NATO Members Will Increase Defense Spending After Trump Calls Them Out

[Slade3200]

I don't think that Trump wants to pull out of NATO, but wants us out of Europe to save the $24b a year that they should be spending for defense themselves. If there's a war then we fulfill our NATO responsibilities. Does anyone think that the US should be spending $24b a year keeping troops in Europe?

I do. I think having a presence around the world makes us stronger and safer and better informed. If there is an emergency we can respond faster, if there is a threat we can gather intel better. We are the world leader. If you want to remain the worlds leader we need to stay engaged with the world or China is going to swallow us up. Is that what you want?

I want the ******* $22T Debt to start going down. After the US crashes because of the Debt is not the time to start cutting spending, because there can't be any spending.

I agree, I’d love to see our government cut spending and waste. That’s a different discussion though. There is a lot of false info getting thrown out about NATO from our Prez and his minions, so if you are going to object to the costs the first step is to know exactly what they are.

It costs the US $24b to keep our troops in the EU, is that a good use of deficit spending? Yes or No?

I’m not privy to our military strategies and the classified national intel used to access threats and countermeasures... Nor are you. I can tell you the better positioned we are around the world the better and safer we are. I’m all for giving critical looks at how we spend and cut waste, but again that is a different discussion. Do you think if there was no NATO we would really pull out of all those places? NATO has nothing to do with South Korea but we have a large military presence there. This is good for obvious reasons.

 

[Dragonlady]

Bout damned time. All Americans should be sick of footing the bills for NATO.

How exactly are we footing the bills for NATO?

Not only are you NOT footing the bill for NATO, why are Americans trying to force the rest of us to bankrupt ourselves with senseless spending on weapons and military? Instead of the rest of us spending more, how about YOU spend less.

If you're pulling out of NATO, and leaving the rest of us to defend ourselves, why do you need to spend more than the rest of us combined?

 

[Dragonlady]

No one is forcing the US military to maintain bases all around the world. They were put there to protect "US interests" (generally defined as areas of the world with a large American corporate presence, and where instability might result in the loss of American owned property, like oil refineries in the Middle East).

Americans complain about being the "world's cop", but the United States had to be dragged kicking and screaming to help the United Nations stop the genocide in Bosnia, because it had been a former communist country and the United States had no "interests" there. Nor did they have any "interests" in East Timor when another genocide occurred there, and it continued unabated.

Far from being the world's cop, America has been one of the world's great enablers of war, often selling arms to both sides, and then sending in the World Bank to auction off what's left of these nations' assets and resources to the highest bidders. One only need to read the history of the last 70 years, to see the lengths that successive American governments went to in order to stifle the growth of communism, and to keep cheap oil flowing in the Middle East, and you would understand why Iranians consider the USA to be Satan.

The US kept the Shah of Iran on the Peacock Throne for more than 30 years, to keep Iran from aligning with Russia. His was one of the most brutal, repressive dictatorships the world has ever seen. Saddam Hussein could have modelled his most odious behaviour from the Shah, but Saddam was a military man at heart, and had more discipline. The Shah was an entitled snot of a crown prince who became a cruel and enchallenged hedonist after his father's death. Not unlike MBS, but without the veneer of a "reformer", and very much like MBS, his grossest behaviours were excused, tolerated, and allowed to continue because "Better dead than red".

 

[Dale Smith]

No one is forcing the US military to maintain bases all around the world. They were put there to protect "US interests" (generally defined as areas of the world with a large American corporate presence, and where instability might result in the loss of American owned property, like oil refineries in the Middle East).

Americans complain about being the "world's cop", but the United States had to be dragged kicking and screaming to help the United Nations stop the genocide in Bosnia, because it had been a former communist country and the United States had no "interests" there. Nor did they have any "interests" in East Timor when another genocide occurred there, and it continued unabated.

Far from being the world's cop, America has been one of the world's great enablers of war, often selling arms to both sides, and then sending in the World Bank to auction off what's left of these nations' assets and resources to the highest bidders. One only need to read the history of the last 70 years, to see the lengths that successive American governments went to in order to stifle the growth of communism, and to keep cheap oil flowing in the Middle East, and you would understand why Iranians consider the USA to be Satan.

The US kept the Shah of Iran on the Peacock Throne for more than 30 years, to keep Iran from aligning with Russia. His was one of the most brutal, repressive dictatorships the world has ever seen. Saddam Hussein could have modelled his most odious behaviour from the Shah, but Saddam was a military man at heart, and had more discipline. The Shah was an entitled snot of a crown prince who became a cruel and enchallenged hedonist after his father's death. Not unlike MBS, but without the veneer of a "reformer", and very much like MBS, his grossest behaviours were excused, tolerated, and allowed to continue because "Better dead than red".

The USSR was always propped up by the banking oligarchs that own USA.INC as well as European bankers that funded Leo Trotsky and the "Bolshevik Revolution".

 

[Natural Citizen]

What they'll increase is military spending.

Defense spending is a completely different budget.