• 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!

Does Trump understand how NATO works?

Mycroft said:
Yes. So what's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that don't understand any better than Trump. The US spend is the US spend given their global reach, it's going to be more than Lithuania's.
 
Mycroft said:
So...to justify not saving money...to justify not telling the EU to shoulder more of the load for NATO...you toss THIS stuff against the wall? Sorry...none of it sticks.

1. Reducing spending is reducing spending. Everything we do to reduce spending...well, it reduces spending. Period.
Click to expand...

Reduced spending on some minor area is meaningless if you do not look at the big ticket items, which for the US are military, medicaid and social security.

Mycroft said:
2. What the US spends on the military...compared to the rest of the world...is irrelevant. Period.
Click to expand...

Why is the US military in such bad shape if the US spends so much on it then?

Mycroft said:
3. There are a number of reasons for the state of our military. Obama's funding reduction is one of them. Period.
Click to expand...

And yet you still spend way more money on your military then anyone else. If the Department of Defense is misspending money, adding in more money won't fix the problem.

Mycroft said:
4. Not blaming any other country for the state of our own military. But money we spend on NATO will be of better use on our own...rather than theirs.
Click to expand...

But that's not how a military alliance works, there is no giant pool of money the US gives into and the other countries just take from.

NATO doesn't force the US to spend money on defense the way it does, if you want to save money on defense, you have find ways to spend less on it or you can continue to spend more defense, but then don't blame NATO for the debt that spending creates.


Mycroft said:
5. What Bush did is TOTALLY irrelevant. Sure...no excuse for losing $12 billion. No excuse for Obama spending $14 billion on his wife's pet project, either. Again...totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Its not irrelevant if you want to get your fiscal order, if mistakes like that constantly happen, no wonder the military is bad shape, its being mismanaged.
 
"Why is the US military in such bad shape if the US spends so much on it then?"

We are occupying the planet and fighting multiple endless wars of profit and economic colonialism. Can't be in all that bad a shape.
 
Manc Skipper said:
My point is that don't understand any better than Trump. The US spend is the US spend given their global reach, it's going to be more than Lithuania's.
Click to expand...

Oh...okay...rejected.

The fact that the US has more global power is not justification for other countries to use us as their sugar daddy.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Reduced spending on some minor area is meaningless if you do not look at the big ticket items, which for the US are military, medicaid and social security.



Why is the US military in such bad shape if the US spends so much on it then?



And yet you still spend way more money on your military then anyone else. If the Department of Defense is misspending money, adding in more money won't fix the problem.



But that's not how a military alliance works, there is no giant pool of money the US gives into and the other countries just take from.

NATO doesn't force the US to spend money on defense the way it does, if you want to save money on defense, you have find ways to spend less on it or you can continue to spend more defense, but then don't blame NATO for the debt that spending creates.




Its not irrelevant if you want to get your fiscal order, if mistakes like that constantly happen, no wonder the military is bad shape, its being mismanaged.
Click to expand...

sigh...

I've already told you that what we spend on our own defense...and what the NATO countries spend on their own defense...is not the issue. It is what WE contribute directly to NATO. THAT is what they need to pick up more off.

You are bouncing around all sorts of issues that are irrelevant to the topic. I find that to be a waste of time and not conducive to discussion.

You are dismissed.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

I've already told you that what we spend on our own defense...and what the NATO countries spend on their own defense...is not the issue. It is what WE contribute directly to NATO. THAT is what they need to pick up more off.

You are bouncing around all sorts of issues that are irrelevant to the topic. I find that to be a waste of time and not conducive to discussion.

You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

If you think the US spending less on NATO operating cost will do anything meaningful to improve the US' finicial situation, then you are wrong, completely wrong. You are ignoring basic accounting, because dealing with the real big items is too hard.
 
Yes_Minister said:
If you think the US spending less on NATO operating cost will do anything meaningful to improve the US' finicial situation, then you are wrong, completely wrong. You are ignoring basic accounting, because dealing with the real big items is too hard.
Click to expand...

Spending considerations are part of the issue...and, as I said, you have to start somewhere. But I agree...the big items also need to be dealt with. It's not a zero sum game, though, and just because NATO spending is "small", as you seem to think, it's 3/4 Billion dollars and it doesn't mean we should just throw it around. It also doesn't mean we should continue to allow other nations to take advantage of us.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

I've already told you that what we spend on our own defense...and what the NATO countries spend on their own defense...is not the issue. It is what WE contribute directly to NATO.
Click to expand...
No NATO member contributes money directly to NATO.
 
Rogue Valley said:
No NATO member contributes money directly to NATO.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

I already provided a link that explains how much we spend on NATO...at least back in the Obama days.

NATO funding
NATO member nations contribute to common funds or trusts in three areas:

Civil: Administrative, communications, security, and other non-military costs, as well as programs like the Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council;

Military: Operational and maintenance costs for international military staff; headquarters in Mons, Belgium and subordinate regional commands; and military-related activities such as the Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet; and

NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP): Infrastructure spending aimed at improving the organization's anti-terrorism and crisis control capabilities.

According to NATO, members' contributions are made in accordance with an agreed-upon formula based on relative Gross National Income. The largest direct contributors to NATO in absolute terms are the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. In 2005 a review of burdensharing arrangements led NATO's Senior Resource Board to recommend a new formula that seeks to be "fair, equitable, stable, and objectively based." However, the United States negotiated a ceiling for its cost share percentages at the then-existing rate, and which would decline if other countries joined NATO.

Paying for NATO
NATO Common Funds Burdensharing (Congressional Research Service)

America's contribution to NATO's military budget - provided through the Department of the Army's Operations and Maintenance account - is under 23 percent. The U.S. contributed $408.051 million and $430.381 million, respectively, in FY2009 and FY2010, according to the Congressional Budget Service.

After the U.S., the largest contributors to NATO's military budget are Germany (16.6 percent); France (12.4 percent); United Kingdom (12 percent); Italy (7.8 percent); Canada (5 percent); Spain (4.2 percent); Netherlands (3.3 percent); Belgium (2.6 percent); Poland (2.3 percent); Turkey (1.8 percent); Denmark (1.7 percent); and Norway (1.6 percent). Fifteen countries make up the remaining 5.8 percent.

The U.S. contribution to NATO's Civil budget, provided through the State Department's Contributions to International Organizations, is approximately 21.7 percent, with payments of $66.1 million and $84.1 million, respectively, made In FY2009 and FY2010.

Gates criticizes NATO; How much does U.S. pay? - CBS News
Click to expand...
 
Yes_Minister said:
Then perhaps no one will want to do favors for anyone and the alliance fails.

This more then just being "butt hurt" Trump has damaged the US' international credibility, other countries do not trust Trump to keep his word and an alliance without trust, falls.

Let's not treat Trump like he is some tough, but fair truth teller, he has shown himself to change his mind constantly, make up stories, demand loyalty, but never give loyalty in return. I wouldn't trust Trump to honor any alliance, Trump screwed over vendors and business partners in the private sector, now he wants to do the same to countries on the international stage.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/...r-war-in-afghanistan-is-over/article17501889/

If Trump insists on insulting other countries, then it makes doing something like going back to Afghanistan are harder sell for the public of these NATO allies.
Click to expand...

You talk about how without trust an alliance will fail. Well that trust is a two way street. When other countries refuse to honor the conditions they agreed to, like how much they will spend on defense, why exactly should we trust them.
All to often it seems to many countries expect the US to uphold our end of a deal while not caring what so ever if they are upholding theirs. .
 
There is obvious value in getting NATO countries to spend on their own defense. We should always remember that NATO serves the primary purpose of defending ourselves. I would in no way trust the europeans.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I don't think he does, based on statements about other NATO countries owing the US money.

Donald Trump says Germany owes US and Nato 'vast sums of money' for defence | The Independent



Sure and that's not a bad thing. But the trade off is these countries will be less likely to follow the US' lead and will want a bigger say on the world stage.



Fair enough, but that has least being a side benefit for the US since WW2. I think Trump's attitude towards NATO fits into a larger belligerent attitude towards the US' traditional allies and that encourages countries to go from allies to more neutral countries. I think Trump could have made this argument in a way that wouldn't make allied countries doubt the validity of US leadership. There is nothing wrong with saying more countries should do more to make NATO more potent, but treating them like debtors whom Trump can insult at his leisure, is a good way for the US to lose friends and influence.



Were the contributions NATO allies like say Canada and the UK made in Afghanistan immaterial?
Click to expand...

So maybe they didn't show up when they promised for certain combat operations. In that case if we kept our part of the bargain and they didn't; they owe us. We have 35,000 military personnel in Germany. Someone has to pay for that. The last time Germany told us to get out, they began shaking in their boots once we prepared to go. Let them pay for our protection services.
 
LOL...

I haven't read a single post yet, but just by going with the title: "Does Trump understand how NATO works?"...

I think that the reason... He does! He understands that NATO, and the UN are broken organizations!

Now I will read some posts and see if I wish to participate more.
 
I used to have to deal with NATO classified material when I was in the military and European nuclear theater (USEUCOM.) They are a broken organization.
 
What is funny, is one of the things with the NATO charter is to stay friends with Russia. Trump does respect them as a nation. Obomba, Hillary, etc. do not.
 
American said:
So maybe they didn't show up when they promised for certain combat operations. In that case if we kept our part of the bargain and they didn't; they owe us. We have 35,000 military personnel in Germany. Someone has to pay for that. The last time Germany told us to get out, they began shaking in their boots once we prepared to go. Let them pay for our protection services.
Click to expand...

But there is no agreement that would lead to back pay, like Trump suggests.

Which operation did they fail to show up to? If want to start charging allies for US bases, I think more allies would say "get out". Keep in mind, bases in Europe make it easier for the US military to conduct operations in the ME, get rid of those and you have to send wounded to bases in the US, rather then Germany, just for example.

U.S. hospital in Germany handles America's Afghan war wounded - latimes

Let's not pretend the US gets nothing for these bases, they do have a strategic benefit and if you want to turn the US military into a protection racket, more countries will ask the US military to leave.

No offense, but if you insist on treating America's allies like evil parasites, then you may have to live without their help for a while and then things will get somewhat more difficult for the US to conduct the same level of operations.

For example, Canada is willing to spending more on its military and that is likely in regards to some of Trump's rhetoric. You be happy about that, but here is the trade off, Canada will will want more of a bigger say on the international stage and will be less likely to agree to give material support to US military operations, unless they are proven to be in Canada's interests as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/canada/canada-military-spending-trump-freeland.html

So there you have it, that's the trade off, you want allies to pay more for their defense, that's fair, but expect to act more like allies and less like minions, if Trump wants help with his next military adventure, it may be a hard sell.
 
Last edited:
Yes_Minister said:
But there is no agreement that would lead to back pay, like Trump suggests.

Which operation did they fail to show up to? If want to start charging allies for US bases, I think more allies would say "get out". Keep in mind, bases in Europe make it easier for the US military to conduct operations in the ME, get rid of those and you have to send wounded to bases in the US, rather then Germany, just for example.

U.S. hospital in Germany handles America's Afghan war wounded - latimes

Let's not pretend the US gets nothing for these bases, they do have a strategic benefit and if you want to turn the US military into a protection racket, more countries will ask the US military to leave.

No offense, but if you insist on treating America's allies like evil parasites, then you may have to live without their help for a while and then things will get somewhat more difficult for the US to conduct the same level of operations.

For example, Canada is willing to spending more on its military and that is likely in regards to some of Trump's rhetoric. You be happy about that, but here is the trade off, Canada will will want more of a bigger say on the international stage and will be less likely to agree to give material support to US military operations, unless they are proven to be in Canada's interests as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/canada/canada-military-spending-trump-freeland.html

So there you have it, that's the trade off, you want allies to pay more for their defense, that's fair, but expect to act more like allies and less like minions, if Trump wants help with his next military adventure, it may be a hard sell.
Click to expand...

It is a protection racket. Trump wants them to pay their share, and stop sponging off of us.
 
American said:
It is a protection racket. Trump wants them to pay their share, and stop sponging off of us.
Click to expand...

Then expect a lot of US allies to tell Trump to take a hike and take those US bases with him.

No way would this be popular among the publics of these countries, it would be better to develop their own military capabilities and chart an independent course from the US then pay into this protection racket.

Meanwhile the US can no longer use bases in Germany to treat wounded US soliders from the ME, because Trump wanted act like he is "the big man."

That's the risk Trump and his supporters are playing with, treat allies like worthless parasites and they no longer want to be your allies.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Then expect a lot of US allies to tell Trump to take a hike and take those US bases with him.

No way would this be popular among the publics of these countries, it would be better to develop their own military capabilities and chart an independent course from the US then pay into this protection racket.

Meanwhile the US can no longer use bases in Germany to treat wounded US soliders from the ME, because Trump wanted act like he is "the big man."

That's the risk Trump and his supporters are playing with, treat allies like worthless parasites and they no longer want to be your allies.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised at how that wouldn't happen. They like the money that comes in, but they've taken advantage too long.
 
American said:
You'd be surprised at how that wouldn't happen. They like the money that comes in, but they've taken advantage too long.
Click to expand...

And what if the US' allies call your bluff and decide to tell Trump to take a hike? Do you think the those military bases in Germany where the US send their wounded are worthless?

Depending on another country for your own defense limits your own sovereignty and Trump deciding to squeeze the US' allies for cash, makes developing their own military capabilities more appealing.

Treat the US' allies like worthless parasites if you want, but don't be surprised when they don't want to help you in the future.

Again unless say Canada gets to charge the US for the blood and treasure it put into Afghanistan at the US' behest , Trump and his supporters have no basis to complain about not being able to charge NATO allies for money.

The Cold War is over, I think most of these countries can defend themselves from a weakened Russia and US military protection means less when the biggest outside threat to safety is non state terrorist groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom