Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
NATO (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
He's creating an impossible condition against the agreements of the nations of Nato and he is doing it purposefully.
jonessed
Footballguy
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.
Teyana
Footballguy
I just watched a beautiful clip on Trump talking to the globalists like they are toddlers, and I love it.
Thank you Mr President
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1017000167059451904
Thank you Mr President
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1017000167059451904
sho nuff
Footballguy
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
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.
msommer
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
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.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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.
timschochet
Footballguy
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?
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?
msommer
Footballguy
The fact that you Americans can't figure out the difference between the Nordic and Scandinavian countries, well, that's on you
Insomniac
Footballguy
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.Shula-holic said:
whoknew
Footballguy
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.Teyana said:
They do, of course, constantly report on Trump's approval ratings. Because that is a story.
timschochet
Footballguy
The House of Representatives just voted to reaffirm NATO. The vote was unanimous.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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.Teyana said:
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
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?
Insomniac
Footballguy
T-shirt Ninja
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
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 .
Teyana
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
When did the decline in defense spending by NATO nations stop? When did the stock market start its historic run?
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Yeah, because you posting on a message board is the same as being the Chancellor of Germanytimschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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.Sammy3469 said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Don't wanna be an American idiotTeyana said:
Don't want a nation under the new media
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
zoonation
Footballguy
None of those countries operate in a two party system. So there is really no probative value to the data.
zoonation
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
boots11234
Footballguy
Have these other countries agreed to the 2% goal? If so they should pay 2%.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That’s not the pledge. They’re to reach that goal by 2024, all countries are considered to be in compliance right now.
boots11234
Footballguy
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?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
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?
boots11234
Footballguy
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.
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.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Huh. This means that either Macron or Donald Trump is mistaken about one of the subtleties of the NATO alliance. I wonder which one is right and which one is wrong.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Apparently today was a real ####show. Trump ‘missed’ the side meeting with Ukraine and Georgia, then after arriving late threatened to pull out of NATO. Then NATO went into *emergency session. Chaos ensued for whatever agenda they had planned. Later Trump called an impromptu press conference, claimed that the members had agreed to meet his new spending demands, said all is cool, and “NATO is really a fine tuned machine.”
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I read little tidbits last night about the summit and wasn't surprised that our "president" seemed to be all over the place on the details and just throwing crap out there to stir things up. I suppose I can take a little bit of comfort knowing Congress had their unanimous vote but that doesn't really help on the "embarrassment scale"
packersfan
Footballguy
He’s trotting our the “stable genius” line again.
He’s like an 80s hair band trotting out the hits on the carnival tour.
whoknew
Footballguy
NATO Declaration -
Paragraph 3 -
We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to all aspects of the Defence Investment Pledge agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, and to submit credible national plans on its implementation, including the spending guidelines for 2024, planned capabilities, and contributions. Fair burden sharing underpins the Alliance’s cohesion, solidarity, credibility, and ability to fulfil our Article 3 and Article 5 commitments. We welcome the considerable progress made since the Wales Summit with four consecutive years of real growth in non-US defence expenditure. All Allies have started to increase the amount they spend on defence in real terms and some two-thirds of Allies have national plans in place to spend 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defence by 2024. More than half of Allies are spending more than 20% of their defence expenditures on major equipment, including related research and development, and, according to their national plans, 24 Allies will meet the 20% guideline by 2024. Allies are delivering more of the heavier, high-end capabilities we require and are improving the readiness, deployability, sustainability, and interoperability of their forces. The number of activities in which we are engaged has increased, and Allies continue to make valuable force and capability contributions that benefit the security of the Euro-Atlantic area through NATO’s operations, missions, and other activities, as well as through the operations and missions conducted under national authority and the authority of other organisations. As we take stock of the national plans that exist today, we appreciate the unprecedented progress and recognise that much work still remains. We are committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of Alliance membership.
Paragraph 3 -
We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to all aspects of the Defence Investment Pledge agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, and to submit credible national plans on its implementation, including the spending guidelines for 2024, planned capabilities, and contributions. Fair burden sharing underpins the Alliance’s cohesion, solidarity, credibility, and ability to fulfil our Article 3 and Article 5 commitments. We welcome the considerable progress made since the Wales Summit with four consecutive years of real growth in non-US defence expenditure. All Allies have started to increase the amount they spend on defence in real terms and some two-thirds of Allies have national plans in place to spend 2% of their Gross Domestic Product on defence by 2024. More than half of Allies are spending more than 20% of their defence expenditures on major equipment, including related research and development, and, according to their national plans, 24 Allies will meet the 20% guideline by 2024. Allies are delivering more of the heavier, high-end capabilities we require and are improving the readiness, deployability, sustainability, and interoperability of their forces. The number of activities in which we are engaged has increased, and Allies continue to make valuable force and capability contributions that benefit the security of the Euro-Atlantic area through NATO’s operations, missions, and other activities, as well as through the operations and missions conducted under national authority and the authority of other organisations. As we take stock of the national plans that exist today, we appreciate the unprecedented progress and recognise that much work still remains. We are committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of Alliance membership.
Last edited by a moderator:
