@Xuan12 you’re still missing out on the logic. If they spent money, they could do more.
As it stands it’s costing Americans lots of money that can’t be sustained. They should do more since they benefit the same.
This has gone full circle. If you feel the need for a last word, go ahead. But I’m done here. You’ve shown hypocrisy and a lack of compassion for your fellow Americans. You seem to just want to spend money to no end.
@GardenSage Good Lord, you take it so personal. We benefit more, that's the point. They don't spend more because they have no hope of attaining enough to actually gain more influence, so they adjust their spending to what they believe they need and not what we ask for. Now change your screen name to snowflake already.
You spend more on your military capability than the next nine countries combined. You have more gun deaths every year than any other country in the developed world by a huge margin. You are currently involved in at least nine conflicts in various parts of the world. None of which pose a direct, tangible threat to you.
No, all it does is cost us more money than every other country, and they all hate us anyway. Just like our humanitarian gifts, we give them to other countries to help poverty and such things in other countries, the rulers stuff it in their pocket, and then they tell us that they hate us.
The reason I ask about dollars and mention Germany is that it has a large economy and is short on contributing its GDP percentage. These foreigners are taking advantage of us. Your chart shows it clearly. Most people would be stunned I’d they saw the actual dollars really contributed by the respective members. . @GardenSage
@jackjjackson lol and people are accusing me of this post. It’s being based on stats lmaoooooo... while not posting any stats of their own!!! Hahahahaha
They find the factual information you provided INCONVENIENTLY IRREFUTABLE so they’re attacking you personally. Page 3 of the leftist playbook. @GardenSage
Those who don't pay their fair share should be kicked out, it's not like most of them contribute anything anyway. They just want a free ride, for the US to shoulder the majority of the costs in dollars and lives.
To be honest, we can probably cut spending levels for most members anyway. The primary antagonist of NATO, Russia, has an economy in the toilet and even at around 7% GDP defense spending can only come up with a tenth of what the US alone spends.
@beckyromero We do actually have 5 carrier groups in the Atlantic. One in the Mediterranean, and one in the Red Sea, among the total of 11 US Carrier Groups. Add in the NATO European Carrier groups and the Total comes to 15 NATO Carrier Groups to Russia's 1. NATO also operates about twice over the number of open water submarines. And it's not like the pass isn't being monitored, it's Surrounded by NATO bases in Norway, the UK, and Greenland. And you don't need be right up in their faces to accomplish this either. Modern weapons can hit their target from hundreds of miles away.
And no, it doesn't defend the Baltic nation's, it defends their allies. Should we just not protect everyone else? I mean the Whole point of expanding NATO even after we said we wouldn't was to deter and contain Russia. If detterence has failed, we move to containment. The Baltic states are liberated when Russia can no longer afford to fight. Which probably won't take long considering their economy being as deep in the can as it is.
@Xuan12 [quote]We do actually have 5 carrier groups in the Atlantic. One in the Mediterranean, and one in the Red Sea, among the total of 11 US Carrier Groups. Add in the NATO European Carrier groups and the Total comes to 15 NATO Carrier Groups to Russia's 1.[/quote]
There were 15 aircraft carrier battle groups during the Reagan years.
5 in Atlantic 5 in Pacific 1 in Japan often 3 in the Med/Gulf 1 under going modernatization
[b]15[/b], as opposed to 11 now (with one of those undergoing modernization)
As for NATO, the British in the 80s had two or three, France had one.
Right now, the Royal Navy has one, the French one.
What other NATO allies have are not true aircraft carriers, but more like helicopter or small short take-off and vertical landing aircraft carriers, not much different than what those same navies had in the 80s, just with modernization.
And you're making the mistake of comparing the number of carriers to the Russians'.
The Russians have LAND-based aircraft that can attack our ships at sea. Their war would be one of sea-DENIAL. To prevent us from getting more troops and equipment to the European continent.
[quote]A new report from the Rand Corporation warned that NATO would be overwhelmed by superior Russian firepower in the event of war in Eastern Europe, despite years of trying to strengthen its forces in the region.
If war were to break out, the report warns, Russia could quickly overrun the Baltic region and use “brinksmanship to attempt to freeze the conflict,” according to lead author Scott Boston and colleagues.
While the report does not suggest that Russian aggression in the region is imminent, it argues that the growth of Russian military capability and its willingness to use force to achieve its goals must be met with “a more robust posture designed to considerably raise the cost of military adventurism against one or more NATO member states.”
The report says NATO has around 32,000 troops in the Baltics, compared with Russia’s 78,000. NATO is also outnumbered 757 to 129 in tanks, for which the wide, flat plains of Eastern Europe are a perfect hunting ground.
Russia “has retained a combined-arms force that emphasizes mobility and firepower and trains to conduct larger-scale combined-arms operations,” the report explains. “This gives Russian forces an important advantage in conflicts between mechanized forces close to their border.” [/quote] http://www.newsweek.com/russia-would-overrun-nato-european-war-report-warns-835146
[quote]The Baltic states are liberated when Russia can no longer afford to fight.[/quote]
@ImDone Other demographers and researchers use a wide range of dates to describe Generation X, with the beginning birth year ranging from as early as 1960[26][27] to as late as 1965,[16] and with the final birth year ranging from as early as 1976[28] to as late as 1984.[29][30] Due in part to the frequent birth-year overlap and resulting incongruence existing between attempts to define Generation X and Millennials, a number of individuals born in the late 1970s or early 1980s see themselves as being on the cusp "between" the two generations.[31][32][33][34] Names given to those born on the Generation X/Millennial cusp years include Xennials, The Lucky Ones, Generation Catalano, and the Oregon Trail Generation.[34][35][36][37][38]
You’re desperately trying to find an argument you can win... but you keep failing.
@GardenSage [quote]so it cant be trusted in anyone else’s hands?[/quote]
That was [u]already[/u] tried once in the 1920s and 30s.
[quote]And we should shoulder the burden of paying for it and simultaneously being hated for it. If I could know that’s true, I’d actually be okay with it.[/quote]
