Politics

[skydiver386]

Funny, when you stop paying for other countries defense you’re “unreliable”; I find that hilarious as the EU has been completely unreliable in paying their own NATO spending for decades.

Exactly!

 

[KJE81]

Poland and Lithuania seems to be on track to meet the new 5 percent baseline pretty soon, but most members still seems to be around 2-3 percent.

 

[Brent in Az]

For myself I like the word independent when it comes to polling companies. But perhaps it was the fact that it is a british polling company?

Unfortunately I dont think that Rasmussen Reports will make that kind of polling anytime soon, they are probably to busy with the US polling.

A reverse poll needs to taken.
If shit ever hits the fan for the USA, how many countries will be reliable allies to us?

It works both ways.

 

[Aaron N]

A reverse poll needs to taken.
If shit ever hits the fan for the USA, how many countries will be reliable allies to us?

It works both ways.

I guess you’re forgetting about Afghanistan, huh

 

[mdwest]

For myself I like the word independent when it comes to polling companies. But perhaps it was the fact that it is a british polling company?

Unfortunately I dont think that Rasmussen Reports will make that kind of polling anytime soon, they are probably to busy with the US polling.

The issue is its published by Politico, which is generally seen as left of center and conducted by a "London" based polling company (which would also be suspect of being pretty far left of center by most conservative Americans)..

 

[Brent in Az]

I guess you’re forgetting about Afghanistan, huh

This has nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Reread my post and let me know when it sinks in, huh.

 

[Aaron N]

This has nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Reread my post and let me know when it sinks in, huh.

I would say that NATO allies joining the fight is a decent enough example to not have to question their commitment to each other. Now threatening NATO members on the other hand….

 

[deewayne2003]

I think it is more a question of what Trump has said and done lately then about the demands on all Nato countries to meet the new 5 percent base line.

What Trump did was slap the tit out of EU leaders mouth, when cows wean their calves it's usually not done gently either but it's for the best.

There is no means or method on earth that would have resulted in appropriate UN NATO spending increases where the leaders of the EU would not act like teenage girls when daddy takes away the credit card.

Feelings got hurt and egos were crushed, I understand that.

However I cannot for the life of me understand why the people of Europe are mad at Trump for making their governments protect them as they should have been for the last 30+ years.

 

[deewayne2003]

Poland and Lithuania seems to be on track to meet the new 5 percent baseline pretty soon, but most members still seems to be around 2-3 percent.

View attachment 745567

I would GLADLY have Poland command all of the EU NATO nations; it seems like Poland has positioned themselves very well and has done so for years; if only the EU had listened to Poland years ago.

 

[Red Leg]

This has nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Reread my post and let me know when it sinks in, huh.

I read your post and it has everything to do with Afghanistan where our NATO allies supported us in combat. Denmark and the UK actually suffered more than double the annual combat-death rate of U.S. forces based upon comparing casualties to deployed forces. Those rates were closely followed by Canada and Estonia. Those deployments were a direct result of invocation of Article 5 (mutual defense) on 12 September 2001. The only time the clause has gone into effect. Let us know when it sinks in.

Yes, NATO should have been meeting its defense spending obligations before the Trump administration. It is clearly in Europe's interest to do so and 5% of GDP is not too much to ask of any nation to invest in its own security. I will be curious to see if the US practices what it is demanding of its allies. We are currently spend 3-3.4% depending upon how both GDP and defense spending are counted. Trump claims to want a 1.5 trillion defense package, but I will believe it when I see it.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

I guess you’re forgetting about Afghanistan, huh

It’s been more than twenty years since the invasion of Afghanistan, four presidents have come and gone, and an entire generation (in both Europe and the US) has come of age since then.

I’m not saying I necessarily agree with Brent but I think we have to be careful making predictions based on events from that long ago. It’s not ancient history but global politics have shifted quite a bit.

 

[mdwest]

I guess you’re forgetting about Afghanistan, huh

We've been down the Afghanistan path before.. Most of the world participated in Afghanistan.. it was not just NATO..

Australia
Jordan
Georgia
New Zealand
Sweden
Finland
South Korea
UAE
Azerbaijan
Bosnia
Ireland
Maylasia
Singapore
Tonga
El Salvador
Colombia
Macedonia
Switzerland
Ukraine
Kyrgestan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbeckistan
Pakistan
Japan
Egypt
and even RUSSIA

all participated to one degree or another.. NONE of those countries were members of NATO at the time they were involved in Afghanistan... None of them had an obligation to the US.. and most of the NATO members participating got involved for reasons not related to the US..

some of the countries listed above are not even remotely friendly toward the US.. many of those countries do minimal trade with the US.. and again, NONE of them were bound by any treaty, pact, alliance, or otherwise..

The world participated in Afghanistan because the world recognized it was in the worlds best interest to rid itself of the problem of Al Queda... The world participated in Afghanistan because many of those countries saw it as an opportunity to field test their troops and equipment in a tough environment and prove their battle readiness and to battle harden them (believe it or not, a lot of people in the military, regardless of which country they serve, WANT to go to war.. they are warriors.. its what they train their entire lives for.. they want to be proven.. and their countries want to know they are capable if/when the time comes and they are needed)..

Lets not forget that prior to the invasion in 2001, Al Queda had attacked not only the US, but had also attacked Germany and France (France multiple times)..

Plots were foiled where Al Queda planned on attacking Canada, Spain, and the UK.. Al Queda actively participated in the Bosnian war.. They supported militants in Russia (specifically Chechnyia)..

If you think everyone jumped in solely because of some loyalty to the US or even NATO.. youre fooling yourself..

Canada specifically knew it would be attacked sooner or later by Al Queda (again, multiple plots had already been foiled prior to 2001)..

And.. if we want to play the "remember Afghanistan" game... I'd ask, where was Canada and most of NATO in Iraq? Where was France? What about Germany? how about Belgium?

Article 5 was invoked on Sept 12, 2001.. All 18 members of NATO unanimously voted in favor.. there was not a single vote of dissent.. everyone WANTED to take out Al Queda.. it was in each countrys national interest and in the collective interest of all of NATO..

Iraq was a "coalition of the willing".. the US literally said they would accept the assistance of anyone that wanted to be involved..

And the most of the largest militaries in NATO outside of the US chose to sit on the sidelines..

While, oh by the way, several NON NATO countries did get directly involved in Iraq... Australia, Ukraine, El Salvador, South Korea, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, Japan, and many others (43 nations in total) all fought in Iraq... but.. again... Germany, France, Canada, and Belgium.. all NATO members.. all large forces in NATO.. sat it out..

In fact, Canada went so far as to declare it would not go to Iraq unless the UN mandated it...

 

[wesheltonj]

Poland and Lithuania seems to be on track to meet the new 5 percent baseline pretty soon, but most members still seems to be around 2-3 percent.

View attachment 745567

My Friend what did graph look like before Trump? Hint, all but three were under 2%. The NATO countries are upset because Trump wants you to pay more. Had everyone been paying the 2% to begin with, you would not be getting your collective feelings hurt. But, frankly your countries will be better off and actually prepared.

 

[Aaron N]

We've been down the Afghanistan path before.. Most of the world participated in Afghanistan.. it was not just NATO..

Australia
Jordan
Georgia
New Zealand
Sweden
Finland
South Korea
UAE
Azerbaijan
Bosnia
Ireland
Maylasia
Singapore
Tonga
El Salvador
Colombia
Macedonia
Switzerland
Ukraine
Kyrgestan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbeckistan
Pakistan
Japan
Egypt
and even RUSSIA

all participated to one degree or another.. NONE of those countries were members of NATO at the time they were involved in Afghanistan... None of them had an obligation to the US.. and most of the NATO members participating got involved for reasons not related to the US..

some of the countries listed above are not even remotely friendly toward the US.. many of those countries do minimal trade with the US.. and again, NONE of them were bound by any treaty, pact, alliance, or otherwise..

The world participated in Afghanistan because the world recognized it was in the worlds best interest to rid itself of the problem of Al Queda... The world participated in Afghanistan because many of those countries saw it as an opportunity to field test their troops and equipment in a tough environment and prove their battle readiness and to battle harden them (believe it or not, a lot of people in the military, regardless of which country they serve, WANT to go to war.. they are warriors.. its what they train their entire lives for.. they want to be proven.. and their countries want to know they are capable if/when the time comes and they are needed)..

Lets not forget that prior to the invasion in 2001, Al Queda had attacked not only the US, but had also attacked Germany and France (France multiple times)..

Plots were foiled where Al Queda planned on attacking Canada, Spain, and the UK.. Al Queda actively participated in the Bosnian war.. They supported militants in Russia (specifically Chechnyia)..

If you think everyone jumped in solely because of some loyalty to the US or even NATO.. youre fooling yourself..

Canada specifically knew it would be attacked sooner or later by Al Queda (again, multiple plots had already been foiled prior to 2001)..

And.. if we want to play the "remember Afghanistan" game... I'd ask, where was Canada and most of NATO in Iraq? Where was France? What about Germany? how about Belgium?

Article 5 was invoked on Sept 12, 2001.. All 18 members of NATO unanimously voted in favor.. there was not a single vote of dissent..

Iraq was a "coalition of the willing".. the US literally said they would accept the assistance of anyone that wanted to be involved..

And the most of the largest militaries in NATO outside of the US chose to sit on the sidelines..

While, oh by the way, several NON NATO countries did get directly involved in Iraq... Australia, Ukraine, El Salvador, South Korea, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, Japan, and many others (43 nations in total) all fought in Iraq... but.. again... Germany, France, Canada, and Belgium.. all NATO members.. all large forces in NATO.. sat it out..

In fact, Canada went so far as to declare it would not go to Iraq unless the UN mandated it...

Well maybe most NATO countries realized that the whole Iraq thing was to try and finish off what Sr started? (I’m looking you “Weapons of Mass Destruction”)

Anyway, your a smart man, smarter than I am, so I bet you don’t believe that NATO counties would leave America high and dry should something happen. And I don’t believe America would either, but there sure as hell would be strings attached. Donny doesn’t seem to do anything out of the goodness of his heart.

Edit: If you don’t, then that’s a worry, because you are privy to some inside information

 

[Aaron N]

It’s been more than twenty years since the invasion of Afghanistan, four presidents have come and gone, and an entire generation (in both Europe and the US) has come of age since then.

I’m not saying I necessarily agree with Brent but I think we have to be careful making predictions based on events from that long ago. It’s not ancient history but global politics have shifted quite a bit.

They have shifted, but it’s amazing how quickly priorities can be re-aligned once a rally cry has been sent out.

 

[KJE81]

My Friend what did graph look like before Trump? Hint, all but three were under 2%. The NATO countries are upset because Trump wants you to pay more. Had everyone been paying the 2% to begin with, you would not be getting your collective feelings hurt. But, frankly your countries will be better off and actually prepared.

I think that by now the general feeling in Europe is that Trump demanding the increase in defense spending is actually a good thing. At least thats how it is framed by most media outlets here in Europe and also by most politicians.

And I would also think that now when many europeans feel that the US might not be interested in honoring article 5 anymore, that they will in a way be grateful that Trump made them start to increase defense spending earlier then might otherwise been the case.

 

[mdwest]

Well maybe most NATO countries realized that the whole Iraq thing was to try and finish off what Sr started? (I’m looking you “Weapons of Mass Destruction”)

Anyway, your a smart man, smarter than I am, so I bet you don’t believe that NATO counties would leave America high and dry should something happen. And I don’t believe America would either, but there sure as hell would be strings attached. Donny doesn’t seem to do anything out of the goodness of his heart.

Whether Iraq thing was to finish off what Sr started or not is completely inconsequential..

If the argument is going to be made that NATO is "loyal" to the US and is going to support whatever the US demands.. well.. that is clearly false... some of NATO chose to support the US in Iraq... and some of NATO chose not to...

24 Canadians died on 9/11... 67 brits died on 9/11... 11 Germans.. 3 French.. 10 Italians.. 1 from Spain.. 1 from Sweden.. Perhaps all of those countries had skin in the game on 9/11, and that was a motivator for them all voting yes to Article 5 on 9/12?

I dont believe NATO would leave the US high and dry.. not because of any loyalty to the US.. most of Europe and much of Canada has made it pretty clear what they think of the US.. and not just when Trump is in office (if just gets worse with Trump).. they wouldnt leave the US high and dry, because its simply not in their interest to do so... no matter how much NATO might hate to admit it, NATO is incredibly vulnerable without the US, and NATO knows it..

I also dont think the US would leave NATO high and dry... if anyone has missed it, the US is pretty warlike... 20+ years in Iraq and Afghanistan.. Syria.. Gulf War 1, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam.. strikes in Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela, Iran, etc..etc.. all are in just my lifetime.. The US isnt going to miss an opportunity to flex muscles and push its military might.. if NATO calls, the US will be there.. anyone that thinks otherwise is clearly not paying attention...

The US however wont get involved because its being "nice".. it will get involved because it is in its national interest to do so.. the list of benefits for the US war machine staying engaged (both in peacetime and in war) is lengthy..

 

[Brent in Az]

I read your post and it has everything to do with Afghanistan where our NATO allies supported us in combat. Denmark and the UK actually suffered more than double the annual combat-death rate of U.S. forces based upon comparing casualties to deployed forces. Those rates were closely followed by Canada and Estonia. Those deployments were a direct result of invocation of Article 5 (mutual defense) on 12 September 2001. The only time the clause has gone into effect. Let us know when it sinks in.

Yes, NATO should have been meeting its defense spending obligations before the Trump administration. It is clearly in Europe's interest to do so and 5% of GDP is not too much to ask of any nation to invest in its own security. I will be curious to see if the US practices what it is demanding of its allies. We are currently spend 3-3.4% depending upon how both GDP and defense spending are counted. Trump claims to want a 1.5 trillion defense package, but I will believe it when I see it.

No it doesn't
MY POST WAS MEANT THAT IF WAR EVER BROKE OUT ON AMERICAN SOIL WOULD WE HAVE RELIABLE ALLIES WE COULD COUNT ON TO COME TO OUR DEFENSE.
Would these other countries rally and load up ships and airplanes and come across the ocean in our defense at great cost to themselves?
As we did in the world wars.

Big difference between that , and ganging up in some piss ant country in the middle east

 

[Tanks]

A reverse poll needs to taken.
If shit ever hits the fan for the USA, how many countries will be reliable allies to us?

It works both ways.

How many countries were in Afghanistan after 9/11? It was the only time Article 5 was invoked.

I have no doubt if a NATO country were invaded/attacked Trump's first reaction would be "What's in it for me?"

We already know he speaks loudly and carries a twig. Look at what he did with Iran, told people of Iran that he was with them, gave ultimatums to mullahs about killing demonstrators and TACOed even though tens of thousands seem to be killed and more to come.

Edit: Oooops, I guess others posted the same thing for the most part.

 

[Tanks]

You can't make this stuff up. Bizarro world.

Uproar after Iran named vice-chair of UN body promoting democracy, women’s rights

Iran's appointment as vice-chair of UN Commission for Social Development faces sharp criticism from human rights advocates and Iranian activists calling it a 'mockery'.

www.foxnews.com