Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2017, 04:01 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,044 posts, read 13,295,225 times
Reputation: 19272

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jet757f View Post
I miss it. I was there in the 70s. I hope the Bird in Hand will be alright.
Mildenhall will not close until 2023, and I know the Pentagon have been reviewing the closure, so we will have to wait and see.

Good place to be based in the 1970's though.

Reports: US Defence chiefs rethinking RAF Mildenhall closure - ITV News

EUCOM takes 'another look' at planned base closures - Stars and Stripes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2017, 07:01 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,722,659 times
Reputation: 7640
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
This in the LA Times today:



What's the point? This is stupid. If NATO member nations see no point in paying more, then why should they pay more?

The United States just keeps trying to shoehorn itself into the affairs of other regions. If the European nations don't value NATO as much as we do, then we're the idiots, not them! Why do Americans care more about Europe's security than the Europeans do? Again, these are our economic competitors, and spending billions of US taxpayer money on their defense while they take six week annual vacations and enjoy universal health coverage is insulting and SHOULD be insulting to the average American.

Trump puts North Korea on notice: U.S. weighing 'pretty severe' response - LA Times

Not sure I understand your complaint.

The NATO Treaty, among other things, requires each member/signatory to spend a set amount of their GDP on defense.

Only a few of the NATO members do that. The rest are in violation. Trump has called them out on it as previous Presidents should have done.

I share your aversion to Trump, but he is clearly correct in this case.

Whether NATO is still needed or relevant is a different issue. Clearly the Europeans and Canada still see it as relevant as not one of them has ever left and new members are always willing to join.

There it is.

Last edited by Moth; 07-10-2017 at 07:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 07:05 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
Everyone is hungry. We all decided to order pizza, in a progressive manner, based upon income.
Who's paying for pizza??????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 07:26 AM
 
21,430 posts, read 7,421,476 times
Reputation: 13233
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
What's the point? This is stupid. If NATO member nations see no point in paying more, then why should they pay more?
The point is the US military budget is bloated, everybody knows it and the fact that everyone else has a more reasonable budget is irksome and makes the USA look out of line. (The Pentagon has not had a real reason to increase any further, they don't have a comprehensive plan for what to do with the extra money they would be getting under Trump's proposal.) It is getting very difficult to squeeze more golden eggs from that goose.

Much of the armaments purchasing would be done from USA companies, so any increases would (at least in part) line the pockets of American death merchants. Any small country wishing to be in Trump's good graces would be sure to send a few purchase orders this way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 07:32 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,722,659 times
Reputation: 7640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
The point is the US military budget is bloated, everybody knows it and the fact that everyone else has a more reasonable budget is irksome and makes the USA look out of line. (The Pentagon has not had a real reason to increase any further, they don't have a comprehensive plan for what to do with the extra money they would be getting under Trump's proposal.) It is getting very difficult to squeeze more golden eggs from that goose.

Much of the armaments purchasing would be done from USA companies, so any increases would (at least in part) line the pockets of American death merchants. Any small country wishing to be in Trump's good graces would be sure to send a few purchase orders this way.
If a NATO member is not spending the agreed amount per the Treaty, then their military budget is not reasonable.

And Europe has a very, very prosperous arms industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 12:35 PM
 
56,989 posts, read 35,116,741 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Not sure I understand your complaint.

The NATO Treaty, among other things, requires each member/signatory to spend a set amount of their GDP on defense.

Only a few of the NATO members do that. The rest are in violation. Trump has called them out on it as previous Presidents should have done.

I share your aversion to Trump, but he is clearly correct in this case.

Whether NATO is still needed or relevant is a different issue. Clearly the Europeans and Canada still see it as relevant as not one of them has ever left and new members are always willing to join.

There it is.
My post isn't about an aversion to Trump. You could replace Trump in the thread title with any dopey president begging NATO for more cash, including the last two presidents.

Again, I already know what they agreed to. Problem is, they ain't agreeing to it anymore. They don't want to pay for it because it's either of no use to them and they don't feel that it's worth it (and they're right) or they find the alliance to be antiquated and a usurper of their national sovereignty that has no right to tell them how much they should spend on defense (they're right about that too). No wonder they don't want to pay.

The United States keeps insisting that they pay because we're pretty much the last bozos that value the alliance and we're hellbound on browbeating the Europeans into helping us maintain our dominance.

The NATO nations that refuse to pony up are giving us the middle finger and saying "you can't make us pay more." And constantly pointing out to them that they agreed to pay more makes us look like we're desperate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
If a NATO member is not spending the agreed amount per the Treaty, then their military budget is not reasonable.

And Europe has a very, very prosperous arms industry.
Their budget is reasonable to THEM based on threat level to their nations. They shouldn't be basing their defense budgets on what the United States needs to maintain global hegemony.

So obviously the agreed upon amount for them to spend is UNreasonable and usurious. And I don't blame them for resisting. You shouldn't either. Do you routinely overpay for things you don't need, want, or like?

"But DD, they agreeeeeeeeed to it!"

Ok, well they no longer agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 01:46 PM
 
21,430 posts, read 7,421,476 times
Reputation: 13233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
If a NATO member is not spending the agreed amount per the Treaty, then their military budget is not reasonable.
It was my understanding that these were arbitrary non-binding goals to be worked toward. Is this incorrect?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2017, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,057,225 times
Reputation: 13772
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
WHAT IS FAIR SHARE? OF WHAT?

That's not even what Trump is asking for.

He is referring to the 2% of GDP that it is RECOMMENDED EACH country in NATO budget for their OWN military defense.

That's the 2%
Don't be dense, just stop trying to school me on this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2017, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,953 posts, read 22,057,225 times
Reputation: 13772
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
But by suggesting it isn't fair implies like they 'owe' something.

They don't. Every country could raise their budget to 2% (and by the way there are no restrictions or conditions on what is in that military budget -- just the military budget total is suppose to be 2%) and it changes nothing at NATO. Absolutely nothing. Nobody will be actually physically paying more or less to anybody but their own military budget.
Geez, you just keep stating the obvious, as if no one else gets it but you. Give it a rest already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2017, 08:24 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,722,659 times
Reputation: 7640
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
My post isn't about an aversion to Trump. You could replace Trump in the thread title with any dopey president begging NATO for more cash, including the last two presidents.

Again, I already know what they agreed to. Problem is, they ain't agreeing to it anymore. They don't want to pay for it because it's either of no use to them and they don't feel that it's worth it (and they're right) or they find the alliance to be antiquated and a usurper of their national sovereignty that has no right to tell them how much they should spend on defense (they're right about that too). No wonder they don't want to pay.

The United States keeps insisting that they pay because we're pretty much the last bozos that value the alliance and we're hellbound on browbeating the Europeans into helping us maintain our dominance.

The NATO nations that refuse to pony up are giving us the middle finger and saying "you can't make us pay more." And constantly pointing out to them that they agreed to pay more makes us look like we're desperate.


Their budget is reasonable to THEM based on threat level to their nations. They shouldn't be basing their defense budgets on what the United States needs to maintain global hegemony.

So obviously the agreed upon amount for them to spend is UNreasonable and usurious. And I don't blame them for resisting. You shouldn't either. Do you routinely overpay for things you don't need, want, or like?

"But DD, they agreeeeeeeeed to it!"

Ok, well they no longer agree.
Then they should leave NATO. Yet none of them seem to choose that. Ever.

There are always alternatives, DesertDetroiter.

A NATO member could simply leave NATO and proceed as they wish.

A NATO member could simply leave NATO and declare neutrality.

A NATO member could simply leave NATO and disarm.

A NATO member could simply leave NATO and even hook up with Russia.

Or maybe they could simply follow the terms they agreed to back in 1949.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:30 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top