45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)
Discussion
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Not required to pay 2% for the next 6 years when others are paying more, sounds like a s
t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.
Why do you keep using the word “pay”?t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.Is it because, like Trump, you don’t understand what the grown-ups are talking about?
What a C0ck, no need to be like that. Stop asking leading questions and tell us all about it then.
Thats why people are here - TO LEARN
Edited by PAULJ5555 on Wednesday 11th July 14:56
Edited by PAULJ5555 on Wednesday 11th July 14:57
PAULJ5555 said:
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Not required to pay 2% for the next 6 years when others are paying more, sounds like a st deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.
Why do you keep using the word “pay”?t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.Is it because, like Trump, you don’t understand what the grown-ups are talking about?
PAULJ5555 said:
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Not required to pay 2% for the next 6 years when others are paying more, sounds like a st deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.
Why do you keep using the word “pay”?t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.Is it because, like Trump, you don’t understand what the grown-ups are talking about?
Thats why people are here - TO LEARN
Edited by PAULJ5555 on Wednesday 11th July 14:56
mikal83 said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Not required to pay 2% for the next 6 years when others are paying more, sounds like a st deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.
Why do you keep using the word “pay”?t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.Is it because, like Trump, you don’t understand what the grown-ups are talking about?
PAULJ5555 said:
What a C0ck, no need to be like that. Stop asking leaking questions and tell us all about it then.
It's been said several times already on this thread.Countries spend a percentage of GDP on defense. This is for their own armed forces, which then are ready to commit to a NATO action if one is required.
Nobody pays money to anybody else, or to NATO.
The USA chooses to spend more on defense than Germany.
If Germany spent more, the USA would get nothing, except a larger German military involvement in any NATO action. Which likely wouldn't even be larger, because no country is going to commit 100% of their armed forces to a NATO action.
PAULJ5555 said:
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Not required to pay 2% for the next 6 years when others are paying more, sounds like a st deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.
Why do you keep using the word “pay”?t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.Is it because, like Trump, you don’t understand what the grown-ups are talking about?
USA is the biggest arms exporter so it’s in Trump’s interests to get everyone up to that 2% figure. The second biggest is Russia so it’s in Trump’s interest to get everyone up to that 2% figure.
rscott said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Not required to pay 2% for the next 6 years when others are paying more, sounds like a st deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.
Why do you keep using the word “pay”?t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.Is it because, like Trump, you don’t understand what the grown-ups are talking about?
Thats why people are here - TO LEARN
Edited by PAULJ5555 on Wednesday 11th July 14:56
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Dindoit said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Not required to pay 2% for the next 6 years when others are paying more, sounds like a st deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.
Why do you keep using the word “pay”?t deal to me, no wonder Trumpy is not happy about it then.Is it because, like Trump, you don’t understand what the grown-ups are talking about?
USA is the biggest arms exporter so it’s in Trump’s interests to get everyone up to that 2% figure. The second biggest is Russia so it’s in Trump’s interest to get everyone up to that 2% figure.
PAULJ5555 said:
Thank you If someone said this 2 pages ago you could have avoided this nonsense.
But do you not see the problem here? Trump moans about people not "paying" and this is then accepted as some sort of true thing.You've taken the time to understand this better. How many others haven't?
So there is a President who tells outright lies to support whatever his f
king demented agenda is. And these lies are potentially very dangerous and damaging._dobbo_ said:
All this NATO talk has me wondering, is Trump preparing to pull the USA out of NATO? He's just about clueless enough about the consequences of that to do it, and all this posturing has to be for something. Maybe he wants more defense spending, or maybe he's lining up his excuses...
Or maybe he wants to PAЯTNEЯ up with someone else?Nanook said:
Why 2%?
Because, as I understand it, it was what NATO decided the figure should be a long time ago. This figure isn't a new thing.
As for your example, are there really any governments or MOD/DODs out there that are stupid enough to do that? I don't think so.
I was just commenting, some people seem to be insinuating that Trump's being a bit of a dick for suggesting that America are paying more than everyone else. Really, he's saying that the agreement was that every NATO member, regardless of size, has agreed to contribute 2% of GDP towards defence, for the 'greater good', and that most countries are not pulling their weight.
I've found a reference to the 2% 'target' from 2006, but I'm sure it's been around longer than that. Albeit a 'target' than a rule, but I don't see what's wrong with expecting other NATO members to contribute fairly.
I don't see what's wrong with expecting the POTUS to behave diplomatically. Look at this tweet from the Orange Buffoon a few hours ago.Because, as I understand it, it was what NATO decided the figure should be a long time ago. This figure isn't a new thing.
As for your example, are there really any governments or MOD/DODs out there that are stupid enough to do that? I don't think so.
I was just commenting, some people seem to be insinuating that Trump's being a bit of a dick for suggesting that America are paying more than everyone else. Really, he's saying that the agreement was that every NATO member, regardless of size, has agreed to contribute 2% of GDP towards defence, for the 'greater good', and that most countries are not pulling their weight.
I've found a reference to the 2% 'target' from 2006, but I'm sure it's been around longer than that. Albeit a 'target' than a rule, but I don't see what's wrong with expecting other NATO members to contribute fairly.
POTUS Tweet said:
The European Union makes it impossible for our farmers and workers and companies to do business in Europe (U.S. has a $151 Billion trade deficit), and then they want us to happily defend them through NATO, and nicely pay for it. Just doesn’t work!
Basically, he's using the 2% as blackmail.When you consider what commitments the US had to NATO up until 1991, you would recognise that what they contribute now is a tiny fraction compared to then. The Americans were keener than anyone on the expected "Peace Dividend" that the end of the Cold War was supposed to bring. As an example of how much US involvement in Europe has dropped, just look at a list of the UK air bases they had in 1991 compared to now -
Lakenheath
Upper Heyford
Bentwaters
Woodbridge
Alconbury
Mildenhall
Greenham Common
Fairford
Now its just Mildenhall and Lakenheath - with Mildenhall set to close. Fairford is used for deployments only with no operational units actually based there.
Lakenheath
Upper Heyford
Bentwaters
Woodbridge
Alconbury
Mildenhall
Greenham Common
Fairford
Now its just Mildenhall and Lakenheath - with Mildenhall set to close. Fairford is used for deployments only with no operational units actually based there.
Dindoit said:
NATO members have a target, by 2024, to spend 2% of their GDP on defence.
USA is the biggest arms exporter so it’s in Trump’s interests to get everyone up to that 2% figure. The second biggest is Russia so it’s in Trump’s interest to get everyone up to that 2% figure.
EADS would like a word.USA is the biggest arms exporter so it’s in Trump’s interests to get everyone up to that 2% figure. The second biggest is Russia so it’s in Trump’s interest to get everyone up to that 2% figure.
As said above the only requirement is for 2% of spending so why would the EU make themselves dependant on someone else's supply chain when they can lob it all at Leo 2's, eurofighters, H&K guns, etc?
Other than reduced influence in Europe and increased competition for the death trade I don't see what America's getting out of this. I mean sure they could potentially reduce their military spending and spend it on schools, hospitals and infrastructure instead but... oh hang on I just saw a flying pig go past the window.
I thought Burtonwood was active till the 90s, but seems it was just a deployment thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Burtonwood
as an aside, one of the stories told to me by my mum's uncle, was of all the yank iron dumped in the MSC by the leaving yanks, all the harleys and whatnot, because it was a faff to import them back to the USA, cheaper to dump and buy new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Burtonwood
as an aside, one of the stories told to me by my mum's uncle, was of all the yank iron dumped in the MSC by the leaving yanks, all the harleys and whatnot, because it was a faff to import them back to the USA, cheaper to dump and buy new.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff