Trump said we pay for 90% of what NATO gets. Do you believe him?

[Wyatt earp]

90% of whatever military actions we have abroad is 100% our decision -- blaming NATO is a cop out -- we don't have military bases all over the world because of NATO -- we have them all over the world because of EMPIRE -- we are an empire, that is what empires do --- until they collapse

Russia had an empire with the Soviet Union. They put up walls to keep people in. People trying to leave were shot.

Do we do that? Besides Trump trying to, we don't do that.

Do you even think before write anything. Because you give every indication of know nothing.

How much meth you smoking today?

So now Trump's wall is to keep people in?

And we didnt nation build before Trump???????



.

 

[Flash]

Well we know from the reports last week that German Hillary has less than ten operational fighter planes and that her Army is training with broomsticks so we know she ain't contributing jackshit, don't we?

 

[Wyatt earp]

FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending

No, US does not pay for 70 or 90 percent of NATO

Obama applauds halt to decline in NATO spending

How NATO is funded and who pays what

We all saw Trump say the US pays 90% of what goes to NATO during this trip to Europe. In fact he said it more than once.

So what does the US actually pay?

22%

Yep, 22%, not 90%.

And it was back in 2014 that Obama demanded NATO paid more. And after the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, they got on the ball. They scheduled the increases into their economy. and we saw the amount they pay increasing a couple of years ago. Before Trump took office.

So the upcoming increases were negotiated by Obama, not Trump.

It's all right there. Easy to look up. VERY recent history. Believe what you want, but those are the facts.

Remind us if NATO could take on the Minnesota national gaurd?


I doubt it.


If NATO pays so much where are their aircraft carriers? Subs???


.

Are you joking or just stupid/ignorant?

The Royal Navy is putting the finishing touches on 2 aircraft carriers...the 70,000 ton Queen Elizabeth class ships which will fly F-35B's (the same that the U.S. Marines use).

The French Navy has the Charles De Gaulle...a 42,000 ton, nuclear powered, aircraft carrier (technically not part of NATO - but would obviously help NATO if needed).

Russia has only one aircraft carrier - the 28 year old, 55,000 ton Kuznetsov.


That means non-US NATO has a 2 to 1 aircraft carrier superiority against Russia (3:1 if you count France's)...which is the only major country it is supposed to defend against.

In terms of military spending, just the UK and Germany combined outspend Russia by MORE than 2:1.

Defense Spending by Country

Even at NATO's present level of spending, Russia's conventional forces are no match whatsoever for NATO (minus America).


Do yourself a favor, when you have no idea what you are talking about (like above), keep your mouth shut and you will not be made to look so stupid/ignorant.

Ta ta.

And talk about ignorant, Russia would roll over Europe you ignorant ****, they would be on the border of Spain before the USA could stop them.. They are built for land war.


.

You stupid moron...how can Russia 'roll over Europe' when Europe outspends Russia on military equipment by a factor of at least 4:1?

Check the link douche brain.

Defense Spending by Country

**** are you dumb.

You have to be 12 years old btw...and ignorant as ****



Russia has over 10,000 battle tanks, Germany for example only has over 200


List of main battle tanks by country - Wikipedia




.

 

[Norman]

Well we know from the reports last week that German Hillary has less than ten operational fighter planes and that her Army is training with broomsticks so we know she ain't contributing jackshit, don't we?

I have heard rumors thought that she has a full Jihadi army inside the borders of Germany.


Wait, that's the enemy army.

 

[Picaro]

We don't have the manufacturing capabilities we had when WW I and WW II broke out for one thing, so the 'bring them all home' silliness isn't a good idea, and having a lot of forward bases is very much a great idea, and keeps the conflicts away from our shores. We learned isolationism is a joke and not a real possibility TWICE in the last century alone, so no need to make that mistake a third time, and with far less ability to respond to boot. You think the cost is high now, just wait until you have to rebuild entire industries from scratch while trying to stave off invasions and attacks while your trade routes are completely shut down by a dozen junk subs sent from some shtihole like NK.

/-----/ "We don't have the manufacturing capabilities we had when WW I and WW II broke out " Well this article pretty much backs up your claim, but I found this paragraph telling. It's exactly what President Trump is trying to accomplish: "Third, other countries do better at negotiating bilateral free trade agreements. They lower tariffs and export fees. That lowers their cost of manufacturing because import prices of supplies are less expensive."
5 Reasons Why America's Manufacturing Is Growing Again

There are other factors, I just didn't feel like writing out some 50 page essay with footnotes and and index or something. One of the reasons many of those smaller 'trading partners' exist at all today is precisely because there is a U.S. base planted on them somewhere, and an attack on them would also be a direct attack on us, hence they don't get attacked or bullied into lop-sided extortionate deals by more aggressive and larger neighbors, for instance.

Ask the Philippines what happened almost right after they tossed us out; the Red Chinese showed up and gave them the finger.

 

[deanrd]

90% of whatever military actions we have abroad is 100% our decision -- blaming NATO is a cop out -- we don't have military bases all over the world because of NATO -- we have them all over the world because of EMPIRE -- we are an empire, that is what empires do --- until they collapse

Russia had an empire with the Soviet Union. They put up walls to keep people in. People trying to leave were shot.

Do we do that? Besides Trump trying to, we don't do that.

Do you even think before write anything. Because you give every indication of know nothing.

How much meth you smoking today?

So now Trump's wall is to keep people in?

And we didnt nation build before Trump???????



.

I didn't say it was for keeping people in.

At least not yet.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

90% of whatever military actions we have abroad is 100% our decision -- blaming NATO is a cop out -- we don't have military bases all over the world because of NATO -- we have them all over the world because of EMPIRE -- we are an empire, that is what empires do --- until they collapse

Russia had an empire with the Soviet Union. They put up walls to keep people in. People trying to leave were shot.

Do we do that? Besides Trump trying to, we don't do that.

Do you even think before write anything. Because you give every indication of know nothing.

How much meth you smoking today?

So now Trump's wall is to keep people in?

And we didnt nation build before Trump???????



.

I didn't say it was for keeping people in.

At least not yet.

You’re an idiot. Why would we build a wall to keep you in when you keep threatening to leave and we offer to help you leave? Pick your socialist paradise and go. We don’t give a shit.

 

[Thinker101]

90% of whatever military actions we have abroad is 100% our decision -- blaming NATO is a cop out -- we don't have military bases all over the world because of NATO -- we have them all over the world because of EMPIRE -- we are an empire, that is what empires do --- until they collapse

Russia had an empire with the Soviet Union. They put up walls to keep people in. People trying to leave were shot.

Do we do that? Besides Trump trying to, we don't do that.

Do you even think before write anything. Because you give every indication of know nothing.

How much meth you smoking today?

So now Trump's wall is to keep people in?

And we didnt nation build before Trump???????



.

I didn't say it was for keeping people in.

At least not yet.

Yet you site Russia having walls to keep people in. Dumbass.

 

[McRocket]

FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending

No, US does not pay for 70 or 90 percent of NATO

Obama applauds halt to decline in NATO spending

How NATO is funded and who pays what

We all saw Trump say the US pays 90% of what goes to NATO during this trip to Europe. In fact he said it more than once.

So what does the US actually pay?

22%

Yep, 22%, not 90%.

And it was back in 2014 that Obama demanded NATO paid more. And after the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, they got on the ball. They scheduled the increases into their economy. and we saw the amount they pay increasing a couple of years ago. Before Trump took office.

So the upcoming increases were negotiated by Obama, not Trump.

It's all right there. Easy to look up. VERY recent history. Believe what you want, but those are the facts.

Remind us if NATO could take on the Minnesota national gaurd?


I doubt it.


If NATO pays so much where are their aircraft carriers? Subs???


.

Are you joking or just stupid/ignorant?

The Royal Navy is putting the finishing touches on 2 aircraft carriers...the 70,000 ton Queen Elizabeth class ships which will fly F-35B's (the same that the U.S. Marines use).

The French Navy has the Charles De Gaulle...a 42,000 ton, nuclear powered, aircraft carrier (technically not part of NATO - but would obviously help NATO if needed).

Russia has only one aircraft carrier - the 28 year old, 55,000 ton Kuznetsov.


That means non-US NATO has a 2 to 1 aircraft carrier superiority against Russia (3:1 if you count France's)...which is the only major country it is supposed to defend against.

In terms of military spending, just the UK and Germany combined outspend Russia by MORE than 2:1.

Defense Spending by Country

Even at NATO's present level of spending, Russia's conventional forces are no match whatsoever for NATO (minus America).


Do yourself a favor, when you have no idea what you are talking about (like above), keep your mouth shut and you will not be made to look so stupid/ignorant.

Ta ta.

And talk about ignorant, Russia would roll over Europe you ignorant ****, they would be on the border of Spain before the USA could stop them.. They are built for land war.


.

You stupid moron...how can Russia 'roll over Europe' when Europe outspends Russia on military equipment by a factor of at least 4:1?

Check the link douche brain.

Defense Spending by Country

**** are you dumb.

You have to be 12 years old btw...and ignorant as ****



Russia has over 10,000 battle tanks, Germany for example only has over 200


List of main battle tanks by country - Wikipedia




.

I see you know next to nothing about modern military equipment and/or capabilities. You just cherry pick a stat and say 'see'.

Russia do NOT have 10,000 tanks in front line service.



Russia has only about 2,600 MBT's...and most of them are the T-72's...which are modernized versions of the same tanks that first entered production in 1971. It is no match whatsoever for the Leopard 2 (considered by many - in certain configurations - to be the finest MBT in the world).

Russian Ground Forces - Wikipedia

The German Army has 328 Leopard 2's.

List of modern equipment of the German Army - Wikipedia

And I bet you they could take out the Russian tanks (especially the older T-72's) at a 3:1 clip AT LEAST. AND that is not taking into account the fact the NATO would quickly gain air superiority over the battlefield. Plus, that is JUST Germany.

How about the other NATO members?

Oh...and I was wrong about one thing. I forgot that France is back in NATO (they were out of it for a LONG time).

France: 200 AMX Leclerc's. Again, FAR superior to anything the Russians have except maybe the new Armata (but they only have a few dozen of those).

Great Britain: 227 Challenger 2's (again far better then the Russian MBT's)
Turkey: 354 Leopard 2's (plus well over 1,000 lesser models)
Spain: 327 Leopard 2's
Poland: 142 Leopard 2's
Greece: 353 Leopard 2's
Italy: 200 Ariete's (broadly similar to the Leopard 2/Challenger 2/Abram's)

Leopard 2 - Wikipedia

Just those 8 NATO countries (out of 28 total - not including USA) have 2,131 MBT's...every, single one of them far better then anything the Russian's can field in numbers.

Plus, most/all of NATO's forces are volunteers. Russia is largely made up of conscripts. Take a guess which will be better trained?


Let's just look at military personnel.

Russia: 1,013,628
NATO: 2,203,468 (NOT including America)

That means NATO outnumbers Russia in military personnel by more than 2:1 (without America) and outspends them by at least 4:1.

Russian Armed Forces - Wikipedia
Member states of NATO - Wikipedia
Defense Spending by Country


Got it yet?

 

[McRocket]

FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending

No, US does not pay for 70 or 90 percent of NATO

Obama applauds halt to decline in NATO spending

How NATO is funded and who pays what

We all saw Trump say the US pays 90% of what goes to NATO during this trip to Europe. In fact he said it more than once.

So what does the US actually pay?

22%

Yep, 22%, not 90%.

And it was back in 2014 that Obama demanded NATO paid more. And after the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, they got on the ball. They scheduled the increases into their economy. and we saw the amount they pay increasing a couple of years ago. Before Trump took office.

So the upcoming increases were negotiated by Obama, not Trump.

It's all right there. Easy to look up. VERY recent history. Believe what you want, but those are the facts.

Remind us if NATO could take on the Minnesota national gaurd?


I doubt it.


If NATO pays so much where are their aircraft carriers? Subs???


.

Are you joking or just stupid/ignorant?

The Royal Navy is putting the finishing touches on 2 aircraft carriers...the 70,000 ton Queen Elizabeth class ships which will fly F-35B's (the same that the U.S. Marines use).

The French Navy has the Charles De Gaulle...a 42,000 ton, nuclear powered, aircraft carrier (technically not part of NATO - but would obviously help NATO if needed).

Russia has only one aircraft carrier - the 28 year old, 55,000 ton Kuznetsov.


That means non-US NATO has a 2 to 1 aircraft carrier superiority against Russia (3:1 if you count France's)...which is the only major country it is supposed to defend against.

In terms of military spending, just the UK and Germany combined outspend Russia by MORE than 2:1.

Defense Spending by Country

Even at NATO's present level of spending, Russia's conventional forces are no match whatsoever for NATO (minus America).


Do yourself a favor, when you have no idea what you are talking about (like above), keep your mouth shut and you will not be made to look so stupid/ignorant.

Ta ta.

Btw you lie

Russia has one

India has two

China has two (building number three)

So that's five against three ( if you don't count the USA..


.

NATO means 'North Atlantic Treaty Organization'. It is purely a DEFENSIVE organization to protect Europe if attacked.

'NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.'

NATO - Wikipedia

It has NOTHING to do with the Indian or Pacific Oceans you dumb shit.

Only children revert to wiki, btw Australia and new Zealand have a strong relationship with NATO you little ignorant prick..

LOL...irrelevant. True or false, ''NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.'

Now show us where they are on a map?.

Look for yourself:

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

 

[Mac1958]

There really is no reason to believe anything Trump says. But that really isn't the point.

We were told by one of his supporters early on to "take him seriously but not literally". That's the comment of a person who not only knows that he can't be believed, but knows that much more is on the way. That comment was meant to clear out the path ahead and provide an ongoing excuse for his behavior.

Trump represents one huge, angry, frustrated, defiant middle finger, and that's all that matters to those who support him.
.

 

[McRocket]

There really is no reason to believe anything Trump says.

We were told by one of his supporters early on to "take him seriously but not literally". That's the comment of a person who not only knows that he can't be believed, but knows that much more is on the way. That comment was meant to clear out the path ahead and provide an ongoing excuse for his behavior.

Trump represents one huge, angry, frustrated, defiant middle finger, and that's all that matters to those who support him.
.

Could not agree with you more.


BTW - I am an independent.

 

[McRocket]

FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending

No, US does not pay for 70 or 90 percent of NATO

Obama applauds halt to decline in NATO spending

How NATO is funded and who pays what

We all saw Trump say the US pays 90% of what goes to NATO during this trip to Europe. In fact he said it more than once.

So what does the US actually pay?

22%

Yep, 22%, not 90%.

And it was back in 2014 that Obama demanded NATO paid more. And after the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, they got on the ball. They scheduled the increases into their economy. and we saw the amount they pay increasing a couple of years ago. Before Trump took office.

So the upcoming increases were negotiated by Obama, not Trump.

It's all right there. Easy to look up. VERY recent history. Believe what you want, but those are the facts.

Remind us if NATO could take on the Minnesota national gaurd?


I doubt it.


If NATO pays so much where are their aircraft carriers? Subs???


.

Are you joking or just stupid/ignorant?

The Royal Navy is putting the finishing touches on 2 aircraft carriers...the 70,000 ton Queen Elizabeth class ships which will fly F-35B's (the same that the U.S. Marines use).

The French Navy has the Charles De Gaulle...a 42,000 ton, nuclear powered, aircraft carrier (technically not part of NATO - but would obviously help NATO if needed).

Russia has only one aircraft carrier - the 28 year old, 55,000 ton Kuznetsov.


That means non-US NATO has a 2 to 1 aircraft carrier superiority against Russia (3:1 if you count France's)...which is the only major country it is supposed to defend against.

In terms of military spending, just the UK and Germany combined outspend Russia by MORE than 2:1.

Defense Spending by Country

Even at NATO's present level of spending, Russia's conventional forces are no match whatsoever for NATO (minus America).


Do yourself a favor, when you have no idea what you are talking about (like above), keep your mouth shut and you will not be made to look so stupid/ignorant.

Ta ta.

I know that and they are junk ski jump aircraft carriers , no match for ours ..

And once again great Britain is so damn poor military wise they had to rent a AWAC from us to protect their ships in the lybian war.

.

What the **** are you babbling about? GB spends more on her military than Russia does you dumb shit.

Defense Spending by Country

And what is this ski-jump nonsense. Both the Russian AND the two British carriers have ski jumps. And one Royal Navy carrier alone can carry and launch as many aircraft as Russia's one carrier.
That means that Royal Navy has more than double the fixed wing aircraft capacity as the Russian Navy. Plus, the Royal Navy will use F-35's which are stealthy. The Russian planes are NOT stealthy.


Stop talking - you are making a fool of yourself.

Ski jump carriers once again are useless military hardware.... Learn you ignorant moron


Their is no way in hell Germanany could stop an invasion from Russia..

Really? And tell us all please...EXACTLY what makes an aircraft carrier equipped with a ski jump 'useless military hardware'?

(this should be good)

And I never said Germany could defeat Russia by itself. I am saying that in terms of military conventional forces...Russia is no match for NATO (minus America).
NATO has twice the military personnel of Russia and outspends them militarily by well over 4:1 (both stats are minus America).

Russian Armed Forces - Wikipedia
Member states of NATO - Wikipedia
Defense Spending by Country

 

[Kosh]

See the far left is all for people paying their fair share, except those that are far left.

 

[basquebromance]

the only NATO nations that spend the required 2%: US, UK, Greece, Estonia, & Poland