Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorNorth, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:21 PM.
That must be what Putin told him to do.........wait....
No reduce it to 1.5 to 1.75% they are paying
Be honest, do you really think we’re going to spend less overall on defense because our NATO allies arent spending their committed share of GDP? Not a chance.
Not sure why Trump isn't focusing on what we control (how much we spend) rather than on what we don't control (how much our allies spend).
For eight years we had a boy trying to do a mans job drawing red lines in the sand and scared to back it up. Now we have a man that is doing the job and he is not scared to back it up
Yes, it is only 11% higher than we are currently paying.
Setting an absurd goal that even we don't come close to meeting (nor should we) and threatening NATO with it does seem to benefit that particular person.
Trump is doing everything he can to destroy NATO.
We are in Europe first and foremost for OUR benefit. Irrespective of what the Europeans are doing, reducing our troops in Europe would be a tremendous help to Russia. It is exactly what Putin wants, so his intelligence asset (Trump) is doing his bidding.
Some of you seem to think that supporting Trump no matter what he does is more important than the well being of our country. Are you going to be happy when he invades the Baltics, the ENTIRE Ukraine, and other eastern European countries, or when his continuing efforts to undermine democracy bear fruit beyond the already successful work of Putin in Italy, Hungary, and Poland?
Let's face it, Trump and some of his top supporters are actively working with Putin to undermine Merkle in an effort to install another authoritarian leaning, Russia loving regime like in the aforementioned countries, and he is not doing it for our benefit, unless "our" means Russia to you. Putin, thus Trump, wants NATO rendered impotent, and Trump is doing all he can to advance that goal.
Because we are tired of footing the lions share of the bill while others spend very little after agreeing to spend a certain amount
So getting them to spend more on self defense is helping Russia to take over Europe ? Crazy man crazyt
No. Setting a goal that nobody could possibly or should possibly meet is helping Russia in Europe.
They agreed to move towards 2% by 2024. Is it 2024?
We are never going to reduce our % of GDP because well, defense contracts and their stock prices.
The pledge was made in 2014 to get everyone to a funding level of at least 2% by 2024. Here is the Readiness Action Plan agreed to on September 5, 2014 at the NATO meeting.
The Politics of 2 Percent: NATO and the Security Vacuum in Europe - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
It seems pretty obvious to me in the chart below that most of the members are not currently living up to the agreement as they are not meeting the terms of the agreement. You don't have to wait until 2024 to show up and say you didn't do your job.
So if you seat a goal of 4% and you only reach 2% from 1.5% some even less than that is helping Russia ? So by your reasoning the less we spend the better
All of those charts end in 2015, which is actually going to be determined prior or at the same time as an agreement signed in September 2014. What has happened since then?
Also, why wouldn't 2024 be the data to examine if the target is 2024?
Huh? That sentence is illegible.
Not following you here. What is stopping us from reducing our 3.6% down to 1.5% like everyone else?
We seem to be the outlier here. Perhaps we should join our peers with what we are spending on NATO rather than the other way around.
If we want to spend less of our gdp on defense spending, we have plenty of room to reduce it and easily comply with NATO targets. There is nothing to stop us from doing so, except our yuge government spending machine.
NATO members agreed to hit 2% targets by 2024. Some are moving up nicely incrementally. Germany appears to not be. Let’s hold them accountable to our mutual commitment rather than saying stupidly “ok now I think it should be 4%”
We won't because our spending gave us a military hegemony, which in turn has provided far greater political power than we would otherwise have.