45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 5)

45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 5)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Kinky

Original Poster:

37,587 posts

228 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
Following on from Vol. 4 here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

So before we start this new a volume, a very polite notice .... any posts deemed as trollesque will have the PHer permanently banned from N, P and E.

We saw how nice the previous thread was when appropriate action was taken. If people don't want to learn from that, then there's little I can do.

So go fill 'yer boots folks, and please lets keep it civil and polite thumbup

jjlynn27

7,739 posts

68 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
4% of GDP on NATO? Or what?

NRS

16,239 posts

160 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
Nanook said:
The 2% spending commitment is, and has been, NATO's agreed guideline for a long time.

No-one owes the US any money, I've not seen anyone with half a brain suggesting so.

But continually saying "2% isn't a current commitment" isn't quite true. It is, and has been for a long time.
Why should Europe stick to deals when the US has been pulling out of their commitments under Trump?

Mr E

19,467 posts

218 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
I think all volumes should be printed, and then performed as some form of avant guard play.

smile

Eric Mc

113,016 posts

224 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
coyft said:
Kinky said:
Following on from Vol. 4 here:

We saw how nice the previous thread was when appropriate action was taken. If people don't want to learn from that, then there's little I can do.
By nice, you mean the echo chamber where everyone agrees Trump is an ignorant, sexist, racist and any dissenting voice is called Trolling.

I'll give it a miss, but thanks for the heads up.
Off to a good start I see.

pinchmeimdreamin

8,307 posts

177 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
coyft said:
By nice, you mean the echo chamber where everyone agrees Trump is an ignorant, sexist, racist and any dissenting voice is called Trolling.

I'll give it a miss, but thanks for the heads up.
Please stay and join in the discussion, Bring some facts and evidence of all the good Trump is doing. beer

minimoog

6,392 posts

178 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
pinchmeimdreamin said:
Bring some facts and evidence of all the good Trump is doing.
Hey he said no trolling!

tongue out

AnotherClarkey

3,437 posts

148 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
4% of GDP on NATO? Or what?
Sounds like a decent idea - as long as none of it is spent in the USA and we redevelop our indigenous defence industry.

mko9

1,148 posts

171 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
pinchmeimdreamin said:
Please stay and join in the discussion, Bring some facts and evidence of all the good Trump is doing. beer
Only about 3 or 4 of the NATO member countries are meeting the 2% defense funding requirement/target/whatever. The US is spending about 4% of GDP, and it is a much larger GDP too. Most NATO member countries are not pulling their weight.

midenginedcoupe

5,359 posts

91 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
AnotherClarkey said:
jjlynn27 said:
4% of GDP on NATO? Or what?
Sounds like a decent idea - as long as none of it is spent in the USA and we redevelop our indigenous defence industry.
Sounds like a terrible idea. What would it be for? We have so many better things to spend our money on.

pablo

15,212 posts

232 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
What possible reason does Slovakia or Italy have for example, to meet the 2%? Who are they likely to require defence from? No doubt they will support an allied response with ground troops should it be required, but in reality, forcing countries to purchase overpriced US military kit where they have no home market is ridiculous.

Look at the list of active US military aircraft, its enormous, why? Jane's lists their fleet of F16s as over 1,000?! 1,000 of one platform?! US need to massively trim their military but can't because it's a core vote winner, as a result Trump is bullying the rest of NATO to match their unsustainable costs.

midenginedcoupe

5,359 posts

91 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
Nanook said:
No one is forcing anyone to buy overpriced US equipment. As an example, since you mentioned Slovakia, they operate Russian MiG-29s.

Why should they meet 2%? If you want to enjoy the benefits of membership you should be paying what has been agreed to be the 'going rate'
In the timescale they’ve agreed. Not your own idea of how quickly they *should* up their investment.

Can Trump do something else stupid so we can move on?

mikal83

5,057 posts

211 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
Kinky said:
Following on from Vol. 4 here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

So before we start this new a volume, a very polite notice .... any posts deemed as trollesque will have the PHer permanently banned from N, P and E.

We saw how nice the previous thread was when appropriate action was taken. If people don't want to learn from that, then there's little I can do.

So go fill 'yer boots folks, and please lets keep it civil and polite thumbup
Hurrah

sugerbear

2,089 posts

117 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
pablo said:
What possible reason does Slovakia or Italy have for example, to meet the 2%? Who are they likely to require defence from? No doubt they will support an allied response with ground troops should it be required, but in reality, forcing countries to purchase overpriced US military kit where they have no home market is ridiculous.

Look at the list of active US military aircraft, its enormous, why? Jane's lists their fleet of F16s as over 1,000?! 1,000 of one platform?! US need to massively trim their military but can't because it's a core vote winner, as a result Trump is bullying the rest of NATO to match their unsustainable costs.
This all day long. Didn’t Trump promise (ha!! ) not to go round starting wars. But yet he still promised to increase military spending.

Maybe NATO should be demanding that the US scale it’s spending back to nearer 2% or below and steer clear of future war mongering.



djc206

7,447 posts

84 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
AnotherClarkey said:
Sounds like a decent idea - as long as none of it is spent in the USA and we redevelop our indigenous defence industry.
It would mean spending over 10% of our tax take on defence. It’s a no from me.

Countdown

28,920 posts

155 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
mko9 said:
Only about 3 or 4 of the NATO member countries are meeting the 2% defense funding requirement/target/whatever. The US is spending about 4% of GDP, and it is a much larger GDP too. Most NATO member countries are not pulling their weight.
Another way of looking at it - which NATO member is most likely to get involved in stupid conflicts, thereby dragging in all the other NATO members? Who has been the only NATO member to invoke Article 5? And which NATO member was trying to persuade us to give up the Falklands rather than standing “shoulder to shoulder”?

FWIW I’m not against NATO per se, just against hypocrisy which the US generates in copious amounts.

NRS

16,239 posts

160 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
mko9 said:
Only about 3 or 4 of the NATO member countries are meeting the 2% defense funding requirement/target/whatever. The US is spending about 4% of GDP, and it is a much larger GDP too. Most NATO member countries are not pulling their weight.
Or they don't go around starting wars for oil etc (sorry, WDM which got lost somewhere in the clean up) so don't need to spend 4%?

Nanook said:
NRS said:
Why should Europe stick to deals when the US has been pulling out of their commitments under Trump?
"He started it"?

It's not just Europe, Canada too.

But why should NATO members let standards slip, because the US pulled out of a climate agreement or similar. They're completely unrelated.

My opinion is that percentage GDP is a fair way to compare defence spending when considering countries of different size. The figure NATO quote is 2%, and has been for a very long time, and very few members are pulling their weight in that regard.
Trump is busy slagging off his friends. He "friends" will not likely make an effort to follow his advice when he doesn't follow stuff the US agreed to before. So no need to follow stuff we have agreed to that clearly isn't a priority for us, same as Paris etc doesn't matter to Trump. It's not to do with "he started it". It's actually following the US way of doing things properly. None of this socialist we all do the same as each other. Just do what benefits you personally the best.

Byker28i

29,906 posts

176 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
pablo said:
What possible reason does Slovakia or Italy have for example, to meet the 2%? Who are they likely to require defence from? No doubt they will support an allied response with ground troops should it be required, but in reality, forcing countries to purchase overpriced US military kit where they have no home market is ridiculous.

Look at the list of active US military aircraft, its enormous, why? Jane's lists their fleet of F16s as over 1,000?! 1,000 of one platform?! US need to massively trim their military but can't because it's a core vote winner, as a result Trump is bullying the rest of NATO to match their unsustainable costs.
Of course if someone like Putin wanted to justify his 'defensive forces', having NATO increase their spending would be handy...
Not that NATO stepped in for Ukraine, Crimea...

NRS

16,239 posts

160 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
Nanook said:
Interesting thought. Should there be an upper limit on spending to prevent any Hitlers coming into power with an unnecessarily large armed forces at their disposal?
Trump seems to support the modern day "Hitler". North Korea has concentration camps etc, their people under massive state control etc. US and Europe support plenty of dictactors too.

powerstroke

9,399 posts

119 months

Wednesday 11th July 2018
quotequote all
Seems like he is 100% on the money when he says Germany is far too dependent on Russia
for gas ... no sorry he is in Putins pocket ...biggrin
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED