That's awesome dude. It doesn't change my opinion. Or reality.
The world needs a shake up. No, actually, it needs an enema. Too many globalists have been pushing us around for too long. Shake, rattle and roll. In the end, we'll be just fine. I understand the strategy well. As an America first kind of guy, this works. The other countries we help protect need to pay up.
The world needs a shake up. No, actually, it needs an enema. Too many globalists have been pushing us around for too long. Shake, rattle and roll. In the end, we'll be just fine. I understand the strategy well. As an America first kind of guy, this works. The other countries we help protect need to pay up.
The world needs a shake up. No, actually, it needs an enema. Too many globalists have been pushing us around for too long. Shake, rattle and roll. In the end, we'll be just fine. I understand the strategy well. As an America first kind of guy, this works. The other countries we help protect need to pay up.
The world needs a shake up. No, actually, it needs an enema. Too many globalists have been pushing us around for too long. Shake, rattle and roll. In the end, we'll be just fine. I understand the strategy well. As an America first kind of guy, this works. The other countries we help protect need to pay up.
The world needs a shake up. No, actually, it needs an enema. Too many globalists have been pushing us around for too long. Shake, rattle and roll. In the end, we'll be just fine. I understand the strategy well. As an America first kind of guy, this works. The other countries we help protect need to pay up.
And you think the US will lower its defense spending if Europe raises there's? LOL.
Here's an idea. If we think Europe isn't paying its fair share, we can just lower our own defense spending to bring it closer to what they spend in Europe as a percentage of GDP. The US and its NATO allies already outspend Russia and China combined by about five fold. Collectively we do not need this level of spending. But Trump has already raised ours, and he wants Europe to raise theirs. Doesn't make any sense to me.
Well it seems like Trump is satisfied with NATO for now.. But who know what will be tweeting in a few hours..
In a statement to The Post, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, "[Kelly] was displeased because he was expecting a full breakfast and there were only pastries and cheese."
It's almost like she has just said "Fuck it, fire me. I don't care any more" to see what she can get away with now.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...germany/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c517d62147dd
HAHAHAHA! This is fucking great!
If NATO allows one of its member states to be invaded without responding, then NATO is a dead letter, not just for the Baltic States but for the whole 29-member alliance. Collective security is the only way to make an aggressor behave. Want to avoid a war? Don't give an inch of an ally's territorial integrity to a hostile power. Especially if you expect collective allies come together when that hostile power tangles with you.
What would be the effect on the European countries themselves if NATO is allowed to collapse, and Europe goes back to being the sort of neighborhood where sovereign states and Russia routinely invade each other and take bites out of each other's territories?
So, we need to make 100% crystal clear to Vladimir Putin that:
An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain security.
There is no asterisk after "one or more of them" except for the countries on the list in the Secret Protocol of the Putin-Trump Pact. Unfortunately, Trump (aided and abetted by the oh-so-uber-patriotic Republican Party) has already dangerously weakened the collective institutions and treaty's the United States and the world depend upon for their peace and security.
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine if Russia invades a country that doesn't bother to spend it's 2% on its own defense, waiting to take our good sweet time to come to their defense so when they are liberated there's little left of their country once the Russians get done plundering it.
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine if Russia invades a country that doesn't bother to spend it's 2% on its own defense, waiting to take our good sweet time to come to their defense so when they are liberated there's little left of their country once the Russians get done plundering it.
Thing is Glenn nearly all will hit the benchmark by 2024 and most will hit it next year. This is Obama’s work, who appeared to take the handoff from Bush who originally brought the issue up.
Trump has done nothing.
The 2% mark is a meaningless and arbitrary one anyway. Countries have defense needs that exist at a certain level that does not depend on their GDP.
It's almost like using US spend as a benchmark is bad because we are directly and actively involved in numerous wars/conflicts. I mean those don't cost anything and we've really spent that money on beefing up EU defense lol.
Realistically you are fine with Russia invading other countries. The distinction between 1.75 and 2% can't possibly be the determining factor.I'm fine with that. I'm also fine if Russia invades a country that doesn't bother to spend it's 2% on its own defense, waiting to take our good sweet time to come to their defense so when they are liberated there's little left of their country once the Russians get done plundering it.
Realistically you are fine with Russia invading other countries. The distinction between 1.75 and 2% can't possibly be the determining factor.
While member nations should live up to their spending commitments you can't treat NATO like some country club. "Hey moocher, you're behind 2 month's dues so we are kicking you out.". NATO ain't Mara Lago
Not just wars, but our entire military posture is designed to be expensive because of the goals we have set for ourselves as we insist on command of the global commons and the ability to project force into other people's territory. (the commons being the seas outside territorial waters and airspace above 15,000 feet) The military hardware and training necessary to do that is an order of magnitude more expensive than what it costs to set up local defenses. A good example is that if defense of your territorial waters from ships was your primary goal a fleet of relatively cheap diesel submarines would work just fine instead of super expensive nuclear subs. (in some ways better as diesels are quieter than nukes when running on batteries). Surface to air missile batteries are way cheaper than maintaining a worldwide air force, etc, etc.
In short we spend so much money on our military because we want to make it so if you piss us off there's basically nowhere on earth we can't reach you. Anyone who thinks our military spending is driven by defending Europe is a fucking idiot.
I'm fine with that. I'm also fine if Russia invades a country that doesn't bother to spend it's 2% on its own defense, waiting to take our good sweet time to come to their defense so when they are liberated there's little left of their country once the Russians get done plundering it.
I'm fine with the world containing the US as cancer. I'm also thinking that Europe should develop a worldwide and robust nuke problem, state of the art, and point some missiles towards DC, then kick us out. If you are good with killing alliances and Putin invading and killing Europeans I'm fine with the Euros treating us as enemies.