Trump's claim that NATO owes American taxpayers

[depotoo]

Actually only 4, besides us, as paid their full dues-

The countries agreed in 2014 to spend 2 percent of their gross national product on defense, but only the United States, Estonia, Greece, Poland and United Kingdom have fulfilled that commitment, according to reports.
NATO chief vows Europe will pay 'fair burden’; Pence says 'This must end'


And the US paid 3.6% of GDP, which is above our 2%

In 2014 the members of NATO agreed to raise their defence spending to 2% of GDP [BOLD] by 2024[/BOLD]. There is nothing in this agreement the required any NATO country to pay money to the United States. Trump's claims that the American taxpayers are owed billions is completely scurrilous and hence NATO leaders openly laughed in his face for saying it.

Yet again we see evidence that Trump didn't "do his homework" before spouting off at the mouth.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So they did not agree to pay 2% of GDP? Really? Then let us withdraw from NATO. If they do not wish to contribute to their defense then neither should we. Problem solved.

They agreed to pay the US a dime. They agreed to raise their defence spending (to be read as "increase the size of their army and upgrade their equipment"), until it is 2% of GDP, and most NATO members are in compliance with that agreement.

Trump needs to read these agreements BEFORE he spouts off like this and makes a total fool of himself.

It's like him saying "I'm going to find out what's in that agreement" AFTER he spouted off at the Australian Prime Minister about the refugee agreement and the PM hung up on him.

If you're going to discuss an agreement and not look like a buffoon, you need to know what's in it BEFORE you open your mouth.

I think that most are not spending 2%. But the soviet union no longer exists. Trump went over and gave a Steve Miller bully speech, and got laughed at as a result. The real question is what is Nato's mission. Militarily we probably can't keep Putin from meddling in the Baltics or Ukraine, but even without the US, Nato spends multiple times what Russia can spend.

We didn't wreck our armored divisions by meddling in Europe. We can barely keep unit rotations going for the ME.

So in your world China, North Korea and Iran is not a threat?


.

China is too important of trading partner to be a threat. They'll posture, but they'll never start shit with the United States. Iran is not a threat to the United States, but they could be to some of their neighbors down the road. North Korea is a threat and I do it's past time that nutjob was dealt with once and for all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So they did not agree to pay 2% of GDP? Really? Then let us withdraw from NATO. If they do not wish to contribute to their defense then neither should we. Problem solved.

They agreed to pay the US a dime. They agreed to raise their defence spending (to be read as "increase the size of their army and upgrade their equipment"), until it is 2% of GDP, and most NATO members are in compliance with that agreement.

Trump needs to read these agreements BEFORE he spouts off like this and makes a total fool of himself.

It's like him saying "I'm going to find out what's in that agreement" AFTER he spouted off at the Australian Prime Minister about the refugee agreement and the PM hung up on him.

If you're going to discuss an agreement and not look like a buffoon, you need to know what's in it BEFORE you open your mouth.

I think that most are not spending 2%. But the soviet union no longer exists. Trump went over and gave a Steve Miller bully speech, and got laughed at as a result. The real question is what is Nato's mission. Militarily we probably can't keep Putin from meddling in the Baltics or Ukraine, but even without the US, Nato spends multiple times what Russia can spend.

We didn't wreck our armored divisions by meddling in Europe. We can barely keep unit rotations going for the ME.

So in your world China, North Korea and Iran is not a threat?


.

China is too important of trading partner to be a threat. They'll posture, but they'll never start shit with the United States. Iran is not a threat to the United States, but they could be to some of their neighbors down the road. North Korea is a threat and I do it's past time that nutjob was dealt with once and for all.

What ?

Iran is a huge threat to the U.S.A. in the middle East, we are fighting a proxy war with them right now in Yeman using Saudi troops ...


.

 

[radical right]

China is too important of trading partner to be a threat. They'll posture, but they'll never start shit with the United States. Iran is not a threat to the United States, but they could be to some of their neighbors down the road. North Korea is a threat and I do it's past time that nutjob was dealt with once and for all.

Actually China has been buzzing our recon flights (P3 orions) like the one they crashed into in 2001. And North Korea is a problem that was far easier to prevent, than to try to fix. So it's like putting the genie back in the bottle.

 

[radical right]

What ?

Iran is a huge threat to the U.S.A. in the middle East, we are fighting a proxy war with them right now in Yeman using Saudi troops ...
.

Before the Iraq war, Iran wasn't even a regional threat. All it's resources were devoted to it's clashes with Iraq.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What ?

Iran is a huge threat to the U.S.A. in the middle East, we are fighting a proxy war with them right now in Yeman using Saudi troops ...
.

Before the Iraq war, Iran wasn't even a regional threat. All it's resources were devoted to it's clashes with Iraq.

What?

So Iran wasn't a regional threat?


Do you know what regional even means?

.

 

[radical right]

Before the Iraq war, Iran wasn't even a regional threat. All it's resources were devoted to it's clashes with Iraq.

What?

So Iran wasn't a regional threat?


Do you know what regional even means?

.

Iran spent all it's efforts on Iraq. It didn't have enough left to go after anybody else.

Regional doesn't mean against a single neighbor. It means regional.

 

[Johann]

We should leave NATO and let the Germans pay for their own defense.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Before the Iraq war, Iran wasn't even a regional threat. All it's resources were devoted to it's clashes with Iraq.

What?

So Iran wasn't a regional threat?


Do you know what regional even means?

.

Iran spent all it's efforts on Iraq. It didn't have enough left to go after anybody else.

Regional doesn't mean against a single neighbor. It means regional.

Liar..


They are funding for instance the houthis right now in Yeman..


.

 

[radical right]

Liar..

They are funding for instance the houthis right now in Yeman..
.

Saudi Arabia funded Osam BinLaden. Would you call the Saudi's a regional threat?

Cool !!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So they did not agree to pay 2% of GDP? Really? Then let us withdraw from NATO. If they do not wish to contribute to their defense then neither should we. Problem solved.

They agreed to pay the US a dime. They agreed to raise their defence spending (to be read as "increase the size of their army and upgrade their equipment"), until it is 2% of GDP, and most NATO members are in compliance with that agreement.

Trump needs to read these agreements BEFORE he spouts off like this and makes a total fool of himself.

It's like him saying "I'm going to find out what's in that agreement" AFTER he spouted off at the Australian Prime Minister about the refugee agreement and the PM hung up on him.

If you're going to discuss an agreement and not look like a buffoon, you need to know what's in it BEFORE you open your mouth.

I think that most are not spending 2%. But the soviet union no longer exists. Trump went over and gave a Steve Miller bully speech, and got laughed at as a result. The real question is what is Nato's mission. Militarily we probably can't keep Putin from meddling in the Baltics or Ukraine, but even without the US, Nato spends multiple times what Russia can spend.

We didn't wreck our armored divisions by meddling in Europe. We can barely keep unit rotations going for the ME.

So in your world China, North Korea and Iran is not a threat?


.

China is too important of trading partner to be a threat. They'll posture, but they'll never start shit with the United States. Iran is not a threat to the United States, but they could be to some of their neighbors down the road. North Korea is a threat and I do it's past time that nutjob was dealt with once and for all.

What ?

Iran is a huge threat to the U.S.A. in the middle East, we are fighting a proxy war with them right now in Yeman using Saudi troops ...


.

Why is the United States in the Middle East?

 

[Dragonlady]

In 2014 the members of NATO agreed to raise their defence spending to 2% of GDP [BOLD] by 2024[/BOLD]. There is nothing in this agreement the required any NATO country to pay money to the United States. Trump's claims that the American taxpayers are owed billions is completely scurrilous and hence NATO leaders openly laughed in his face for saying it.

I'll put this in terms even simple enough for you to understand. We have been footing a huge chunk of the bill for European defense spending since WWII. That's why they can afford their vast welfare states that you people think is Utopia. If we suddenly shut down all of our bases overseas and brought our military home they'd suddenly have to start coughing up a lot more money for their own defense. That is what Trump means by they owe the American taxpayers.

Get it now?

The Americans asked for those bases in Europe as a buttress against the expansion of communism, not out of some altruistic notion of defending Europe. Stopping the spread of communism was seen to be in America's best interests.

The American arms buildup began under Reagan who vastly increased military spending. Even after communism collapsed, that build up increased as the US became more and more involved in the tribal wars in the Middle East.

Americans were promised a "peace dividend" after the threat of communistic expansion collapsed with the Soviet Empire, but that dividend never materialized because the US immediately became involved with the tribal wars in the Middle East. Protecting the flow of oil from friendly OPEC nations was deemed in America's interest.

Nobody demanded that America squander their resources in this manner. YOU CHOSE to spend this money and screamed to high Heaven when anyone suggests cutting military spending.

Worse, you're not even paying for this military build up, you're just putting it all on the credit card. I say let the people who want war toys pay for them. Raise taxes to pay for your wars. Maybe if the wealthy conservatives whose first solution to a problem is to lob bombs had to pay for them, they'd be more interested in building peace.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In 2014 the members of NATO agreed to raise their defence spending to 2% of GDP [BOLD] by 2024[/BOLD]. There is nothing in this agreement the required any NATO country to pay money to the United States. Trump's claims that the American taxpayers are owed billions is completely scurrilous and hence NATO leaders openly laughed in his face for saying it.

I'll put this in terms even simple enough for you to understand. We have been footing a huge chunk of the bill for European defense spending since WWII. That's why they can afford their vast welfare states that you people think is Utopia. If we suddenly shut down all of our bases overseas and brought our military home they'd suddenly have to start coughing up a lot more money for their own defense. That is what Trump means by they owe the American taxpayers.

Get it now?

The Americans asked for those bases in Europe as a buttress against the expansion of communism, not out of some altruistic notion of defending Europe. Stopping the spread of communism was seen to be in America's best interests.

The American arms buildup began under Reagan who vastly increased military spending. Even after communism collapsed, that build up increased as the US became more and more involved in the tribal wars in the Middle East.

Americans were promised a "peace dividend" after the threat of communistic expansion collapsed with the Soviet Empire, but that dividend never materialized because the US immediately became involved with the tribal wars in the Middle East. Protecting the flow of oil from friendly OPEC nations was deemed in America's interest.

Nobody demanded that America squander their resources in this manner. YOU CHOSE to spend this money and screamed to high Heaven when anyone suggests cutting military spending.

Worse, you're not even paying for this military build up, you're just putting it all on the credit card. I say let the people who want war toys pay for them. Raise taxes to pay for your wars. Maybe if the wealthy conservatives whose first solution to a problem is to lob bombs had to pay for them, they'd be more interested in building peace.

Do you have a source for this bullshit or are you making it up?

In 1993, the US Navy was so depleted that my ship had to skip refresher training coming out of overhaul and stand by for a possible invasion of Haiti. The Marine 23rd MEU had to be flown to GTMO where we on-loaded them and took them to the waters near Port Au Prince, where we sat for 4 months.

About that same time, because most of the ships had been decommissioned, I was informed that my services as a naval officer would no longer be required and if I wanted out, then was the time to walk away.

That peace dividend was real when it came to the taxpayers, and even more real to those of us in the military who suffered through it. It was so badly mismanaged, when President Bush was elected, the Navy was in such dire straits for personnel they were paying my brother a $10,000 a year bonus NOT to retire and even asked me to return to active duty.

There was no buildup from about 1992 through 2001! To say there was is a bald-faced lie!