Make America Favorable Again
-
He didn't ask anything of other countries. Rather he hurled accusations; some partially true, others wholly inaccurate and unfounded. Always impolite.
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
He didn't ask anything of other countries.
NATO funding?
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628137185/fact-check-trumps-claims-on-nato-spending
The Claim
At the same pre-plenary breakfast, Trump excoriated Germany, the biggest economic power in NATO after the U.S.:"Germany is just paying a little bit over 1 percent, whereas the United States in actual numbers is paying 4.2 percent."
True And False
Germany indeed devotes only about 1.25 percent of its GDP to defense. While it has boosted defense spending the past two years, Germany, like about half the other NATO members, does not plan to reach 2 percent by 2024.But Trump's claim that the U.S. is spending 4.2 percent of GDP is at odds with the Pentagon, which puts it at 3.3 percent.
NATO scholar Garret Martin says in any case, U.S. defense needs vastly surpass those of its European allies.
"We're not comparing apples to apples," notes Martin, a lecturer at American University's School of International Service. "The United States is a global military power with global military commitments.
"NATO and the trans-Atlantic geographical area is only a part of what the United States military does. That's not necessarily true for most of the European members of the alliance."
Trump exaggerated (damn, where's my shocked face?), to be sure. But note the nuance, LOL. The US spends more because it needs more. That's irrelevant. If the threshold is 2%, most countries aren't meeting it as of 2019.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
He didn't ask anything of other countries. Rather he hurled accusations; some partially true, others wholly inaccurate and unfounded. Always impolite.
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
He didn't ask anything of other countries. Rather he hurled accusations; some partially true, others wholly inaccurate and unfounded. Always impolite.
All 100% accurate
And always in the interest of the USA
And always twisted by the criminally insane media
-
If people are liking us, I find that to be bad news...
The Brad
-
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
He didn't ask anything of other countries.
NATO funding?
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628137185/fact-check-trumps-claims-on-nato-spending
The Claim
At the same pre-plenary breakfast, Trump excoriated Germany, the biggest economic power in NATO after the U.S.:"Germany is just paying a little bit over 1 percent, whereas the United States in actual numbers is paying 4.2 percent."
True And False
Germany indeed devotes only about 1.25 percent of its GDP to defense. While it has boosted defense spending the past two years, Germany, like about half the other NATO members, does not plan to reach 2 percent by 2024.But Trump's claim that the U.S. is spending 4.2 percent of GDP is at odds with the Pentagon, which puts it at 3.3 percent.
NATO scholar Garret Martin says in any case, U.S. defense needs vastly surpass those of its European allies.
"We're not comparing apples to apples," notes Martin, a lecturer at American University's School of International Service. "The United States is a global military power with global military commitments.
"NATO and the trans-Atlantic geographical area is only a part of what the United States military does. That's not necessarily true for most of the European members of the alliance."
Trump exaggerated (damn, where's my shocked face?), to be sure. But note the nuance, LOL. The US spends more because it needs more. That's irrelevant. If the threshold is 2%, most countries aren't meeting it as of 2019.
@george-k said in Make America Favorable Again:
NATO funding?
More could be spent that's true, 2 % seems reasonable, but it's not up to the POTUS to tell other countries how they should budget for defense. Especially when the primary goal of the US in establishing NATO following WWII was to make sure the members spent as little as possible on defense so that the US could and would retain overall command of the alliance' s structures and have unfettered military access to any member's territory should the need arise.
The alternative is that we all remain neutral and arm ourselves to the teeth.
Elbows up!
-
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
He didn't ask anything of other countries. Rather he hurled accusations; some partially true, others wholly inaccurate and unfounded. Always impolite.
All 100% accurate
And always in the interest of the USA
And always twisted by the criminally insane media
@copper said in Make America Favorable Again:
All 100% accurate
More like, all 100% bullshit.
How does Canadian steel and aluminum production constitute a security threat to the USA? That is what Trump maintained when he slapped tariffs on our steel and aluminum exports to the US.
Look it up.
-
@george-k said in Make America Favorable Again:
NATO funding?
More could be spent that's true, 2 % seems reasonable, but it's not up to the POTUS to tell other countries how they should budget for defense. Especially when the primary goal of the US in establishing NATO following WWII was to make sure the members spent as little as possible on defense so that the US could and would retain overall command of the alliance' s structures and have unfettered military access to any member's territory should the need arise.
The alternative is that we all remain neutral and arm ourselves to the teeth.
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
@george-k said in Make America Favorable Again:
NATO funding?
More could be spent that's true, 2 % seems reasonable, but it's not up to the POTUS to tell other countries how they should budget for defense. Especially when the primary goal of the US in establishing NATO following WWII was to make sure the members spent as little as possible on defense so that the US could and would retain overall command of the alliance' s structures and have unfettered military access to any member's territory should the need arise.
The alternative is that well all remain neutral and arm ourselves to the teeth.
I know, I know. We get slammed for not signing on to things that nobody honors. NATO countries agreed many years ago to 2%, our President didn’t jam it down their throat.
Oh it seems like the USA contributes more than all the NATO countries combined, yet they only like us when we say things that please them.
-
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
@george-k said in Make America Favorable Again:
NATO funding?
More could be spent that's true, 2 % seems reasonable, but it's not up to the POTUS to tell other countries how they should budget for defense. Especially when the primary goal of the US in establishing NATO following WWII was to make sure the members spent as little as possible on defense so that the US could and would retain overall command of the alliance' s structures and have unfettered military access to any member's territory should the need arise.
The alternative is that well all remain neutral and arm ourselves to the teeth.
I know, I know. We get slammed for not signing on to things that nobody honors. NATO countries agreed many years ago to 2%, our President didn’t jam it down their throat.
Oh it seems like the USA contributes more than all the NATO countries combined, yet they only like us when we say things that please them.
@loki said in Make America Favorable Again:
We get slammed for not signing on to things that nobody honors.
Exactly my point. If you sign on, follow the regulations and rules. That was Trumps (impolite) point.
I really don't care if the nuance is that it wasn't fair. The point is that is what the agreement was. You can participate and contribute, or you can leave.
Rules is rules.
-
@george-k said in Make America Favorable Again:
NATO funding?
More could be spent that's true, 2 % seems reasonable, but it's not up to the POTUS to tell other countries how they should budget for defense. Especially when the primary goal of the US in establishing NATO following WWII was to make sure the members spent as little as possible on defense so that the US could and would retain overall command of the alliance' s structures and have unfettered military access to any member's territory should the need arise.
The alternative is that we all remain neutral and arm ourselves to the teeth.
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
@george-k said in Make America Favorable Again:
NATO funding?
More could be spent that's true, 2 % seems reasonable, but it's not up to the POTUS to tell other countries how they should budget for defense. Especially when the primary goal of the US in establishing NATO following WWII was to make sure the members spent as little as possible on defense so that the US could and would retain overall command of the alliance' s structures and have unfettered military access to any member's territory should the need arise.
The alternative is that we all remain neutral and arm ourselves to the teeth.
Ok, I'm for the alternative...We're already armed to the teeth...
-
@renauda said in Make America Favorable Again:
@george-k said in Make America Favorable Again:
NATO funding?
More could be spent that's true, 2 % seems reasonable, but it's not up to the POTUS to tell other countries how they should budget for defense. Especially when the primary goal of the US in establishing NATO following WWII was to make sure the members spent as little as possible on defense so that the US could and would retain overall command of the alliance' s structures and have unfettered military access to any member's territory should the need arise.
The alternative is that we all remain neutral and arm ourselves to the teeth.
Ok, I'm for the alternative...We're already armed to the teeth...
-
If people are liking us, I find that to be bad news...
@lufins-dad said in Make America Favorable Again:
If people are liking us, I find that to be bad news...
Really??? Why is that? Do you think that the US is better off isolated and nationalist?
