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

[Doc1]

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 ...

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

You're retarded. Tell does the word "requirement" mean pledge? You are as stupid as Nat.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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

I had this link. Here's who is paying the agreed-upon share to NATO — and who isn't

 

[ptbw forever]

Maybe Trump wants to declare war on Germany......perhaps even attack Germany from opposite sides along with Putin?.......Rumor has it that such may have happened before in history.....LOL

Germany is in the pocket of Russia, idiot.

 

[Doc1]

Trump is crazy like PT Barnum was crazy

Maybe, but he's right.

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

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

lol, that is what the problem is, their requirement is too low...see how fake news erodes your understanding.

 

[Doc1]

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.

lol, that is what the problem is, their requirement is too low...see how fake news erodes your understanding.

The ONLY thing Nat understands is his hatred of his President.
The T-Virus is strong in that one.

 

[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.

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!

So, all that just to say that you do not think that our own military should be defending our own country.

It is sort of amazing how the morons that claim to support our military do not think they are capable of actually protecting this country's borders. I will chalk it up to the fact that most of you would not know what the inside of a barracks looks like if if were not for TV.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Isnt that sort of the point of having nukes, to ensure we do not go around attacking each other?

 

[bendog]

Wall - Nato? whatevah.

Nato is increasing direct spending, and it did so NOT because of Trump. The spending increase predates him by two years, and is tied to Putin in Ukraine. And it's not like Trump offers any leadership there. He says Putin is his easy meeting, and that may be true. LOL

Nato probably does need strong leadership in creating battle worthiness and coordination. But the chances of Russia actually invading Poland or something is pretty thin. Ukraine is more a political dispute, and unfortunately Putin sees no difference in political than military disputes. And scary as it is, we have no clue how Trump sees them. Not that we're having a nuclear war .... with Russia or Kim.

Nato has borne the brunt of the refugee crisis we caused with the Iraq war and Obama's pullout. And don't misunderstand me on Iraq. I think W's legacy may be improving.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The ONLY thing Nat understands is his hatred of his President.

every forum needs its pinata, he's ours.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I see on MSNBC that they're claiming that Trump is doing "exactly what Putin wants" with NATO! Uh, okay. So Putin wants Trump to pressure NATO nations to pay more for defense??? Trump wants NATO nations to raise their defense spending to 4 percent of GDP. Putin wants this???!!!

The NATO treaty requires NATO members to pay 2% of GDP for defense. Most NATO nations are not meeting that obligation. Germany only spends 1.2 percent of GDP for defense. England pays 1.8 percent of GDP for defense. France spends 1.8 percent of GDP for defense, although France recently agreed to boost defense spending. Italy spends 1.5 percent of GDP for defense. Trump wants them to boost defense spending to 4 percent.

What is Germany doing signing a multibillion-dollar natural gas pipeline deal with Russia and hurting our ally Ukraine in the process? And, as the Guardian newspaper has noted, Trump is not the only one to raise questions about the pipeline deal.

Trump Was Right: NATO Is Obsolete

Of Course NATO is Obsolete

Trump is right: It's time to rethink NATO

 

[boedicca]

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.

It's scary that you go out and public and drive cars and stuff.

 

[Siete]

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.

I watched it for about 10 minutes once .... scripted, kissing Trumps ass was the only theme I saw - you missed nothing at all.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I see on MSNBC that they're claiming that Trump is doing "exactly what Putin wants" with NATO! Uh, okay. So Putin wants Trump to pressure NATO nations to pay more for defense??? Trump wants NATO nations to raise their defense spending to 4 percent of GDP. Putin wants this???!!!

The NATO treaty requires NATO members to pay 2% of GDP for defense. Most NATO nations are not meeting that obligation. Germany only spends 1.2 percent of GDP for defense. England pays 1.8 percent of GDP for defense. France spends 1.8 percent of GDP for defense, although France recently agreed to boost defense spending. Italy spends 1.5 percent of GDP for defense. Trump wants them to boost defense spending to 4 percent.

What is Germany doing signing a multibillion-dollar oil pipeline deal with Russia and hurting our ally Ukraine in the process? And, as the Guardian newspaper has noted, Trump is not the only one to raise questions about the pipeline deal.

Trump Was Right: NATO Is Obsolete

Of Course NATO is Obsolete

Trump is right: It's time to rethink NATO

Of course they do, more money spent on "defense" is money not spent on things that actually help an economy. Remember, it was defense spending that killed the USSR.

You people are morons if you think that Putin wants to invade Europe.

Personally I hope the whole group tells Trump to shove it up his ass.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

who expects a huskster to grasp the design of NATO ?

he didnt even know what Brexit was.

Absolutely true:

Donald Trump doesn't actually know what 'Brexit' means

In an interview with Michael Wolff for The Hollywood Reporter, the presumptive Republican nominee appeared to suggest he was did not know the meaning of the world “Brexit” - used to refer to Britain’s exit from the European Union.

“And Brexit? Your position?” Mr Woolf asked.

“Huh?”

“Brexit.”

“Hmm.”

The New York tycoon was then told what the abbreviation meant.

He replied: “Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Absolutely true:

Donald Trump doesn't actually know what 'Brexit' means

In an interview with Michael Wolff for The Hollywood Reporter, the presumptive Republican nominee appeared to suggest he was did not know the meaning of the world “Brexit” - used to refer to Britain’s exit from the European Union.

“And Brexit? Your position?” Mr Woolf asked.

“Huh?”

“Brexit.”

“Hmm.”

The New York tycoon was then told what the abbreviation meant.

He replied: “Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”

fake news

 

[tinydancer]

I see on MSNBC that they're claiming that Trump is doing "exactly what Putin wants" with NATO! Uh, okay. So Putin wants Trump to pressure NATO nations to pay more for defense??? Trump wants NATO nations to raise their defense spending to 4 percent of GDP. Putin wants this???!!!

The NATO treaty requires NATO members to pay 2% of GDP for defense. Most NATO nations are not meeting that obligation. Germany only spends 1.2 percent of GDP for defense. England pays 1.8 percent of GDP for defense. France spends 1.8 percent of GDP for defense, although France recently agreed to boost defense spending. Italy spends 1.5 percent of GDP for defense. Trump wants them to boost defense spending to 4 percent.

What is Germany doing signing a multibillion-dollar oil pipeline deal with Russia and hurting our ally Ukraine in the process? And, as the Guardian newspaper has noted, Trump is not the only one to raise questions about the pipeline deal.

Trump Was Right: NATO Is Obsolete

Of Course NATO is Obsolete

Trump is right: It's time to rethink NATO

Of course they do, more money spent on "defense" is money not spent on things that actually help an economy. Remember, it was defense spending that killed the USSR.

You people are morons if you think that Putin wants to invade Europe.

Personally I hope the whole group tells Trump to shove it up his ass.

Bottom line only 5 members are paying their fair share. Estonia, Poland and Greece are meeting their financial obligations over Canada for example. The group can tell Trump to shove it and while staying in the agreement, he can cut back the USA share by a humongous amount.

America pays 3.61 of the GDP. Removing 1.61 cuts NATO's throat.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Absolutely true:

Donald Trump doesn't actually know what 'Brexit' means

In an interview with Michael Wolff for The Hollywood Reporter, the presumptive Republican nominee appeared to suggest he was did not know the meaning of the world “Brexit” - used to refer to Britain’s exit from the European Union.

“And Brexit? Your position?” Mr Woolf asked.

“Huh?”

“Brexit.”

“Hmm.”

The New York tycoon was then told what the abbreviation meant.

He replied: “Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”

fake news

Sorry, you're wrong as usual.

Trump did not know what Brexit was two weeks before EU referendum ...
US › News › UK › UK Politics
Jan 6, 2018 - Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Wolff said: “I interviewed Trump two weeks before the Brexit vote and he didn't knowwhat ...

Donald Trump apparently doesn't know what the Brexit is - The Week
theweek.com/speedreads/627493/donald-trump-apparently-doesnt-know-what-brexit
Jun 1, 2016 - At the end of the month, there will be a referendum to decide if Britain should leave or remain in the European Union. The implications are ...
Trump apparently stumped by 'Brexit' question | TheHill
thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential.../281820-trump-stumped-by-brexit-question
Jun 1, 2016 - “I know Great Britain very well,” Trump added. "I know, youknow, the country very well. I have a lot of investments there. I would say they're ...
Michael Wolff claims Donald Trump didn't know what Brexit was
Latest UK and World News, Sport and Comment | Express.co.uk › News › World
Jan 7, 2018 - Michael Wolff, author of Fire And Fury, claims to have interviewed Trump two weeks before Britain's EU referendum in June 2016 “and he didn't ...
Donald Trump on Brexit: Huh? – POLITICO
Donald Trump on Brexit: Huh?...
Jun 1, 2016 - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a rally in ... president didn't seem to understand what “Brexit” meant — a British exit ...

 

[ptbw forever]

who expects a huskster to grasp the design of NATO ?

he didnt even know what Brexit was.

Absolutely true:

Donald Trump doesn't actually know what 'Brexit' means

In an interview with Michael Wolff for The Hollywood Reporter, the presumptive Republican nominee appeared to suggest he was did not know the meaning of the world “Brexit” - used to refer to Britain’s exit from the European Union.

“And Brexit? Your position?” Mr Woolf asked.

“Huh?”

“Brexit.”

“Hmm.”

The New York tycoon was then told what the abbreviation meant.

He replied: “Oh yeah, I think they should leave.”

He didn't know that Britain was having a referendum, idiot.

 

[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.

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!

The military members are already part of the military and already being paid so there is no additional cost, in fact there is money saved by not having them in Europe where we pay more per member. So you cost argument is out the window.

Also, since you never served you may not know this, but our military has these things called "vehicles", some have wheels and some have tracks and they are motorized and can carry multiple people at high rates of speed.

Also, since you never served you may not know this, but our military has these things called "aircraft", both fixed wing and rotary wing (google those terms if you do not know what they mean). These "aircraft" can actually leave the ground and fly through the air (thus the name) covering great distances in a short amount of time and "impassible" terrain is not really an issue for them.

Here is an idea for you, go see your local recruiter, join up and learn something about the capabilities of our military, then come back when you are not so fucking stupid.

Thanks!