• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sure, we could spend 4% of GDP on the military — with huge cuts or tax hikes

cpwill said:
As I understand it, a minimum of 2% has been the NATO guideline for years, if not decades.
Click to expand...

Nope, the US has been demanding that, but the "NATO guideline" (established in 2014) was that the member nations would "move toward spending 2% of thei gdp on defence by 2024. Prior to that there was no "NATO guideline"

cpwill said:
Nor is this a new complaint by the Americans, that we are shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden - it was made by the two administrations (Republican and Democrat) preceding this one. Pointing to a statement where the rest of NATO referenced that guideline and said that maybe we should bother to start meeting our commitments oh, say, in a decade or so isn't exactly a stirring defense.
Click to expand...

When the base claim is totally false it works fairly well.

You do realize that the NON-US members of NATO are currently spending just a shade over 400% on defence compared to what the Russians are spending on defence, don't you? No, of course you don't - because the media doesn't like to point out that fact since them people would start saying "Well, how much more than the Russians are spending do we think that they should be spending and why?". Even worse, some people might start asking politicians "Well, how much more than the Russians are spending do YOU think that they should be spending and why?".



cpwill said:
Yeah, having to pay a lot more for labor drives the expenses up, to be sure. We face the same issue here on the American side. The point of military spending, however, is supposed to be to procure the ability to project force. Russia helped turn the tide of the Syrian civil war, projecting ground, air, and naval forces to a battlefield an entire region away. NATO... let us say diplomatically that the non-US members of NATO have not demonstrated a comparable ability to project force.
Click to expand...

Since when was NATO designed to "project force" and act in an aggressive manner in order to force other countries to install governments that the United States of America approved of rather than the governments the people of those countries chose for themselves?

PS - It would appear that the Russian ability to "project force" (based on Syria) is superior to the American ability to "project force" so let's hear your explanation for why the US isn't "paying its share" to defend the Middle East?
 
german hick said:
1. there is no "treaty" only an agreement - until 2024 (there has been a real treaty on climate... and on Iran... but "pacta sunt servanda" seems to be no principle for the US)
2. Europe alone pays more on defense than the "Antagonist" already and there is no danger of a russian agression anyway.
3. In no time on earth "more weapons" meant "more peace"

But the US Industry is dependet on weapons exports - it´s the only think they are good in
so - if the US industry want´s to sell more weapons, pay for it yourself
Click to expand...

People don't want to hear that their entire government's position is based on BS.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Nope, the US has been demanding that, but the "NATO guideline" (established in 2014) was that the member nations would "move toward spending 2% of thei gdp on defence by 2024. Prior to that there was no "NATO guideline"
Click to expand...

I believe you may be incorrect - in fact, the language of the 2014 agreement references that guideline, agreeing to try to work towards it.

When the base claim is totally false it works fairly well.

You do realize that the NON-US members of NATO are currently spending just a shade over 400% on defence compared to what the Russians are spending on defence, don't you? No, of course you don't
Click to expand...

Thus far you've repeated it constantly as though it were some kind of a magic talisman, and I have already addressed it. I haven't bothered to check into its accuracy (I strongly suspect it is built on figures that take Russia's claims about it's military spending at face value - it would be entertaining should that prove the case).

because the media doesn't like to point out that fact since them people would start saying "Well, how much more than the Russians are spending do we think that they should be spending and why?". Even worse, some people might start asking politicians "Well, how much more than the Russians are spending do YOU think that they should be spending and why?".
Click to expand...

As I have pointed out to you, raw spending more than the Russians doesn't help you much if the Russians can project force and you cannot.

Since when was NATO designed to "project force" and act in an aggressive manner in order to force other countries to install governments that the United States of America approved of rather than the governments the people of those countries chose for themselves?
Click to expand...

:yawn: We are discussing capability, TU. In particular we are discussing the distinct lack thereof of much of NATO.

PS - It would appear that the Russian ability to "project force" (based on Syria) is superior to the American ability to "project force" so let's hear your explanation for why the US isn't "paying its share" to defend the Middle East?
Click to expand...

:lol: if you think that is the case, I would recommend you look up the one time that the Russian ability to project force ran afoul of the American ability to project force in that tragic land. We wiped out hundreds of them... with zero casualties :).
 
cpwill said:
I believe you may be incorrect - in fact, the language of the 2014 agreement references that guideline, agreeing to try to work towards it.



Thus far you've repeated it constantly as though it were some kind of a magic talisman, and I have already addressed it. I haven't bothered to check into its accuracy (I strongly suspect it is built on figures that take Russia's claims about it's military spending at face value - it would be entertaining should that prove the case).



As I have pointed out to you, raw spending more than the Russians doesn't help you much if the Russians can project force and you cannot.



:yawn: We are discussing capability, TU. In particular we are discussing the distinct lack thereof of much of NATO.



:lol: if you think that is the case, I would recommend you look up the one time that the Russian ability to project force ran afoul of the American ability to project force in that tragic land. We wiped out hundreds of them... with zero casualties :).
Click to expand...

This is just regarding Nato and projection of force

As Nato was primarily an organization designed to defend western europe from the USSR, the only real projection power it requires is the ability to project force into Eastern Europe, and if required western Europe. Missions outside of that are not generally a focus of Nato.
 
For Canada, the bottom line is we do a lot more with less. The US does a lot less with more. That is the source of the disparity.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
This is just regarding Nato and projection of force

As Nato was primarily an organization designed to defend western europe from the USSR, the only real projection power it requires is the ability to project force into Eastern Europe, and if required western Europe. Missions outside of that are not generally a focus of Nato.
Click to expand...

Okedoke, I'll bite. NATO includes Turkey. I would argue that, when we discuss the ability to project force to the lands that border our own, that "Syria" is relatively close to Turkey.

For that matter, Libya is pretty close as well. Non-US NATO's performance there was.... unimpressive.

If you cannot project and sustain force, then you cannot project and sustain force. There is no magical difference in the ground that would make projection into the soil of (say) Ukraine any easier for NATO than either of those two nations.
 
queenmandy85 said:
For Canada, the bottom line is we do a lot more with less American Logistical Support, American Lift Support, American Fire Support, American Air Cover, American Personnel Recovery Support, American Basing Support, American Intelligence Support...
Click to expand...

:) Fixed that for you. I've served with several Canucks (and always liked them), but don't try to pretend you are doing More With Less when the way you do that is because we fly you somewhere, base you there, feed you there, provide air support for you while you are there, provide fire support for you while you are there, provide casevac for you while you are there, and provide logistical support for you while you are there :).
 
cpwill said:
Okedoke, I'll bite. NATO includes Turkey. I would argue that, when we discuss the ability to project force to the lands that border our own, that "Syria" is relatively close to Turkey.

For that matter, Libya is pretty close as well. Non-US NATO's performance there was.... unimpressive.

If you cannot project and sustain force, then you cannot project and sustain force. There is no magical difference in the ground that would make projection into the soil of (say) Ukraine any easier for NATO than either of those two nations.
Click to expand...

Libya was not something NATO should have been involved with. Syria has not attacked NATO and as such needs no NATO involvement. Ukraine is the same.
Until NATOs mission changes none of those conflicts should involve NATO
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Libya was not something NATO should have been involved with. Syria has not attacked NATO and as such needs no NATO involvement. Ukraine is the same.
Until NATOs mission changes none of those conflicts should involve NATO
Click to expand...

As someone said above....

LT said:
This is just regarding Nato and projection of force
Click to expand...

We are not discussing "Should". We are discussing "Capability". Non-US NATO sorely lacks it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From the CBC


Sure, we could spend 4% of GDP on the military — with huge cuts or tax hikes

U.S. President Donald Trump is demanding Canada and other NATO allies boost their military spending to four per cent of their gross domestic product. Canada spends about 1.2 per cent.

Many politicians and analysts have dismissed the demand as outlandish or impossible. Of course Canada could spend four per cent of its GDP. It's the how that makes it difficult.





Start with some basic math. Canada's nominal GDP is $2.1 trillion. Four per cent of that would come in around $84 billion.


Right now Canada spends about $25 billion annually on national defence. The Liberals have promised to increase that to $32 billion. But to reach four per cent, we're talking about an increase in military spending of about $60 billion from today's level.

COMMENT:-

This might give some insight into why the Canadian government doesn't want to turn Canada into a carbon copy of the United States of America - something that is opposed by the vast majority of the Canadian people.

PS - The projected increase in the Canadian defence budget of 70% by 2024 will have Canada spending approximately 2.176% of its GDP on defence.
​
Click to expand...
You do know that we already spend roughly that much( 4% ) on defense already, right?​
 
cpwill said:
As someone said above....



We are not discussing "Should". We are discussing "Capability". Non-US NATO sorely lacks it.
Click to expand...

NATO has the capability to project force in European NATO countries including Turkey. Why would/Should NATO countries develop or have capabilities to project force outside of what is needed to defend European NATO countries
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
NATO has the capability to project force in European NATO countries including Turkey.
Click to expand...

Evidently not.

Why would/Should NATO countries develop or have capabilities to project force outside of what is needed to defend European NATO countries
Click to expand...

More goalpost moving?

LT said:
As Nato was primarily an organization designed to defend western europe from the USSR, the only real projection power it requires is the ability to project force into Eastern Europe, and if required western Europe...
Click to expand...

Suddenly it's from beyond our borders to merely within them as soon as we fail to meet the first test.

If NATO's only requirement is the ability to defend the Fulda Gap in Germany :shrug: then we don't need NATO anymore.
 
cpwill said:
Evidently not.



More goalpost moving?



Suddenly it's from beyond our borders to merely within them as soon as we fail to meet the first test.

If NATO's only requirement is the ability to defend the Fulda Gap in Germany :shrug: then we don't need NATO anymore.
Click to expand...

As I understand it NATO was a defense organization not an offensive one. Not one meant for defending nonmembers. Why would such an organization need the ability to go into Africa?

No goal post moving as Poland is in NATO and a few other eastern European countries which is what I had stated

Realistically NATO as it stands is not needed
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Your post makes my point. Our NATO partners have for decades taken advantage of the USs commitment to NATO and taken advantage of US tax payers also

You've chosen to spend your money on Socialized healthcare instead of your own defense because you know you have the worlds largest superpower in your corner. And then you have the nerve to criticize us, our President and our Healthcare system.

No really, there is open contempt for American citizen abroad in Nations that are also NATO members. The US State department just recently issued a warning for US citizen in the UK to keep their heads down, to essentially hide.

The reason Trumps demands for increased NATO defense spending haven't gained any traction for the Democrate is because this issue has woken a lot of Americans up to the lopsided commitment the US has been making since NATOs founding and Americans don't like being taken advantage of by Nations that are supposed to be on our side
Click to expand...

You do realize the US spends a higher percent of its GDP on Health Care then Canada does right? So clearly this whole ''Canada spends all its money on socialized health care'' is bunk, they spend way less then the US does.

And how money does the US spend on protecting Canada? Do you have a number for that? And why shouldn't Canadians criticize Trump, we are free sovereign country, we can criticize anyone we want and we don't owe the US a thing, the US has never kicked out invaders from Canada and Canada put blood and treasure into Afghanistan at the US's behest, do we get a refund on that?
 
cpwill said:
Okedoke, I'll bite. NATO includes Turkey. I would argue that, when we discuss the ability to project force to the lands that border our own, that "Syria" is relatively close to Turkey.

For that matter, Libya is pretty close as well. Non-US NATO's performance there was.... unimpressive.

If you cannot project and sustain force, then you cannot project and sustain force. There is no magical difference in the ground that would make projection into the soil of (say) Ukraine any easier for NATO than either of those two nations.
Click to expand...

And Canada went into Afghanistan at the US' behest, spending blood and treasure there, do we get a refund for that? The US is the only country to enact Article 5 and what did Canada get for efforts in Afghanistan, looks like nothing, we got nothing for our efforts there and Trump treats us like garbage, because he thinks he appear tough by picking on us. Who really got scrwed by NATO here?

If we spend 4% of GDP on the military, what do we get out of it? Is Trump going to treat us like a sovereign country or some minion where he can use our military for his whims?
 
Bullseye said:
You do know that we already spend roughly that much( 4% ) on defense already, right?
Click to expand...

Its not 4% for the US, its 3.1%.

And how much of that is spent on NATO vs. whatever ''adventure'' the US government decides to get the military involved with so Halliburton can get some more no bid contracts? Really how much money does the US spend on defending Canada?
 
cpwill said:
Evidently not.



More goalpost moving?



Suddenly it's from beyond our borders to merely within them as soon as we fail to meet the first test.

If NATO's only requirement is the ability to defend the Fulda Gap in Germany :shrug: then we don't need NATO anymore.
Click to expand...

You never needed NATO. You always have had the option of opting out. As have each of the other members- none of them needs NATO either.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Its not 4% for the US, its 3.1%.
Click to expand...
Look at a graph for the last decade or two. Or longer. The long term average is around 3.5-4.0%

Yes_Minister said:
And how much of that is spent on NATO vs. whatever ''adventure'' the US government decides to get the military involved with so Halliburton can get some more no bid contracts? Really how much money does the US spend on defending Canada?
Click to expand...
LOL, I haven't heard the "But, Haliburton" mantra in years.
 
Bullseye said:
Look at a graph for the last decade or two. Or longer. The long term average is around 3.5-4.0%

LOL, I haven't heard the "But, Haliburton" mantra in years.
Click to expand...

You have not answered my question, how much of the US military budget goes to ptotecting other NATO countries vs. other ventures?

The Halliburton comment is still valid, we still live with the fall out of the Iraq war today and pro military people never seem to oppose turing the military into a corporate welfare scheme or finding new meat grinders to put US troops into.
 
Yes_Minister said:
You have not answered my question, how much of the US military budget goes to ptotecting other NATO countries vs. other ventures?
Click to expand...
If you're waiting for me to answer that, get comfortable and make some popcorn, it ain't gonna happen soon, or, more likely ever.
Yes_minister said:
The Halliburton comment is still valid, we still live with the fall out of the Iraq war today and pro military people never seem to oppose turing the military into a corporate welfare scheme or finding new meat grinders to put US troops into.
Click to expand...
And if this thread were the 935th rehash of the Iraq war it would be pertinent.
 
Bullseye said:
If you're waiting for me to answer that, get comfortable and make some popcorn, it ain't gonna happen soon, or, more likely ever.
And if this thread were the 935th rehash of the Iraq war it would be pertinent.
Click to expand...

Okay, so if you can't answer that, then why should Canada spend 4% of its GDP on defense when we all seem to do with our military is support US ventures like the Afghanistan war and Canada relies on geography for protection? What's in it for Canada?

And the Iraq war was the most important military venture in recent history, its hard to talk about military spending and problems with the current system without mentioning it.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
As I understand it NATO was a defense organization not an offensive one. Not one meant for defending nonmembers. Why would such an organization need the ability to go into Africa?
Click to expand...

The ability to project force is the ability to project force. NATO was never intended to fight only defensive fights (that's how you guarantee that you lose, for example).


But NATO lacks even the ability to defend itself.

No goal post moving as Poland is in NATO and a few other eastern European countries which is what I had stated
Click to expand...

You shifted from the ability to project force to try to claim we needed only defensive force within our own territory. That is indeed goalpost shifting, though (again, see above) NATO falls short of that reduced goal, as well.
 
cpwill said:
The ability to project force is the ability to project force. NATO was never intended to fight only defensive fights (that's how you guarantee that you lose, for example).


But NATO lacks even the ability to defend itself.



You shifted from the ability to project force to try to claim we needed only defensive force within our own territory. That is indeed goalpost shifting, though (again, see above) NATO falls short of that reduced goal, as well.
Click to expand...

NATO was never intended to be an extension of US foreign policy. It was always intended to be a mutual defense pact. If one member decides to fight a war of aggression that's on them and nobody else in NATO has any obligation to support them.
You cite the need to project force, but that's not NATO's mandate. Mutual defense. That's it. Not pro-active intimidation, not expression of a policy, not preparing to be aggressive, just if one member gets attacked the other members respond. That's it.
The individual nations in NATO are free to project whatever suits them.
 
pfft... no one is going to have any money to spend shortly. Trump's trade war is going to cause a global economic crisis, they're going to need every penny they've got. It has already started
 
Grand Mal said:
NATO was never intended to be an extension of US foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Forming and supporting NATO was definitely part of US Foreign Policy, and for good reason.

It was always intended to be a mutual defense pact. If one member decides to fight a war of aggression that's on them and nobody else in NATO has any obligation to support them.
You cite the need to project force, but that's not NATO's mandate. Mutual defense. That's it.
Click to expand...

Oh. And we are going to achieve this mutual defense by.... holding days of remembrance in each other's honor? Changing our facebook pictures to look like each other's flags?

I could have sworn there was some military element involved.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom