over 700 billion !! thats what the US spends on NATO annually !!

[Ringel05]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

We are the biggest dog on the block....... for now........ Who do you want to take our place?

 

[RealDave]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

700 Billion.

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

400 billion. My God.

 

[healthmyths]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

The measure is % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The USA spends 3.6% of our $18.6 Trillion GDP is $685 Billion.
That is the measure. As this list shows most NATO countries don't spend 2% as the agreement these 27 countries agreed to spend.
That's the issue. Germany/France spend less then 2% of their GDP on their defense

 

[healthmyths]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

700 Billion.

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

400 billion. My God.

• FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget.
• For FY 2017, President Obama proposed the base budget of $523.9 billion, which includes an increase of $2.2 billion over the
• FY 2016 enacted budget of $521.7 billion.
• For the FY 2019 president Donald Trump proposed an increase to the military to $681.1 billion. [1]

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia

 

[JBond]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

Funding NATO

The US pays 22% of the costs of NATO, more than any other country, but possibly because it's 3 times larger than any other country.

Germany pays 14%, but has 80 million people compared to 325 million.

France and the UK pay half what the US pays, but have populations about 1/5th the size of the US.

So, it's bullshit that the US pays more than other countries.

The US pays a lot of money towards its own military. But that's because the US is a warmonger country. NATO is defensive, most of the US military is offensive.

Fail

 

[frigidweirdo]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

Funding NATO

The US pays 22% of the costs of NATO, more than any other country, but possibly because it's 3 times larger than any other country.

Germany pays 14%, but has 80 million people compared to 325 million.

France and the UK pay half what the US pays, but have populations about 1/5th the size of the US.

So, it's bullshit that the US pays more than other countries.

The US pays a lot of money towards its own military. But that's because the US is a warmonger country. NATO is defensive, most of the US military is offensive.

we spend 3.5% of our GDP on NATO

No, the US does not.

The US spends about 3.1% of GDP on the military. Most of that military spending goes on the US, not on NATO, not on NATO missions.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with NATO, for example.

NATO is merely a defensive pact, and some money is spent on missions. But not that much.

Get your facts right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A war monger country?
You stupid ass.

Truth hurts

I think that one's on ignore. But it's a bit hard to claim the US isn't a war monger. There's just too much evidence for any SANE person to ignore.

 

[bendog]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

Funding NATO

The US pays 22% of the costs of NATO, more than any other country, but possibly because it's 3 times larger than any other country.

Germany pays 14%, but has 80 million people compared to 325 million.

France and the UK pay half what the US pays, but have populations about 1/5th the size of the US.

So, it's bullshit that the US pays more than other countries.

The US pays a lot of money towards its own military. But that's because the US is a warmonger country. NATO is defensive, most of the US military is offensive.

Trump's basic lie is using the figure of total US defense spending. Nato has troops in Afghan but that isn't really is mission. Nor is Japan or SK.

However, what is the rational for our spending so much? We want free trade in Asia. We want Putin to stop fucking with free trade in Europe. I think China is irreversibly tied to intl trade. It's "fair trade" practices are lacking, but the USS Ford Class is probably not changing that. Putin? How else do you deal with a KGB officer who thinks the fall of E. Germany was a catastrophe on the level of Hitler invading Russia.

 

[Andylusion]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

The irony of all this is, that nearly half the left-wingers here have at one point or another, said we need to cut the defense budget.

But if we actually were to cut our defense budget by that much, NATO is gone. And with the departure of NATO, Europe will end up under the control of Russia, or China. Maybe not directly like Ukraine, but Russia will have unbelievable influence.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A war monger country?
You stupid ass.

Ever heard of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yeah the same country that invaded Kuwait ...an ally of the US !

So, we invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait 10 year prior and got their ass kicked when they did so...yep sounds like war mongering to me

 

[Harpy Eagle]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

The irony of all this is, that nearly half the left-wingers here have at one point or another, said we need to cut the defense budget.

But if we actually were to cut our defense budget by that much, NATO is gone. And with the departure of NATO, Europe will end up under the control of Russia, or China. Maybe not directly like Ukraine, but Russia will have unbelievable influence.

So, you think that China or Russia is going to physically invade Europe if it were not for NATO?

 

[healthmyths]

A war monger country?
You stupid ass.

Truth hurts

I think that one's on ignore. But it's a bit hard to claim the US isn't a war monger. There's just too much evidence for any SANE person to ignore.

So for example in Vietnam... the USA as a member of SEATO should have NOT honored that agreement right?
For example in Kuwait...
The U.S.-Kuwaiti strategic partnership intensified dramatically again after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
The United States spearheaded United Nations Security Council demands that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait and its authorization of the use of force, if necessary, to remove Iraqi forces from the occupied country.
The United States subsequently played a dominant role in the development of the multinational military Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm that liberated Kuwait. The U.S.-Kuwaiti relationship remained strong in the post-Gulf War period. Kuwait and the United States worked on a daily basis to monitor and to enforce Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.
So was the 1991 Liberation of Kuwait using US/UN forces against Iraq an agreement with a surrender or truce?

3 September: United States bombs Iraq and extends the No-fly zone in Southern Iraq. hmmm President Clinton....
31 October: Iraq ends its co-operation with the United Nations Special Commission.

So are these characteristics of a "WAR MONGER"?
Definition:a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups.

So when countries like Vietnam/France sign SEATO agreements that they can ask for help from other signers...i.e. the USA... is that an advocation of aggression? Or just MSM bias?
Countries like Kuwait ask for help against a true "WAR MONGER" Iraq... and the US and UN come to their aid... is that a "war monger"???

Please explain your miss use of the term regarding the USA as it shows a sense of inadequacy when it comes to not to your "sanity" but poor education and scholarship along with the gross dependency on a truly anti-American MSM that feeds your paranoia about America.

 

[rightwinger]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

We are the biggest dog on the block....... for now........ Who do you want to take our place?

We spend 46 cents of every military dollar on earth

I don’t think we have to fear anyone

 

[rightwinger]

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

The irony of all this is, that nearly half the left-wingers here have at one point or another, said we need to cut the defense budget.

But if we actually were to cut our defense budget by that much, NATO is gone. And with the departure of NATO, Europe will end up under the control of Russia, or China. Maybe not directly like Ukraine, but Russia will have unbelievable influence.

So, you think that China or Russia is going to physically invade Europe if it were not for NATO?

I think existing European countries can more than handle Russia

 

[buckeye45_73]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

Do you have links for that. that number sounds very high.

 

[healthmyths]

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

The irony of all this is, that nearly half the left-wingers here have at one point or another, said we need to cut the defense budget.

But if we actually were to cut our defense budget by that much, NATO is gone. And with the departure of NATO, Europe will end up under the control of Russia, or China. Maybe not directly like Ukraine, but Russia will have unbelievable influence.

So, you think that China or Russia is going to physically invade Europe if it were not for NATO?

And you are naive. What would stop them then?
As regards Russia...

Did Vladimir Putin call the breakup of the USSR 'the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century?'
Putin, a veteran of the Soviet spy agency called the KGB, made the comments Bolton cites in an April 2005 state of the nation address to the country’s top politicians and parliament. A version is available in English from the Kremlin archives. Putin’s words vary depending on the translation, but the idea remains the same.
From the Kremlin:
"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."
Did Vladimir Putin call the breakup of the USSR 'the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century?'

PUTIN WANTS TO REBUILD SOVIET UNION, FORMER HEAD OF BRITISH ARMY WARNS
"I always like to remind people regarding Vladimir Putin that he said publicly…that the worst thing, the worst thing let me underline that, that happened in the 20th century, i.e., worse than two World Wars, worse than the Holocaust, worse than the Great Depression—the worst thing was the fall of the Soviet Union," Jackson told the U.K.-based LBC. "It tells you quite a lot I think about Putin because he sees modern Russia as the inheritor of the great power status which the Soviet Union used to have and I think he's trying to rebuild that."
“It's a theme which is there, to rebuild modern Russia as a major power in the world as the Soviet Union was in his view,” Jackson added of the former KGB officer turned world leader.
Putin wants to rebuild Soviet Union, former head of British Army warns

Now TraitorGATOR.... are your desires for Russia to rise as the Soviet Union again? To take over Germany, Poland,Czech Republic, Hungary,Sovak Republic, Bulgaria,Croatia,Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Albania AND more...i.e. what the Soviet Union was before the collapse?

Of course TraitorGator... you obviously weren't around during the "cold war"... "duck and cover"... I remember growing up walking to school on a bright sunny day thinking...
"wow what a day for a nuclear attack"! Yes people my age were raised during the period when any time like the Cuban crisis when I was about ready to go to college and NOT sure in a few days in October 1962 if it would be a "good day for a nuclear attack"!

 

[KissMy]

The OP can't count, read or comprehend. She thinks $700 million is $700 billion LOL!!!

 

[bendog]

I thought we had stopped your foot chewing compulsion. Back to square one.

we spend 3.5 % of gdp on NATO thats a lot of money !

No where near 700 billion by a loooooong shot but proportionally we're twice to fifteen times the size of all the other members. so it's relational.

That’s because we are idiots obsessed with having the biggest dog on the block

The irony of all this is, that nearly half the left-wingers here have at one point or another, said we need to cut the defense budget.

But if we actually were to cut our defense budget by that much, NATO is gone. And with the departure of NATO, Europe will end up under the control of Russia, or China. Maybe not directly like Ukraine, but Russia will have unbelievable influence.

So, you think that China or Russia is going to physically invade Europe if it were not for NATO?

The basic premise of the Reagan/BushI post-cold war defense policy was that if countries practice free trade, as defined by Friedman-Thatcher-Reagan, we will guarantee the trade routes stay open.

I think Trump's view, in a nutshell, is that we got screwed with this policy. I believe the figures show Trump is wrong.

United States GDP | 1960-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News

 

[JBond]

although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??

Funding NATO

The US pays 22% of the costs of NATO, more than any other country, but possibly because it's 3 times larger than any other country.

Germany pays 14%, but has 80 million people compared to 325 million.

France and the UK pay half what the US pays, but have populations about 1/5th the size of the US.

So, it's bullshit that the US pays more than other countries.

The US pays a lot of money towards its own military. But that's because the US is a warmonger country. NATO is defensive, most of the US military is offensive.

Yes, we pay more according to NATO. $683 billion last year.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl...9-pr2017-111-en.pdf#page=7&zoom=auto,-274,826

 

[healthmyths]

A war monger country?
You stupid ass.

Ever heard of Iraq.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yeah the same country that invaded Kuwait ...an ally of the US !

So, we invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait 10 year prior and got their ass kicked when they did so...yep sounds like war mongering to me

Actually you as the traitorGator seem so intent to prove the USA is a war monger, disgusting country why don't you leave if we Americans are so bad that we
as Bill Clinton agreed in signing the 1998 Liberation of IRAQ ACT...
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.
as well as these other war mongers...

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" TraitorGator.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.