45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Nanook said:
The basic maths is not difficult. Everyone is expected to spend 2% of what they've got. He's not expecting everyone to buy Rollers. He's expecting the plasterer to buy a Ford Focus he can give lifts to them all in, not a 20 year old Ka.
These analogies are getting weird
The agreement suggests (and this is perhaps open to interpretation) that if everyone spends 2%, that's enough spending by all to provide the agreed level of security.
Forget what Trumps is saying for a minute. Does it seem fair that most people aren't paying their agreed fair share?
Haha yeah that’s fair enough.These analogies are getting weird
The agreement suggests (and this is perhaps open to interpretation) that if everyone spends 2%, that's enough spending by all to provide the agreed level of security.
Forget what Trumps is saying for a minute. Does it seem fair that most people aren't paying their agreed fair share?
I would suggest that they’re spending smart. Germany’s and Frances armed forces are quite capable and yet they’re managing to stick under 2%. When 2024 comes around if they haven’t upped their expenditures to 2% then yes he will have a solid argument that the majority of NATO isn’t fulfilling its obligations to the other members. As one of the nations meeting the target I really don’t mind that some are under. Maybe it’s time we reviewed the target and lowered it? It would appear that it was a bit pie in the sky for many nations anyway.
Nanook said:
Could be sensible, wars aren't fought in the same way these days, there's an argument that defence spending doesn't need to be so high. I'd imagine you'd have to get all parties to agree to such a change. Good luck getting the orange one to sign off on that though.
Not a chance, if he’s not in office in 2024 might be an option thoughByker28i said:
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...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.
Not that NATO stepped in for Ukraine, Crimea...
Yes I'm confused by the analogies too sorry.
I just see the big defence companies wanting to know where the next big order is coming from, lobbying the Govt and using Trump as the mouthpiece. He's already proven he's easy to play and lots of people and organisations can take advantage. As someone said, the rest of NATO should ask Trump to reduce spending, the visible difference to operations would be negligible.
I just see the big defence companies wanting to know where the next big order is coming from, lobbying the Govt and using Trump as the mouthpiece. He's already proven he's easy to play and lots of people and organisations can take advantage. As someone said, the rest of NATO should ask Trump to reduce spending, the visible difference to operations would be negligible.
Nanook said:
The US is not setting the budget. And the point is, the 'splitting the bill' is based on how much money you have. Not a completely even share of the total amount.
A 'pub' analogy that would work could be:
You go to the pub with your mate.
You make twice what he does, so every time the kitty jar is empty, you stick in a tenner, he only pays in a fiver. Only, he's actually only paying in £3. He has the rest, he's just choosing not to spend it.
Seem fair?
Maybe you'd say something about it, or ultimately stop going to the pub with him?
The thing is you putting in your £10 often goes out on a massive bender and has a lot of drinks (goes to war in other countries). Your mate contributing his £5 has a few extra drinks to support you, but wasn't really into a wild night to start with.A 'pub' analogy that would work could be:
You go to the pub with your mate.
You make twice what he does, so every time the kitty jar is empty, you stick in a tenner, he only pays in a fiver. Only, he's actually only paying in £3. He has the rest, he's just choosing not to spend it.
Seem fair?
Maybe you'd say something about it, or ultimately stop going to the pub with him?
Your mate also decided not to bother going to the cinema (Paris Climate agreement) and the opera (Iran deal) despite previously having agreed to it. Which is what you really want to do instead of the benders.
Nanook said:
NRS said:
The thing is you putting in your £10 often goes out on a massive bender and has a lot of drinks (goes to war in other countries). Your mate contributing his £5 has a few extra drinks to support you, but wasn't really into a wild night to start with.
Your mate also decided not to bother going to the cinema (Paris Climate agreement) and the opera (Iran deal) despite previously having agreed to it. Which is what you really want to do instead of the benders.
Sounds like you don't want to hang out with this guy anymore. Should probably leave the group?Your mate also decided not to bother going to the cinema (Paris Climate agreement) and the opera (Iran deal) despite previously having agreed to it. Which is what you really want to do instead of the benders.
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
Nice to see you're contributing your 2% dues to NpeATO agreementSo 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
Eric Mc said:
He just makes up the numbers. He's already admitted to it on other occasions.
It would appear in this instance that he’s heard that number and incorrectly attributed it to German energy rather than German gas consumption for which it would be reasonably accurate. In fairness winter would be pretty bleak in Germany if Russia shut off its pipelines but something tells me that it would bankrupt Russia before it froze the Germans.
Byker28i said:
This ones sneaking in today whilst trump is stiring the st at NATO. He's signed an Executive Order to end competitive selection process for Administrative Law Judges, making them political appointees who can be fired at will (and probably appointed).
Oh and add to that tomorrow the Senate is expected to vote to confirm Benczkowski as Asst AG. He would be in the line is succession should Rosenstein get fired The problem? He worked for Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank that the FBI was investigating as part of Russia probe
Got to hand it to Trump, judging by this thread at least he's good at distraction Oh and add to that tomorrow the Senate is expected to vote to confirm Benczkowski as Asst AG. He would be in the line is succession should Rosenstein get fired The problem? He worked for Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank that the FBI was investigating as part of Russia probe
I had a wander round the wiki but am still confused about what an administrative law judge actually does, it appears to be someone who has no ability to try criminal cases but does decide on matters related to how government bodies work, presumably like a less important version of the supreme court?
Once a country loses the independence of the judiciary it is skating on very thin ice.
I am still somewhat gobsmacked that congress is letting him do this although I guess they've not really had time to respond yet. There's got to be someone who's capable of drafting a bill that overrides this order or otherwise ensures separation between executive and judicial decision making?
Edit, doing some reading and this may not be as bad as my initial reaction suggested, but it's still not good. Perhaps too much time in Africa when I was younger gives me a distorted view but this stuff gives me the fear, I have never ever seen anything good come out of political interference with the judiciary.
Edited by Tartan Pixie on Wednesday 11th July 22:40
When Kim met Xi just before the Singapore meeting I am beginning to think they sat down with a glass of something nice to have an amusing and probably quite well informed conversation about how to embarrass the Trump team.
Trump was forced to spend a day hanging about in Singapore waiting for Kim, got to spend an hour with Kim who then promptly departed. To the north Korean people this looks very good, the American devil is waiting at the beck and call of dear leader.
Now Kim has released the reason he could not make the planned meeting with Pompeo last weekend, it's because he had far more pressing business to attend to, like visiting a potato farm: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/kim-j...
They're not just failing to denuclearise, they're ripping the absolute piss
Trump was forced to spend a day hanging about in Singapore waiting for Kim, got to spend an hour with Kim who then promptly departed. To the north Korean people this looks very good, the American devil is waiting at the beck and call of dear leader.
Now Kim has released the reason he could not make the planned meeting with Pompeo last weekend, it's because he had far more pressing business to attend to, like visiting a potato farm: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/kim-j...
They're not just failing to denuclearise, they're ripping the absolute piss
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff