Why Trump is after NATO...only 5 countries out of 27 members are meeting their pledge!

[healthmyths]

Let's see the reality of stationing troops on the southern border.
The Mexico–United States border is an international border separating Mexico and the United States, extending from the Pacific Ocean to the west and Gulf of Mexico to the east. The border traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to uninhabitable deserts. Approximately 350 million legal crossings occur annually,[1][2] and is the most frequently crossed border in the world.[3][1][4]

The total length of the continental border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km). From the Gulf of Mexico, it follows the course of the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, and El Paso, Texas. Westward from El Paso–Juárez, it crosses vast tracts of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts to the Colorado River Delta and San Diego–Tijuana, before reaching the Pacific Ocean.[5]
Mexico–United States border - Wikipedia
So having All the troops that were stationed in Europe brought back and stationed at the border is your suggestion.

65,631.... American troops in Europe. United States military deployments - Wikipedia

So according to TraitorGator we tear down every wall we have and fence between because he doesn't think walls and fences are affective detergents (contrary to many centuries of experiences!!!) he would station 33 soldiers ever 1 mile or one solder to protect 157 feet... instead of a fence. Now mind you the soldiers must stand guard every 8 hours.
So instead of one soldier ever 1 mile it works out to 11 soldiers per mile per day 7 days a week. Or then one soldier for ever 471 feet. Night and day 24 hours 7 days a week.
Now what is the cost? three square meals a day, $19.25; standard pay, $50.59 a day; combat pay, $5 a day or a total per diem of $75.
.An army of one carries a high price

So in lieu of a wall you will place at a cost of $4,911,824 per day to house, feed and pay 65,632 soldiers...per day or :$1.8 billion a year 100 years---( Chinese wall built over 2,000 years)
or nearly $180 billion... Right
Instead Trump's wall will cost over 5 years to build about $25 billion. And that's it.

Yea leave it to TraitorGator to ignore the details. Just a minor thing. Oh and the above figure was working 7 days a week. No time off, vacations, leave. I'm sure a large portion of
our European based soldiers would love that.
And think about it... they'd be covering about 500 feet between them. When's the last time TraitorGator you ran with a full pack 250 feet after someone who has snuck through
your line of sight!
Yea TraitorGator... your attention to minor details seems a bit shrift!

The military members are already part of the military and already being paid so there is no additional cost, in fact there is money saved by not having them in Europe where we pay more per member. So you cost argument is out the window.

Also, since you never served you may not know this, but our military has these things called "vehicles", some have wheels and some have tracks and they are motorized and can carry multiple people at high rates of speed.

Also, since you never served you may not know this, but our military has these things called "aircraft", both fixed wing and rotary wing (google those terms if you do not know what they mean). These "aircraft" can actually leave the ground and fly through the air (thus the name) covering great distances in a short amount of time and "impassible" terrain is not really an issue for them.

Here is an idea for you, go see your local recruiter, join up and learn something about the capabilities of our military, then come back when you are not so fucking stupid.

Thanks!

And YOU are forgetting ONE VERY LARGE restriction on this exercise.
Posse Comitatus Act
is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

Specifically prohibits uses such as you so stupidly offer!
Change that LAW idiot and maybe it would work. But knowing your stupid attitude about Trump and being the TraitorGator you are you'd then complain...Trump's a dictator"!
Trump is another Hitler! Yes you would because you can't see beyond what Trump is to what he is doing!
I personally don't like Trump! I think he is arrogant. Loud. Obnoxious and definitely a braggart.
But like the people I knew in Queens NY for several years HE like them LOVE America evidently more than you do!
He like them are LOYAL to America! Unlike YOU traitorGator! He like THEM and evidently unlike you love his children and grandchildren more than the luxury of retirement
on his billions! He like them and me and millions like me find people like you very funny! You talk big talk but when it comes to the walk... you tippy toe around it... I'm sure you were one of those idiots that loved Obama's administrations "We will lead from behind" sentiment! Yea look where that got us!

The problem here is that morons like you think that border control is a law enforcement job, when it is not. It is the job of the military to defend the country, why will people like you not allow them to do so?

You talk about how much more love you so much more than me yet you gave any service to you country, you just take and take and people like me that love this country enough to offer up 20 years of our lives in service to it carry your weight since you lack the balls to do so.

You want to build a fucking wall and hide behind it and yet you accuse someone else of leading from behind.

After a drill instructor hands you one of these for the first time, them come back and talk to me about loving this country, you fucking free loader.

Obviously you can take orders. But that appears all you are good for as you can't read simple facts.

The Federal Government is prohibited by Federal Law to dispatch Federal Troops to the border.
Why else were the national guard sent and NOT Federal Troops?
Guess you aren't aware of the LEGAL ramifications i.e. and because you can't understand two simple posse comitatus - Legal Definition

1. A federal statute prohibiting the Army and Air Force from direct participation in civilian law-enforcement activities.
2. Posse comitatus dictionary definition | posse comitatus defined

Which is WHY your dumb ass obviously ignorant of the LAW suggestion won't work!

Oh and as far as flashing an image easily downloaded from any source... how about this one?

View attachment 204279

Herein lies the problem, defending the nation is not a civilian law-enforcement activity, no matter how much some people want it to be.

The Posse Comitatus Act that was passed to appease the losers in the South and to keep the Union from using its armies as a police force. It was never intended to include the defense of our nation's borders. I should also point out that the Navy and the US Marine Corps are specifically not mentioned in the act, so it actually does not apply to them.

The difference between my image and yours is that I actually earned mine, something you would not understand.

As much as I detest ABC news here is their explaining for people like you the limits on Presidents' i.e.

But while President Trump could order active duty military personnel or federalized National Guard troops to assist with
border security operations, they would not be allowed to carry out law enforcement duties like detaining migrants crossing the border illegally.

That's because the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the U.S. military from conducting law enforcement duties in the United States. The only way that can be allowed is by a special congressional authorization.

Trump's suggestion of U.S. military troops along the border with Mexico echoes actions by President George W. Bush in 2006 and by President Barack Obama in 2010 that sent thousands of National Guard troops to assist with border operations.

But the troops participating in Operation Jump Start and Operation Phalanx respectively were only allowed to serve in a support role for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel.

In line with Posse Comitatus, they were not allowed to detain people crossing the border illegally from Mexico.
US military on border would have limited role

And as far as your "image" THAT is exactly what it is! Your image of yourself...TraitorGator!
Anyone can go to this web site U.S. Marine Corps Enlisted Men Brass Visor Cap Badge | Badges of the World!

 

[healthmyths]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

There are several ways a skilled negotiator could use this. Trump is ramping up a trade war while simultaneously holding defense allies to their pledges. Perhaps he is using the allies deficits in defense spending to parlay their support on the bigger issue of the trade deficit with China. Who knows?

That's a very good point!

 

[rightwinger]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

 

[rightwinger]

This is nothing to do with NATO military readiness.

This is to do with Putin DESPISING NATO...he wants it gone.

He told/convinced/ordered Trump to make it go away.

Trump is just trying to do what Putin wants and is destroying NATO. First, he makes a demand he KNOWS NATO will not meet. Then he will have the public excuse he needs to pull America out of NATO. And if America leaves NATO - NATO probably folds.

Voila! Putin gets what he wants and Trump does what he was told/convinced/ordered to do by Putin.

(and if NATO calls Trumps bluff about spending - he will probably find some other excuse to pull America out of NATO to please Vlad).


Can I prove it? Nope.

But it is obvious.


Trump WILL almost certainly pull America out of NATO. NATO will fall and Putin will get what he wanted.

Kind of like what Obama on an OPEN microphone promised PUTIN?

Obama open mic slip: 'After my election I have more flexibility

Obama was right
You do have more flexibility after an election than before one

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The military members are already part of the military and already being paid so there is no additional cost, in fact there is money saved by not having them in Europe where we pay more per member. So you cost argument is out the window.

Also, since you never served you may not know this, but our military has these things called "vehicles", some have wheels and some have tracks and they are motorized and can carry multiple people at high rates of speed.

Also, since you never served you may not know this, but our military has these things called "aircraft", both fixed wing and rotary wing (google those terms if you do not know what they mean). These "aircraft" can actually leave the ground and fly through the air (thus the name) covering great distances in a short amount of time and "impassible" terrain is not really an issue for them.

Here is an idea for you, go see your local recruiter, join up and learn something about the capabilities of our military, then come back when you are not so fucking stupid.

Thanks!

And YOU are forgetting ONE VERY LARGE restriction on this exercise.
Posse Comitatus Act
is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia

Specifically prohibits uses such as you so stupidly offer!
Change that LAW idiot and maybe it would work. But knowing your stupid attitude about Trump and being the TraitorGator you are you'd then complain...Trump's a dictator"!
Trump is another Hitler! Yes you would because you can't see beyond what Trump is to what he is doing!
I personally don't like Trump! I think he is arrogant. Loud. Obnoxious and definitely a braggart.
But like the people I knew in Queens NY for several years HE like them LOVE America evidently more than you do!
He like them are LOYAL to America! Unlike YOU traitorGator! He like THEM and evidently unlike you love his children and grandchildren more than the luxury of retirement
on his billions! He like them and me and millions like me find people like you very funny! You talk big talk but when it comes to the walk... you tippy toe around it... I'm sure you were one of those idiots that loved Obama's administrations "We will lead from behind" sentiment! Yea look where that got us!

The problem here is that morons like you think that border control is a law enforcement job, when it is not. It is the job of the military to defend the country, why will people like you not allow them to do so?

You talk about how much more love you so much more than me yet you gave any service to you country, you just take and take and people like me that love this country enough to offer up 20 years of our lives in service to it carry your weight since you lack the balls to do so.

You want to build a fucking wall and hide behind it and yet you accuse someone else of leading from behind.

After a drill instructor hands you one of these for the first time, them come back and talk to me about loving this country, you fucking free loader.

Obviously you can take orders. But that appears all you are good for as you can't read simple facts.

The Federal Government is prohibited by Federal Law to dispatch Federal Troops to the border.
Why else were the national guard sent and NOT Federal Troops?
Guess you aren't aware of the LEGAL ramifications i.e. and because you can't understand two simple posse comitatus - Legal Definition

1. A federal statute prohibiting the Army and Air Force from direct participation in civilian law-enforcement activities.
2. Posse comitatus dictionary definition | posse comitatus defined

Which is WHY your dumb ass obviously ignorant of the LAW suggestion won't work!

Oh and as far as flashing an image easily downloaded from any source... how about this one?

View attachment 204279

Herein lies the problem, defending the nation is not a civilian law-enforcement activity, no matter how much some people want it to be.

The Posse Comitatus Act that was passed to appease the losers in the South and to keep the Union from using its armies as a police force. It was never intended to include the defense of our nation's borders. I should also point out that the Navy and the US Marine Corps are specifically not mentioned in the act, so it actually does not apply to them.

The difference between my image and yours is that I actually earned mine, something you would not understand.

As much as I detest ABC news here is their explaining for people like you the limits on Presidents' i.e.

But while President Trump could order active duty military personnel or federalized National Guard troops to assist with
border security operations, they would not be allowed to carry out law enforcement duties like detaining migrants crossing the border illegally.

That's because the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the U.S. military from conducting law enforcement duties in the United States. The only way that can be allowed is by a special congressional authorization.

Trump's suggestion of U.S. military troops along the border with Mexico echoes actions by President George W. Bush in 2006 and by President Barack Obama in 2010 that sent thousands of National Guard troops to assist with border operations.

But the troops participating in Operation Jump Start and Operation Phalanx respectively were only allowed to serve in a support role for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel.

In line with Posse Comitatus, they were not allowed to detain people crossing the border illegally from Mexico.
US military on border would have limited role

And as far as your "image" THAT is exactly what it is! Your image of yourself...TraitorGator!
Anyone can go to this web site U.S. Marine Corps Enlisted Men Brass Visor Cap Badge | Badges of the World!

All it would take is a simple act by Congress to change the broken PC law. It has been changed in the past and can be again.

Yes, anyone can go find the image on the Internet, but only a select few will ever know the feeling of being handed the EGA for the first time after it has been earned.

That is the difference between you and I, one of us loved our country enough to offer our service to it, the other uses the freedom they did not earn to talk out of their ass.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

We could get by on 2% if we quit policing the world and quit using our military as a political tool


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[rightwinger]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

We could get by on 2% if we quit policing the world and quit using our military as a political tool


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Of course we could

Why do we need a military bigger than the next eight countries combined when six of them are our allies?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

We could get by on 2% if we quit policing the world and quit using our military as a political tool


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Of course we could

Why do we need a military bigger than the next eight countries combined when six of them are our allies?

We don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[OldLady]

I listened to the President's press conference this morning, and he seemed quite pleased with how things turned out. I'm not sure I'm buying this "Peace through Strength" thing, but I guess if you believe it, it is why Russia or China hasn't invaded yet.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I listened to the President's press conference this morning, and he seemed quite pleased with how things turned out. I'm not sure I'm buying this "Peace through Strength" thing, but I guess if you believe it, it is why Russia or China hasn't invaded yet.

His presser was funny as hell. The original NATO argument was to have defense speaking up to 2% of GDP by 2024. NATO members said they would adhere to that timeline and Trump takes credit for something he had nothing to do with and his sheep kiss his ass a little bit longer this morning.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[rightwinger]

I listened to the President's press conference this morning, and he seemed quite pleased with how things turned out. I'm not sure I'm buying this "Peace through Strength" thing, but I guess if you believe it, it is why Russia or China hasn't invaded yet.

He is always pleased with his performance

 

[healthmyths]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

Don't think you understand the issue.
The formula for NATO is 2% or more of your country's Gross Domestic Product is spent by your country on military expenditures.

Do you want to cut our military spending by 50%? In other words cut out $300 billion of what is sorely needed of $700 billion being spent on ALL US military needs?
That would be reducing our military by at least half of the existing --
The projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for fiscal year 2017 was 1,281,900 servicemembers, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components.United States Armed Forces - Wikipedia
Also reducing our ships at sea, planes in the air, satellites in the sky... you want to do that so as to reduce the existing US military expenditures to 2% of the GDP?

NOW do you understand? Again... to do what you suggests means CUTTING the US defense spending by 50%!

 

[healthmyths]

I listened to the President's press conference this morning, and he seemed quite pleased with how things turned out. I'm not sure I'm buying this "Peace through Strength" thing, but I guess if you believe it, it is why Russia or China hasn't invaded yet.

His presser was funny as hell. The original NATO argument was to have defense speaking up to 2% of GDP by 2024. NATO members said they would adhere to that timeline and Trump takes credit for something he had nothing to do with and his sheep kiss his ass a little bit longer this morning.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

But being the TraitorGator you are you totally missed this from your reading...

“I would like to thank President Trump for his leadership on defense spending,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels, according to CNN.
“It is clearly having an impact. Last year on the president’s initiative we agreed to develop national plans to raise defense spending.”

Stoltenberg offered his thanks as NATO released its 2018 defense spending estimates, a projection of how much each member nation plans to spend on their military budgets for the year.
The latest NATO forecast predicts a fourth straight year of increased defense expenditures across the entire alliance, with Canada and European members making up a greater share of overall spending.
At least eight allies — the U.S., Greece, Estonia, Britain, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania and Romania — are expected to reach the 2 percent goal in 2018. Looking further ahead, European members and Canada plan to add an extra $266 billion between now and 2024, NATO spokesman Dylan White said Tuesday.
NATO Chief Thanks Trump For Pushing Allies To Boost Defense Spending

But TraitorGator... being the ignoramus that you are... YOU suggest the USA cut our defense spending by 50% so as to reduce to 2% our NATO goal of and here I think you and
many like you are confused: The goal of NATO members is to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense spending by their country! NOT give it to NATO. Not give it up!
But defend their own countries by spending more on their (now I'm going to shout TraitorGator...because you don't seem to comprehend the formula!!!)
THEIR OWN COUNTRY'S DEFENSE! GET IT?
MAKE THEIR OWN COUNTRY MORE MILITARILY STRONGER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES BETTER.

 

[TheDude]

Irony is liberals suggest that change is good, while supposedly conservatives are against change. Progressives are all talk anyway. TRUMP"S MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES liberals, you should love it.

Trump's doing the right thing. We're not going to play catch anymore, we're going to pitch.

 

[dudmuck]

Irony is liberals suggest that change is good, while supposedly conservatives are against change. Progressives are all talk anyway. TRUMP"S MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES liberals, you should love it.

Trump's doing the right thing. We're not going to play catch anymore, we're going to pitch.

We should love it?
They're loving it:

 

[rightwinger]

Irony is liberals suggest that change is good, while supposedly conservatives are against change. Progressives are all talk anyway. TRUMP"S MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES liberals, you should love it.

Trump's doing the right thing. We're not going to play catch anymore, we're going to pitch.

Trump is taking his ball and going home

It doesn’t mean we win, only that nobody wants to play with us

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I listened to the President's press conference this morning, and he seemed quite pleased with how things turned out. I'm not sure I'm buying this "Peace through Strength" thing, but I guess if you believe it, it is why Russia or China hasn't invaded yet.

His presser was funny as hell. The original NATO argument was to have defense speaking up to 2% of GDP by 2024. NATO members said they would adhere to that timeline and Trump takes credit for something he had nothing to do with and his sheep kiss his ass a little bit longer this morning.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

But being the TraitorGator you are you totally missed this from your reading...

“I would like to thank President Trump for his leadership on defense spending,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels, according to CNN.
“It is clearly having an impact. Last year on the president’s initiative we agreed to develop national plans to raise defense spending.”

Stoltenberg offered his thanks as NATO released its 2018 defense spending estimates, a projection of how much each member nation plans to spend on their military budgets for the year.
The latest NATO forecast predicts a fourth straight year of increased defense expenditures across the entire alliance, with Canada and European members making up a greater share of overall spending.
At least eight allies — the U.S., Greece, Estonia, Britain, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania and Romania — are expected to reach the 2 percent goal in 2018. Looking further ahead, European members and Canada plan to add an extra $266 billion between now and 2024, NATO spokesman Dylan White said Tuesday.
NATO Chief Thanks Trump For Pushing Allies To Boost Defense Spending

But TraitorGator... being the ignoramus that you are... YOU suggest the USA cut our defense spending by 50% so as to reduce to 2% our NATO goal of and here I think you and
many like you are confused: The goal of NATO members is to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense spending by their country! NOT give it to NATO. Not give it up!
But defend their own countries by spending more on their (now I'm going to shout TraitorGator...because you don't seem to comprehend the formula!!!)
THEIR OWN COUNTRY'S DEFENSE! GET IT?
MAKE THEIR OWN COUNTRY MORE MILITARILY STRONGER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES BETTER.

The agreement to get defense spending up to 2% was signed 4 years ago. Trump was on the POTUS 4 years ago. The NATO SG is a politician and as such does political things.

I understand what the 2% is, I had to explain it to you about 100 post up.

The US could cut our military spending by 50% and still spend more than the next 4.5 countries. But that is not good enough for you chicken hawks that lacked the balls to serve.

If we quit using our military for political purposes and just use it for defense we would not need to be spending more than the next 8 countries.

You are just a clueless sheep parroting what the party tells you to say


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[deanrd]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

 

[JBond]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

Not according NPR..and by the way Trump never used the term "dues"... that's the MSM contribution.

At NATO, Trump calls out allies on unpaid dues while staying mum on joint defense pact

At NATO, Trump calls out allies on unpaid dues while staying mum on joint defense pact

At 50 seconds into the video Trump speaks of money owed from past years, those would be the NATO dues.

Your OP is not about the dues but about the lack of their own defense spending.

Do try and keep up with your own post, that way I will not have to explain them to you.

Failure on so many levels. It is clear you have no idea what you are babbling about. When you are ignorant regarding a topic, it is wise to shut up and learn from your betters.

 

[Thinker101]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?