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.
My understanding was that he was going cut military funding to NATO and other nations around the globe. Instead he's now seeking sharp increases in military spending. On this point I strongly disagree with Trump I do not want to be the world's policeman anymore.
The 28 member NATO alliance previously agreed to each spend 2% of their GDP on Defense. In 2015, only 5 of the member countries did, Poland, Britain, Estonia, Greece and the US.
Pence appropriately addressed NATO leaders last month and reminded them of their commitment as did the Obama Admin.
The graph in the attached link demonstrate while the US far exceeds the 2% target, most countries do not.
My understanding was that he was going cut military funding to NATO and other nations around the globe. Instead he's now seeking sharp increases in military spending. On this point I strongly disagree with Trump I do not want to be the world's policeman anymore.
I'm not disappointed, because I always knew that Trump didn't know much about how US foreign policy actually works.
Of course I think that other NATO members should live up to their commitments.
But given that NATO is the single most important defensive alliance that the US is party to, by a very wide margin, it was NEVER going to happen that we would pull out of it. No matter what. If we had to pay for ALL of it - we would. It's simply too important for us to abandon it. Because it's NATO that allows us to have so many military bases in foreign countries and it's NATO that allows us to call on so many foreign troops when we think we need to invade someone.
I'm not saying that I LIKE this state of affairs - I'm just pointing out that Trump, running as a republican, was never going to be the guy that changes it. Just take a good hard look at congressional Rs... (Who would? Sanders would have tried...)
And I also expected him to increase military spending, and it mystifies me how anyone could think he didn't intend to increase it. How on earth did you think that he was going to crack down on ISIS, and other terrorist groups, without expanding our military efforts?????????
The military is in shambles because of Obama pretty much left it to rot. Experts said that the increase by Trump is not even enough but at least it helps alleviate the dire situation somewhat.
You need a strong military because that is actually the deterrent for war. Peace through strength.
If you don't have a strong military, you will be vulnerable. This world is funny. Things can turn on a dime.
Of course, you are here constantly bashing Trump regardless, so I don't expect you to agree.
If Trump did nothing for the military, you'd bash him for it. If Trump does something for the military (like what he is doing), you'd bash him, too. You hate him and you are here to do nothing but criticize/denounce/demonize him. That's all you do. Show us one objective post of yours.
Pretty much what you say can be dismissed.
No POTUS can singlehandedly cut or increase military spending. That takes an ACT of Congress.
Who says it's in shambles?
Who are these experts? People who are paid well to advocate for Defense spending?
How on earth did you think that he was going to crack down on ISIS, and other terrorist groups without expanding our military efforts?????????
Increase our military spending to defeat ISIS---why. Its not like ISIS has some kind of advanced technological military machine. They're nothing more than primitive goat herders!!!
Increase our military spending to defeat ISIS---why. Its not like ISIS has some kind of advanced technological military machine. They're nothing more than primitive goat herders!!!
Well, I agree with you there.
It's just that defeating ISIS in particular and terrorists in general was a pretty big part of Trump's platform, and promising to do it better and faster than Obama was doing it was a MAJOR part of his campaign appeal.
First of all, no its not in shambles, it is still the best armed, most technological advanced army, and our funding is many times what the country in second place is. Now you are saying Obama is responsible for sequestering? You know the thing that was a poison pill supposed to make congress work together to pass a budget, but instead the tea party forced GOP lawmakers to sign stupid pledges and spin sequestering like it wasnt that bad but now it decimated our military right?
I think military spending should be reduced by 50% then 25%, we should just defend our borders like the constitution states not the financial interest of corporations.
Trump knows that an easy way to bring jobs back to pensatucky where most military bases are is through military spending, those bases support entire counties where corporations are not moving anything to.
Trump is certainly not alone in this.
The US doles out foreign military aid to countries with the expectation they will use those funds to buy military equipment from the US, paying for direct and indirect jobs.
The US has been doling out funds to Israel to help them defend themselves from their enemies and at the same time doling out funds to some of those enemies to protect themselves from Israel.
There are 1001 reasons why the Saudis get a pass. One of the reasons is that they buy a heck of a lot of military stuff from US companies.
While the Obama Admin increased its financial commitment of foreign military aid to Israel, he also closed the prior loophole whereby Israel could spend a percentage of it on stuff made elsewhere. You know...he put the US first. Ticked the Israeli camp off, big time.
A huge percentage of military spending flows back to the Defense Industry.
The Defense lobby is in the pocket of many legislators.
Until I SEE A SUBSTANTIAL CHECK MADE OUT TO THE US GOVERNMENT I am not believing that any of our NATO Partners are paying "way more" of their share. Just more fake news from a crumbling administration.
They are not paying the US.
It's all about the NATO member agreement to spend 2% of their GDP on Defense.
Perhaps a better question might be , of the amount spent by NATO members, how much translates into orders for equipment with US Defense contractors.
NATO countries are supposed to spend 3% of their GDP on their militaries. They haven't been doing it. Trump said he would make them fulfill their pledges and President Trump is making them do it.
The US has other military commitments besides NATO. We have allies is Asia that NATO isn't involved with. So our military must be able to meet those commitments, too.
He never said NATO countries would pay 100% of their costs.
He said they should be required to pay 2% of their GDP, per the original NATO agreement.
Most if not all of them have agreed to do just that.
He also said he would cut some slack for countries like Greece that can't afford it now.
Yet Greece is one of five countries that has met their commitment. Then again, what's their GDP?
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.
