- 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
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:03 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:03 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Go start your own thread about the US pulling out of NATO and quit trolling this one.
0
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:03 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
In your own words please tell me what you think these numbers and that link represent.
That of the actual direct cost of NATO the US splits the bill 16.344% or as the site literally states:
quote:
NATO has annual budgets and programmes worth around EUR 3.27 billion, which inter alia support its permanent military command structure, its current operations and missions, and provide essential military infrastructure (including air and naval basing facilities, satellite communications, fuel pipelines, and command and control systems). This represents 0.3% of total Allied defence spending. This direct funding comes principally in two forms: common funding and joint funding. It can also come in the form of trust funds, contributions in kind, ad hoc sharing arrangements and donations.
This has nothing to do with the 2% commitment guideline that NATO has which I somehow think you are trying to back into now
Now you do the same and please feel free to provide details on how the US pays 90%
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:06 pm to doubleb
quote:I said the exact same thing on the previous page.
We are paying, but Ukraine is paying way more, and we aren’t paying in blood.
quote:
And you chastise Europe for laughing at us, you proceed to run them in the ground. I believe we have enough of our own welfare, our own border issues, our own screwed up leaders that we don’t need to be telling Europe how to run their countries. Yes, we should lead in NATO but if they want socialized medicine and if they want their pensions that’s on them as long as they back NATO as they are supposed to.
There’s a big difference, my tax dollars and the current service of millions of American men and women in uniform guarantee the safety and security of Europeans across the continent. As far as I’m concerned I have buy in on their policies and they have none on what we do or say here in the United States.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:14 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
That of the actual direct cost of NATO the US splits the bill 16.344% or as the site literally states:
It’s the direct cost of the NATO bureaucracy. Basically the electricity for the HQ buildings and the HR reps and secretaries salaries and maybe a few planning conferences where generals and diplomats can jerk each other off. It has nothing to do with actual military combat power brought to the table, which in reality is really the only thing that matters.
quote:
Now you do the same and please feel free to provide details on how the US pays 90%
The US spent $811 billion on defense this year. The rest of NATO combined spent $363 billion. Given that the United States would be expected to commit whatever amount of military might necessary to defend the continent of Europe, that means the the US pays for 70% of NATO’s defense total defense budget.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:15 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Europe has saved untold billions farming out their security to the US to then turn around and spend it on propping up their welfare states…. Either right or wrong, at some point there are consequences for that decision.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:18 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Well they’re not “the” main trading partner. Canada, Mexico and China each by themselves are bigger trading partners than the entire EU combined. So we can leave now?
The USA is never leaving NATO. It’s not happening no matter who is in the White House. Plus it’s in the USA’s best interest to remain in NATO.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:20 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The US spent $811 billion on defense this year. The rest of NATO combined spent $363 billion. Given that the United States would be expected to commit whatever amount of military might necessary to defend the continent of Europe, that means the the US pays for 70% of NATO’s defense total defense budget.
The US defense budget isn't just about Europe as your statement seems to suggest. It is also about keeping the world oceans without major issues, South America, and North America. Should we also reflect pay for military as opposed to say in Poland or even all of Europe which is conscript heavy?
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:23 pm to WeeWee
quote:
The USA is never leaving NATO. It’s not happening no matter who is in the White House.
I know, and since for some unfathomable reason that cannot happen, we should start kicking some countries out. Starting with Germany, Greece and Turkey.
quote:I disagree. And I know the arguments for staying in. A stable Europe is good for the economy, if we continue to guarantee their security they’ll be good trading partners and blah blah blah. I don’t buy that. We trade with every country on the planet and we’re not beholden to their security to do so are we? It’s an old tired line that academics and scholars have been leaning on since 1945. The world has changed. And let’s be real, it’s not like Europe is going to stop doing business with the US if we don’t station our armies their to protect them.
Plus it’s in the USA’s best interest to remain in NATO.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:24 pm to CitizenK
We're really pretending that the US doesn't have troops stationed in Japan and Korea? That we don't have a presence in Iraq and Syria? That the US Navy isn't protecting Taiwan?
I'd rather have the pro-Russia trolls in here than this kind of idiocy.
I'd rather have the pro-Russia trolls in here than this kind of idiocy.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:25 pm to CitizenK
quote:
The US defense budget isn't just about Europe as your statement seems to suggest. It is also about keeping the world oceans without major issues, South America, and North America.
I’m well aware, apparently you skipped over the part of my post where I addressed that. If defending Europe required 100% of the the US military then we would be legally required to use it.
quote:
Should we also reflect pay for military as opposed to say in Poland or even all of Europe which is conscript heavy?
No
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:26 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
There’s a big difference, my tax dollars and the current service of millions of American men and women in uniform guarantee the safety and security of Europeans across the continent. As far as I’m concerned I have buy in on their policies and they have none on what we do or say here in the United States.
We do not have a say so, but we do have influence. We should use our influence in the best interest of our national security.
Often we don’t use our influence and we lose opportunities. It’s frustrating to see Germany but from Russia and not from us. It’s frustrating to watch Europe not take care of their NATO obligations.
But Europe isn’t monolithic. All those counties have fought each other at one time or smother it seems. It’s in our best interest that they play nice. Things would get ugly fast if they reverted back to their old selves.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:28 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The US spent $811 billion on defense this year. The rest of NATO combined spent $363 billion. Given that the United States would be expected to commit whatever amount of military might necessary to defend the continent of Europe, that means the the US pays for 70% of NATO’s defense total defense budget.
No, Billions of those dollars go to defending ourselves, Japan, Taiwan, Israel and all our other allies.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:34 pm to doubleb
quote:Why are we paying for influence if we’re not even going to use it?
Often we don’t use our influence and we lose opportunities.
quote:
It’s frustrating to see Germany but from Russia and not from us. It’s frustrating to watch Europe not take care of their NATO obligations.
And they should be called out on it, publicly, by every US administration. Unfortunately the last time a U.S. president did that he was derided by nearly every European leader and Angela Merkel, who was sucking Putin’s cock under the dinner table harder than a $2 dollar hooker was praised. All of those European leaders were elected by, you guessed it, Europeans.
quote:We’ll I’m glad my tax dollars and the lives of US servicemen are there to keep the toddlers of the world playing nice in the playpen.
But Europe isn’t monolithic. All those counties have fought each other at one time or smother it seems. It’s in our best interest that they play nice. Things would get ugly fast if they reverted back to their old selves.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:38 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I know, and since for some unfathomable reason that cannot happen, we should start kicking some countries out. Starting with Germany, Greece and Turkey.
Why? Turkey is the most important geopolitical region in the world. The Germans are just guarded due to WWII, but their recent defense initiatives are a good start.
quote:
The world has changed. And let’s be real, it’s not like Europe is going to stop doing business with the US if we don’t station our armies their to protect them.
I fail to see how leaving is somehow worth it given the monies we’ve already spent. It’s clear there there is going to be a US-led world order. Leaving without a very strong reason is just a poor use of resources. There is no going back to some isolationist wonderland. Arguably, the US was never as isolationist as people like to pretend, as US history in Latin America proves. Unless the people who suggest this also have some new ideas on how to orient our political economy, I don’t see the benefit of leaving, as we aren’t going to cut our military budget at any point in the future.
This post was edited on 1/16/23 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:39 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:Well we didn’t allow Japan to have a real military for 65 years and Korea at least takes its own defense seriously. None of that can be said of Europe.
We're really pretending that the US doesn't have troops stationed in Japan and Korea?
quote:A bunch of highly educated policy makers thought that was a good idea too.
That we don't have a presence in Iraq and Syria?
quote:Are we legally obligated to protect Taiwan by treaty? And besides, countering China is much more important than defending a bunch of spoiled white people in Europe who would rather than entitlements over being to defend themselves against a 2-bit army like Russia.
That the US Navy isn't protecting Taiwan?
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:50 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
We’ll I’m glad my tax dollars and the lives of US servicemen are there to keep the toddlers of the world playing nice in the playpen.
It’s true. They are all like little kids.
And we have seen all too often what happens when they are in their own.
Posted on 1/16/23 at 4:51 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:They need to grow up
The Germans are just guarded due to WWII,
quote:Meh, I have zero faith that they’ll stick to it.
but their recent defense initiatives are a good start.
quote:Never been a fan of the sunken cost theory.
I fail to see how leaving is somehow worth it given the monies we’ve already spent.
quote:We’re losing ground on this all over the world if you ask me.
It’s clear there there is going to be a US-led world order.
quote:Not guaranteeing the defense of an entire continent or at the very least forcing them to change their policies to be able to defend themselves is not being isolationist. Either Europe is one of the economic and cultural centers of the globe, in which case they’re more than capable of defending themselves, or they’re not which means they’re not worth defending in the first place.
There is no going back to some isolationist wonderland. Arguably, the US was never as isolationist as people like to pretend, as US history in Latin America proves. Unless the people who suggest this also have some new ideas on how to orient our political economy, I don’t see the benefit of leaving, as we aren’t going to cut our military budget at any point in the future
Posted on 1/16/23 at 5:18 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
At first I was a little irked by this whole argument but I think it'd actually be a little fun to have a few pints and argue it out. With that said this is sidetracked the thread so I'll retort and be done
Exactly, so the US is only paying 16% of the cost of NATO not 90% which is now 70% per your account. You are trying to compare absolute military spend as the physical cost of NATO which is not correct. The total US military spend is not floating NATO nor would 100% of US spend go to defend NATO after activation. It also implies a hypothetical event to attempt to make your point somehow work
Now none of this says that all countries in NATO shouldn't pay their 2% commitment. They absolutely should and need to. But the US isn't floating the bill for NATO
quote:
It’s the direct cost of the NATO bureaucracy
Exactly, so the US is only paying 16% of the cost of NATO not 90% which is now 70% per your account. You are trying to compare absolute military spend as the physical cost of NATO which is not correct. The total US military spend is not floating NATO nor would 100% of US spend go to defend NATO after activation. It also implies a hypothetical event to attempt to make your point somehow work
Now none of this says that all countries in NATO shouldn't pay their 2% commitment. They absolutely should and need to. But the US isn't floating the bill for NATO
Posted on 1/16/23 at 5:25 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
Exactly, so the US is only paying 16% of the cost of NATO not 90% which is now 70% per your account.
Well one, I never said 90%, someone else did. And two, “NATO” is not the NATO HQ or its bureaucracy. It’s disingenuous to claim 16% because the real power comes from the individual militaries that NATO members. Which means the the US military.
quote:Fair enough, can we get it written into the treaty that the US will only use say something like 30% of its fleet, 30% of its armies and 30% of our aircraft to defend Europe? I might could go for that as long as it was legally binding that Europe would get no more.
The total US military spend is not floating NATO nor would 100% of US spend go to defend NATO after activation. It also implies a hypothetical event to attempt to make your point somehow work
quote:Frankly they should be paying a lot more than 2%. It’s their fricking countries that are at risk of invasion, not ours.
Now none of this says that all countries in NATO shouldn't pay their 2% commitment. They absolutely should and need to. But the US isn't floating the bill for NATO
Posted on 1/16/23 at 5:42 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
For quite a while politics hasn't reared its ugly head here. Can yall take it back to where it belongs?
Page 2309 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News