- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Asing NATO to pay more
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:17 am
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:17 am
I am in total agreement that NATO should pay more for their own defense as well as our allies all over the world. That being said how do you square that with increasing our military spending?
This would be like telling a child they had to move out of the house and them expanding their room so they will be more comfortable. Our allies will only spend more when it is obvious they have no choice...increasing military spending sends just the opposite message.
If our military is even stronger tomorrow that it is today it means our allies are free to spend less....because we are not going to stand by with a whopping big stick and allow them to be bullied....we just aren't...no matter what we say otherwise when the time comes the only reason for us to spend more on the military is so we can have even more influence in the world.
I don't have time to respond right now but I will later. Surely y'all have to see that increasing military spending is sending the world the message that they can further relax their own spending because we got this, rigth?
Keep in mind that this will surely mean my own economic situation is even further advanced....there is nothing in the world that can make me harder at my age than the thought of a big ole pork laden defense contract.....bu is it good for the country? IS there no pork in the military now that can be cut, especially since we are also telling our allies they got to step up???
This would be like telling a child they had to move out of the house and them expanding their room so they will be more comfortable. Our allies will only spend more when it is obvious they have no choice...increasing military spending sends just the opposite message.
If our military is even stronger tomorrow that it is today it means our allies are free to spend less....because we are not going to stand by with a whopping big stick and allow them to be bullied....we just aren't...no matter what we say otherwise when the time comes the only reason for us to spend more on the military is so we can have even more influence in the world.
I don't have time to respond right now but I will later. Surely y'all have to see that increasing military spending is sending the world the message that they can further relax their own spending because we got this, rigth?
Keep in mind that this will surely mean my own economic situation is even further advanced....there is nothing in the world that can make me harder at my age than the thought of a big ole pork laden defense contract.....bu is it good for the country? IS there no pork in the military now that can be cut, especially since we are also telling our allies they got to step up???
14
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:19 am to germandawg
quote:None of their business.
I am in total agreement that NATO should pay more for their own defense as well as our allies all over the world. That being said how do you square that with increasing our military spending?
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:19 am to germandawg
I'm against increasing defense spending.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:22 am to germandawg
quote:
I am in total agreement that NATO should pay more for their own defense as well as our allies all over the world. That being said how do you square that with increasing our military spending?
Increasing military spending =/= increasing military spending in other countries. It is possible to both fund our military and scale back our presence overseas.
ETA: I don't necessarily agree with increasing military spending, but I think you're conflating two separate issues.
This post was edited on 3/1/17 at 8:23 am
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:22 am to germandawg
quote:there's no rule that says just because our army is strong that it has to defend them forever. Sure we are part of the alliance but that Alliance came with strings. No strings no Alliance
That being said how do you square that with increasing our military spending
This post was edited on 3/1/17 at 8:23 am
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:23 am to germandawg
Not our problem.
They need to stop relying on us so damn much.
They need to stop relying on us so damn much.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:23 am to germandawg
We are not asking anyone to pay more. We are asking NATO member nations to pay what each member committed to paying when the last agreement was signed. Everyone's committed fair share, no more free rides
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:24 am to germandawg
You lost me at 'asing'.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:26 am to Jbird
quote:
quote:
I am in total agreement that NATO should pay more for their own defense as well as our allies all over the world. That being said how do you square that with increasing our military spending?
None of their business.
You are right....it is our business. If we are stronger the message to our allies is that they can relax....Germany, for instance, just recently did away with their mandatory service because they needed the money elsewhere...had it not been for you and I spending money on OUR military they wouldnt have had the opportunity....
Do you honestly think that we are going to have an even stronger military than we have today and, lets say Russia starts advancing to the West that we aren't going to intervene because Germany and France aren't spending more on their military????
I promise you that Europe (and I suspect Asia) sees an increase in US Military Spending as defacto permission to spend less themselves...
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:27 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Increasing military spending =/= increasing military spending in other countries. It is possible to both fund our military and scale back our presence overseas
That's the distinction Ron Paul makes and I hope Trump is alluding to when he says increased defense spending vs military spending. Spend less overseas but spend more at home investing in technology and defense.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:27 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Increasing military spending =/= increasing military spending in other countries. It is possible to both fund our military and scale back our presence overseas.
It is possible no doubt but is it necessary??? If we cut the budget for overseas shite alone we would have more than the proposed increase???
The message to our allies is going to be spend less....we may surprise them if push comes to shove but I sincerely doubt it....
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:31 am to germandawg
quote:Our level of defense spending is too high.
Asing NATO to pay more
I am in total agreement that NATO should pay more for their own defense as well as our allies all over the world. That being said how do you square that with increasing our military spending?
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:34 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
You lost me at 'asing'.
Good...you probably aren't intellectually capable of adding anything to the conversation anyway if a spelling error blocks you....
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:38 am to germandawg
quote:which kinda isnt so bad.... i just dont want their safety today being paid for by my grandchildren via the endless credit card
I promise you that Europe (and I suspect Asia) sees an increase in US Military Spending as defacto permission to spend less themselves...
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:42 am to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
I promise you that Europe (and I suspect Asia) sees an increase in US Military Spending as defacto permission to spend less themselves...
which kinda isnt so bad.... i just dont want their safety today being paid for by my grandchildren via the endless credit card
It isn't so bad until your realize that they use those resources to shore up their manufacturing base which gives them an unfair advantage when they are competing with US Manufacturers.
A prime example is Hyundai, KIA and the big three US Automakers. The big three are paying taxes so Hyundai and KIA can exist as a thorn in the side of a communist dictator to the north. Yet when two of the big three are handed a bailout paid for by taxpayers it is seen as unfair intervention into the market....but if it weren't for KIA and Hyundai GM and Chrysler may have never needed a bailout.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:46 am to gatorsimz
quote:
That's the distinction Ron Paul makes and I hope Trump is alluding to when he says increased defense spending vs military spending. Spend less overseas but spend more at home investing in technology and defense.
If we spend less overseas we don't need an increase we can simply spend the savings on making us safer at home....but even that would send the message to our allies that we still have their backs and they would be free to spend their money on devastating the manufacturing base in the United States.....
Our allies are all in on our protecting them....they are not going to stop spending money on subsidizing jobs for their citizens at the expense of our citizens until such time as they realize they can't be all in our protection any longer....
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:47 am to NC_Tigah
NATO admits it has an "over-reliance" on the U.S. for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense and airborne electronic warfare.
I want my $650B back from NATO we paid last year.
I want my $650B back from NATO we paid last year.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:47 am to germandawg
quote:Oooooooo! I must have hit a nerve!
Good...you probably aren't intellectually capable of adding anything to the conversation anyway if a spelling error blocks you....
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:51 am to germandawg
quote:
This would be like telling a child they had to move out of the house and them expanding their room so they will be more comfortable.
No, it's nothing like that. NATO members signed an agreement; the nations in question have not kept their promises.
It would be like mortgaging a house, agreeing to carry insurance, and not paying the insurance bill.
Posted on 3/1/17 at 8:52 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
Oooooooo! I must have hit a nerve!
You did....the one that exists where folks on the right are unable to defend their position so they look for ways out of the situation....typos are a great example...nothing to add because you know I have a valid point but instead of simply moving on you gotta lash out because you can't have a valid point that doesn't mesh with your world view...
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News