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.
I think they should not only pay what they agreed to but ALSO PAST payments they have NOT paid,PLUS INTEREST, for almost 70 YEARS.
Most European countries had sizeable budgets coupled with military conscription during the Cold War.
It wasn't until the collapse of Communismand the Warsaw Pact in the early 1990's that budgets were cut as part of the peace dividend. Indeed US Focres in Europe were cut by 85%.
This was the case until a ressurgent Russia under Putin invaded Crimea and started threatening the Baltic region.
In 2014 it was agreed that a guideline would be put in place in order to build up defences against a resurgent Russia, and that the aim was for countries to work towards the 2% GDP by 2024.
It also should be noted that many NATO countries joined the organisation a lot more recently than 70 years ago, and most have very few if any US Military presence in their country. Today there are 29 NATO countries, seventy years ago there were 12, indeed many states didn't join NATO until the 1990's and beyond.
If the US wants to depart NATO then so be it, but there is no stipulation in relation to payments to the US Visting Forces, in relation to bases the US doesn't own.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067
First, it was important to see the substance of what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has accomplished as of the summit this week, since the historic NATO summit in Warsaw just two years ago. The achievements include the adaptation of the NATO command structure, which will significantly improve the reinforcement and responsiveness capabilities of the alliance.
Members have also renewed commitment to increased defense expenditures and investment and made progress on improving military mobility, as well as beginning the process toward Macedonia's eventual membership.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has done a superb job of shepherding the members, keeping all on track and building momentum toward real substance. We are lucky to have him.
But second, I was disappointed to see President Trump bring a wrecking ball to Brussels. He publicly HUMILATED our most important allies and then, the following day, said everything was GREAT, that he had a great relationship with the chancellor of Germany and that he was personally responsible for the money that was "pouring into NATO."
Whatever happened to positive, unifying leadership by the president of the United States?
Our desire for brash, cocky leadership was always lurking under the surface - and I'm not talking about just among people stereotypically overawed by those attitudes either. This is up and down the socio-economic-cultural ladder - and sideways and diagonal too, while I'm at it. And society as a whole easily confuses that with leadership.
You even see it in non-governmental sectors too. Look at the types of CEOs even the professional financial media tends to glorify. Even outside employment situations, common everyday culture glorifies "balls to the wall" kinds of personal forcefulness. "Talk it out", even among longstanding allies, is considered "boring" at best, "wussified" at worst. You even see it even in common everyday social situations - even outside office politics. This is especially true when civility and concern about the well-being of people at the bottom of some social scale or another is treated as a consolation prize or a boring but necessary trait for social acceptability. In fact, these attitudes start at the lower levels and over time percolate to increasingly higher ones. Given all this, it's not surprising in retrospect that we get a Donald Trump like figure in the White House.
well, I guess it is not about what you say, it is HOW you say it.
Lets not pretend rest of the NATO members are some kind of victim flowers, shall we?
First of all, in ALL fairness,
The "2%" figure itself is a relatively recent move to address that concern. Russia's actions in Ukraine were what prompted NATO to pay attention to it's deteriorating influence. This became a priority during the 9/2014 Summit, where two major (um, legislation? It's not legally binding, so I not sure what word I'm looking for... maybe agreements) were passed to reassure it's Eastern members. The first was the Readiness Action Plan, the second was the 2% of GDP goal.
Why 2%, as opposed to 1 or 3? 2% is supposed to be sufficient to meet policy needs, and a practical goal for member states; given that only a fraction of them currently reach it. This doesn't mean that there aren't criticisms against the metric, it's still a widely debated issue.
Here is what it is 2/15/17: "Currently, just five of NATO’s 28 countries spend at least 2 percent on defense: the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, Greece and the United States. Major members of the alliance that do not include France (1.78 percent), Turkey (1.56), Germany (1.19), Italy (1.11) and Canada (.99), according to NATO figures. Others have pledged to do so but not until 2024."
First, it was important to see the substance of what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has accomplished as of the summit this week, since the historic NATO summit in Warsaw just two years ago. The achievements include the adaptation of the NATO command structure, which will significantly improve the reinforcement and responsiveness capabilities of the alliance.
Members have also renewed commitment to increased defense expenditures and investment and made progress on improving military mobility, as well as beginning the process toward Macedonia's eventual membership.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has done a superb job of shepherding the members, keeping all on track and building momentum toward real substance. We are lucky to have him.
But second, I was disappointed to see President Trump bring a wrecking ball to Brussels. He publicly HUMILATED our most important allies and then, the following day, said everything was GREAT, that he had a great relationship with the chancellor of Germany and that he was personally responsible for the money that was "pouring into NATO."
Whatever happened to positive, unifying leadership by the president of the United States?
Every election we hear talk about how we all wish we had straight talking people instead of smooth talking professional politicians who will tell us whatever we want to hear .
Now we have one . Didn't vote for him, but we've now got a guy who talks like a normal person without a lot of political doublespeak and the country is freaking out .
[quote=wallflash;52497803]Every election we hear talk about how we all wish we had straight talking people instead of smooth talking professional politicians who will tell us whatever we want to hear .
Trump was no more honest then anyone else running he told his voters exactly what they wanted to hear just like Hillary did.
The NATO coalition is stronger than it's been in decades. Watch the press conference and you might actually learn something. They all want Trump to meet with Putin but maybe he should consult with certain forum members here who know more than they do.
Every election we hear talk about how we all wish we had straight talking people instead of smooth talking professional politicians who will tell us whatever we want to hear .
Now we have one . Didn't vote for him, but we've now got a guy who talks like a normal person without a lot of political doublespeak and the country is freaking out .
Dude, seriously - he espoused two entirely different viewpoints on NATO within what, 36 hours?
The man embodies the concept of pleasing your audience. He's just very bad at it. If you think bumbling incompetence is charming, well - tastes differ and all that, but does it get the job done?
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.