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

[whitehall]

What are the details of the "formula"?

 

[whitehall]

Don't take up accounting lefties. If there are 29 nations in NATO and the U.S. pays 1/4 of the budget how are the other nations paying their fair share? The country formerly known as England has a lot to say but it might as well be a freaking 3rd world country for all the good they do in NATO and ditto the rest of the so-called mainstream nations in Europe. NATO is nothing but an extortion scam.

 

[healthmyths]

So Gator, your saying Europe is paying its full Nato requirements,

Please show me where I said this?

and that the US isn't basically defending all of Europe from Putin?

I do not think Putin has any designs on taking over Europe.

Nobody is saying that Europe deosn't provide some defense to its own people, but it seems hard to defend that they are not depending on the US taxpayer to keep them safe. Before everyone continues to argue, why don't we come up with some agreed on standard of what Europe pays and what it is required to pay to meet its obligations. The whole my chart and stats are the real stats is annoying.

I am the guy that wants us to pull most, if not all troops out of Europe and station them on the southern border vice building a wall, you know have our military defend our country for a change.

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?

 

[flacaltenn]

Easily the worst piece of trash I've read here in weeks....I'd report you for being crazy as a shithouse rat but the mods probably enjoy laughing at your commie crap....you're like a bad car wreck that people notice but don't look at for more than a minute or two. There are 29, not 30 countries in NATO and it goes downhill from there.

Mr. fuckhead,,,,,,,First, let me clearly state that the mods are on your side anyway and they only keep some of us around (the sane ones) so that this forum does not become a circle-jerk where you idiots FIGHT about who sniffs Trump's ass more.

Secondly, for you and other ignorant morons.....Japan is NATO's longest-standing global partner.....and soon either Ireland, Cyprus.or Malta will be the 30th partner.

Thank me later for the fucking lesson, HornyTom........LOL

Speaking of lessons. For a guy who doesn't need any fucking links or quotes to write a ranting OP, you MIGHT WANT TO CHECK the NATO member list. Japan is not there. We're dealing with ONE alliance here at a time.

Secondly, BOTH spending and paying are important. Because the PRIMARY defense of Europe should BE the EUROPEANS. And with paltry levels of defense spending, their militaries are decaying, Not getting stronger in the face of Russian hegemony. Germany can't even come CLOSE to maintaining the PALTRY 82 fighter jets they commit to NATO. They're not in service. And PUTIN LAUGHS at the German Luftwaffe.

Informed people KNOW this and don't RANT about the diff between between spending and paying. Because the Euro allies rely MUCH too heavily on us to make NATO any kind of REASONABLE alternative.

Read this. Educate yourself. And stop "winging it" and embarrassing yourself.

Germany has a 'massive problem' that has reportedly knocked almost all of its Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets out of commission


The German air force is dealing with a "massive problem" that has left all but four of its 128 Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets unavailable for combat missions, according to a May 2 report by German news outlet Spiegel.

German engineers are worried about the jets' DASS defense system, which warns pilots of potential attack, because of cooling liquid seen leaking from the wingtip pod that contains sensors. The problem appeared about six months ago.

The Luftwaffe's Eurofighter readiness issues are compounded by a lack of air-combat missiles. Because of that shortfall, only four of the fighters are currently ready for combat missions, according to Spiegel.

The Luftwaffe counts all Eurofighter jets that are able to fly as available, including ones without functioning self-defense systems, according to the report.

Those jets can be used for training but not for NATO operations like air-policing missions over eastern Europe.

Germany has also registered 82 Eurofighters with NATO's High Readiness Force and Force of Lower Readiness.

They REGISTERED for 82.. Hardly any are ready for today or anytime soon..

 

[healthmyths]

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.

"Grumpygator"..I didn't use the term "dues". Nor Did Trump.

Trump was using figures similar to what I showed asking countries to do what they agreed to i.e. spend at least 2% on NATO support.

Now that that minor point is settled, let's identify the point of the thread..
countries like Germany that are making money off gas & oil deal with Russia while spending less than 2% no NATO.

Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo
'Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo

Granted the US pays about 300 million more than it's fair share. However, when you talk about defense dollars, 300 million is not much, about 12% of the cost of a single B1 Bomber. As I understand it NATO agreed to a 2% of GDP target starting in 2024. They should be paying it now, however I don't think the issue is worth causing a major split in the alliance. The US has a lot more serious problems to deal with.

Where did you get $300 million?
The issue is NATO members are suppose to spend 2% of their GDP on military spending.
To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.
How NATO is funded and who pays what
The US as this chart shows spends $685 Billion... not million.. or 3.6% of GDP which is more than the 2% and this is what Trump is pointing out. That if you don't spend 2% of your GDP on your OWN defense, then is it fair for NATO to come to your assistance if you can't at least take care of your own military out of your GDP?
And that is a fair point.
When a country like Germany decides to spend just 1.2% on it's own military than if anything happened like Russia invading Germany how could they honestly ask for
NATO's help when they didn't take care of themselves? That's the issue here!

 

[flacaltenn]

WAAAY too much personal abuse going on. Thread is in Zone2. Any post without content could get you warned and/or infracted. Don't do it. Seven deleted.

 

[flacaltenn]

Merged 4 threads here on the Nato Meeting. Might take a hour or two to settle out the conversions. But think of the commute time you'll be saving..

 

[Flopper]

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.

"Grumpygator"..I didn't use the term "dues". Nor Did Trump.

Trump was using figures similar to what I showed asking countries to do what they agreed to i.e. spend at least 2% on NATO support.

Now that that minor point is settled, let's identify the point of the thread..
countries like Germany that are making money off gas & oil deal with Russia while spending less than 2% no NATO.

Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo
'Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo

Granted the US pays about 300 million more than it's fair share. However, when you talk about defense dollars, 300 million is not much, about 12% of the cost of a single B1 Bomber. As I understand it NATO agreed to a 2% of GDP target starting in 2024. They should be paying it now, however I don't think the issue is worth causing a major split in the alliance. The US has a lot more serious problems to deal with.

Where did you get $300 million?
The issue is NATO members are suppose to spend 2% of their GDP on military spending.
To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.
How NATO is funded and who pays what
The US as this chart shows spends $685 Billion... not million.. or 3.6% of GDP which is more than the 2% and this is what Trump is pointing out. That if you don't spend 2% of your GDP on your OWN defense, then is it fair for NATO to come to your assistance if you can't at least take care of your own military out of your GDP?
And that is a fair point.
When a country like Germany decides to spend just 1.2% on it's own military than if anything happened like Russia invading Germany how could they honestly ask for
NATO's help when they didn't take care of themselves? That's the issue here!
View attachment 204280

686 billion in 2017.
2% of GDP (18.5 trillion) = 370 billion
So the US over by 316 billion, not million.

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.

"Grumpygator"..I didn't use the term "dues". Nor Did Trump.

Trump was using figures similar to what I showed asking countries to do what they agreed to i.e. spend at least 2% on NATO support.

Now that that minor point is settled, let's identify the point of the thread..
countries like Germany that are making money off gas & oil deal with Russia while spending less than 2% no NATO.

Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo
'Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo

Granted the US pays about 300 million more than it's fair share. However, when you talk about defense dollars, 300 million is not much, about 12% of the cost of a single B1 Bomber. As I understand it NATO agreed to a 2% of GDP target starting in 2024. They should be paying it now, however I don't think the issue is worth causing a major split in the alliance. The US has a lot more serious problems to deal with.

Where did you get $300 million?
The issue is NATO members are suppose to spend 2% of their GDP on military spending.
To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.
How NATO is funded and who pays what
The US as this chart shows spends $685 Billion... not million.. or 3.6% of GDP which is more than the 2% and this is what Trump is pointing out. That if you don't spend 2% of your GDP on your OWN defense, then is it fair for NATO to come to your assistance if you can't at least take care of your own military out of your GDP?
And that is a fair point.
When a country like Germany decides to spend just 1.2% on it's own military than if anything happened like Russia invading Germany how could they honestly ask for
NATO's help when they didn't take care of themselves? That's the issue here!
View attachment 204280

l deleted the post. I was in error.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

"Grumpygator"..I didn't use the term "dues". Nor Did Trump.

Trump was using figures similar to what I showed asking countries to do what they agreed to i.e. spend at least 2% on NATO support.

Now that that minor point is settled, let's identify the point of the thread..
countries like Germany that are making money off gas & oil deal with Russia while spending less than 2% no NATO.

Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo
'Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo

Gator- with all due respect, you’re losing the battle iby trying a syntactical head fake. Either bring it or bow out.

 

[Mike473]

I will admit that everything in life is a little bit better knowing Trump is in the White House, and Clinton is out there flying commercial somewhere.

Everything is better for who Bubba

Better for:

Women who need reproductive health care ?

People who need health insurance?

Business who will be hurt by the idiotic trade war?

World peace and security while he undermines NATO?

The environment while he rolls back protections on water, air and ignores climate change?

This countries sovereignty while he kisses up to Russia?

WHAT???!!

Better for who? Myself of course.

Tell us how it is better for you? I can imaging how it will be for some in the short term, but that is very short sighted. Think about what your life will be like when the sea continues to rise and there are is a wide spread famine. Think about how you will be effected by living in a country that is increasingly isolated in terms of national defense, trade and world health issues. Think about the coming civil unrest due to rising income and wealth disparity and a shrinking social safety net. They will be coming for YOU! Fucking moron!

I see you are worked up, and the name calling has begun!

Never the less, I will respond.

First, the tax cut package is a home run for small business and the self employed, of which I am a member of that group. The number of self employed has been rising over the past 20 years and will continue to do so. Have you ever paid self employment taxes? Self employed face a lot of costs and regulations. I am hoping the tax plan was just the start of better things to come. The 20% self employment deduction is a nice start.

As for the trade wars, your statement assumes the trade deals we have are good ones, or at least fair. I do not believe they are good. That said, I welcome any Democrat or Republican to make being "Pro NAFTA" a big part of their platform. Good luck to them if they do. If not, we need to move towards better deals.

I am concerned about climate change. But, I will take my lead from all those celebrity environmentalist. When they stop buying ocean front, 10,000 sf mansions, flying private jets and start acting like they are serious about it, I will as well. I am dim witted, as you stated, so I need them to lead by example for me to get with it.

As far as NATO goes, many countries in Europe don't seem to take NATO pledges very seriously. And they need to do so. The United States has come to Europe's aid before and will again if needed. Are you scared of Russia? Didn't President Obama point out to Romney that Russia was not the threat it once was and "the 1980s wanted its foreign policy back"? I tend to agree with Obama. The United States is not an empire.

Of course, I care about myself. I also breath air, have health insurance and run a business. So, what is good for me is good for many others as well, at least that is how I look at it.

That's how I feel. I am not sure if being dim witted means that I need to swear or call you and names. Let me know, maybe someone can suggest a few that might be appropriate.

 

[Flopper]

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.

"Grumpygator"..I didn't use the term "dues". Nor Did Trump.

Trump was using figures similar to what I showed asking countries to do what they agreed to i.e. spend at least 2% on NATO support.

Now that that minor point is settled, let's identify the point of the thread..
countries like Germany that are making money off gas & oil deal with Russia while spending less than 2% no NATO.

Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo
'Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo

Granted the US pays about 300 million more than it's fair share. However, when you talk about defense dollars, 300 million is not much, about 12% of the cost of a single B1 Bomber. As I understand it NATO agreed to a 2% of GDP target starting in 2024. They should be paying it now, however I don't think the issue is worth causing a major split in the alliance. The US has a lot more serious problems to deal with.

Where did you get $300 million?
The issue is NATO members are suppose to spend 2% of their GDP on military spending.
To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.
How NATO is funded and who pays what
The US as this chart shows spends $685 Billion... not million.. or 3.6% of GDP which is more than the 2% and this is what Trump is pointing out. That if you don't spend 2% of your GDP on your OWN defense, then is it fair for NATO to come to your assistance if you can't at least take care of your own military out of your GDP?
And that is a fair point.
When a country like Germany decides to spend just 1.2% on it's own military than if anything happened like Russia invading Germany how could they honestly ask for
NATO's help when they didn't take care of themselves? That's the issue here!
View attachment 204280

I think I was mixing up the NATO funding with the 2% of the nations defense spending.

NATO funding is in two categories:
Indirect which is largest category is equipment and troops and the cost of maintaining them volunteered by various nations.

Direct Funding supports the entire alliance such as overall air defense, intelligence, and overhead of the organization.

Germany does not meet the 2% goal but volunteers almost all of it's defense force to NATO. So when it's suggested they double their defense budget to meet the 2% rule, they are not likely to do that.

Iceland has no military only a coast guard that by law can't be used outside of the the nations water. They certain would not create a 400 million dollar military unit which violates their laws when NATO would defend the nation because of it's strategic location. The US also has military facility on the coast as does the UK.

There are other small countries that don't meet 2% rule and probably never will for various reason.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Please show me where I said this?

I do not think Putin has any designs on taking over Europe.

I am the guy that wants us to pull most, if not all troops out of Europe and station them on the southern border vice building a wall, you know have our military defend our country for a change.

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.

 

[jillian]

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 after NATO because that is what Vladimir wants.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

"Grumpygator"..I didn't use the term "dues". Nor Did Trump.

Trump was using figures similar to what I showed asking countries to do what they agreed to i.e. spend at least 2% on NATO support.

Now that that minor point is settled, let's identify the point of the thread..
countries like Germany that are making money off gas & oil deal with Russia while spending less than 2% no NATO.

Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo
'Germany is Totally Controlled By Russia': Trump Greets NATO Allies With Combative Opening Salvo

Gator- with all due respect, you’re losing the battle iby trying a syntactical head fake. Either bring it or bow out.

I am not losing a thing. When I am dealing with people that do not have the basic IQ to understand there are two, sepeate and distinct things in play here, it is impossible to lose.

First there is the 2% of GDP that was agreed to be spent on national defense, with a deadline of 2024. Then there is the actual cost of running NATO, for which all member nations are supposed to contribute as well.

Nobody has fallen behind in the 2% of GDP as the deadline is still 6 years away.

 

[McRocket]

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.

 

[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

 

[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 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.


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.

If Trump is not in Putin’s pocket.....he gives every indication that he is

 

[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.

 

[healthmyths]

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