nonniey Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: ....And again, NATO benefits the US as much or more than any other county. ....... I agree with you on this. (Although currently one could argue the Baltic countries benefit the most - lets face it how long would it take Puting to grab them up again if they weren't in NATO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Burgold said: Don’t buy it. Germany’s use of oil is no different than our use of Saudi Arabia’s oil and maybe worse given all the free passes we give them when it come to terrorism. Wait you dont buy it, but then point out it is the same thing as our dependance on SA, which you say is an issue 8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Do you think Trump is actually bringing it up to decrease Russia's influence in Europe? Dont know. Hes right about this issue, thata what I do know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 minute ago, zoony said: Dont know. Hes right about this issue, thata what I do know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 13 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Do you believe the GOP will ever decrease military spending? They have already - 1991-1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Trump is over here tearing up NATO and zoony is all like, “but Germany buys oil from Russia!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Springfield said: Trump is over here tearing up NATO and zoony is all like, “but Germany buys oil from Russia!” I don't take issue with him complaining about NATO spending (we've been complaining about that for years) but he better damn well not tear up NATO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 17 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: They definitely get the direct benefit given their geographic proximity to Russia (the enemy). The US, being the world's dominant economy, gains the most benefit of global stability and relative peace. I disagree on your 2nd point. I think that by the 1980s the situation with the ussr had turned way more political than economic. The ridiculousness has been ramped up and continued ever since. Reagan was notrious for allowing really bad trade deals in exchange for geopolitical support. It worked out great for him hes still known as the president who took down russia. Who cares that the japanese put the us auto and electronics industry out of business with dumping and other illegal activity, right? Thats really been the policy ever since, with every administration since afraid to change things or ruffle feathers. Russias annexation of crimea was, many argue, a direct consequence of natos continued political pressure and growth I simply do not understand why any American is okay with the fleecing this country takes on these deals, for no benefit that anyone can see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Im sure we would be spending over 2% of our GDP on military with or without the NATO commitment to do so. I dont think our NATO commitment changes our military spending habit one iota. I think Trump has a point to a degree - if European countries are so worried about Russia, they should increase their spending on military. I think they know they can get by with reduced spending bc big brother (USA) has their back. Forcing NATO countries to spend more on military = win for Lockhead, Boeing and Northrop Grumann. Would not be surprised the lobbyists for them dont push this issue hard. Not like NATO countries can go shopping in Russia. Its US companies or who else? edit - fleecing - imo we would be spending this money any way on our own military. its not like we cut a check every year payable to "NATO". If each country did have to give money to a fund like the UN, yes, I get the "fleecing" feeling but its not like that. Am I wrong? Do we actually pay to NATO? My understanding after reading article after article is no. But Trump keeps saying and implying it over and over and its starting to become a "false narrative". Just keep repeating a false statement until ppl start accepting it as a talking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 27 minutes ago, nonniey said: Oh for gods sakes - We don't collect anything. I'm not a fan of how Trump deals with NATO but we have been complaining for years far longer than Trump has been in office that some NATO countries have not been meeting their treaty obligations in the expenditure area. The US, Britian, Turkey and the eastern members have been the only ones meeting these obligations. That's on me for poor wording. I was trying to say we shouldn't treat it like a protection racket. Threatening to walk away from something that is mutually beneficial simply because the shop owners won't pay up their meager share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 No, I don’t buy it, Zoony. At the best, it’s a hypocritical BS critique. If we’re honest then we all know that Russia hates NATO and has wanted it disbanded for decades. So, pretending a Trump attack against NATO isn’t serving Putin’s purpose and somehow disproves his puppeteering is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 13 minutes ago, nonniey said: They have already - 1991-1992. Dems controlled the House in 1991 and 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 34 minutes ago, zoony said: Nothing to see here. Just show up to NATO summit, glad hand everyone, look the other way. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/#76b0781c14cf We also spend more on defense than the next 6-7 nations combined. If there’s one thing we love it’s buying bombs and selling them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 13 minutes ago, Springfield said: Trump is over here tearing up NATO and zoony is all like, “but Germany buys oil from Russia!” Im too lazy to provide dozens and dozens of links from reputable sources, but here is one from the LA Times in 2014. Germanys dependance on russian energy was all over the news when obama was trying to convince nato allies for multilateral sanctions against russia http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-us-ukraine-20140305-story.html But key European governments, including those in Germany, Britain, France and Italy, indicated in emergency meetings in Brussels that, for now at least, they prefer other routes of persuasion. The split underscores a broader divide between the United States and Europe, partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance for 65 years, over how to deal with Moscow. The Europeans, closer and more intertwined economically with Russia, don't share the U.S. enthusiasm for sanctions as a diplomatic tool, and worry that curbing trade and business could hurt them without persuading Russian President Vladimir Putin to withdraw troops from Ukraine's Crimean peninsula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 59 minutes ago, bcl05 said: Just to point out that "nothing happening" is actually a very good outcome You obviously completely misunderstood what “nothing happening” was targeted at. And we we did have a major economic disaster, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Just now, zoony said: I disagree on your 2nd point. I think that by the 1980s the situation with the ussr had turned way more political than economic. The ridiculousness has been ramped up and continued ever since. Reagan was notrious for allowing really bad trade deals in exchange for geopolitical support. Thats really been the policy ever since, with every administration since afraid to change things or ruffle feathers. Russias annexation of crimea was, many argue, a direct consequence of natos continued political pressure and growth Okay, finally some content from Zoony that isn't entirely based on things Trump said (and I restate my belief that we need some kind of grammatical signal to differentiate things Trump said from things that are substantively true). To your point, NATO isn't a trade deal, and I'm too young to remember Reagan. What I do know is that the US has been the world's economic superpower for nearly 80 years (now slowly giving that up to China, but that's another thread), and we have more transnational companies that anyone. Global peace benefits us more than other countries for the same reason we spend more on defense than other countries: we are bigger and have a much larger reach around the world (economically and militarily). Also to your point, I totally agree that other countries benefit more politically and in terms of direct effect because, as I've said, they are closer in proximity to Russia (the enemy). Economically, I think it would be very hard to argue that the US doesn't benefit the most since we do far more economic activity that maybe all of the rest of NATO combined. Just now, zoony said: I simply do not understand why any American is okay with the fleecing this country takes on these deals, for no benefit that anyone can see I think people can pretty clearly see the benefit of the US remaining at the top of a stable global economic order and a lack of a significant war that devastates global economic activity. If you just look at the superficial costs, sure, you can say we are getting "fleeced" if by fleeced you mean paying more in direct costs relative to other countries. I think Trump and others who stop there without looking at the second and third order consequences should be viewed as laypersons that should stick to complaining on Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 29 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Do you believe the GOP will ever decrease military spending? No, and its an issue. Ive said it dozens of times I would start with the pensions that both your dad and my dad make. It is obscene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 10 minutes ago, Burgold said: No, I don’t buy it, Zoony. At the best, it’s a hypocritical BS critique. If we’re honest then we all know that Russia hates NATO and has wanted it disbanded for decades. So, pretending a Trump attack against NATO isn’t serving Putin’s purpose and somehow disproves his puppeteering is absurd. I'm not seeing how demanding NATO increase defense spending is somehow an attack on NATO in favor of Russia. That's a hell of a stretch. Is the concern that asking them to spend more will result in NATO being disbanded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Dems controlled the House in 1991 and 1992. The Bush Adminstration put together the spending requests (Dems had no issues with those requests and approved them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Destino said: I'm not seeing how demanding NATO increase defense spending is somehow an attack on NATO in favor of Russia. That's a hell of a stretch. Is the concern that asking them to spend more will result in NATO being disbanded? I'm just not seeing how increasing military strength of NATO, hurts NATO. Well trump is under putins spell. Dont you feel dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Okay, finally some content from Zoony that isn't entirely based on things Trump said (and I restate my belief that we need some kind of grammatical signal to differentiate things Trump said from things that are substantively true). To your point, NATO isn't a trade deal, and I'm too young to remember Reagan. What I do know is that the US has been the world's economic superpower for nearly 80 years (now slowly giving that up to China, but that's another thread), and we have more transnational companies that anyone. Global peace benefits us more than other countries for the same reason we spend more on defense than other countries: we are bigger and have a much larger reach around the world (economically and militarily). Also to your point, I totally agree that other countries benefit more politically and in terms of direct effect because, as I've said, they are closer in proximity to Russia (the enemy). Economically, I think it would be very hard to argue that the US doesn't benefit the most since we do far more economic activity that maybe all of the rest of NATO combined. I think people can pretty clearly see the benefit of the US remaining at the top of a stable global economic order and a lack of a significant war that devastates global economic activity. If you just look at the superficial costs, sure, you can say we are getting "fleeced" if by fleeced you mean paying more in direct costs relative to other countries. I think Trump and others who stop there without looking at the second and third order consequences should be viewed as laypersons that should stick to complaining on Twitter. Wow you are sounding like a neo-con today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, nonniey said: The Bush Adminstration put together the spending requests (Dems had no issues with those requests and approved them). How did that work out for HW? I suspect the GOP still knows their only reliable base of voters is the military. I can't see them cutting spending anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, nonniey said: Wow you are sounding like neo-con today. Trying to use words that Zoony understands without resorting to "ain't" and "ya'll". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Well me being the board neo-con I'm just happy to see this posted. 1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said: Trying to use words that Zoony understands without resorting to "ain't" and "ya'll". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Destino said: I'm not seeing how demanding NATO increase defense spending is somehow an attack on NATO in favor of Russia. That's a hell of a stretch. Is the concern that asking them to spend more will result in NATO being disbanded? I'm just not seeing how increasing military strength of NATO, hurts NATO. It feels to me like the gist is that they (other NATO nations) WON’T increase their spending on defense. So the next logical step would be for the US to lower it’s spending to match everyone else. All to the detriment of NATO and the benefit of Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Destino said: I'm not seeing how demanding NATO increase defense spending is somehow an attack on NATO in favor of Russia. That's a hell of a stretch. Is the concern that asking them to spend more will result in NATO being disbanded? Not a stretch at all. Trump’s attacks are engineered to be divisive, sap morale, and separate the US from the other NATO countries. There’s nothing wrong with demanding debts paid, but you can’t look at actions in isolation. There is a pattern here. A whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.