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

[jc456]

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.

do they each have military bases in the US they fund?

 

[g5000]

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 ??

You don't even care whether something is true or not do you?

Because none of what you just said is true -- at all

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"™

 

[NightFox]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

You obviously don't know history. I'll chalk that up to your awful Government Schooling. US Taxpayers gave Europe everything it has today. Its wonderful prosperity is all due to US Taxpayers. They've done enough over there. Europe can defend itself properly now. Time to give US Taxpayers a much-earned break. End NATO.

You're the one that obviously doesn't know history, do you know what happened the last time the United States withdrew from European military affairs?

It was a little tiff commonly known as World War II, perhaps you've heard of it? As much as I'd like for the United States to leave the Europeans to their own devices with respect to managing their own national defense, they've proven that they can't be trusted to do so.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Europe now consists of very wealthy Nuclear Power Nations. And that's all due to US Taxpayers' rebuilding of Europe after the War. They can defend themselves just fine over there. Time to end NATO and move on. Give US Taxpayers the break they deserve.

Yep, it does, fortunately the last time we left them to mind their own affairs they didn't possess that power, otherwise it's a safe bet we wouldn't be here to have this conversation.

You ready to roll the dice that something like for example, a regional conflict in the Balkans doesn't provide the spark that ignites the powder keg of a global war? I mean it's not like anything like that has happened before, right?

"It should be clear to all, after the past ten years, that NATO isn't attacking Serbia because of Milosevic; it is attacking Milosevic because of Serbia." -- Slobadan Milosevic

 

[rightwinger]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

You obviously don't know history. I'll chalk that up to your awful Government Schooling. US Taxpayers gave Europe everything it has today. Its wonderful prosperity is all due to US Taxpayers. They've done enough over there. Europe can defend itself properly now. Time to give US Taxpayers a much-earned break. End NATO.

Agree

Let’s cut down our military budget and leave Europe to defend itself

 

[rightwinger]

US Taxpayers rebuilt Europe after the War. Europeans owe everything to them. The wonderful prosperity they're experiencing today, wouldn't have been possible without US Taxpayers.

But, it seems most Europeans have forgotten history. They've been very stingy when it comes to NATO. We rebuilt Europe, that mission has been accomplished. So now it's time to disband NATO and move on. US Taxpayers deserve a break.

Why did we have to "rebuild Europe"?

You obviously don't know history. I'll chalk that up to your awful Government Schooling. US Taxpayers gave Europe everything it has today. Its wonderful prosperity is all due to US Taxpayers. They've done enough over there. Europe can defend itself properly now. Time to give US Taxpayers a much-earned break. End NATO.

You're the one that obviously doesn't know history, do you know what happened the last time the United States withdrew from European military affairs?

It was a little tiff commonly known as World War II, perhaps you've heard of it? As much as I'd like for the United States to leave the Europeans to their own devices with respect to managing their own national defense, they've proven that they can't be trusted to do so.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Europe now consists of very wealthy Nuclear Power Nations. And that's all due to US Taxpayers' rebuilding of Europe after the War. They can defend themselves just fine over there. Time to end NATO and move on. Give US Taxpayers the break they deserve.

Europe enjoys better infrastructure, education and healthcare because we provide so much of their defense.

Pull back our military and let Americans enjoy better social services

 

[KissMy]

Clinton & Obama reduced US spending on NATO. Bush & Trump EXPLODED SPENDING!!!

Yeah, and Bush had to rebuild our military because Clinton gutted it. Obama almost hallowed out our military, which is why Iraq and Afghanistan both ended up in chaos, under his supervision.

Military Fat Cats wasteful spending $10,000 for a toilet seat cover MUST be SLASHED!!! These useless assholes couldn't even rescue Puerto Rico or New Orleans!!!

 

[yidnar]

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.

what do you mean ??fighting against leftist totalitarian countries in ww1 and 2 ?

 

[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.

what do you mean ??fighting against leftist totalitarian countries in ww1 and 2 ?

I don't understand a thing you've said.

However, we're not talking WW2. Probably from the end of WW2 onwards the US became a war monger.

Since 2001 there's been an invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion of Iraq.

War in Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Uganda, Syria, Yemen.

Certainly seems like war mongering.

The US hasn't not been at war since 2001.

 

[Andylusion]

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

We had an agreement with Iraq to disarm, that ended the war in 1991.

Iraq failed to uphold their end of the agreement. Additionally, based on the intelligence data we had available at the time, we had reason to believe that Saddam was continuing their WMDs program. This conclusion was validated from several sources including European sources.

The fact we did not find massive operational WMD programs in Iraq, does not change the fact that prior to, all the evidence we had at the time suggested they did.

Regardless of what you can say with 20/20 hind sight, doesn't change the fact that a president must go based on the evidence he has, not the evidence he might theoretically have in the future.

This is also why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of democrats throughout government, all support taking action in Iraq, and only started the "bush lied and people died" routine, when they found it was politically favorable to do so.

Just like all the anti-torture people in Congress, were fully aware and supportive of "enhanced interrogation" prior to it becoming a political win.

Please. No one paying attention thought Saddam had operational womd programs when W invaded. It was NOT over womd. It was about nation building and installing a democracy. And neither turned out to be the total loss critics like me expected.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 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.”
Madeline 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

“[W]e 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.

“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.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout 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 has 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.

Which of these quotes leading up to the war, by Democrats, do you think are fabricated, and provide proof.

They are all bullshit. There was no deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands was a real and grave threat to our security. There was no threat to our security .

You are still missing the point.

Again... as we have said a million times..... it's easy to say that after the fact, with 20/20 hind sight.

If we all knew then, back in 2002, what we know now.... no one would have gone into Iraq.

Problem: We didn't know what we know now. Are you too stupid to grasp that?

Everyone believed that Saddam was going to pose a threat to world security, in 2002. Everyone did. EVERYONE. Literally EVERYONE.

Yeah, we now know they didn't. But we didn't know that THEN. You moron.

And by the way stupid..... whose fault is that? Saddam.

If Saddam had allowed unrestricted access to the UN inspectors, and provided clear proof to them that all of his WMDs and production capability had been completely destroyed..... we wouldn't have even thought of going in.

The problem is, he played games with the UN for an entire decade. We still found chemical weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed. We found them. They existed. It's been documented.

His job was simply to show the UN inspectors that his WMDs had been dismantled. If he had done what he said he would, none of this would have happened.

 

[Andylusion]

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

We had an agreement with Iraq to disarm, that ended the war in 1991.

Iraq failed to uphold their end of the agreement. Additionally, based on the intelligence data we had available at the time, we had reason to believe that Saddam was continuing their WMDs program. This conclusion was validated from several sources including European sources.

The fact we did not find massive operational WMD programs in Iraq, does not change the fact that prior to, all the evidence we had at the time suggested they did.

Regardless of what you can say with 20/20 hind sight, doesn't change the fact that a president must go based on the evidence he has, not the evidence he might theoretically have in the future.

This is also why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of democrats throughout government, all support taking action in Iraq, and only started the "bush lied and people died" routine, when they found it was politically favorable to do so.

Just like all the anti-torture people in Congress, were fully aware and supportive of "enhanced interrogation" prior to it becoming a political win.

Please. No one paying attention thought Saddam had operational womd programs when W invaded. It was NOT over womd. It was about nation building and installing a democracy. And neither turned out to be the total loss critics like me expected.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 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.”
Madeline 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

“[W]e 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.

“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.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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 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 seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (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

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout 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 has 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.

Which of these quotes leading up to the war, by Democrats, do you think are fabricated, and provide proof.

And guess what, we were successful in stopping Saddams' womd programs before W invaded. Shocked I tell ya, we were shocked.

But again, you do the relative success of the Iraq nationbuilding mission a disserverice. They do have a nominal functioning democracy. The Sunni by an large were disposed in the civil war our invasion caused, or at least set in motion, and the destruction of ISIS pretty much finished the job. But Iraq has a pretty democratic govt.

And that may be bring more pressure in Iran to become more democratic

But we did not know that. Did you miss that many of those quotes about Saddam's weapons programs were from 2002 and 2003? We didn't know that. It's idiotic for you to point out facts we know today, more than a decade later, as if people in 2002 were supposed to know those things. They didn't. None of us knew that in 2002.

 

[Mac1958]

Once Putin is done wrecking NATO, we'll be able to save that $2 billion.

Phew! What a relief!

 

[cnm]

For the most part, NATO member nations aren't meeting their treaty obligations with respect to total defense spending, last time I looked it was only 4 countries out of 27 member countries that were meeting the 2% of GDP target specified by treaty.

No, they agreed to aim to hit that target by 2024.

 

[cnm]

It was a little tiff commonly known as World War II, perhaps you've heard of it? As much as I'd like for the United States to leave the Europeans to their own devices with respect to managing their own national defense, they've proven that they can't be trusted to do so.

Absolutely. Germany and Italy made a shambles of defending themselves.

 

[cnm]

Why did it require rebuilding?

Germany spent more than 2% of gdp on defence.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

..Everyone believed that Saddam was going to pose a threat to world security, in 2002. Everyone did. EVERYONE. Literally EVERYONE.

Funny, I remember millions of people demonstrating against the planned liberation of the Iraqi oil fields, I'm pretty sure they didn't buy the propaganda of the corrupt Bu$h junta

 

[cnm]

I don't think you're supposed to take him literally...

 

[Andylusion]

..Everyone believed that Saddam was going to pose a threat to world security, in 2002. Everyone did. EVERYONE. Literally EVERYONE.

Funny, I remember millions of people demonstrating against the planned liberation of the Iraqi oil fields, I'm pretty sure they didn't buy the propaganda of the corrupt Bu$h junta

Um..... I'm talking about people who actually know anything. Any brainless idiot, can sit around screaming, while having absolutely no knowledge about anything. Just look at BLM or OWS people.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't think you're supposed to take him literally...

Yeah, I should have been more specific. Like all the people in the intelligence community, or government, or world agencies. You know, the people that are tasked with making decisions on this stuff. Not mindless screamy people who can't even find a job, let alone know what is going on outside the world of their mothers basement.

 

[night_son]

Has anyone else checked the U.S. mission to NATO website?

Fact Sheet: U.S. Contributions to NATO Capabilities | U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

 

[Norman]

Once Putin is done wrecking NATO, we'll be able to save that $2 billion.

Phew! What a relief!

How about this alternative:

Europe funds its own defense budget.

So far most do not seem to be agreeing with America's agenda or Trump in Europe. Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?

Maybe they can save some money by importing less invaders. Plus, then they won't have to fund additional law enforcement budget to take care of the invaders as they grow in numbers.