Can anyone Trumpsplain this one for me?

[Airyaman]

I don't know. Trump didn't mention anything about 2%. Maybe you should ask him?

Look. Your game is transparent. Don't bother me with it.

I thought you'd quit.

I've often wondered if Trump doesn't know how NATO works, or if he believes his followers don't. I think it might be both.

 

[Mycroft]

Wanna call someone out, get your facts straight.

What are the facts?

 

[Mycroft]

I thought you'd quit.

I've often wondered if Trump doesn't know how NATO works, or if he believes his followers don't. I think it might be both.

You would be wrong about Trump. As far as his followers, I don't know...but I wouldn't paint them with a broad brush if I were you.

 

[Airyaman]

You would be wrong about Trump. As far as his followers, I don't know...but I wouldn't paint them with a broad brush if I were you.

Actually, at this very moment, I was really only talking about one follower.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, at this very moment, I was really only talking about one follower.

yawn...

Okay. Now you've gone from playing one forum game to playing another.

You are dismissed.

 

[sangha]

Russia, Japan, and the US was part of the European army?

Well, you did ask for a Trumpslanation

What did you expect? Something that made sense? :lamo

 

[Bullseye]

Your words "operated under a unified command structure, hence THE European , AKA the Allied Powers. "

IF you're going to use my words use the full context. I said:

Several European nations formed an alliance fighting as a joint force against the Germans - the operated under a unified command structure, hence THE European , AKA the Allied Powers.

American joined in 1941. Japan is not an European nation. Read the link for further clarification

So I'm trying to figure out how Japan, America, and Russia are considered the "European, AKA the Allied Powers". Allied Powers, yes, European, no.

See above.

 

[Airyaman]

IF you're going to use my words use the full context. I said:

American joined in 1941. Japan is not an European nation. Read the link for further clarification

See above.

I get that. Problem is, they were fighting against other European powers. So there was no "European Military".

 

[Bullseye]

I get that. Problem is, they were fighting against other European powers. So there was no "European Military".

It was an army comprised of European ARMIES which the US joined. Nothing says to be an "European Army" EVERY SINGLE nation in Europe has to participate.

 

[Airyaman]

It was an army comprised of European ARMIES which the US joined. Nothing says to be an "European Army" EVERY SINGLE nation in Europe has to participate.

So which "European Military" was Trump talking about? There appears to be at least two.

 

[Bullseye]

So which "European Military" was Trump talking about? There appears to be at least two.

Probably the one OUR military fought with and OUR General was supreme commander of.

 

[Airyaman]

Probably the one OUR military fought with and OUR General was supreme commander of.

Could be, but the only country he then mentioned was Germany so...

Now you see the problem with this tweet?

 

[Bullseye]

Could be, but the only country he then mentioned was Germany so...

Now you see the problem with this tweet?

Uh, yeah, you missed the 70 year jump between WW II and paying NATO dues today.

 

[Airyaman]

Uh, yeah, you missed the 70 year jump between WW II and paying NATO dues today.

What does that have to do with Trump's use of "European Military"?

And what of "dues"? The "dues" are paid according to national income. Everyone pays according to that.

 

[Bullseye]

What does that have to do with Trump's use of "European Military"?

Two separate thoughts.

[quote-Airyaman]
And what of "dues"? The "dues" are paid according to national income. Everyone pays according to that.[/QUOTE] That's the problem - they don't. That was the second point Trump was making.

 

[Airyaman]

Two separate thoughts.

That's the problem - they don't. That was the second point Trump was making.

Wait, so you don't understand the basics of NATO either?

NATO funding is paid by member countries based on their income. No one is welching on that, afaik.

Now, the amount each member pays for their own military is a different matter, but this is totally different than funding for NATO itself.

How much each country pays for its own military has zero relationship to NATO funding.

 

[Bullseye]

Wait, so you don't understand the basics of NATO either?

NATO funding is paid by member countries based on their income. No one is welching on that, afaik.

I understand NATO just fine, and the fact is some nations aren't paying the about due based on their GDP.

Now, the amount each member pays for their own military is a different matter, but this is totally different than funding for NATO itself.

How much each country pays for its own military has zero relationship to NATO funding.

No one, other than you has said anything about that?

 

[Airyaman]

I understand NATO just fine, and the fact is some nations aren't paying the about due based on their GDP.

No one, other than you has said anything about that?

OK, let's break this down.

1) How is NATO itself funded?
2) Does the 2% of GDP goal have anything to do with 1)? Or is that something else?

 

[jnug]

Uh, yeah, you missed the 70 year jump between WW II and paying NATO dues today.

Stop right there. Trump never talks about NATO dues though there is such a thing as the genera fund. He always talks about the percentage of GDP of each country allotted to its defense which has nothing to do with NATO dues.

 

[TurtleDude]

????? What?? Thats dumb on every conceivable level.

Don't you know? Trump is planning to invade England, France and Luxembourg and install a born again dictator in the Vatican!

 

[jdog21]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071387078901030913

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The idea of a European Military didn’t work out
too well in W.W. I or 2. But the U.S. was there
for you, and always will be. All we ask is that
you pay your fair share of NATO. Germany is
paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much
larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!

4:52 AM - 8 Dec 2018

So I'm trying to understand. Having a European military did not work out for WW1 or 2, yet Trump wants the Europeans to spend more on military now? What's the difference? There was no European military.

Why is Donnie so friggin' dumb?

The US pays 4.3% of our huge GDP on funding our own military. He is asking countries in the NATO alliance like Germany for example to increase their government spending on their military to the threshold that has been agreed upon which is 2% because currently Germany is spending way less something like 1.2% of their GDP on their military budget. NATO is just the alliance and governing doctrine, so when something happens to one country the other allies can be called upon to give their military support.
The reason he is making it a public deal is debatable.

 

[jdog21]

OK, let's break this down.

1) How is NATO itself funded?
2) Does the 2% of GDP goal have anything to do with 1)? Or is that something else?

I think my post #46 explains it

 

[jdog21]

OK, let's break this down.

1) How is NATO itself funded?
2) Does the 2% of GDP goal have anything to do with 1)? Or is that something else?

The specific NATO fund is low something like 1.7 billion and the 2% of GDP has nothing to do with the NATO budget but to do with how much each country has to spend on their own military for NATO to call on when needed.

 

[jnug]

The US pays 4.3% of our huge GDP on funding our own military. He is asking countries in the NATO alliance like Germany for example to increase their government spending on their military to the threshold that has been agreed upon which is 2% because currently Germany is spending way less something like 1.2% of their GDP on their military budget. NATO is just the alliance and governing doctrine, so when something happens to one country the other allies can be called upon to give their military support.
The reason he is making it a public deal is debatable.

And Germany has a timetable that gets them to 2% by 2024. Now Trump has been yammering about 4% which is the dumbest thing anybody ever heard about.

I would suggest you read the thread before right angling into it. This stuff has been covered ad nauseam already.

 

[jdog21]

And Germany has a timetable that gets them to 2% by 2024. Now Trump has been yammering about 4% which is the dumbest thing anybody ever heard about.

I would suggest you read the thread before right angling into it. This stuff has been covered ad nauseam already.

What about 4%.
Trumps comments have been that the US spends 4% of our GDP on our military.
He hasn't said anything else that Im aware, and you are the only one who brings up 4% but you provide no evidence and no context of what that's in reference to. So please do so.