re: Can we just give the required 2% to NATO?

[quote]Trump is absolutely wrong when he suggests that, for example, France spending less than 2% of its own GDP on its own military causes some kind of burden on the American taxpayer. The American Taxpayer doesn't spend a farking dime to maintain France's military. Never has, never will. The issue is solely military readiness of each individual country. The 2% issue is solely a statement to each nation within the alliance that each should spend more of their own money on their own military forces. [quote]

European nations spending less that 2% on their military is a slap in the face of our taxpayers because it shows they are leaning on our military to protect them while they spend like crazy on social entitlement programs. If Russia were to invade Europe tomorrow, France would fold like a paper plate EXCEPT for the fact that our taxpayers are sacrificing to ensure their safety.

Sure, we could reduce our spending, but a Russian takeover of Europe would mean our military spending would have to increase SIGNIFICANTLY.

We don't think in these terms because we don't think Russia will ever invade Europe. Time magazine and Neville Chamberlain never thought Hitler would invade Poland either.

Military spending is all about readiness, and Europe isn't ready. They're fat and well-fed on the government teet because they assume they don't HAVE to be ready because of Big Brother Uncle Sam.

quote:

---

This is about what other countries spend of their own tax dollars on their own military. U.S. spending on its own military is not affected at all. That is our decision.

---

These other countries don’t have to spend anything on military because we are fricking idiots subsidizing their defense. That’s the whole point.

If we pulled out of NATO they’re fricked.

quote:

---

We are not just spending tax dollars to defend Europe, we are borrowing money and paying interest for years to to do it.

---

No, defense spending is required by the Constitution. Government pension, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, social assistance programs, farm bills, etc. are not. That's what we're borrowing money to fund.

Meh. We can still save money and move to Poland. That poor country has been invaded more times than Stormy's VaJayJay!

quote:

---

Trump said it's 4.2%

---

trump is a serial liar.

quote:

---

The problem is that you and all the other reckless republicans have no farking idea what you are talking abou

---

this is rich. Especially coming from you, a poster who is second only to texridder in being consistently ignorant.

What percentage of NATO's budget comes from the US? Let's see if you know what you are talking about. You do know NATO does have a budget right?

Also...what does the failure of other countries to fulfill their part cost the US in times of conflict?

quote:

---

What is stopping the U.S. from going from 3.5% to 2%?

---

The 2% requirement was total defense spending, not necessarily spending directly to NATO. The 3.5% of GDP is what the US spends as a whole on defense budget. We aren't reducing defense spending by 40%. Although if those EU countries wanted to call Trump's bluff, we can certainly reduce how much of that 3.5% goes towards NATO and spending on stationing so many troops in Europe.

quote:

---

We have decided that we will spend A LOT on the military.

---

quote:

---

If another NATO country is attacked, every other member, including the U.S, is obligated to help defend.

---

quote:

---

The target is that each country should to spend about 2% of its own GDP on its own military to maintain readiness.

---

quote:

---

Trump is absolutely wrong when he suggests that, for example, France spending less than 2% of its own GDP on its own military causes some kind of burden on the American taxpayer.

---

So we would never have fewer troops, or spend less money in Europe if all the NATO countries stepped up and paid what they agreed? And if NATO ever actually has to serve it's purpose and defend Europe, but the pussy Europeans haven't and can't provide for the military defense they need, who exactly does that job fall on, and who pays the bill?

So you're saying the countries agreed to spend a certain amount on their military to maintain readiness, but they're not following through? If there was need for immediate action the burden would be felt by the countries that are ready because the countries that are not prepared would have to make up for lost time. Based off your explanation I would say Trump was correct in his assessment.