- 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 7/10/24 at 10:44 am to AU86
Posted on 7/10/24 at 10:44 am to AU86
quote:
Can I ask a.simple question?
If a NATO member doesn't spend the 2% agreed upon amount, Why in the hell should the US taxpayer have to provide for their defense?
The US taxpayer does not pay anything on this commitment by other countries. The 2% is a target for what other NATO members pay for their own militaries.
If, for example, France does not increase its internal defense spending to an amount equal to 2% of its GDP, this does not create a liability for the US taxpayer. The US does not pay the cost for France's military.
There has been a tremendous amount of blatant misrepresentation on the PoliBoard over the years about this issue.
4
Posted on 7/10/24 at 10:47 am to cypher
quote:
33 people were killed, including 4 children, 121 were injured, including 10 children, as a result of yesterday's hostile attack on Kyiv. 11 people were rescued."
Putin sure has a knack for public relations!
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:20 am to TBoy
quote:
There has been a tremendous amount of blatant misrepresentation on the PoliBoard over the years about this issue.
No way………
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:29 am to LSUPilot07
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:49 am to CitizenK
quote:
This tells me that Putin is not so sure that Trump won't make sure the dog shite is beat out of Russia
How, exactly?
American pilots and boots on the ground?
Making sure the freedom caucus doesn't deprive Ukraine of aid for 7 months again?
"if Ukraine wins, what will be the benefit?’"
- Trump to Congressional Republicans in private...
He's telling you exactly how he's going to go
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:52 am to VolSquatch
quote:
This point makes me somewhat doubt the "Russia will run out of tanks" narrative. They are either producing them somewhere that we don't know about yet or plan to source them from China when they do start running low.
Chinese arms have proven to be really reliable!
They're lying about the numbers... just as the Soviets did, and China does...
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:54 am to Lee B
quote:
How, exactly?
American pilots and boots on the ground?
Making sure the freedom caucus doesn't deprive Ukraine of aid for 7 months again?
"if Ukraine wins, what will be the benefit?’"
- Trump to Congressional Republicans in private...
He's telling you exactly how he's going to go
Bingo.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:14 pm to StormyMcMan
quote:
Not going to go one way or another on this one, but it's probably at least worth framing this better. First thing, 2% isn't mandated, it's just a guideline.
...
Thank you for all of that...
it is such a complex thing...
No matter what Eisenhower might've said about the US not intended to be running that show in a decade, it was always intended to be the US running that show...
DeGaulle of France was pissy and thought France and the others should be more independent and not just follow the US, which is why France went Nuclear... and we got pissed at him for that...
I'm reminded of the blues song: "Paying the Costs to Be the Boss."
NATO went the way we wanted it to... it created prosperous Western European states whose mere presence and proximity undermined Soviet Communist stability... as well as neutralizing the Communist Left and the Fascist Right in all of those countries. In short, we wanted a fat and lazy and docile Western Europe, because we were tired of having to waste lives and money saving the world from their conflicts, and we got it.
And NATO countries are simply not all under the same threat.
Spain, Portugal, Canada, among many others... are all unlikely to face an armed invasion, but have to deal with the threat of terrorism, physical and cyber... tanks and planes are not where they need to concentrate for that, and the things they do need are probably cheaper.
The rhetoric around this has gotten dumb. The Left is screaming the same thing, as if we could just pull out of "evil" NATO and that money would suddenly solve the domestic homeless problem (it won't... nothing will, unless we just create free motels that allow heavy alcohol and hard drug use on the premises).
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:18 pm to doubleb
quote:
quote:
There has been a tremendous amount of blatant misrepresentation on the PoliBoard over the years about this issue.
No way………
Man... now I have to wipe coffee off my laptop screen from spitting it out when I read this...
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:30 pm to TBoy
quote:
The US taxpayer does not pay anything on this commitment by other countries. The 2% is a target for what other NATO members pay for their own militaries.
If, for example, France does not increase its internal defense spending to an amount equal to 2% of its GDP, this does not create a liability for the US taxpayer. The US does not pay the cost for France's military.
There has been a tremendous amount of blatant misrepresentation on the PoliBoard over the years about this issue.
And thank you for this...
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:31 pm to TBoy
quote:
The US taxpayer does not pay anything on this commitment by other countries. The 2% is a target for what other NATO members pay for their own militaries.
I don't think anyone is saying that. People are saying we pay way more than other countries (and we do) who won't even do their extremely small part. But if Russia invaded them you can bet your arse they would expect the US to come waltzing in to save them.
The thing that irks me about it is when countries who are very much takers in terms of the alliance are the worst ones about doing it. They aren't contributing much even at the 2% level, and you can't even hit that?
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:35 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
I expect Trump to use the carrot and big stick approach to any negotiation. I doubt Putin will go for the carrot.
Putin can get all the carrots he wants from Belarus...
Knowing how Trump approaches things, the "carrot" will be dropping the sanctions and stopping the money drain on Russia...
which will just allow Putin to spend the money to build up arms again and take whatever part of Ukraine he leaves when he's ready.
I mean, you can't scream that releasing money to Iran fueled military action but doing so to Putin would just be a good move... though I'm sure that is what will be claimed.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:51 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
I don't think anyone is saying that. People are saying we pay way more than other countries (and we do) who won't even do their extremely small part. But if Russia invaded them you can bet your arse they would expect the US to come waltzing in to save them.
The thing that irks me about it is when countries who are very much takers in terms of the alliance are the worst ones about doing it. They aren't contributing much even at the 2% level, and you can't even hit that?
There is no way on earth that we will not spend more than any other country on the planet on our military... because we're huge, have by far the biggest economy, and have interests all over the place and need to project our power all around the globe.
We also have a huge nuclear arsenal that we actually spend the money to maintain.
And in all honesty, we underfund our military in a lot of areas.
Not every member country has the same needs.
And one criticism that is pretty much true is that NATO membership mostly means buying a lot of arms from the US, so it's kind of like a Sam's Club membership for fighter jets, etc.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:55 pm to VolSquatch
quote:
They aren't contributing much even at the 2% level
Again, they aren't "contributing..." they're spending 2% of their GDP on military funding... which means buying arms from US firms for the most part, because few others meet the specs...
I believe Hungary violated the specs and bought Russian air defense systems... I wonder if they're regretting that now?
Posted on 7/10/24 at 1:08 pm to Lee B
Joint Statement of Biden and Dutch and Danish Prime Ministers:
quote:
The Danish and Dutch governments are in the process of donating American-made F-16s to Ukraine, with the support of the United States.
The transfer process for these F-16s is now underway, and Ukraine will be flying operational F-16s this summer. We are unable to provide additional details at this time due to operational security concerns.
We are grateful to Belgium and Norway for committing to provide further aircraft, and to the other members of the Air Force Capability Coalition for their support.
We are committed to further enhancing Ukraine’s air capabilities, which will include squadrons of modern fourth generation F-16 multi-role aircraft. The coalition intends to support their sustainment and armament, as well as further associated training for pilots to enhance operational effectiveness.
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 7/10/24 at 1:19 pm to Lee B
quote:
Again, they aren't "contributing..." they're spending 2% of their GDP on military funding...
Them spending 2% on military IS a form of contributing when you're in an alliance.
Its set at a % to account for some countries like us being able to spend way more raw dollars.
The entire point is that if someone gets attacked the rest can help with defense.... if someone in an alliance has an underfunded military, they aren't able to help. That 2% should be looked at as paying dues.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 1:37 pm to GOP_Tiger
Posted on 7/10/24 at 1:42 pm to Lee B
quote:
American pilots and boots on the ground?
No, but American weapons and ammo for the Ukrainians.
quote:
Making sure the freedom caucus doesn't deprive Ukraine of aid for 7 months again?
They follow Trump’s lead.
quote:
"if Ukraine wins, what will be the benefit?’" - Trump to Congressional Republicans in private...
We win a peace dividend just as Reagan did.
Page 3966 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News