NATO warned to start paying its bills


Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+2
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

I think the answer is very clear. Canada, along with other nations, signed onto an agreement say says, short formed, we will stand together to deter aggression. Part of that agreement was a financial obligation. Canada and the others should cough up the cash they agreed to contribute.

If you do not wish to pay, opt out, but you should not expect a free ride.

Historically NATO has served the US very well. It provided the US with a massive bulwark against possible Soviet aggression and added to the worldwide system of alliances and defence agreements the US put together during the Cold War. At its height this alliance system consisted of over 150 agreements and forced the USSR to spend up to 20% of its GNP on defence in order to compete, compared to only 6% of GNP by the USA, a fact that eventually pushed the USSR to the point of economic collapse.

So far as the agreements with Canada were concerned, Canada was a member of both NATO and NORAD, alliances that allowed the US to fly over Canadian territory and provided an early warning system against possible Soviet attack. Canada may not have spent a great deal of money on defence, but it provided the US with an excellent early warning system and gave the USSR one more frontier to worry about.

Canada has been an excellent ally to the US even following it into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with Canada's national interest, Afghanistan being a prime example. Sometimes actual military spending is not nearly as important as geographical access and political support.
 
TenPenny
+1
#32
Why doesn't the US simply cut spending on NATO to the 2% level?
 
EagleSmack
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Why doesn't the US simply cut spending on NATO to the 2% level?

We just might! So much we can do. Focus less on the defense of the EU and look to our borders. Sweet!
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+2
#34
That would really suck to pull influence peddlers and meddlers (the mouthpieces who get good soldiers killed - or worse yet, dependent on Veteran Administrations) out of European policy shaking....
 
EagleSmack
#35
Time to pull out. If the EU nations do not think the Russians are a big threat, and as their defense budgets reflect, then maybe we can set up a small logistics tent somewhere in the UK and call it a day.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+2
#36
If they're such a big threat, why is Trump (or his really smart people) cozying up to Putin?
Last edited by lone wolf; Feb 17th, 2017 at 01:14 PM..
 
EagleSmack
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

If they're such a big threat, why is Trump (or his really smart people) cozying up to Putin?

That's what I'm saying!

Leave the EU to defend the EU. Combined they have a greater armed force than the Russians. They'll be fine.

Although the Russian people have far bigger balls than those of the EU.
 
MHz
+1
#38
None of them have any money left. Too many war games is one of the latest causes. Falling for the Cold War hoax took up the rest.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

That's what I'm saying!

Leave the EU to defend the EU. Combined they have a greater armed force than the Russians. They'll be fine.

Although the Russian people have far bigger balls than those of the EU.

Problem for the EU going it alone ... er ... united in some way or another is: Who's the new boss?
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post


Although the Russian people have far bigger balls than those of the EU.

Big balls don't seem to matter. Except for its nuclear capability the Russian military is pretty much a paper tiger. Its equipment is outmoded; its troops poorly trained; and it is being run on a shoestring. If even the Ukrainians can stand up to the Russians it really doesn't say much for their military potential.
 
tay
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Why doesn't the US simply cut spending on NATO to the 2% level?

Because of the Military industrial Complex.

Pretend war creates a lot of profit, just not as much as dropping bombs and shooting bullets off does. They want other countries to subsidize their defence contractors by stocking up on equipment they may never use. Of course if they don't use it, after 5 or more years they put out a bulletin stating that said equipment has become obsolete and it's time to buy new stuff......
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+1
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

Because of the Military industrial Complex.

Pretend war creates a lot of profit, just not as much as dropping bombs and shooting bullets off does. They want other countries to subsidize their defence contractors by stocking up on equipment they may never use. Of course if they don't use it, after 5 or more years they put out a bulletin stating that said equipment has become obsolete and it's time to buy new stuff......

That is how the Americans subsidize their economy.

It's worked, too for the most part.
 
Remington1
#43
Canada benefit handsomely from wars. There is no reason we are not fulfilling our agreement to NATO. Ottawa needs to push the reset bottom and pay up. If Canada is able to pay billions to help China and India with their environmental issues (all whilst shipping coals by the ton to China)!! and resettling refugees at a cost of 1 Billion, which are all good things!! but on the other side of the coin, if I was Trump, I would tell Canada: " Yes, I've been watching and you do look really wonderful and kind, but pay the amount you agreed too".
 
tay
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Remington1View Post

Canada benefit handsomely from wars. There is no reason we are not fulfilling our agreement to NATO. Ottawa needs to push the reset bottom and pay up. If Canada is able to pay billions to help China and India with their environmental issues (all whilst shipping coals by the ton to China)!! and resettling refugees at a cost of 1 Billion, which are all good things!! but on the other side of the coin, if I was Trump, I would tell Canada: " Yes, I've been watching and you do look really wonderful and kind, but pay the amount you agreed too".

Don't go getting all rebeler on us. We need details that show Canada is subsidizing these countries for their environmental plans.....
 
EagleSmack
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

Big balls don't seem to matter. Except for its nuclear capability the Russian military is pretty much a paper tiger. Its equipment is outmoded; its troops poorly trained; and it is being run on a shoestring. If even the Ukrainians can stand up to the Russians it really doesn't say much for their military potential.

Stand up? How?

They've lost the Crimea, they've all but lost Eastern Ukraine.
 
petros
+1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

He planning a war?

Somebody else is.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Stand up? How?

They've lost the Crimea, they've all but lost Eastern Ukraine.

The build up to take it back has already begun.
 
EagleSmack
#47
The EU better step up
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Stand up? How?

They've lost the Crimea, they've all but lost Eastern Ukraine.

Look on the map. Only a tiny section of Ukraine is contested. The original plan of the Russians separatists was to annex all of the territory bordering the Black Sea. They haven't come close to that even with the help of fake "freedom fighters."

 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#49
I don't know who drew your map but Kiev has "moved to the West" a bit!
 
Blackleaf
#50
Nato is the key to our stability – so pay for it

Telegraph View (external - login to view)
19 February 2017
34 Comments (external - login to view)


German Chancellor Angela Merkel walks with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence before their meeting at the 53rd Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, February 18, 2017. Credit: MICHAEL DALDER


The world must take note of what happened in Montenegro. It paid scant attention last October when reports surfaced of an attempted coup. All eyes were on the American election; Montenegro is small and hardly known. But we can now reveal that plans were laid for a bloody coup, which was designed to kill the prime minister and destabilise the country. The goal was to prevent this sovereign nation from joining Nato. According to intelligence sources, the puppet-master was Russia.

It all sounds familiar. In the last few chaotic years, Moscow has backed a separatist movement in Ukraine, propped up Bashar al-Assad in Syria, stands accused of murdering critics on foreign soil and is believed to have bankrolled opposition parties abroad. It is even alleged to have interfered in the US election.

So the job of the American team at the Security Conference in Munich has not been easy. After inheriting this mess from Barack Obama, Donald Trump seeks a new relationship with Russia, in recognition of what is clearly an unhappy situation in which Vladimir Putin is a key player.

But the Europeans fear this means capitulation to Moscow. Vice President Mike Pence assured them that Washington’s commitment to Nato is strong (external - login to view), that Russia must honour the 2015 Ukraine peace deal and that the West is bound together by common values. He also made a very good point about expenditure: if Europe wants a collective defence then it must pay for it.

Meeting the 2 per cent spending target is not a condition for Nato membership or protection. But the collective defence of freedom must be more than just an American policing operation. If Canada under Justin Trudeau imagines itself as the defender of liberalism, let it put its money where its mouth is.

Likewise, if Europe is so intent on integration then what is it doing to defend countries such as Montenegro? Several European countries spend less on defence than the budget of the New York Police Department. (external - login to view)

Britain must meet its own obligations and take the case for Western resolve directly to the Trump administration. The stakes are high. In Munich, the Russian foreign minister spoke of a post-West order. The reality of that proposition may sadly be disorder and freedom for tyrants. Only Nato retains the power, and hopefully the will, to stand up for democracy and the rule of law.

Nato: Who Pays?



Nato is the key to our stability (external - login to view)
 
Machjo
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Nato is the key to our stability – so pay for it
Telegraph View
19 February 2017
34 Comments

German Chancellor Angela Merkel walks with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence before their meeting at the 53rd Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, February 18, 2017. Credit: MICHAEL DALDER
The world must take note of what happened in Montenegro. It paid scant attention last October when reports surfaced of an attempted coup. All eyes were on the American election; Montenegro is small and hardly known. But we can now reveal that plans were laid for a bloody coup, which was designed to kill the prime minister and destabilise the country. The goal was to prevent this sovereign nation from joining Nato. According to intelligence sources, the puppet-master was Russia.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
The first three on the list are debt-ridden, especially Greece. I don't know about the others.
 
Blackleaf
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The first three on the list are debt-ridden, especially Greece. I don't know about the others.

And yet they still manage to spend more on defence than Canada does.

Even Albania, for long Europe's poorest country, spends more of its GDP on defence than Canada does.
 
Machjo
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

And yet they still manage to spend more on defence than Canada does.

Even Albania, for long Europe's poorest country, soebds more of its GDP on defence than Canada does.

And there you go. It's poor.

How about sustainable spending rather than splurging now and going bankrupt later?
 
Blackleaf
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And there you go. It's poor.

How about sustainable spending rather than splurging now and going bankrupt later?

Albania is in NATO, and therefore is required to spend at least 2% of its GDP on defence. Therefore, rather than spending too much, Albania actually isn't spending enough and needs to spend MORE on defence.

This is what Trump and May have been saying.
 
Machjo
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Albania is in NATO, and therefore is required to spend at least 2% of its GDP on defence. Therefore, rather than spending too much, Albania actually isn't spending enough and needs to spend MORE on defence.

This is what Trump and May have been saying.

The leaders of two of the most indebted countries. Unfortunately Trudeau is catching us up fast.
 
Blackleaf
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The leaders of two of the most indebted countries. Unfortunately Trudeau is catching us up fast.

Japan, Ireland and Singapore are the three countries with the highest debt-to-GDP ratio. Britain and the USA aren't even in the Top 10.
 
tay
#57
Donald Trump has announced that he will increase ‘defense’ spending by an unprecedented (and unwarranted) $54 billion over the next year.

This is in addition to the roughly $600 BILLION spent per year on military and defense infrastructure. This is also a conservative number, as many additional billions are spent on defense or security related programs.

Where does it all go?

No one really knows.

And why does the US feel it has to continue to outspend everyone?

These excessive levels – if we allow them to continue – will result in bankrupting NATO as member countries decide on their own infrastructure costs and safety nets to spending on Military Arms.

Members will simply declare that they can no longer afford to support Trump’s ridiculous overspending on military hardware and contracting.

And when that happens, he’ll have all the justification he needs to terminate relations with NATO countries, putting the world on full alert.

Assuming threats exist (as we’ve been told since the introduction of personal income tax back at the beginning of the 20th century) and they’re not just manufactured to ensure that the big spend on military continues, we’ll see ex-NATO members fall to bullying brought on by either the US, Russia or both.

There is an alternative: if the US were to pull its defense spending to be more in line with the rest of NATO as opposed to pushing NATO members to keeping upping the ante, we’d have trillions of dollars to spend on more important things.

Like saving the human race from ourselves.


 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

NATO has always been a bit of a con game so far as the US is concerned. During the Cold War the US constantly bullied NATO members into spending more on defense than was really necessary. The result was the most massively armed alliance in world history. The less spent on the military the better. Military spending certainly does not help the economy unless foreigners can be duped into buying military equipment.

That's how you stimulate the economy dummah. Think of the thousands a jobs that were provided. Now shut it sap.
 
no new posts