• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SHould Europe have its own army?

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Bear would eat Finland first, giving the Baltics warning.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
16,295
Reaction score
5,541
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You have no idea what you are talking about... Tell us exactly please how much American taxpayer is spending specifically for NATO. What is that "huge amount of money" that you are referring to?

NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Only five of them do besides the US. So, we end up paying for the slackers.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,900
Reaction score
13,987
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Only five of them do besides the US. So, we end up paying for the slackers.

Ridiculous as usual
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
16,295
Reaction score
5,541
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ridiculous as usual

Facts are now ridiculous? I guess to the left, they are. As of 2017, only the US, Greece, UK, Poland, Estonia and Romania met the spending requirement. I'm also not suggesting in any way that we leave NATO.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,900
Reaction score
13,987
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Facts are now ridiculous? I guess to the left, they are. As of 2017, only the US, Greece, UK, Poland, Estonia and Romania met the spending requirement. I'm also not suggesting in any way that we leave NATO.

The argument is ridiculous. The 2% is a GUIDELINE, not a requirement.
From your previous post:
"NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Only five of them do besides the US. So, we end up paying for the slackers."

Again I use am forced to use my favorite English dictionary, the only good English dictionary on the entire planet, the Merriam-Webster.

Definition of should:
—used to say that something is required by a rule or law. —used to say that someone should do something. —used to say that something is very likely. See the full definition for must in the English Language Learners Dictionary. must.

It is not a rule or law, nor is it something the member states MUST do. It is a guideline. It is not something that goes into some general fund either. The general fund comes out of even smaller state by state contributions which Trump never complains about. He is fixated on this 2% thing.

From NATO's own site:
The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts. Some Allies may need to spend more than this to develop the capabilities that the Alliance asks of them. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

Merriam-Webster definition of Guideline:
guideline noun
guide·​line | \ˈgīd-ˌlīn \
Definition of guideline
: a line by which one is guided: such as
a : a cord or rope to aid a passer over a difficult point or to permit retracing a course
b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct

I assume you can sift through the multiple contextual meanings to find what is applicable.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The argument is ridiculous. The 2% is a GUIDELINE, not a requirement.
From your previous post:
"NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Only five of them do besides the US. So, we end up paying for the slackers."

Again I use am forced to use my favorite English dictionary, the only good English dictionary on the entire planet, the Merriam-Webster.

Definition of should:
—used to say that something is required by a rule or law. —used to say that someone should do something. —used to say that something is very likely. See the full definition for must in the English Language Learners Dictionary. must.

It is not a rule or law, nor is it something the member states MUST do. It is a guideline. It is not something that goes into some general fund either. The general fund comes out of even smaller state by state contributions which Trump never complains about. He is fixated on this 2% thing.

From NATO's own site:
The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts. Some Allies may need to spend more than this to develop the capabilities that the Alliance asks of them. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

Merriam-Webster definition of Guideline:
guideline noun
guide·​line | \ˈgīd-ˌlīn \
Definition of guideline
: a line by which one is guided: such as
a : a cord or rope to aid a passer over a difficult point or to permit retracing a course
b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct

I assume you can sift through the multiple contextual meanings to find what is applicable.

The claimed over a decade ago that they would spend 2%, and have not overall done so....which has to mean that they dont want to and dont intend to do so.

If they want to be taken seriously in confronting the New Chinese Empire then they need to step up and build military capacity.

If they are not interested in that then ****-em, they are of no use to us.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
16,295
Reaction score
5,541
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The argument is ridiculous. The 2% is a GUIDELINE, not a requirement.
From your previous post:
"NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Only five of them do besides the US. So, we end up paying for the slackers."

Again I use am forced to use my favorite English dictionary, the only good English dictionary on the entire planet, the Merriam-Webster.

Definition of should:
—used to say that something is required by a rule or law. —used to say that someone should do something. —used to say that something is very likely. See the full definition for must in the English Language Learners Dictionary. must.

It is not a rule or law, nor is it something the member states MUST do. It is a guideline. It is not something that goes into some general fund either. The general fund comes out of even smaller state by state contributions which Trump never complains about. He is fixated on this 2% thing.

From NATO's own site:
The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts. Some Allies may need to spend more than this to develop the capabilities that the Alliance asks of them. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

Merriam-Webster definition of Guideline:
guideline noun
guide·​line | \ˈgīd-ˌlīn \
Definition of guideline
: a line by which one is guided: such as
a : a cord or rope to aid a passer over a difficult point or to permit retracing a course
b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct

I assume you can sift through the multiple contextual meanings to find what is applicable.

So, if they all should pay 2% and instead all pay 1% or less, you're OK with the US making up the shortfall, I guess. It sort of reminds me of the voluntary CO2 emissions levels the US agreed to where we volunteered to make huge cuts while India and China volunteered to make increases. So much for "guidelines".
 
Last edited:

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump complained that the European nations were not spending enough on their military. Now the French president has made the statement that Europe my have to build it's own army as it does not see the US as someone they can depend on to help keep hem safe from the Russians if the Russians attempt to take back those nations it lost when the USSR collapsed or against any US intervention. Now Trump says that Europe should not develop their own army.

Yep - trump did say all this. I hope Europe - excluding Russia - forms their own army. They can't rely on the USA while the trump stench is there. Same goes for other former US allies like Australia and Canada.
 

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because if Putin could rig 2016, he can't rig 2020? Y'all are not being asked no more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

You can't leave democracy to Vox populi, them thralls keep voting for the "wrong" candidate.

Of course the Russians will help trump in 2020. This was the main reason trump visited Paris - to meet with Putin. The meeting will be private again and the republicans will do everything they can to ensure Americans don't know what was discussed. Hopefully with the dems controlling the House , they will force trump to disclose what they spoke about. He'll try to defend his private meetings with russians by using the 'national security' BS but hopefully the democrats won't accept that this time.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,900
Reaction score
13,987
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The claimed over a decade ago that they would spend 2%, and have not overall done so....which has to mean that they dont want to and dont intend to do so.

If they want to be taken seriously in confronting the New Chinese Empire then they need to step up and build military capacity.

If they are not interested in that then ****-em, they are of no use to us.

Who claimed that they "would"? I don't see that in the NATO text. They agreed to a Guideline from what I can tell. All I can see since then is comments that they would "try" to get there and a good many of them are trying to get there.

I would find it easier to take Trump's gibberish about the 2% which is the catalyst for the nonsensical discussion we are having here if he then did not go on to support the idea that they should contribute 4% which would amount to the remilitarization of Europe, the worst geopolitical idea I have heard since creating the state of Israel without dealing with the Palestinian issue that was immediately created in its wake.

In case you have not noticed, the largest conflagrations in modern history started in ...........Europe.
 

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, if they all should pay 2% and instead all pay 1% or less, you're OK with the US making up the shortfall, I guess. It sort of reminds me of the voluntary CO2 emissions levels the US agreed to where we volunteered to make huge cuts while India and China volunteered to make increases. So much for "guidelines".

Why is the US making up the shortfall? trump can easily walk away from NATO and use that money to give to the richest 1% of Americans. I am sure his supporters will be happy with this. So just walk away trump.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,900
Reaction score
13,987
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, if they all should pay 2% and instead all pay 1% or less, you're OK with the US making up the shortfall, I guess. It sort of reminds me of the voluntary CO2 emissions levels the US agreed to where we volunteered to make huge cuts while India and China volunteered to make increases. So much for "guidelines".

It isn't a shortfall. The 2% guideline of their GDP is for their own defense systems! A Shortfall is something you can claim for a general fund.

It does not matter what "I am OK with". Its the deal we made. Unlike some Americans I am for keeping the deals we made. Much of the advancements that the world has made, advancements that we benefit from mightily were made because the world grew to recognize us as "reliable" as opposed to a bunch of crazed loons treating political rallies like rock concerts or stand up comedy shows and sniping away at everybody and his brother. "Hurray, government for its entertainment value....yippeeeee.....wooooo-whoooooo....pass the popcorn"
 
Last edited:

Sweden

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
3,285
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That was the Danes, not the Dutch. There's a difference.


Be fair. You should not reasonably expect a Texan to know that Denmark and the Netherlands are two different countries. The next thing you'll be trying to get Americans to understand that Sweden and Switzerland are actually separate places.
 

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Facts are now ridiculous? I guess to the left, they are. As of 2017, only the US, Greece, UK, Poland, Estonia and Romania met the spending requirement. I'm also not suggesting in any way that we leave NATO.

The US should leave NATO. If trump is upset about other countries not paying their fair share and forcing the US to make up the shortfall - WALK AWAY. And BTW - how did Greece manage to meet the spending requirement when their country is still in a massive recession?
 

Sweden

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
3,285
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yep - trump did say all this. I hope Europe - excluding Russia - forms their own army. They can't rely on the USA while the trump stench is there. Same goes for other former US allies like Australia and Canada.

Australia and Canada are not "former" US allies ut present ones. The same goes for every member of NATO.

States have armies. "Europe" is not a state.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Who claimed that they "would"? I don't see that in the NATO text. They agreed to a Guideline from what I can tell. All I can see since then is comments that they would "try" to get there and a good many of them are trying to get there.

I would find it easier to take Trump's gibberish about the 2% which is the catalyst for the nonsensical discussion we are having here if he then did not go on to support the idea that they should contribute 4% which would amount to the remilitarization of Europe, the worst geopolitical idea I have heard since creating the state of Israel without dealing with the Palestinian issue that was immediately created in its wake.

In case you have not noticed, the largest conflagrations in modern history started in ...........Europe.

Europe has to decide if they are still so afraid that they suck that they are unwilling to put up a fight against the New Chinese Empire....which includes Russia. If they are then so be it, but being serfs to the Chinese will not be a very good life.
 

TrumpTrain

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Reaction score
146
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Trump complained that the European nations were not spending enough on their military. Now the French president has made the statement that Europe my have to build it's own army as it does not see the US as someone they can depend on to help keep hem safe from the Russians if the Russians attempt to take back those nations it lost when the USSR collapsed or against any US intervention. Now Trump says that Europe should not develop their own army.

It would be an impotent limp appendage. Who the hell would mobilize it! Who would speak to the people as a leader to bring them support! Its an insane stupid idea.
 

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
8,632
Reaction score
5,575
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tell us exactly please how much American taxpayer is spending specifically for NATO. What is that "huge amount of money" that you are referring to?

NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense. Only five of them do besides the US. So, we end up paying for the slackers.

Uh huh and you conveniently did not answer the question. Our spending on military is not NATO spending... it's our spending on military everywhere... So, again, what is it that you (or him) think that we spend specifically for NATO?
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,900
Reaction score
13,987
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
About as much as between Aussies and Kiwis. Does that help?

I give up. You're right...I was wrong to suggest you should not give up on us. We are hopeless after all. Good God almighty.
 
Top Bottom