Anderson Cooper(CNN) falsely claims NATO members arent expected to pay dues

[ModerationNow!]

I am literally watching Anderson Cooper's show right now, so there's no YouTube video up yet to upload.

At the beginning of the show, Anderson Cooper started out with a diatribe about how Trump is lying about NATO countries not paying their fair share. He claimed that "there is no 'pot' that countries are expected to pay into to fund NATO". He continued trying to make the point that NATO members DONT have to pay anything to support the organization.

However, in the very next sentence, he admits that there is an agreement between NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their own GDP to fund Nato, AND that aside from the US(we have been paying 3.5% annually), only Britain has paid anything near 2%(they paid 2.1%), while Germany, France and others are paying 1.2%, 1.35% and 1.8%).

Either this is yet another example of CNN to argue, using deceptive semantics, or they are just hoping that they have sufficiently vilified republicans, that their viewers are willing to swallow whatever nonsense they hear.

The funniest part of the interview was when they had their 'military expert', Col Ralph Peters, push additional propaganda, by vilifying Trump using several personal insults. Its funny, because Peters used to work at Fox, where he ALWAYS ridiculed democrats, especially Obama!

 

[rocket88]

I am literally watching Anderson Cooper's show right now, so there's no YouTube video up yet to upload.

At the beginning of the show, Anderson Cooper started out with a diatribe about how Trump is lying about NATO countries not paying their fair share. He claimed that "there is no 'pot' that countries are expected to pay into to fund NATO". He continued trying to make the point that NATO members DONT have to pay anything to support the organization.

However, in the very next sentence, he admits that there is an agreement between NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their own GDP to fund Nato, AND that aside from the US(we have been paying 3.5% annually), only Britain has paid anything near 2%(they paid 2.1%), while Germany, France and others are paying 1.2%, 1.35% and 1.8%).

Either this is yet another example of CNN to argue, using deceptive semantics, or they are just hoping that they have sufficiently vilified republicans, that their viewers are willing to swallow whatever nonsense they hear.

The funniest part of the interview was when they had their 'military expert', Col Ralph Peters, push additional propaganda, by vilifying Trump using several personal insults. Its funny, because Peters used to work at Fox, where he ALWAYS ridiculed democrats, especially Obama!

It's interesting that you style yourself as a moderate, but never fail to repeat the Trump-approved lines.

 

[trixare4kids]

I am literally watching Anderson Cooper's show right now, so there's no YouTube video up yet to upload.

At the beginning of the show, Anderson Cooper started out with a diatribe about how Trump is lying about NATO countries not paying their fair share. He claimed that "there is no 'pot' that countries are expected to pay into to fund NATO". He continued trying to make the point that NATO members DONT have to pay anything to support the organization.

However, in the very next sentence, he admits that there is an agreement between NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their own GDP to fund Nato, AND that aside from the US(we have been paying 3.5% annually), only Britain has paid anything near 2%(they paid 2.1%), while Germany, France and others are paying 1.2%, 1.35% and 1.8%).

Either this is yet another example of CNN to argue, using deceptive semantics, or they are just hoping that they have sufficiently vilified republicans, that their viewers are willing to swallow whatever nonsense they hear.

The funniest part of the interview was when they had their 'military expert', Col Ralph Peters, push additional propaganda, by vilifying Trump using several personal insults. Its funny, because Peters used to work at Fox, where he ALWAYS ridiculed democrats, especially Obama!

Crap News Network
#fakenews

 

[Slyfox696]

I am literally watching Anderson Cooper's show right now, so there's no YouTube video up yet to upload.

At the beginning of the show, Anderson Cooper started out with a diatribe about how Trump is lying about NATO countries not paying their fair share. He claimed that "there is no 'pot' that countries are expected to pay into to fund NATO". He continued trying to make the point that NATO members DONT have to pay anything to support the organization.

However, in the very next sentence, he admits that there is an agreement between NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their own GDP to fund Nato, AND that aside from the US(we have been paying 3.5% annually), only Britain has paid anything near 2%(they paid 2.1%), while Germany, France and others are paying 1.2%, 1.35% and 1.8%).

The agreement is 2% by 2024. Not right now.

NATO had previously agreed to meet the 2 percent spending goal by 2024.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/tru...-meet-defense-spending-goals-immediately.html

aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

Either this is yet another example of CNN to argue, using deceptive semantics, or they are just hoping that they have sufficiently vilified republicans

Actually, it's an example of you posting provably false information. Great job!


So the question is...did you know what you were posting was false and lied about it or were you just ignorant to the facts?

 

[Mycroft]

I am literally watching Anderson Cooper's show right now, so there's no YouTube video up yet to upload.

At the beginning of the show, Anderson Cooper started out with a diatribe about how Trump is lying about NATO countries not paying their fair share. He claimed that "there is no 'pot' that countries are expected to pay into to fund NATO". He continued trying to make the point that NATO members DONT have to pay anything to support the organization.

However, in the very next sentence, he admits that there is an agreement between NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their own GDP to fund Nato, AND that aside from the US(we have been paying 3.5% annually), only Britain has paid anything near 2%(they paid 2.1%), while Germany, France and others are paying 1.2%, 1.35% and 1.8%).

Either this is yet another example of CNN to argue, using deceptive semantics, or they are just hoping that they have sufficiently vilified republicans, that their viewers are willing to swallow whatever nonsense they hear.

The funniest part of the interview was when they had their 'military expert', Col Ralph Peters, push additional propaganda, by vilifying Trump using several personal insults. Its funny, because Peters used to work at Fox, where he ALWAYS ridiculed democrats, especially Obama!

Anderson isn't paid to spout the facts. His useful idiot viewers (present company excepted, since you caught his lies) don't care about facts. And their talking potato heads, like that Col., don't get paid to spout facts, either. Their job is to read the catchy, snarky, disgusting rhetoric that someone else wrote for them.

My question is this: Why are YOU watching that nonsense?

 

[Slyfox696]

Anderson isn't paid to spout the facts. His useful idiot viewers (present company excepted, since you caught his lies) don't care about facts. And their talking potato heads, like that Col., don't get paid to spout facts, either. Their job is to read the catchy, snarky, disgusting rhetoric that someone else wrote for them.

My question is this: Why are YOU watching that nonsense?

Except it appears he did "spout the facts" and the OP was wrong. So...

 

[Barnacle]

The agreement is 2% by 2024. Not right now.

Actually, it's an example of you posting provably false information. Great job!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/tru...-meet-defense-spending-goals-immediately.html
https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm


So the question is...did you know what you were posting was false and lied about it or were you just ignorant to the facts?

Incorrect. The agreement of 2% was with immediate effect in 2006.

8 years later it was found that NATO was running a deficit because half the countries were "paying" their NATO part on a lot less than 2%.
Those countries were given a grace period of max 10 years in which to increase and meet their agreed upon - in 2006 - contributions.

For 12 years half the NATO countries broke the promise they made.

 

[Mycroft]

The agreement is 2% by 2024. Not right now.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/tru...-meet-defense-spending-goals-immediately.html


https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

Actually, it's an example of you posting provably false information. Great job!


So the question is...did you know what you were posting was false and lied about it or were you just ignorant to the facts?

Anderson is wrong.

1. NATO nations have agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on THEIR OWN defense budget.

2. NATO nations also fund NATO operations and infrastructure.

So...there is no agreement to spend 2% of GDP to fund NATO. But there IS a pot that each country pays into to fund NATO.

Cooper doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.

 

[itsforthekids]

And the dozens of morons watching it are nodding their heads like sheep in agreement. There will be a thread titled "nato members not expected to pay their fair share" if one hasn't already been started.

 

[itsforthekids]

Incorrect. The agreement of 2% was with immediate effect in 2006.

8 years later it was found that NATO was running a deficit because half the countries were "paying" their NATO part on a lot less than 2%.
Those countries were given a grace period of max 10 years in which to increase and meet their agreed upon - in 2006 - contributions.

For 12 years half the NATO countries broke the promise they made.

It's weird how these lefters are so misinformed.

 

[Slyfox696]

Incorrect. The agreement of 2% was with immediate effect in 2006.

False. Why are you posting lies when I've already directly quoted the NATO website? You even quoted my link to the NATO website.

Please don't post lies.

8 years later it was found that NATO was running a deficit because half the countries were "paying" their NATO part on a lot less than 2%.

There are so many falsehoods in that statement.

The 2% is what countries are supposed to spend on their own defense budget. They don't pay that 2% to NATO. NATO couldn't run a deficit based on your claim.

Either learn what you're talking about or ask the people from who you get your talking points to do a better job. Thanks.

Anderson is wrong.

Without the video, there's no way for certain to know. But based on what the OP said, no he wasn't.

1. NATO nations have agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on THEIR OWN defense budget.

You should tell your buddies "Barnacle" and "itsforthekids" this. The talking points they've been given doesn't seem to understand that.

2. NATO nations also fund NATO operations and infrastructure.

Which has nothing to do with the 2%, as you AND Anderson Cooper said. Right?

So...there is no agreement to spend 2% of GDP to fund NATO.

So the OP was wrong and Anderson Cooper (according to the OP) was correct. So why are you arguing with me?

Cooper doesn't know what the **** he's talking about.

You literally haven't seen the video and all you have is the word of the OP you JUST proved was wrong.

Do you really not see how ridiculous your comment about Cooper sounds?

 

[Barnacle]

The agreement is 2% by 2024. Not right now.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/tru...-meet-defense-spending-goals-immediately.html


https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

Actually, it's an example of you posting provably false information. Great job!


So the question is...did you know what you were posting was false and lied about it or were you just ignorant to the facts?

I have already responded to that post of yours, but here is the extended reply, which I also posted in an other thread:


"... In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. ..."

Several countries didn't cough up the minimum they agreed to and the US was footing most of the bills, so 8 years later, in 2014, it was agreed that countries will have a grace period of up to 10 years during which they gradually reach the promised 2% - a number they all agreed to back in 2006.

"... Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls. ..."

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_67655.htm

 

[Slyfox696]

I have already responded to that post of yours, but here is the extended reply, which I also posted in an other thread:


"... In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. ..."

And there is no "immediate" timetable written there. The only time they provided a timetable was in 2014, a decade after which would be 2024. As I said. Stop pushing lies.

Several countries didn't cough up the minimum they agreed to and the US was footing most of the bills

That's not how it works. Read Mycroft's post if you don't want to read mine about how your post is false.

I understand the need to push your #FakeNews, but when it is exposed as lies by even those who are on your side politically, continuing to push #FakeNews is absurd.

 

[Barnacle]

False. Why are you posting lies when I've already directly quoted the NATO website? You even quoted my link to the NATO website.

Please don't post lies.

There are so many falsehoods in that statement.

The 2% is what countries are supposed to spend on their own defense budget. They don't pay that 2% to NATO. NATO couldn't run a deficit based on your claim.

Either learn what you're talking about or ask the people from who you get your talking points to do a better job. Thanks.
Without the video, there's no way for certain to know. But based on what the OP said, no he wasn't.

You should tell your buddies "Barnacle" and "itsforthekids" this. The talking points they've been given doesn't seem to understand that.

Which has nothing to do with the 2%, as you AND Anderson Cooper said. Right?

So the OP was wrong and Anderson Cooper (according to the OP) was correct. So why are you arguing with me?

You literally haven't seen the video and all you have is the word of the OP you JUST proved was wrong.

Do you really not see how ridiculous your comment about Cooper sounds?

I don't post lies and you are totally confused because I never quoted your link to the NATO website.

Your link refers to a NATO article from Sep 2016, my link refers to a NATO article from June 2018. - Educate yourself.

Stating "NATO was running a deficit" is a simplification for the liberal dimwits who don't know how NATO operates.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't post lies

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Okay.

and you are totally confused because I never quoted your link to the NATO website.

"I don't post lies"...immediately proceeds to post something untrue...

Your link refers to a NATO article from Sep 2016

...then admits to quoting my link to NATO website. :lol:

Also, my link was to an official press release from 2014. You can't even get that right.

Stating "NATO was running a deficit" is a simplification for the liberal dimwits who don't know how NATO operates.

Says the person who has been proven to post falsehoods about how NATO operates.

 

[Mycroft]

Without the video, there's no way for certain to know. But based on what the OP said, no he wasn't.

You should tell your buddies "Barnacle" and "itsforthekids" this. The talking points they've been given doesn't seem to understand that.

Which has nothing to do with the 2%, as you AND Anderson Cooper said. Right?

So the OP was wrong and Anderson Cooper (according to the OP) was correct. So why are you arguing with me?

You literally haven't seen the video and all you have is the word of the OP you JUST proved was wrong.

Do you really not see how ridiculous your comment about Cooper sounds?

1. Based on what the OP said, Cooper was totally wrong and I explained why. Here, I'll explain it again with quotes.

He claimed that "there is no 'pot' that countries are expected to pay into to fund NATO". He continued trying to make the point that NATO members DONT have to pay anything to support the organization.

There is a pot all NATO countries pay into that funds NATO.

he admits that there is an agreement between NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their own GDP to fund Nato

There is no agreement for NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their GDP to fund NATO. The agreement is for the countries to pay 2% of their GDP to fund their OWN defense.

2. I speak for myself. I'm not responsible for what anyone else says.

3. See the quote I provided of what Cooper said about funding NATO. He is totally wrong. I am not.

4. I suggest you go back and re-read everything the OP and I have said. Right now, you have no idea what either of us has said.

 

[Barnacle]

And there is no "immediate" timetable written there. The only time they provided a timetable was in 2014, a decade after which would be 2024. As I said. Stop pushing lies.

That's not how it works. Read Mycroft's post if you don't want to read mine about how your post is false.

I understand the need to push your #FakeNews, but when it is exposed as lies by even those who are on your side politically, continuing to push #FakeNews is absurd.

Do you even realize how stupid your statement sounds?!?

If there was no timetable in 2006 on when to cough up the 2%, why was there a summit 8 years later when half the members were asked: "Hey, buddies, what happened to the 2% you all agreed to in 2006?"

 

[yankintx]

I am literally watching Anderson Cooper's show right now, so there's no YouTube video up yet to upload.

At the beginning of the show, Anderson Cooper started out with a diatribe about how Trump is lying about NATO countries not paying their fair share. He claimed that "there is no 'pot' that countries are expected to pay into to fund NATO". He continued trying to make the point that NATO members DONT have to pay anything to support the organization.

However, in the very next sentence, he admits that there is an agreement between NATO countries to pay at least 2% of their own GDP to fund Nato, AND that aside from the US(we have been paying 3.5% annually), only Britain has paid anything near 2%(they paid 2.1%), while Germany, France and others are paying 1.2%, 1.35% and 1.8%).

Either this is yet another example of CNN to argue, using deceptive semantics, or they are just hoping that they have sufficiently vilified republicans, that their viewers are willing to swallow whatever nonsense they hear.

The funniest part of the interview was when they had their 'military expert', Col Ralph Peters, push additional propaganda, by vilifying Trump using several personal insults. Its funny, because Peters used to work at Fox, where he ALWAYS ridiculed democrats, especially Obama!

I bet you dont hold Trump to the same integrity test. The man made several false claims at the NATO summit. Now that is news !!

Sounds to me like Cooper corrected himself, an integrity check, Trump should try that, perhaps the press would not have to constantly fact the man.

 

[Slyfox696]

1. Based on what the OP said, Cooper was totally wrong

No he wasn't. The OP said Cooper claimed countries don't have a pot to support NATO defense and then claimed Cooper contradicted himself because of the 2%. You and I have BOTH proven the OP wrong. And, again, we don't have the video to know for certain what was said, but we both agree the OP was wrong.

There is a pot all NATO countries pay into that funds NATO.

Are you deliberately missing the point of the OP? The point of the OP was that Cooper was wrong because of the 2%. The OP was wrong. Cooper, based on what was claimed to have been said, was right. After that, we have to know exactly what Cooper said to know whether the piddly little amount that directly goes to NATO was included in what Cooper said (spoiler alert: I bet it wasn't and the OP didn't cite Cooper correctly...wanna bet on it?).

We've both proven the OP false and Cooper, based on what was represented, right. So just move on.

2. I speak for myself. I'm not responsible for what anyone else says.

:lol:

Sure.

3. See the quote I provided of what Cooper said about funding NATO. He is totally wrong. I am not.

You don't have a quote of what Cooper said, you have a quote of what the OP claimed Cooper said, a claim which was proven false by both of us.

So you criticizing Cooper, based on the agreed upon falsehood of the OP, is rather ridiculous.

4. I suggest you go back and re-read everything the OP and I have said. Right now, you have no idea what either of us has said.

I know exactly what everyone has said (except for Cooper). The OP was wrong and you and I have both proven it.

Do you even realize how stupid your statement sounds?!?

The truth is never stupid except to liars.

If there was no timetable in 2006 on when to cough up the 2%, why was there a summit 8 years later when half the members were asked: "Hey, buddies, what happened to the 2% you all agreed to in 2006?"

I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question when you demonstrate an understanding of what the 2% actually is. So far, all you've done is post falsehoods about it.

You prove you know what you're talking about and I'll give you an answer to your question. How does that sound?

 

[Barnacle]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Okay.

"I don't post lies"...immediately proceeds to post something untrue...

...then admits to quoting my link to NATO website. :lol:

Also, my link was to an official press release from 2014. You can't even get that right.

Says the person who has been proven to post falsehoods about how NATO operates.

Your link was an official NATO release from 2014, updated in Sep 2016.
My link was an official NATO release from 2018.

Brush up on your English.

 

[ecofarm]

There is no "NATO Fund", right? The 2% is to be spent on one's own military, right?

That's my understanding and appears to be what Cooper is saying. Cooper is correct on the structure of the deal, and Trump is correct that members need to do as agreed.

 

[Barnacle]

No he wasn't. The OP said Cooper claimed countries don't have a pot to support NATO defense and then claimed Cooper contradicted himself because of the 2%. You and I have BOTH proven the OP wrong. And, again, we don't have the video to know for certain what was said, but we both agree the OP was wrong.

Are you deliberately missing the point of the OP? The point of the OP was that Cooper was wrong because of the 2%. The OP was wrong. Cooper, based on what was claimed to have been said, was right. After that, we have to know exactly what Cooper said to know whether the piddly little amount that directly goes to NATO was included in what Cooper said (spoiler alert: I bet it wasn't and the OP didn't cite Cooper correctly...wanna bet on it?).

We've both proven the OP false and Cooper, based on what was represented, right. So just move on.

:lol:

Sure.

You don't have a quote of what Cooper said, you have a quote of what the OP claimed Cooper said, a claim which was proven false by both of us.

So you criticizing Cooper, based on the agreed upon falsehood of the OP, is rather ridiculous.

I know exactly what everyone has said (except for Cooper). The OP was wrong and you and I have both proven it.
The truth is never stupid except to liars.

I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question when you demonstrate an understanding of what the 2% actually is. So far, all you've done is post falsehoods about it.

You prove you know what you're talking about and I'll give you an answer to your question. How does that sound?

It sounds like you've got no answer to a legit question. :lamo

 

[Vox]

It's interesting that you style yourself as a moderate, but never fail to repeat the Trump-approved lines.

As most of us already know.......that only proves that Trump is quite moderate in some areas.

 

[ModerationNow!]

It's interesting that you style yourself as a moderate, but never fail to repeat the Trump-approved lines.

Oh, I guess I'd seem more moderate if I blindly accepted whatever lies are being pushed at CNN at any specific moment? So, moderation means not thinking for yourself, and maybe supporting the increasingly radical democrats? Maybe if I praised democrats when their policies fail, and perpetually complain about republicans even when their policies work.

Or maybe being a moderate is accepting that, since I'm white, I'm automatically a racist with unending privilege, and therefore should be happy to support open borders, ever-increasing taxes, and attempts at criminalizing speech. Maybe I should prove my moderation by donning a Che Guevara t shirt and whining about how we need to END capitalism and replace it with a socialist democratic(authoritarian) system.

Most of those beliefs, and many more radical ones, are portrayed as 'moderate' by the media these days, and anyone whose 1mm to the center of Nancy Pelosi is characterized as a "right wing extremist".

 

[Mycroft]

No he wasn't. The OP said Cooper claimed countries don't have a pot to support NATO defense and then claimed Cooper contradicted himself because of the 2%. You and I have BOTH proven the OP wrong. And, again, we don't have the video to know for certain what was said, but we both agree the OP was wrong.

Are you deliberately missing the point of the OP? The point of the OP was that Cooper was wrong because of the 2%. The OP was wrong. Cooper, based on what was claimed to have been said, was right. After that, we have to know exactly what Cooper said to know whether the piddly little amount that directly goes to NATO was included in what Cooper said (spoiler alert: I bet it wasn't and the OP didn't cite Cooper correctly...wanna bet on it?).

We've both proven the OP false and Cooper, based on what was represented, right. So just move on.

:lol:

Sure.

You don't have a quote of what Cooper said, you have a quote of what the OP claimed Cooper said, a claim which was proven false by both of us.

So you criticizing Cooper, based on the agreed upon falsehood of the OP, is rather ridiculous.

I know exactly what everyone has said (except for Cooper). The OP was wrong and you and I have both proven it.
The truth is never stupid except to liars.

I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question when you demonstrate an understanding of what the 2% actually is. So far, all you've done is post falsehoods about it.

You prove you know what you're talking about and I'll give you an answer to your question. How does that sound?

sigh...

I have no idea if the OP is correct or incorrect as to what he says Cooper said. But based on what he said that Cooper said...everything that Cooper said is totally wrong and I have shown WHY Cooper is wrong.

Now...if you want to say that the OP quoted Cooper incorrectly, then do so. Provide a video. We can go on from there. At this point, though, everything I've said is correct.

Moving on.