Only 5 of 28 NATO Countries Are Paying 2% of Their GDP For Defense

[Dschrute3]

European nations are very wealthy and powerful. They can defend themselves these days. To me, NATO has become an aggressor. It's not 'defending' anything anymore. It's seeking conflict now. I think it's time to shut it down. But i know i'm in the minority. The Globalists still rule the roost.

Example of NATO aggression

Take a good look around the world. NATO is attacking on an unprecedented scale. It's not 'defending' anything anymore. But regardless, the Europeans are very wealthy and powerful. They can defend themselves at this point. NATO should either be scaled back or disbanded all-together. That's my opinion anyway.

Who is NATO attacking? Terrorists? Good!

For instance, Libya was no threat to Europe or the US. Yet NATO attacked it. It wasn't 'defending' anything. It was an aggressor. And that's not what NATO was set up for.

Didn't NATO and the US get involved in Lybia to topple Ghaddafi? He exported terrorism, he was a threat to Europe

Not a NATO function. It was aggression. It wasn't 'defense.' Libya couldn't possibly pose a threat to Europe or the US.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And Germany and France are not on the list (gawds! even Greece pays up...). F^ck em!

Yep. The left hold them up as models of socialism. A lot easier when you don't have to maintain a military. Typical socialism in action - freeloading.

 

[Dschrute3]

NATO no longer serves a 'Defensive' purpose. It's become an aggressor. It's all around the world attacking. The Europeans can defend themselves just fine. And obviously the US can too. NATO is obsolete. I know the Globalists don't wanna let go of all that cash & power, but it is time.

 

[Shelly T]

Example of NATO aggression

Take a good look around the world. NATO is attacking on an unprecedented scale. It's not 'defending' anything anymore. But regardless, the Europeans are very wealthy and powerful. They can defend themselves at this point. NATO should either be scaled back or disbanded all-together. That's my opinion anyway.

Who is NATO attacking? Terrorists? Good!

For instance, Libya was no threat to Europe or the US. Yet NATO attacked it. It wasn't 'defending' anything. It was an aggressor. And that's not what NATO was set up for.

Didn't NATO and the US get involved in Lybia to topple Ghaddafi? He exported terrorism, he was a threat to Europe

Not a NATO function. It was aggression. It wasn't 'defense.' Libya couldn't possibly pose a threat to Europe or the US.

I really don't know enough of what NATO has done to make a quality comment on their aggressive tendencies but I don't think they are attacking around the globe

 

[Dschrute3]

Take a good look around the world. NATO is attacking on an unprecedented scale. It's not 'defending' anything anymore. But regardless, the Europeans are very wealthy and powerful. They can defend themselves at this point. NATO should either be scaled back or disbanded all-together. That's my opinion anyway.

Who is NATO attacking? Terrorists? Good!

For instance, Libya was no threat to Europe or the US. Yet NATO attacked it. It wasn't 'defending' anything. It was an aggressor. And that's not what NATO was set up for.

Didn't NATO and the US get involved in Lybia to topple Ghaddafi? He exported terrorism, he was a threat to Europe

Not a NATO function. It was aggression. It wasn't 'defense.' Libya couldn't possibly pose a threat to Europe or the US.

I really don't know enough of what NATO has done to make a quality comment on their aggressive tendencies but I don't think they are attacking around the globe

Fair enough. Look into it yourself. Libya is just one example of its aggression. NATO was set up to be a 'Defensive' organization. It wasn't set up to go all around the world seeking conflicts. I think it's time to say good bye to NATO. It's no longer doing what it was set up to do.

 

[Shelly T]

Who is NATO attacking? Terrorists? Good!

For instance, Libya was no threat to Europe or the US. Yet NATO attacked it. It wasn't 'defending' anything. It was an aggressor. And that's not what NATO was set up for.

Didn't NATO and the US get involved in Lybia to topple Ghaddafi? He exported terrorism, he was a threat to Europe

Not a NATO function. It was aggression. It wasn't 'defense.' Libya couldn't possibly pose a threat to Europe or the US.

I really don't know enough of what NATO has done to make a quality comment on their aggressive tendencies but I don't think they are attacking around the globe

Fair enough. Look into it yourself. Libya is just one example of its aggression. NATO was set up to be 'Defensive' organization. It wasn't set up to go all around the world seeking conflicts. I think it's time to say good bye to NATO. It's no longer doing what it was set up to do.

Hasn't Trump said that he wants to restructure NATO?

 

[Dschrute3]

For instance, Libya was no threat to Europe or the US. Yet NATO attacked it. It wasn't 'defending' anything. It was an aggressor. And that's not what NATO was set up for.

Didn't NATO and the US get involved in Lybia to topple Ghaddafi? He exported terrorism, he was a threat to Europe

Not a NATO function. It was aggression. It wasn't 'defense.' Libya couldn't possibly pose a threat to Europe or the US.

I really don't know enough of what NATO has done to make a quality comment on their aggressive tendencies but I don't think they are attacking around the globe

Fair enough. Look into it yourself. Libya is just one example of its aggression. NATO was set up to be 'Defensive' organization. It wasn't set up to go all around the world seeking conflicts. I think it's time to say good bye to NATO. It's no longer doing what it was set up to do.

Hasn't Trump said that he wants to restructure NATO?

He has said that, but the Globalists still rule the roost. So it's not likely to get done.

 

[Staidhup]

The question should be the present state of preparedness of each participants military? Germany currently spends 1.2% and had agreed to increase spending to the minimum required by NATO which remains to be seen. France on the other hand is closer to the mark. By comparing GDP one would logically assume larger GDP would pay a higher percentage of NATO'S budget. So whats up with Germany? To be honest they have no excuse which I believe is what the Donald was alluding to without naming names in his off the cuff remarks.

 

[Flopper]

NATO funding is a bit complicated. Each nation is expected to spend 2% of their GDP on defense and pay a fee based on a percent GDP. Spending 2% on defense is the problem for these countries. The US spends 3.2% of it's GDP, so it is meeting it's commitment. Most of the member governments simply can not do that. To do so, would force them to make extreme cuts in retirement and healthcare for their aging population and they would be voted out of office and NATO would fail.

Without NATO, Russia's 330,000 troops at the border would roll through Europe like a hot knife through butter and the US would see no savings in defense dollars and probably the beginning of a new cold war.

BTW Although US is committed to spending a minimum of 2% on defense, it is not required to have that much of it's military in Europe. It just has to be able to supply that amount for the common defense. Much of that 2% is stationed elsewhere fulfilling other requirements. So even without NATO, our defense spending would probably stay the same if not increase.