if we have never been there, "we won, you lost, our rules now, not yours." That means the women are free to dress how they please, they are free to educate themselves, the children are not consenting adults until 16 years of age, and less than that sex is strictly forbidden. The laws of your religion do not trump the laws of the victors.
There are no consequences for war anymore, so we have war. We have people dying because some politician got his panties in a bunch. War is not a game and it should not be portrayed as a game.
That's kinda what I thought when I was being shot at in South East Asia in the early seventies.
How'd that work out?