What's new
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 (1 Viewer)

Remember when NATO and Canada came to our aid after 9/11? Well F you guys. We showed you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan said:
He’s trotting our the “stable genius” line again.

He’s like an 80s hair band trotting out the hits on the carnival tour.
Click to expand...
Maybe GWAR.

It really is shtick. Create a crisis, he’s the center of it and he has to be placated, claims a concession, crisis averted, and oh yeah don’t forget to thank him.

 
There seems to be a real odd dynamic going on with a certain portion of the right, with competing viewpoints on the role of the American military:

”Get your ish together foreign country X, or we'll do it for you!” *awesome bomb montage*

”Get your face out of my face, decades old ally.  We’re not the world’s police!”

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
:thumbup:  Nice work President Trump, I have no problem with you threatening to pull out of NATO if that is what it takes

 
Teyana said:
:thumbup:  Nice work President Trump, I have no problem with you threatening to pull out of NATO if that is what it takes
Click to expand...
Congress unanimously voted to support NATO.  You are applauding Trumps acting like a child against the wishes of the people of the United  States of America.

 
sho nuff said:
Trumps acting like a child against the wishes of the people of the United  States of America.
Click to expand...
The people of the USA elected Trump, we wanted him to do this. This was something he ran on during his campaign, so if the people were so against it he would have lost.

 
Teyana said:
The people of the USA elected Trump, we wanted him to do this. This was something he ran on during his campaign, so if the people were so against it he would have lost.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect.  And you ignore his roll and the roll of congress (of course, he ignores this too).

More people were against it...as is our dully elected congress.

 
Now I know I will get a lot of grief for this but I say bring our troops home from everywhere.  Keep a strong Air force and Navy.   Lets stay out of wars for a change and lets see where that gets us.  I am 61 and we have basically been in a conflict somewhere my entire life.  Maybe we should take the advice of this Japanese gentleman who runs Ali Babas.  It starts at 5.38.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHpN7X9iK3o&t=736s

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You can’t threaten this unless you’re in favor of actually be willing to do it. 
Click to expand...
He along with a bunch are in favor of doing it.  Trump is calling out economical stable countries to pay their fair share.  That they agreed to pay and are not.   So what am I missing here besides that you don't want Trump doing it.

 
irishidiot said:
He along with a bunch are in favor of doing it.  Trump is calling out economical stable countries to pay their fair share.  That they agreed to pay and are not.   So what am I missing here besides that you don't want Trump doing it.
Click to expand...
Well let's see. Do you really want to get into this?

  • Our national security.
  • Our historic commitment, including blood spilled.
  • The historic commitment of our allies, including blood spilled, including Afghanistan right now.
  • Our role as leader of the free world.
  • The reality we are the arsenal of democracy.
  • The fact that Trump has completely misrepresented the commitment.
  • The fact that our allies are meeting their commitment.
  • The creation of instability.
  • The fact that competing national interests led to two world wars.
  • The fact that NATO exists to ensure stability in Germany and other nations as well.
Probably other reasons as well.

 
I've also read that these countries are supposed to have a MINIMAL defense of their own country.   You sure about this?

 
irishidiot said:
Sure, probably many more but are you sure about # 7.  That seems to be the main point of contention.
Click to expand...
The commitment is to be up to 2% by 2024, so I don't understand how there is contention.  It's 6 years from now.  Most of the nations jumped in head first when Putin and company was doing their thing, then things regressed a bit, but they still have 6 years :shrug:  

 
The Commish said:
The commitment is to be up to 2% by 2024, so I don't understand how there is contention.  It's 6 years from now.  Most of the nations jumped in head first when Putin and company was doing their thing, then things regressed a bit, but they still have 6 years :shrug:  
Click to expand...
Thanks.  I thought many were way below the promised amount.

later gents-have a good one-it's 7:00PM where I'm at.

 
Guys the notion that the other countries of the NATO alliance have been taking advantage of our generosity is nothing new.  The argument has been going on for decades.  Prominent members of the left and right have stated this for years.  The argument is probably right.  Out of the 29 members we pay 22% of the budget.  Seems a little one sided to me.

 
Teyana said:
if that is what it takes to get other countries to stop taking advantage of us. 
Click to expand...
I think we do ourselves a disservice if we just look at total defense spending.  Yes we spend almost 700 billion annually with the next closest NATO ally spending 55 billion. But not all or even a majority of our defense spending is European based. 

Our military spending is based on a global platform. We have no natural or realistic true military enemy on a landmass that can march into our capital. Europe does. So their spending is more internally defensive that globally projecting. 

Still we do spend a lot of money over there helping them defend themselves. 700 billion is a huge number.   It's also relatively close to the annual amount of trade revenue credited by US-European trade, which is about 650 billion.

So a stable Europe generates revenue for us that equals our defense spending globally. An unstable Europe would end up costing us more money. And we know this because we know what the bill was for World War II and the Marshall Plan. The war cost 4 trillion and in its final years was 50% of our GDP. The Marshall Plan totaled about 110 billion.

So we spend 700 billion a year on defense, a decent chunk but not a majority of that in Europe and in return we save at least a 4 trillion dollar buildup, 110 billion dollar cleanup and see 650 billion in trade.

Looking at just our spending isn't fair to the topic. And frankly a better argument can be made that its peanuts compared to the benefits we get from a stable Europe that buys our goods and sends us theirs through democratic institutions that are trustworthy to global markets for the most part.

As a pure business decision we should spend more over there and offer to take some of their burden off their hands in return for more trade to market our goods. Our businesses win, our allies are safe and our tax base grows.

 
rustycolts said:
Guys the notion that the other countries of the NATO alliance have been taking advantage of our generosity is nothing new.  The argument has been going on for decades.  Prominent members of the left and right have stated this for years.  The argument is probably right.  Out of the 29 members we pay 22% of the budget.  Seems a little one sided to me.
Click to expand...
I stated this in the OP: it’s been an extremist argument for decades. It’s never been made by a President until now. 

Its a terrible argument. We pay 22% because our GDP is so high. It’s not one sided at all. 

 
rustycolts said:
Guys the notion that the other countries of the NATO alliance have been taking advantage of our generosity is nothing new.  The argument has been going on for decades.  Prominent members of the left and right have stated this for years.  The argument is probably right.  Out of the 29 members we pay 22% of the budget.  Seems a little one sided to me.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, it was designed that way.  And if we're being absolutely honest that seems correct given the pockets we have vs everyone else.

 
rustycolts said:
We now fund 22% of NATO costs.  I may be wrong but I would guess that percentage is less than what we spent during the cold war.

This argument has been going on for a long time.  This is a real interesting article from back in the 80s describing how folks felt then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/04/25/nato-fears-us-cost-cutting/b0a4c303-09f8-43a5-9f49-b52da7f54f49/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e2b70de5d6a
Click to expand...
Someone is wrong. Forbes is reporting we account for 72% of the budget https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/amp/

if this is correct then yes they need to pull more of the weight. 

 
timschochet said:
I stated this in the OP: it’s been an extremist argument for decades. It’s never been made by a President until now. 

Its a terrible argument. We pay 22% because our GDP is so high. It’s not one sided at all. 
Click to expand...
Tim it is not really extremist.  Read the link I posted from the Washington Post. They were opinions from leaders of both parties in the 80s.  I am not saying abandon NATO completely but we spend too much more than our share.  It seems one of the biggest gripes people have is military spending.  Well lets solve that by stop using our Military so much.  How about cutting our spending ratio for NATO to 12% that would save us some money.  Maybe we could spend it on social needs or infrastructure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I stated this in the OP: it’s been an extremist argument for decades. It’s never been made by a President until now. 

Its a terrible argument. We pay 22% because our GDP is so high. It’s not one sided at all. 
Click to expand...
If they agreed to 2% then they need to pay 2%. 

 
rustycolts said:
Tim it is not really extremist.  Read the link I posted from the Washington Post. They were opinions from leaders of both parties in the 80s.  I am not saying abandon NATO completely but we spend too much more than our share.  It seems one of the biggest gripes people have is military spending.  Well lets solve that by stop using our Military so much.  How about cutting our spending ratio for NATO to 12% that would save us some money.  Maybe we could spend it on social needs or infrastructure.
Click to expand...
It's hard to break out what specifically in our defense budget is solely NATO related.  Soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines rotate stations and are subject to transfer anywhere based on need, so simply saying the guys stationed in Germany are a NATO cost isn't quite right.

We have carriers that are protecting the Pacific and projecting power into the middle east so they aren't quite NATO costs, but they could be tasked to get into range of a NATO ally if necessary.

Beyond that though, let's say we pull back from NATO... we aren't shrinking the amount of men we have in paid military jobs.  It's not like we bring them home and then discharge them. Reducing NATO spending, if you can define it to start, does not automatically decrease defense spending.

If we want to keep the powerful first world military we have, NATO is a superior mechanism to keep a strategic foothold in what has been mankind's most war torn land masses without actually being in the middle of constant conflict.

 
rustycolts said:
Oh and guys you have to remember I am from the make love not war generation.  So that influences a lot of my feelings.
Click to expand...
All good. I'd rather have "our guys home," too and tell everyone to take care of themselves. Europe and Asia have never been able to though.

NATO makes us a ton of money for very little investment and hard cost, and saves us from future projected increases that we can't sustain for any great period. 

Let's put it this way; who do we really thing benefits more from everything that NATO provides, both military and economic.... us with our almost 4% of GDP spending with less than half of that in Europe, or the Netherlands that only spends 1.2% of its GDP? Honestly, and realistically, who is getting the better deal?

 
Yankee23Fan said:
All good. I'd rather have "our guys home," too and tell everyone to take care of themselves. Europe and Asia have never been able to though.

NATO makes us a ton of money for very little investment and hard cost, and saves us from future projected increases that we can't sustain for any great period. 

Let's put it this way; who do we really thing benefits more from everything that NATO provides, both military and economic.... us with our almost 4% of GDP spending with less than half of that in Europe, or the Netherlands that only spends 1.2% of its GDP? Honestly, and realistically, who is getting the better deal?
Click to expand...
The US could spend half if what it spends today and still have money to spend as today on NATO.

What would be lost would be the ability to project force over multiple theatres and possibly/probably flexibility in type of response

 
msommer said:
The US could spend half if what it spends today and still have money to spend as today on NATO.

What would be lost would be the ability to project force over multiple theatres and possibly/probably flexibility in type of response
Click to expand...
That's the military loss from our side, though, not the total loss.  Any significant reduction of U.S. military influence in Europe will destabilize our allies to some measureable extent.  I'm not saying it would break down the ties that bind Europe and devolve into anarchy, but there is a stabilizing influence over the region with us there.  Reduce that and there is a countermovement.  

It could certainly force European countries to spend more on their own defense.  In doing that, though, they would likely slow production on other fronts or increase taxes even more thereby changing the economic base of their working class.  Both things, taken to their ends, always end the same way for Europe and that ending means we have to get back involved to protect our own economic interests alone.  We have close a trillion dollars in trade with that continent annually and any significant reduction in that would spell economic chaos here.

We don't spend enough time contemplating the economics of national security.  It's a very real thing.

 
boots11234 said:
rustycolts said:
We now fund 22% of NATO costs.  I may be wrong but I would guess that percentage is less than what we spent during the cold war.

This argument has been going on for a long time.  This is a real interesting article from back in the 80s describing how folks felt then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/04/25/nato-fears-us-cost-cutting/b0a4c303-09f8-43a5-9f49-b52da7f54f49/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e2b70de5d6a
Click to expand...
Someone is wrong. Forbes is reporting we account for 72% of the budget https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/amp/

if this is correct then yes they need to pull more of the weight. 
Click to expand...
ETA:  Nevermind...others pointed it out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rustycolts said:
Guys the notion that the other countries of the NATO alliance have been taking advantage of our generosity is nothing new.  The argument has been going on for decades.  Prominent members of the left and right have stated this for years.  The argument is probably right.  Out of the 29 members we pay 22% of the budget.  Seems a little one sided to me.
Click to expand...
I did a quick google and found that the NATO countries have a total populatio of about 880 million people, The United States population is about is about 325 million. What % should we pay?

 
Insomniac said:
I did a quick google and found that the NATO countries have a total populatio of about 880 million people, The United States population is about is about 325 million. What % should we pay?
Click to expand...
I guess if we are going by population then we should pay about 37% of NATOs budget.  Should we?

 
rustycolts said:
I guess if we are going by population then we should pay about 37% of NATOs budget.  Should we?
Click to expand...
Overall I'd rather pay less than what we do but we should spend what's needed to maintain the alliance.. The bigger consideration is what value are we getting out of this. 

At the end of WWII the US became the preeminent world power and has maintained that for 70 years with NATO playing a large part by containing the USSR and keeping the peace in Western Europe. It's very important part of the US long term strategy of remaining the leading power. It's certainly possible that China becomes the dominant power in the future no matter what we do but the longer that's delayed the better. 

 
Teyana said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/opinion/editorials/trump-nato-obama.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

even NYT admits Trump is winning with NATO
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the title of this opinion piece relative to the contents within?  The title seems to suggest Trump got something Obama merely asked for but never received.  The article itself mentions no new pledges that I can see, just a joint reaffirmation (originally secured by Obama 4 years ago) of the pledged increase in military spending by the NATO countries.  The rest of the article was not much of a high-five to Trump, either.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
Weakness And Foreign Policy
Replies
8
Views
399
Dinsy Ejotuz
Dinsy Ejotuz
timschochet
The Joe Biden Thread- things are looking up
16 17 18
Replies
880
Views
16K
DocHolliday
DocHolliday
E
I miss Mikhail Gorbachev
Replies
12
Views
409
CletiusMaximus
CletiusMaximus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top