Why Trump is after NATO...only 5 countries out of 27 members are meeting their pledge!

[Doc1]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

Uh, it's about keeping one's commitments.

This country has no room to whine about such things

Deflection. Again. Here are the only Nations meeting their obligations. I suggest instead of just spouting shit you actually find out what's going on.

The Only 5 Countries That Meet NATO's Defense Spending Requirements

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So Gator, your saying Europe is paying its full Nato requirements,

Please show me where I said this?

and that the US isn't basically defending all of Europe from Putin?

I do not think Putin has any designs on taking over Europe.

Nobody is saying that Europe deosn't provide some defense to its own people, but it seems hard to defend that they are not depending on the US taxpayer to keep them safe. Before everyone continues to argue, why don't we come up with some agreed on standard of what Europe pays and what it is required to pay to meet its obligations. The whole my chart and stats are the real stats is annoying.

I am the guy that wants us to pull most, if not all troops out of Europe and station them on the southern border vice building a wall, you know have our military defend our country for a change.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

Uh, it's about keeping one's commitments.

This country has no room to whine about such things

Deflection. Again. Here are the only Nations meeting their obligations. I suggest instead of just spouting shit you actually find out what's going on.

The Only 5 Countries That Meet NATO's Defense Spending Requirements

Nobody is disputing that fact, why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[Desperado]

The Cold War is Over, NATO should follow suit.

 

[bendog]

Fr. UK, Ger and Italy spend even under the direct measure 178 billion compared to Russia's 66 billion, so let's not go missile gap here.

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/sipri_fs_1805_milex_2017.pdf

And again Trump misstates the figures (shock)

Trump Still Distorting NATO Spending - FactCheck.org

Direct nato spending has gone up three years running, predating Trump.

As usual, Trump's words have a message that is not what he's really saying. He wants the EU to buy US not Russian gas. Not happening.

He wants EU/nato disharmony, just as Putin does, to lessen their influence. He doesn't want any deals that could avoid US sanctions and lessen the impact of his unilateral tariffs.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I'm starting to agree. Let the larger nuclear capable countries defend themselves. Maybe make a more modern agreement with some of the more vulnerable nations on the Russian border. I'm sure Europe doesn't want us there any more than many of us want to be there.

 

[bendog]

Trump is crazy like PT Barnum was crazy

 

[Siete]

who expects a huskster to grasp the design of NATO ?

he didnt even know what Brexit was.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol, trump derangement syndrome is alive and well.

 

[Tom Horn]

First, let us be aware that if ALL 30 countries within NATO were to meet the 2% of their respective GDP toward armaments, the $700 BILLION that the U.S. spends on the Pentagon would not go down by even ONE dollar............The $700 billion expense is our "choice"...or at least the choice forced upon us by the military complex.

The above stated, the other FACT is that all NATO countries are required to PAY a formulated amount toward the NATO coffers........and EVERY ONE of the countries in the pact is fulfilling THAT requirement.......not one of the countries is behind in that PAYMENT.

What the fool-in-chief is ranting about, is that most of the NATO countries are not SPENDING as much as Trump would like for them to spend on armaments (bearing in mind that most of that potential expenditure would go to American weapon manufacturers.)

Again, if ALL those NATO countries were to SPEND 2% of their GDP in further armaments, we would not be saving a dime.....and probably those NATO countries would not be a heck of a lot "safer."........The MAIN loser in the current scenario are the U.S. armaments' lobbyists whose job is to ensure that NATO buy more American weapons of war.

Easily the worst piece of trash I've read here in weeks....I'd report you for being crazy as a shithouse rat but the mods probably enjoy laughing at your commie crap....you're like a bad car wreck that people notice but don't look at for more than a minute or two. There are 29, not 30 countries in NATO and it goes downhill from there.

 

[bendog]

Lol, trump derangement syndrome is alive and well.

I marvel at his ability to manipulate you guys. I'm sort of sorry I never watched his tv show.

 

[tycho1572]

Have you asked yourself why some of these countries are now paying more to meet their obligations, nat4900?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

First, let us be aware that if ALL 30 countries within NATO were to meet the 2% of their respective GDP toward armaments, the $700 BILLION that the U.S. spends on the Pentagon would not go down by even ONE dollar............The $700 billion expense is our "choice"...or at least the choice forced upon us by the military complex.

The above stated, the other FACT is that all NATO countries are required to PAY a formulated amount toward the NATO coffers........and EVERY ONE of the countries in the pact is fulfilling THAT requirement.......not one of the countries is behind in that PAYMENT.

What the fool-in-chief is ranting about, is that most of the NATO countries are not SPENDING as much as Trump would like for them to spend on armaments (bearing in mind that most of that potential expenditure would go to American weapon manufacturers.)

Again, if ALL those NATO countries were to SPEND 2% of their GDP in further armaments, we would not be saving a dime.....and probably those NATO countries would not be a heck of a lot "safer."........The MAIN loser in the current scenario are the U.S. armaments' lobbyists whose job is to ensure that NATO buy more American weapons of war.

The Republican Senate rebuked Trump ... twice.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 97-2 in favor of a pro-NATO resolution.

Senators voted overwhelmingly Wednesday calling on Trump to get congressional approval before using national security as a reason for imposing tariffs on other nations, as he did recently with steel and aluminum tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

 

[healthmyths]

So Gator, your saying Europe is paying its full Nato requirements,

Please show me where I said this?

and that the US isn't basically defending all of Europe from Putin?

I do not think Putin has any designs on taking over Europe.

Nobody is saying that Europe deosn't provide some defense to its own people, but it seems hard to defend that they are not depending on the US taxpayer to keep them safe. Before everyone continues to argue, why don't we come up with some agreed on standard of what Europe pays and what it is required to pay to meet its obligations. The whole my chart and stats are the real stats is annoying.

I am the guy that wants us to pull most, if not all troops out of Europe and station them on the southern border vice building a wall, you know have our military defend our country for a change.

Let's see the reality of stationing troops on the southern border.
The Mexico–United States border is an international border separating Mexico and the United States, extending from the Pacific Ocean to the west and Gulf of Mexico to the east. The border traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to uninhabitable deserts. Approximately 350 million legal crossings occur annually,[1][2] and is the most frequently crossed border in the world.[3][1][4]

The total length of the continental border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km). From the Gulf of Mexico, it follows the course of the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, and El Paso, Texas. Westward from El Paso–Juárez, it crosses vast tracts of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts to the Colorado River Delta and San Diego–Tijuana, before reaching the Pacific Ocean.[5]
Mexico–United States border - Wikipedia
So having All the troops that were stationed in Europe brought back and stationed at the border is your suggestion.

65,631.... American troops in Europe. United States military deployments - Wikipedia

So according to TraitorGator we tear down every wall we have and fence between because he doesn't think walls and fences are affective detergents (contrary to many centuries of experiences!!!) he would station 33 soldiers ever 1 mile or one solder to protect 157 feet... instead of a fence. Now mind you the soldiers must stand guard every 8 hours.
So instead of one soldier ever 1 mile it works out to 11 soldiers per mile per day 7 days a week. Or then one soldier for ever 471 feet. Night and day 24 hours 7 days a week.
Now what is the cost? three square meals a day, $19.25; standard pay, $50.59 a day; combat pay, $5 a day or a total per diem of $75.
.An army of one carries a high price

So in lieu of a wall you will place at a cost of $4,911,824 per day to house, feed and pay 65,632 soldiers...per day or :$1.8 billion a year 100 years---( Chinese wall built over 2,000 years)
or nearly $180 billion... Right
Instead Trump's wall will cost over 5 years to build about $25 billion. And that's it.

Yea leave it to TraitorGator to ignore the details. Just a minor thing. Oh and the above figure was working 7 days a week. No time off, vacations, leave. I'm sure a large portion of
our European based soldiers would love that.
And think about it... they'd be covering about 500 feet between them. When's the last time TraitorGator you ran with a full pack 250 feet after someone who has snuck through
your line of sight!
Yea TraitorGator... your attention to minor details seems a bit shrift!

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Lol, trump derangement syndrome is alive and well.

I marvel at his ability to manipulate you guys. I'm sort of sorry I never watched his tv show.

You marvel at someone who manipulates others with his ignorance?

“Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. “So we’re supposed to protect Germany but they’re getting their energy from Russia.” That statement makes no sense. Trump is just being a jerk.

No doubt he is looking forward to his secret meeting with Putin on Monday. He gets to meet with his controller. That meeting will be easier.

But, then, you marvel at all this.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I wonder what the batshit crazy brigade will freak out over tomorrow?

 

[basquebromance]

Trump is Mike Brady and Europe is Jan Brady, and Mike is telling Jan to clean up her act!

 

[Doc1]

First, let us be aware that if ALL 30 countries within NATO were to meet the 2% of their respective GDP toward armaments, the $700 BILLION that the U.S. spends on the Pentagon would not go down by even ONE dollar............The $700 billion expense is our "choice"...or at least the choice forced upon us by the military complex.

The above stated, the other FACT is that all NATO countries are required to PAY a formulated amount toward the NATO coffers........and EVERY ONE of the countries in the pact is fulfilling THAT requirement.......not one of the countries is behind in that PAYMENT.

What the fool-in-chief is ranting about, is that most of the NATO countries are not SPENDING as much as Trump would like for them to spend on armaments (bearing in mind that most of that potential expenditure would go to American weapon manufacturers.)

Again, if ALL those NATO countries were to SPEND 2% of their GDP in further armaments, we would not be saving a dime.....and probably those NATO countries would not be a heck of a lot "safer."........The MAIN loser in the current scenario are the U.S. armaments' lobbyists whose job is to ensure that NATO buy more American weapons of war.

You need some serious help kid. Also you are full of shit. There are only 5 Countries meeting their responsibilities.

"
The Only 5 Countries That Meet NATO's Defense Spending Requirements"
The Only 5 Countries That Meet NATO's Defense Spending Requirements

Rump's an ass but you are a detestable effin liar.

 

[Polishprince]

If Germany and France don't want to pony up to support NATO, maybe President Trump can recruit new members for the outfit?

Uncle Pooty and the Russian Federation might be interested.

 

[Siete]

So Gator, your saying Europe is paying its full Nato requirements, and that the US isn't basically defending all of Europe from Putin? Nobody is saying that Europe deosn't provide some defense to its own people, but it seems hard to defend that they are not depending on the US taxpayer to keep them safe. Before everyone continues to argue, why don't we come up with some agreed on standard of what Europe pays and what it is required to pay to meet its obligations. The whole my chart and stats are the real stats is annoying.

A PLEDGE ISNT A REQUIREMENT ........ DDDDUUUUHHHHHHH

the trouble for RW's is in the language and understanding what words really mean ...

first things first kiddies ...