Does it bother you that Trump has attacked USA's most important ally since WW2?

From reading Europe's woes with regard to immigration, sounds like they could use a wall as well. Shall we send an architect over to draw some plans? We'll need a mobilization advance fee up front, of course.

 

Anything that moves us away from one world government is good.

 

The EU existed during WWII? Liberal logic 101.

 

So in your mind telling Nato members that aren't paying there fair share of their own defense is attacking them? I don't understand why anyone is surprised that an alliance (the EU) that in the main only benefits France and Germany - primarily the latter, is falling apart.

 

Common currency and union are not bad ideas... provided you also give the central authority enough power to override the national governments. That didn't happen though. The Euro would have worked just fine, IF the EU could force irresponsible countries like greece to stop being irresponsible. Unfortunately, they cannot, and the greeks are free to drag all of europe down with them, which they did. The problem wasn't too much EU, but too little EU.

Russia may not be communist anymore but they are still imperial. NATO was created to defend small countries against Russia, so it's rasion d'etre still exist since there are still small vulnerable countries and an imperialist russia.

They do, actually, with the latest examples being on-going. And btw, it's not western europe anymore, it's the NATO members in eastern europe to which Russia is inarguably a threat. The baltic countries, with large russian minorities.. It's those countries, not for germany, france or the UK, which NATO is primarily meant for.

well, those people would be wrong, since the Warzaw pact was formed several years after NATO.

our fair share? Let's get some things straight: it's not all of europe that's being threatened by russia, it's only eastern europe. So why is it a "european" matter to defend them? Why would france and germany have a greater obligation than the USA to defend estonia? Just because they are on the same continent? Because they're in the EU? No, the EU isn't a military alliance, so it has nothing to do with it. In fact, the EU has been prevented from touching military matters for the exact reason that NATO handles that already, the brits have blocked attempts to make the EU deal with military stuff (good riddance that they're leaving!). Point being, stop looking at this as a "european" issue, because there is no such thing as "europe" in the context of NATO. There are only individual countries, some which have a greater need of assistance from others.

Disbanding NATO would entail giving russia control over many countries which are currently free and democratic. After being controlled by russia, its doubtful they would stay that way. "russia has no plans for that" you might say.. truth is we don't know, but there's good reason to think that they do, and that uncertainty is the reason why NATO is still relevant today.

Stop talking about "europe". There is no "europe" in this context. EU isn't part of NATO nor does it deal with much with military matters. There are only individual countries. No, not all europe is threatened, only the east. And it's not as if all of US military spending is going towards protecting NATO... Your stupid adventures in the middle east for example, cost a lot of money, but don't actually do much to increase the security of either the US or of NATO. You're just wasting money, so it's no suprise then that european countries who do not participate in such stupid adventures spend less money, thus making it seem as if they contribute less. Of course, even if taking this into account, USA still outspends europe, but just looking at % of gdp expenditure isn't the best way to look at things.

 

You'd be correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup. Which is why you;re afraid we'll do it.

 

There is an assumed premise presented as an indisputable truism that I totally disagree with.

No, it is not our responsibility to defend every country in the world and that includes Europe. That is sold by the military industrial complex, the military contractors industry and globalist banks who make huge amounts of money on the debts and loans for this world policing.

Boundaries and countries have changed across the entire history of the human race. If a country can not defend itself against Russia then it can't. We did not create those little countries, they are not our responsibility and the continual surrounding Russia with bases, troops, weapons and missiles is singularly for the trillions of dollars this brings.

The USA has NEVER been at war with Russia - ever. With the collapse of the USSR NATO should have been dissolved - or at least we withdrawing from it. The economy and budgets of Europe, plus population, is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than Russia and it is absurd that we spend a dollar defending Europe so they don't have to defend themselves.

For example, Germany is one of the most industrialized countries in the world. It is absurd we are sending American tanks to Germany when Germany is 100% capable of building its own tanks at German cost.

Russia is an adversary only because we deliberately force Russia to be an adversary.

Trump was correct when he said NATO is outdated.

 

We have no alliance with the EU and no, telling NATO to pay its fair share is not attacking them. When a contractor gives you an estimate or when someone behind the counter of a store tells you how much a product or service costs do you call that "attacking" you?

Even totally withdrawing from NATO would not constitute "attacking" them.

 

You didn't explain why young Americans should die for countries that won't pay their fair share for their own defense.

 

Because you signed a treaty saying you would defend them, regardless of their military spending. If this is such a big problem for americans, one has to wonder why you let them into the alliance in the first place, and why you haven't made it a requirement, as opposed to just a recommendation, for them to spend 2% minimum?

 

That's why things have to be renegotiated. We are tired of carrying Europe. Why do you think it's ok for Europe to be freeloaders? There are 5 member nations who pull their weight---US, Greece, Poland, Estonia and the UK. In 2016 the US spent $650 BILLION. That's more than double the amount all the other27 countries spent between them, even though their combined GDP tops that of the US.

 

If Europe isn't willing to foot some of the bill at the request of the US, the US can simply withdraw.

 

We are not allies with the EU. We are allies with countries within the EU particularly those who are a part of NATO. The sovereignty of those allies takes precedence over any EU agenda.

 

So basically they have been breaking the contract for decades.

 

You, my dear American friends, who are complaining about Europe not doing anything regarding its defence and the US paying for everything.
Do you have any reliable data or numbers I can look at?
I know that Trump claimed something along the lines of "we pay for everything", but has the Donald said anything that was correct and accurate during his election campaign? In my book, no (but that's a different story).

Where does this notion of "we pay everything" come from?
Give me some sources to look into, please.
Thanks.

 

http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Brief_10_Defence_spending.pdf
2015: EU defense spending: 204B E$
Spending in Eastern Europe is (understandably) up, the others, down.

US defense spending 2015: 545.3B E$

 

Post 86 Also Canada and Italy are near the bottom. In 2014 all NATO countries agreed to commit 2% of their GDP to defense, but many have not done it. In fact Obama chided Trudeau and his government for lagging behind in monetary contributions. The liberal government of Trudeau said their contribution will be less monetarily. Cut them loose and anyone else who will not pay. They can protect themselves.

 

Not the EU he wants to attack. Really. Really.

 

the 2% is a guideline, not a requirement. That they spend less is no suprise: there were no threat to them until recently. Russia wasn't a problem until just a few years ago, and it takes some time for the spending to reflect that. Most countries are actually increasing their military spending.

Also, not all countries needs help from others.. western europe for example, isn't threatened by anyone, so they are net contributors. For example, no one need to send any troops to spain or portugal to help them.. So the fact that they spend less 2% doesn't tell you much. The truth is that they contributes more to the alliance than what it takes from it. Even if they just send a hundred men each, that's still a net contribution.

thirdly, just looking at spending as % of gdp is very misleading, because all military spending doesn't necessarily contribute to NATO... The USA wastes lot of money in the middle east doing things which have nothing to do with NATO. Is it then fair for the USA to say, "look, we spend tons of money, why aren't you spending more?". yes, you spend lots of money, but much of it doesn't have anything to do with NATO, so should it count? I don't think it should. The USA uses its military all over the globe all the time, in things which have nothing to do with NATO. Most european countries don't do anything like that, so of course they spend less money. it's not a fair comparison.

point is, you have a very simple, and flawed, way of looking at this.

of course they could. Go right ahead.

Haven't read the contract have you? 2% spending isn't a requirement, just a guideline. If you care so much about it, make it a requirement.

 

If that accounts for half US defense spending, it leaves a sum greater than that of all of NATO combined.

 

true, but the point is that it's not as simple as just looking at % of gdp spending. The USA is in a totally different situation than the other NATO members are... The USA has a global presence, lots of other non-nato allies to think about.. the point is, if the USA spends money to maintain a fleet to contain china, how is that relevant to the other nato-members? If the USA spends money fighting in the middle east, how is that relevant to nato? If USA spends money to have troops in south korea, how is that relevant to nato? it's not as simple as you people make it seem.

 

And yet, my point remains.

 

my point remains. Spain doesn't "cost" the alliance anything, because they don't need any help from anyone to deal with a threat. even if they just spend 0.9%, even if they just send a hundred men to estonia, that is still a larger contribution than all of the billions the US spends in the pacific or middle east, which do nothing to help nato.

In fact, most countries are like spain in that sense, that they don't "cost" anything for the alliance. There is no military threat to western europe, so none of them brings a cost to the alliance. The countries which do bring a cost are the eastern european countries close to russia, and they are all increasing their spending. Because remember, until recently there was no threat from russia, so give the spending levels some time to adjust.

So what is the problem exactly?

 

Yes. Good catch. NATO was established in 1949, the Warsaw Pact in 1955. NATO was initially formed in response to growing concerns that the Soviets would work to spread communism westward.

 

Indeed. small, weak countries yearning for freedom, needed to be protected from an agressive empire. In the cold war, those small countries were in western europe and the agressive empire was the USSR. Today those small countries are in the baltics and eastern europe, and the agressive empire is Russia. The only big difference is that russia isn't communist anymore, and that they're much weak than before. But aside from that, it's the same: small countries that want to be free, need protection.