Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker?

[Rogue Valley]

and how many years ago was that?

2014 at the NATO Summit in Wales. Ten years would be 2024.

Trump has "bent" truths to justify his NATO animosity. Point 14 contains no commitment language.

Wales Summit Declaration

 

[ChezC3]

Here is the text of the declaration. The relevant passage is as follows:

“Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
halt any decline in defence expenditure;
aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
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.”

Thank you.

Every once in a while one slips past the goalie, and you SCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORED!!!!!!!

Good show.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The sad truth is that most Americans are just too lazy to fact-check Trumps lies.

 

[ChezC3]

The sad truth is that most Americans are just too lazy to fact-check Trumps lies.

But it’s not sad that they ignore the MSMs, Obama’s and Clinton’s?

I’ll admit I was going on about this with the understanding that countries weren’t historically giving their fair share which is not a lie,it is factual. They haven’t been paying there fair share. Hence the agreement. What I was mistaken about was the time line of the agreement and the actual wording of the document.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Isn't Trump's questioning of NATO spending based on their 2% GDP target, not based on their failure to actually pay for NATO's common fund? The U.S. doesn't spend correspondingly more on its own defense because Iceland only spends .1% of its GDP on defense.

You could maybe argue that their failure to meet those targets puts us in a position where we need to spend more to achieve the right level of defense, but it's certainly not a dollar for dollar trade off where we pay exactly 1.9% of Iceland's GDP on our defense because they are that far short of their 2% goal.

They/we haven't failed to meet them. There's six years of the agreement to run before anyone can be said to have met the target or not. In 2024.

Trump's laughable fake claim that he'd set a 4% target is especially stupid since the USA spends "only" 3.1% of gdp.

 

[Rogue Valley]

But it’s not sad that they ignore the MSMs, Obama’s and Clinton’s?

Trump is the president today. Ergo, it is Trump that is pertinent.

 

[HERA the Stars]

You're not asking the right question, it will make America richer since they will be bullied into purchasing American weapons.

 

[Anagram]

They/we haven't failed to meet them. There's six years of the agreement to run before anyone can be said to have met the target or not. In 2024.

Trump's laughable fake claim that he'd set a 4% target is especially stupid since the USA spends "only" 3.1% of gdp.

Text.

I believe technically it's not even a hard and fast commitment in 2024. It's only a target the countries are expected to try and reach.

 

[iliveonramen]

Isn't Trump's questioning of NATO spending based on their 2% GDP target, not based on their failure to actually pay for NATO's common fund? The U.S. doesn't spend correspondingly more on its own defense because Iceland only spends .1% of its GDP on defense.

You could maybe argue that their failure to meet those targets puts us in a position where we need to spend more to achieve the right level of defense, but it's certainly not a dollar for dollar trade off where we pay exactly 1.9% of Iceland's GDP on our defense because they are that far short of their 2% goal.

While them spending more on their defense doesn't mean the US will spend less, on principle a lot of European nations are free riders taking advantage of US commitment to supporting NATO nations.

 

[iliveonramen]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

I think some NATO nations should spend more...it's pretty rich though to see conservatives that typically vote more for defense than the Pentagon asks for complaining about this.

 

[Rogue Valley]

While them spending more on their defense doesn't mean the US will spend less, on principle a lot of European nations are free riders taking advantage of US commitment to supporting NATO nations.

There is a correlation.....

 

[iliveonramen]

There is a correlation.....

Not to mention most of those countries were former Eastern Pact countries. They don't remember their time under Russian dominance fondly.

 

[Napoleon]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

That certainly is a child’s way of seeing things. The usual conservative response is to throw a bunch of money around with zero accountability and act surprised when troops are rummaging through garbage heaps for armor after it disappears into a black hole. How much you’re spending is far less important than how it is spent.

 

[ChezC3]

Trump is the president today. Ergo, it is Trump that is pertinent.

And the MSM was yesteryear? Lmfao

Ok. Pertinent. Lol.

 

[trouble13]

Why would anyone in their right mind invest in NATO now, after Trump made kissy kissy with Putin???

Dismantle NATO now, prioritize the UN, and take away veto rights. The world has changed beyond recognition in the last two years, NATO is obsolete.

What do you mean by prioritize the UN? Are you suggesting the UN being given greater power than the government's they represent?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[OlNate]

What do you mean by prioritize the UN? Are you suggesting the UN being given greater power than the government's they represent?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

I'm suggesting that the UN replaces NATO. Alliances that pit regions against each other inevitably lead to conflict. If the world needs defending, let all the world help out. In a global economy we need peace keepers, the traditional concept of expensive alliances are obsolete, in my opinion. Given the global economic infrastructure, the only folks who profit from war are arms manufacturers. I'd rather see my taxes go to preventing war, not engaging in it. There isn't a hostile nation on the planet that wouldn't benefit more from being involved in the world economy than engaging in warfare. Prosperity tends to simmer things down.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

You may not be aware of the fact that #walkaway has been proven to have its origin and is perpetuated via Russian propaganda. Seriously.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

There needs to be another option as there isn't any evidence that Trump got them to do anything other than to scratch their heads.

 

[trouble13]

I'm suggesting that the UN replaces NATO. Alliances that pit regions against each other inevitably lead to conflict. If the world needs defending, let all the world help out. In a global economy we need peace keepers, the traditional concept of expensive alliances are obsolete, in my opinion. Given the global economic infrastructure, the only folks who profit from war are arms manufacturers. I'd rather see my taxes go to preventing war, not engaging in it. There isn't a hostile nation on the planet that wouldn't benefit more from being involved in the world economy than engaging in warfare. Prosperity tends to simmer things down.

That sounds good but ww2 is what lead to this. Essentially saying to the world that if you attack anyone in the alliance, you attacked us all. I'm not sure how that could work as a body of the UN

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[OlNate]

That sounds good but ww2 is what lead to this. Essentially saying to the world that if you attack anyone in the alliance, you attacked us all. I'm not sure how that could work as a body of the UN

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure there is a bigger deterrent to a rogue nation than taking on the whole world... Especially when it is in their best financial interests to get along.

 

[Waddy]

It may or may not make NATO stronger; it's usefulness has passed in any case. And I doubt being stronger would infuse Europe with any backbone. But it does make it more fair when everybody kicks in their share.

 

[Grand Mal]

It may or may not make NATO stronger; it's usefulness has passed in any case. And I doubt being stronger would infuse Europe with any backbone. But it does make it more fair when everybody kicks in their share.

When did NATO's usefulness pass?

 

[Jredbaron96]

You can't buy your way into military competence. The Saudis spend more than the Russians but they're a joke.

 

[trouble13]

I'm not sure there is a bigger deterrent to a rogue nation than taking on the whole world... Especially when it is in their best financial interests to get along.

That would be fantastic if the world were united but it's not. Members of nato are the ones willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with each other and willing to make the military commitment that it requires.

I can't picture the Arabs defending Isreal as an example of the lack of global unity we have

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Howard the Duck]

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker ?

Obviously for any school child, more money when it comes to defense is better.

So how is Trump making NATO weaker by getting member states to pay their fair share?

No one in nato has agreed to accelerate the agreed upon payment schedule. Trump lied to you.