Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
15 members are committed to meeting the guideline by 2024, and the rest such as Germany are committed to reaching it by 2030, although they will meet 1.5% by 2024.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
--> I do think Trump's 4% request was absurdly over the top and a transparent negotiating ploy. Then again, NATO countries were mostly dinking around on their pledge to get to 2% until Trump started pounding the table irrationally like asking for 4%.
--> How many military installations around the world do we need? 800 and 200,000 personnel is a lot. What is your exact number? How many thousands in Germany do we need? How many thousands in Italy do we need? How many thousands in the UK do we need? Etc.... We've been there for 70+ years now...how many more years do we need? Can't we invade the Middle East for your wars there as they arise or from fewer European bases.
That's entirely a matter for the US, if you want to close your bases then so be it. A lot of Germans according to recent polls would like to see US Forces leave, whilst US Forces were told to leave France in 1967, so you have no US bases there. In terms of the UK, most of the bases are for US intelligence gathering. Whilst Italy is home to US Naval Support in the region and middle east. The rest of Europe has few if any US Military bases, and the only countries that really want US bases are Poland, Estonia and other such Baltic states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Do you think all Europeans are excited and laid back about our bases there and your prospects for more Middle Eastern wars?
Britain already lets you use it's territory at Diego Garcia in order to host a vast militrary base in the region, and we don't always have to let you use bases for non-NATO activity, which is something you will find out should you leave NATO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
--> Do you seriously think Russia is a threat to the EU and that the EU can't defend itself against Russia? Mind you the EU has 4 times the population, 10 times the economy, and countries with nukes. If so...you must be perturbed at Obama for pulling out of our missile deal with Poland.
Russia is a threat to former Soviet States and certain countries which border it, whilst the Putin regime is very unpredicatable. However most of the US bases in Europe are to do with it's geographic position which alows the US to project power in relation to Russia, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. It also helps secure the Atlantic routes to the US and is even important in relation to the Arctic.
US bases in Europe, in the Post Cold War world are not merely about the threat posed by Russia, and they support US Forces in other regions and in war zones for very little cost.
Trump is asking NATO countries to increase their Defense to 4% of their GDP so we stop carrying most of the load....that is more than what Obama demanded of them with 2% which a lot of those countries are not meeting and Liberals says Trump is doing Putin's wishes? how retarded is that?
If Trump is demanding NATO countries to increase their defense spending to their GDP then that can't be good for Russia.
Its not good for anyone to spend more than an afford only to have a massive military with no use. They prefer to invest the money on promoting the welfare of their citizens. We in US choose to borrow money and spend in on a military which polices the world. We can't expect everyone to do the same.
That was two years ago, and France and Germany are both now committed to Defence Spending increases.
NATO countries agreed to a guideline, it is not a legally binding stipulation.
15 members are committed to meeting the guideline by 2024, and the rest such as Germany are committed to reaching it by 2030, although they will meet 1.5% by 2024.
4% is not going to happem
That's entirely a matter for the US, if you want to close your bases then so be it. A lot of Germans according to recent polls would like to see US Forces leave, whilst US Forces were told to leave France in 1967, so you have no US bases there. In terms of the UK, most of the bases are for US intelligence gathering. Whilst Italy is home to US Naval Support in the region and middle east. The rest of Europe has few if any US Military bases, and the only countries that really want US bases are Poland, Estonia and other such Baltic states.
Britain already lets you use it's territory at Diego Garcia in order to host a vast militrary base in the region, and we don't always have to let you use bases for non-NATO activity, which is something you will find out should you leave NATO.
Russia is a threat to former Soviet States and certain countries which border it, whilst the Putin regime is very unpredicatable. However most of the US bases in Europe are to do with it's geographic position which alows the US to project power in relation to Russia, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. It also helps secure the Atlantic routes to the US and is even important in relation to the Arctic.
US bases in Europe, in the Post Cold War world are not merely about the threat posed by Russia, and they support US Forces in other regions and in war zones for very little cost.
2 years ago?! You are off. France lowered their spending on the military technically LESS than a year ago - not two years ago as you claimed. Look at the dates...France was lowering its spending and breaking the agreement.
Yes the agreement wasn't legally binding, but it has already been broken by multiple NATO countries.
The US has a right to be upset that multiple countries have broken it and we should be free to break that agreement too if we so choose.
If the Baltic states and Poland are under the threat of Putin, then I guess Obama shouldn't have canceled our military programs we had with them...he must be a puppet of Putin or something based on current rhetoric.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, are all NATO countries. If NATO countries are serious about their agreements (ahem) and stick together Russia won't invade a single one of them...as it means war with all of NATO.
The US does not need 800 foreign military bases with 200,000 personnel to stop Russia from invading any of those countries. Nor do we need 62,000 soldiers stationed in the EU.
The EU and or NATO is massive economically and population wise to Russia. The EU and NATO both have multiple countries with nukes. If the EU and or NATO simply stands together Russia has no chance.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, are all NATO countries. If NATO countries are serious about their agreements (ahem) and stick together Russia won't invade a single one of them...as it means war with all of NATO.
Russia has not invaded them in the past, so why is the threat suddenly bigger now that Russia is smaller and weaker?
So the idea is to increase the whole military budget. There are no specifications as to what that money can be used for. Perhaps Canada is better at allocating funds and can provide the same or more services to NATO for cheaper.
I know how unAmerican of them.
What does it matter if a country spends 10% on military and never contribute to any NATO missions......??????
Gee, look....more excuses for not PROGRESSING towards 2% by 2024.
In fact, by the sound of the excuses I'm hearing you and many others have no intention of ever reaching the 2% number.
Trump's approach to NATO is that more money needs to be contributed because defense requirements can only increase. Canada's approach is that NATO's objective is peace keeping, and meeting that goal to achieve peace means that long term contributions will be reduced.
Diametrically opposed raison d'etre.
Then I guess Canada shouldn't have committed to meeting the 2% goal by 2024.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Maybe the rest of NATO simply understands how much of a waste and theft from their people military spending is.
The world has changed. There aren't going to be any more mighty armies clashing on open battlefields.
Then I guess Canada shouldn't have committed to meeting the 2% goal by 2024.
It didn’t.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
