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.
Exactly what obligation did Germany agree to meet, and when did they make that agreement? Exactly?
None of you Trumpies have any idea what you're talking about. You're just making complete fools of yourselves.
NATO agreed to go into Afghanistan, based on their size, Germany sent in a disproportionately smaller force and they are kept in the quietest district. Pound for pound, Germany sent in a force 10 times smaller than what the US committed for its size. Which is why only 54 German soldier fatalities have occurred.
"We want NATO (read US) to protect us from Russia, but we only want minimal at best involvement in anything involving the US and us contributing." -Germany
Presidents of both parties for decades have been asking NATO members to spend more on their military and they have balked.
Germany initially opposed the 2% agreement, as they would need to double their military spending while cutting back military spending even in the Reagan Cold War era. Then Germany agreed to it in 2014, but insisted on no punishments if it is not met, has taken baby steps at best to reaching it.
So in other words, Germany is not actually committing to being a reliable ally.
What is the point of NATO?
The EU has more than 3.5 times the people of Russia. The EU has more than 10 times the economy of Russia. The EU has nukes.
If the main point of NATO is to protect the EU from Russia...then it should be a moot point if the EU does what presidents of both parties have begged for - over decades.
That's total nonsense - "some have not met the suggested goal of 2%" ..... DUH - like only 5 out of 28 have met the suggested goal. "some" is parseltongue - it's more correct to say "most".
"We do not pay the majority" -- when I learned Math, 70% meant "majority".
The real issue is not so much meeting the 2% goal - it's more not even making any attempt to meet that goal that they all agreed to. It's the arrogant attitude that he USA and the American people are Obligated and Responsible for the Security of Europe AND that the USA and the American people must also listen to Lectures by somebody like Merkel and Germany while we spend OUR money to insure their safety and defense.
It's a long article - but it describes in detail the Political Realities of NATO and the 2% spending.
Europe is on shaky ground, which means the World is on shaky ground. It' the cradle of World Wars.
She foolishly opened the flood gates and allowed the hoard to invade Germany , then Europe.
She is definitely on her own. Europe's destiny is sealed, we don't want to share their misery.
Obviously, there are two perspectives on this. One perspective says that a white, mostly Christian country is foolish to let in a large number of Muslim immigrants. The other perspective says that it is wise to use immigration policy to build stronger ties with Muslim countries that makeup 24% of the world's population and which will probably all have nuclear weapons in the coming decades.
USA = $664B
Germany = $40B
France = $43B
All of Europe including Turkey = $238B
i.e. The USA is paying for 73% of the cost of NATO. Yet it's primary purpose is to protect Europe. Europe is benefiting greatly at the expense of the US taxpayer.
If you believe in "pay to play" let the Marshall Plan recipients repay the U.S.
How about with interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
I should have added a "sarcasm" tag, such as </sarcasm>. The post is now so edited.
My bad.
Although Trump isn't likely to go for it, I would support reduced military spending, closing bases in Europe and then using the difference to spend on our people's benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
One more time. The facts speak for themselves.
NATO expenditures in 2016....
USA = $664B
Germany = $40B
France = $43B
All of Europe including Turkey = $238B
i.e. The USA is paying for 73% of the cost of NATO. Yet it's primary purpose is to protect Europe. Europe is benefiting greatly at the expense of the US taxpayer.
Here are other stats that tell the same story.
European Union 509 Million People with a $16.31 Trillion GDP has nukes.
Russia 146 Million People with a $1.33 Trillion GDP has nukes.
Can anyone please explain to me why the US needs to pick up most of the bill in defending the EU from Russia?!?!
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.
