wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html hint: He wants out of NATO. He lies about funding constantly. See what I mean? Facts staring you dead in the face and you close your eyes. Unbelievable. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html hint: He wants out of NATO. He lies about funding constantly. Lying? We don't put up Morey than a whole slew of countries combined? Give it a rest, might need to take a break for a bit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, wnyguy said: See what I mean? Facts staring you dead in the face and you close your eyes. Unbelievable. Trump wants out of NATO - none of this is new 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I see your guys game, lol. You guys do this all the time. Endorse each others lies just to get a reaction from people. You got me this time, good on ya. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 7 minutes ago, wnyguy said: I see your guys game, lol. You guys do this all the time. Endorse each others lies just to get a reaction from people. You got me this time, good on ya. ya it's a big conspiracy. like dna insertion thru vaccines. Hint: you're not worth that much trouble. 10 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Lying? We don't put up Morey than a whole slew of countries combined? Give it a rest, might need to take a break for a bit. 2% gdp is a guideline. not contractual. 18 countries are putting up 2%. What we are buying with our 2% is continued world economic domination (China has fallen back, Russia isn't close to us economically) and military domination, which are tightly linked. But you are either too ignorant or too partisan to understand that... Edited February 14 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: ya it's a big conspiracy. like dna insertion thru vaccines. Hint: you're not worth that much trouble. I said you got me, I'll know better next time you clowns push a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 8 minutes ago, wnyguy said: I see your guys game, lol. You guys do this all the time. Endorse each others lies just to get a reaction from people. You got me this time, good on ya. Lies? Can you substantiate your POV that Trump doesn’t want to abandon NATO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, wnyguy said: I said you got me, I'll know better next time you clowns push a lie. what lie? be specific. If you accuse someone of lying, it's only decent to be specific in naming the lie. Oh wait, decent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises they aren't "promises". 2% GDP is a guideline. more at the CNN link above t: All of these Trump claims are false. While a majority of NATO members do not meet the alliance’s target of each member spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, the 2% target is a “guideline” that does not create bills, debts or legal obligations if it is not met. In fact, the guideline doesn’t require payments to NATO or the US at all. Rather, it simply requires each country to spend on their own defense programs. When Trump was president, the guideline was written in forgiving language that made clear that it was not a firm commitment. That version of the guideline, created at a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, said members that had yet to reach 2% would “aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.” In other words, the members that were below 2% in 2014 didn’t even have to promise to hit the target by 2024 – simply to make an effort to do so by then. NATO does require members to make direct contributions to fund the organization’s own operations. But there is no sign that members have failed to make those contributions, which constitute a tiny fraction of the allies’ defense spending, and Trump has made clear that his talk of debts is about the 2% guideline. Stephen Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University in Canada, said in a Monday email that the word “inaccurate really does not cover Trump’s protection racket/country club perception of dues owed to the US.” Edited February 14 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: what lie? be specific. If you accuse someone of lying, it's only decent to be specific in naming the lie. Oh wait, decent.... n the words of George Bush “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, sherpa said: I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet. Thanks Trump - lmao Meanwhile - your biching is really much ado about nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: they aren't "promises". 2% GDP is a guideline. This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 11 minutes ago, sherpa said: I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet. You are twisting this. Obvioulsy Trump doesn't know or care what Europe is doing. You are making it sound like Trump has a point and he is attempting to solve a problem. He isn't. He's trying to destroy the alliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. How about this for anyone cool with the current NATO funding arrangement? We organize a 2 week cruise with you and your spouse and 5 other couples where you agree to pay 80% of the total cost of the 12 vacationers. Sound fair? That's pretty much NATO budgeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. So the “natural” reaction is - hey Russia - go destroy one of our allies and do whatever the f you want… You freaks are losing this battle - just stop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. They know this already, it's a trap. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 8 minutes ago, wnyguy said: They know this already, it's a trap. Trap? Hardly. I see you couldn’t back up your claim that Trump doesn’t want to destroy NATO. Let’s try this one: why do you want Russia to succeed so badly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 31 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: ya it's a big conspiracy. like dna insertion thru vaccines. Hint: you're not worth that much trouble. 2% gdp is a guideline. not contractual. 18 countries are putting up 2%. What we are buying with our 2% is continued world economic domination (China has fallen back, Russia isn't close to us economically) and military domination, which are tightly linked. But you are either too ignorant or too partisan to understand that... China has fallen back due to covid. Has nothing to do with nato, foh. You are the Partisan hack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 19 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. I'm beginning to believe Billsy. You are really a stealth trumper. you support virtually all of his policies and act as apologist for his lies... 2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: China has fallen back due to covid. Has nothing to do with nato, foh. You are the Partisan hack Military dominance and economic dominance are joined at the hip. If you don't understand that, then there is no hope for you. not that there was ever much.... Edited February 14 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts