Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

NATO

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bucky86 said:

Can Trump do what they're doing with the ACA and force it to fall apart without Congress?

He's the technically the commander in Chief so I suppose he could order all the troops and missiles and what have you home. Not sure what the Joint Chiefs would say to that, though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, msommer said:

He's the technically the commander in Chief so I suppose he could order all the troops and missiles and what have you home. Not sure what the Joint Chiefs would say to that, though

:mellow: 

When are the next war games scheduled for? I could see him doing what he did in N. Korea and canceling them...

Putin would love that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

:mellow: 

When are the next war games scheduled for? I could see him doing what he did in N. Korea and canceling them...

Putin would love that.

Bunch of them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would have thought that after almost 70 years of being in NATO that Donald Trump would be the one to figure it all out.

Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes....?  All rubes.  Just a bunch of mamby-pamby cucks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump

What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are their only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025.

---

Once again, he misstates both the US's costs for their own military and what happens in trade.

he is a moron.  this tweet reads like it was written by a borderline illiterate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weebs210 said:

I'm not seeing the connection. Maybe you could enlighten me.

The KGB was an instrument of domestic terror, it engaged in domestic spying, jailing political opponents, running of gulags, citizen intimidation, murder, and purges dating to its creation. The FSB was the inheritor to that organization. The KGB also engaged in the same practices in nations that the USSR occupied and Putin was an officer for it, specifically in East Germany. And Putin was director of FSB. The KGB and FSB were also key controllers of black/grey market goods and integrally involved in corruption, which continues to this day. I take it your are ignorant of these things, but I think you will agree they are antithetical to American values of democracy, individual rights and defense of western values and security. To agree that the KGB and FSB and Putin are fine is to stand against American values.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zoonation said:

he is a moron.  this tweet reads like it was written by a borderline illiterate.

He's creating an impossible condition against the agreements of the nations of Nato and he is doing it purposefully.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sammy3469 said:

That’s BS...Russia spends 66 billion a year.  Germany spend 44, the UK 47, France 58, etc.  To think Europe would be left to Russia’s whims is the height of US-centric Trump think.

I didn’t say Europe.  I said the Baltics and Scandinavia.  Germany, UK, and French forces are not integrated.  The US provides the command and control structure.  They aren’t going to mobilize to drive Russia out of, say, Finland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jonessed said:

I didn’t say Europe.  I said the Baltics and Scandinavia.  Germany, UK, and French forces are not integrated.  The US provides the command and control structure.  They aren’t going to mobilize to drive Russia out of, say, Finland.

I came across this (Key NATO and Allied exercises in 2018) last night. I was amazed to see so many exercises for 2018 in the Baltics and Scandinavia.

None in Finland, however, as it is not a member of NATO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonessed said:

I didn’t say Europe.  I said the Baltics and Scandinavia.  Germany, UK, and French forces are not integrated.  The US provides the command and control structure.  They aren’t going to mobilize to drive Russia out of, say, Finland.

Finland is neither a NATO member, nor a Scandinavian country. Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Finaland and Sweden are neutral.

Finland is, however, a Nordic country (comprising of the Scandinavian countries plus FInland and Iceland)

No one, even @No One, would invoke article 5 over Finland.

 

Edited by msommer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, msommer said:

Finland is neither a NATO member, nor a Scandinavian country. Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Finaland and Sweden are neutral.

Finland is, however, a Nordic country (comprising of the Scandinavian countries plus FInland and Iceland)

No one, even @No One, would invoke article 5 over Finland.

 

I know Finland isn’t NATO.  Didn’t know the Nordic vs. Scandinavia.  There might be a local aspect of that as Scandinavia generally includes Finland and Iceland when referenced in the US.

Either way, I think an intact NATO would probably defend Finland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, msommer said:

Finland is neither a NATO member, nor a Scandinavian country. Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Finaland and Sweden are neutral.

Finland is, however, a Nordic country (comprising of the Scandinavian countries plus FInland and Iceland)

No one, even @No One, would invoke article 5 over Finland.

 

Finland is also a former province of the Russian Empire. They were the one successful province to break away and stay broken away from Russia and the USSR from the disintegration of the original empire.

However the USSR invaded Finland and took away a sizeable chunk of the Kola peninsula and River Neva region. This included Finland's second largest city, Vyborg, which Russia still holds today. The USSR also ultimately seized islands belonging to Finland during WW2. I'm sure Finland has not forgotten.

In fact Russia just conducted military exercises on one of those islands, like this week.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jonessed said:

I know Finland isn’t NATO.  Didn’t know the Nordic vs. Scandinavia.  There might be a local aspect of that as Scandinavia generally includes Finland and Iceland when referenced in the US.

Either way, I think an intact NATO would probably defend Finland.

The fact that you Americans can't figure out the difference between the Nordic and Scandinavian countries, well, that's on you :P 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/11/trump-is-more-popular-than-most-nato-country-leaders-who-think-re-better-than-is.html

Quote

America is a nation obsessed with political approval ratings like no other. But the U.S. media seems ignorant to the fact that President Trump is currently one of the most popular leaders of a major Western nation in the world today.

Guffaw if you like, but those who are both regarded and regard themselves as “better” leaders have lower numbers than the American president — and while his are trending up, some of theirs are in free fall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

An opinion piece from fox citing a poll from where?

 

:sigh: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I don't think the Afghan War is the issue.  I do think it's an issue when we are stationing troops in Germany and Korea and other places around the world to help secure the safety of other countries.  There's a cost to that and judging from our past I doubt we are being made whole on the cost.

We stationed troops in Western Europe and Asia after WWII because containing communism was a vital interest of the United States, not out of the goodness of our hearts. It's likely that the policy makers of the time also thought the presence of our forces would benefit us by helping preventing the Western European countries from going to war with each other. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Teyana said:

That's a weird way to put it. Why would the MSM compare approval ratings of Trump v approval ratings of four other NATO leaders in their home countries? Is that really a story? Doesn't seem like it.

They do, of course, constantly report on Trump's approval ratings. Because that is a story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, msommer said:

The fact that you Americans can't figure out the difference between the Nordic and Scandinavian countries, well, that's on you :P 

Geography is tough for Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Teyana said:

But the U.S. media seems ignorant to the fact that President Trump is currently one of the most popular leaders of a major Western

The article says he’s doing worse than Merkel but better than May, Macron and Trudeau. That’s 3 out of 29 countries in NATO.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

We stationed troops in Western Europe and Asia after WWII because containing communism was a vital interest of the United States, not out of the goodness of our hearts. It's likely that the policy makers of the time also thought the presence of our forces would benefit us by helping preventing the Western European countries from going to war with each other

 

Have they ever done this? *snicker*

Maybe a better question: Prior to 1945-2018, has Western Europe ever had a 70+ year stretch where there wasn't a war between the major powers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Have they ever done this? *snicker*

Maybe a better question: Prior to 1945-2018, has Western Europe ever had a 70+ year stretch where there wasn't a war between the major powers?

I guess that depends on how you define "major powers" but the short answer is NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Putin's master plan to destroy the US:

Get Trump elected

Secure US borders

Modernize and rebuild US military

Create booming US economy

US manufacturing revival

Fix and secure national infrastructure

 

 

He has us right where he wants us!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Weebs210 said:

So Putin's master plan to destroy the US:

Get Trump elected

Secure US borders

Modernize and rebuild US military

Create booming US economy

US manufacturing revival

Fix and secure national infrastructure

 

 

He has us right where he wants us!!!

 

 

When did this happen?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, T-shirt Ninja said:

When did this happen?

Much of it was before Trump.

As he and the rest of his base ignores what is happening around the world is exactly what Putin has wanted for a long time .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

For those who think that this isn’t such a big deal: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/11/politics/angela-merkel-east-germany-nato-trump/index.html

Angela Merkel: “I have witnessed Germany under Soviet control.” 

Maybe she should take some time off, right pantherclub? 

Yeah, because you posting on a message board is the same as being the Chancellor of Germany  :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Teyana said:

thinks Trump’s leadership was responsible for making other NATO countries pay more.

That's not what he said, he said:

Quote

“It’s also because of your leadership, because of your carried message…” Stoltenberg responded.

Some more of his comments from his presser:

Quote

 

I will focus on what we have agreed, and we have agreed to be committed to the pledge, increasing defence spending to 2%.  And let's start with that.  So, we have a way to go, but the good news is that we have really started to deliver.  I think that, if we go back to 2014, and ask the leaders, commentators, whether European Allies would make that much progress we have seen from 2014 up to today, I think many people would have doubted that.  But the reality is that now, all Allies have started to increase, all Allies have stopped the cuts, all Allies have started to increase, more Allies spend 2% of GDP on defence, and last year we saw the biggest increase ever.  On top of that, on the initiative of President Trump last May, last year, we agreed to develop the national plans as a very powerful tool, to make sure that Allies deliver on the promise to increase defence spending.  And the national plans have proven to be exactly the strong and powerful tools we expected them to be, because they… the majority of Allies have already presented plans, showing how they will, step by step, move to reach the 2% goal.

So, we are delivering.  There are differences, there are discussions, there are disagreements, but NATO has made decisions and we are delivering on the defence pledge.  And for me, in the long run, substance is what counts.  And on substance, NATO is delivering.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sammy3469 said:

That’s BS...Russia spends 66 billion a year.  Germany spend 44, the UK 47, France 58, etc.  To think Europe would be left to Russia’s whims is the height of US-centric Trump think.

How much does the U.S. spend? The U.S. and Russia together probably outspend Germany, the U.K., and France pretty easily. So once the U.S. pulls out of NATO and joins the Warsaw Pact, those Western European countries are going to be sitting ducks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The article says he’s doing worse than Merkel but better than May, Macron and Trudeau. That’s 3 out of 29 countries in NATO.

None of those countries operate in a two party system.  So there is really no probative value to the data. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Weebs210 said:

So Putin's master plan to destroy the US:

Get Trump elected

Secure US borders

Modernize and rebuild US military

Create booming US economy

US manufacturing revival

Fix and secure national infrastructure

 

 

He has us right where he wants us!!!

 

 

Trolling trolling trolling, man my ### is swollen...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, zoonation said:

None of those countries operate in a two party system.  So there is really no probative value to the data. 

And this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boots11234 said:

Have these other countries agreed to the 2% goal?  If so they should pay 2%. 

That’s not the pledge. They’re to reach that goal by 2024, all countries are considered to be in compliance right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

That’s not the pledge. They’re to reach that goal by 2024, all countries are considered to be in compliance right now.

I thought Germany went up and now went back down?  Obviously Trump doesn’t think they’re in compliance. And how long ago did they make this pledge?  How long before then was the US footing the bill. 

Why is it when you or I go buy a car we try to get the best deal possible yet when the US does the same thing it’s bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

I thought Germany went up and now went back down?  Obviously Trump doesn’t think they’re in compliance. And how long ago did they make this pledge?  How long before then was the US footing the bill. 

Why is it when you or I go buy a car we try to get the best deal possible yet when the US does the same thing it’s bad?

I want you to brace yourself: Trump is FOS.

For your comp: we not only bought NATO 70 years ago we built the thing, it guns like a Maserati and it’s the best fighting force on earth. NATO has poured the blood of more than a thousand dead soldiers into Afghanistan because *we asked them to. In doing this balance sheet how much do you think they should ask as an offset?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I want you to brace yourself: Trump is FOS.

For your comp: we not only bought NATO 70 years ago we built the thing, it guns like a Maserati and it’s the best fighting force on earth. NATO has poured the blood of more than a thousand dead soldiers into Afghanistan because *we asked them to. In doing this balance sheet how much do you think they should ask as an offset?

Well we lost a few troops in WW2. 

 

If if we were called upon I’m guessing we’d loose troops defending other NATO countries. Isn’t that the point of NATO?  Mutual defense? Not sure having 1000k dead as justification is really an apples to apples comparison.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

I thought Germany went up and now went back down?  Obviously Trump doesn’t think they’re in compliance. And how long ago did they make this pledge?  How long before then was the US footing the bill. 

Why is it when you or I go buy a car we try to get the best deal possible yet when the US does the same thing it’s bad?

I summarized the agreement a few pages back. There’s no such thing as “footing the bill” in this context because the pledge has nothing to do with a bill. It’s not like splitting a restaurant check where if one person pays less, someone else has to pay more. In this case, if some country pays less, it just means they don’t have as great a military. That goes against the spirit of the agreement because we want everyone to have a good enough military to help out with a collective defense. But it’s not like our own defense spending goes up when Germany’s goes down. Ours goes up all by itself for reasons that have nothing to do with Germany.

To answer your previous questions, a deal was made in 2014 that all member countries would spend 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2024. In the meantime, the countries that are already above 2% are supposed to stay there, and the countries that are below 2% are supposed to at least maintain current spending while trying to increase spending over time so that they reach 2% by 2024.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stunning development. I'm not sure anyone could have seen this coming - 

From AP - 

BREAKING: French President Macron denies Trump claim that NATO powers agreed to increase defense spending beyond previous targets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.