- 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: Elon Musk says it is time to leave NATO and the UN
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:53 am to Harry Boutte
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:53 am to Harry Boutte
quote:Our portion is dispraportionately high. Everyone should have the same level of need as in protection, so do a budget and divide it by how many countries are in it now (what is 32?) and that's your portion of the bill. The rich kid, which is broke, should not pay more than anyone else. The current formula is broken.
Not really, it's mostly misinformation about how funding works in NATO. HINT: Everyone is all paid up on their dues, and pretty much always have been, the US doesn't ever pay anyone else's part.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 12:01 pm
2
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:57 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
threat of communism spreading isn't a threat anymore.
Oh yes it is, but the threat is within the NATO members themselves
Posted on 3/2/25 at 11:58 am to Ssubba
quote:
Big mistake to pull out. We're strengthened by Europe. You could just stay in NATO and reduce the money we give them. You can become more isolationist without giving up your influence on the world
The EU and Zylenski will eventually get the US involved in armed conflict with Russia if we allow it. Being part of NATO provides that possibility.
Nah, frick that... That's what the globalist want.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:00 pm to Reeaholic
quote:
What are the EU’s military capabilities?
It depends on the EU country.
quote:
You think that’s protecting them or is it in fact the US threat of military?
How about NEITHER. Maybe there's currently just no threat to their sovereignty.
quote:
70% of NATO’s military spending is from the US.
How much of that US military spending is just for NATO? Doesn't that also include all of our security spending for places like South Korea and Japan? Not to mention all of the patronage endemic to our defense spending structure?
quote:
it’s time for them to step up and be able to defend themselves also
Yeah, that's always worked out so well in the past.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:03 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Our portion is dispraportionately high.
That's an unsupported statement. Do you think we would spend less if other NATO members spent more?
The vast amount of spending we do on our military is not tied directly to NATO.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:06 pm to RollTide1987
Absolutely not true. We fricked with the Japs for years over Asian resources. Our masters in industry wanted them bad. Months after we cut off their oil supply they attacked. Hitler was stupid for signing a mutual defense pact with the japs. We’ve got to reign in the agencies known or unknown getting us in this shite. As simple as it sounds, “follow the money” is true.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:08 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
How much of that US military spending is just for NATO?
Moot point as we could use all of our military if needed for NATO
Let’s put it this way. Our GDP is 29 trillion. The rest of the NATO countries combined GDP is 24 trillion. In reality it should be we account for approximately 55% of NATO’s military spending and the rest account for 45%. Right now it’s 70 to 30. Also add in the fact that if we were to be attacked how much would they be able to help really compared to how much we are able to help. Do you think it’s the same level?
You say there is no threat right now, good then we can pull out and they’ll be fine right.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:11 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Without our power and influence, bad actors can rise and lead to the risk of global conflagrations that will kill tens of millions of people.
This has still happened despite the existence of the UN. Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind of bad actors that hit the million victim level. There’s also all the ones from the African continent.
Providing funding without accountability is foolish and dangerous. International organizations that are beyond a citizen’s line of recourse for accountability should not be given tax dollars provided by the citizen.
If the cause of the organization is worthy enough, let them raise their own funds. That will be the only path for accountability.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:14 pm to Reeaholic
quote:
In reality it should be we account for approximately 55% of NATO’s military spending and the rest account for 45%. Right now it’s 70 to 30.
Do you think our defense spending would go down if all NATO members defense spending went up? I say it would not.
quote:
You say there is no threat right now, good then we can pull out and they’ll be fine right.
Don't you think that might actually invite a threat?
Why get rid of something just because it's working?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:16 pm to John Barron
Absolutely
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:16 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
Don't you think that might actually invite a threat?
A threat to who?
Surely not us, so you must mean a threat to the NATO countries. Which proves my whole point that we are their “de facto” defense.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:19 pm to John Barron
Did Elon tell us how we'd replace all the military installations (our "checkmate" to Russian missile aggression) that we'd probably lose if we weren't a part of NATO? 
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:24 pm to Reeaholic
Do you think our defense spending would go down if all NATO members defense spending went up?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:33 pm to Harry Boutte
What does that have to do with them spending their fair share? Of course our defense budget will not be decreased, I’ve argued that nato countries need to up their defense budgets so they can take care of Europe because they haven’t and you just admitted it yourself.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:39 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
quote:
All NATO members are required to commit 3% of GDP toward national defense.
That's a lie.
The problem is that so many people have such strong opinions on NATO, and yet are completely ignorant of it
quote:
Only 11 of the 31 nations were predicted to spend more than 2% of their GDP on defense in 2023, according to NATO estimates published in July. Almost a decade ago, only three countries met that mark.
Even more NATO countries are estimated to meet the 2% threshold in 2024. All European allies are expected to spend 2% of the GDP in 2024 for the first time ever, Stoltenberg said.
LINK
Posted on 3/2/25 at 12:47 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Our portion is dispraportionately high. Everyone should have the same level of need as in protection, so do a budget and divide it by how many countries are in it now (what is 32?) and that's your portion of the bill. The rich kid, which is broke, should not pay more than anyone else. The current formula is broken.
We pay less than 16% of the common costs of running NATO, same amount as Germany and a little more than France and UK.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 1:09 pm to John Barron
Not YES but frick YES
Tired of supporting Countries who hate us
Posted on 3/2/25 at 1:13 pm to John Barron
I don't think these people knew what 'America First' really meant, but they're about to find the frick out.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 1:24 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:Should be 1/32!
We pay less than 16% of the common costs of running NATO, same amount as Germany and a little more than France and UK.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News