- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,900
- Reaction score
- 7,317
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
What does that have to do with the view given?I presume you were hand to hand in the trenches?
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
What does that have to do with the view given?I presume you were hand to hand in the trenches?
Europe couldn't build an army to defend against Russia if it tried. Don't worry, we'll protect them.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
That was the Danes, not the Dutch. There's a difference.
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.
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.
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.
The Bear would eat Finland first, giving the Baltics warning.
NATO states that all members should spend 2% of GDP on defense.
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.
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.
That was the Danes, not the Dutch. There's a difference.
Not much.
About as much as between Aussies and Kiwis. Does that help?