9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

And NATO does not only protect Europe. It protects US interests on a far bigger scale as well. The US gets reach, influence, forward bases, intelligence, logistics, stable trade partners, and trusted allies across a huge strategic area. That is not some minor detail. That is a massive strategic advantage.

Not any more. Europe is not needed for our defense. Thats the excuse you leeches use to justify sucking off our teet.

US out of NATO. Im old enough to remember when that was all over Europe LOL

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you think the spending is unimportant?

Do you think members that go year after year not meeting their monetary commitment should just be given a pass?

You have to remember what is realistic compared to what we contribute with. Didnt we team up in Afghanistan after a a few towers went down, and Usa acted like it was the end of the word ?

Look back on it, Usa was just shocked they got some of their own medicine back prime time, and a few thousands died, while the numbers of the revenge is still counting

Cynical said, but true

15 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Not any more. Europe is not needed for our defense. Thats the excuse you leeches use to justify sucking off our teet.

US out of NATO. Im old enough to remember when that was all over Europe LOL

You old enough, but not grateful or wise enough

9 hours ago, Hummin said:

I see you are among of those who do not understand what Nato is all about!

I am fully aware of what NATO is all about. Do you? If NATO members are unwilling to contribute their fair share, then the alliance will not perform effectively.For many years, NATO members did not contribute fairly and did not meet the agreed upon budget. As of 2024, 9 countries were significantly below the financial contributions; Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Montenegro, and Croatia. In 2025, most of these countries were supposed to have met the budget, but the data is not yet available to show that they did. Other countries, have been intentional laggards, doing the bare minimum; Italy and Germany were content to let the UK, France, and the USA carry the burden of defense. Even the UK is unable to secure its own foreign assets as it has neglected its navy and airforce.

An alliance does not work if its members are not contributing and participating fairly. If it had not been for Trump, Canada would never have met its 2% goal, nor started to invest in its own defense and air and sea rescue capability. As it is, Canada has still not made a purchase decision for some defense aircraft. The purchase has dragged on for 20+years. It only finally got around to building ships to reach its far north in the past few years. It is not reasonable to expect the USA to shoulder the burden of the alliance. It is Europe that is most at risk of Russian expansionism. The loss of the Baltic states and the millions of refugees that would result, would impact Europe, not the USA.

4 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

I am fully aware of what NATO is all about. Do you? If NATO members are unwilling to contribute their fair share, then the alliance will not perform effectively.For many years, NATO members did not contribute fairly and did not meet the agreed upon budget. As of 2024, 9 countries were significantly below the financial contributions; Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Montenegro, and Croatia. In 2025, most of these countries were supposed to have met the budget, but the data is not yet available to show that they did. Other countries, have been intentional laggards, doing the bare minimum; Italy and Germany were content to let the UK, France, and the USA carry the burden of defense. Even the UK is unable to secure its own foreign assets as it has neglected its navy and airforce.

An alliance does not work if its members are not contributing and participating fairly. If it had not been for Trump, Canada would never have met its 2% goal, nor started to invest in its own defense and air and sea rescue capability. As it is, Canada has still not made a purchase decision for some defense aircraft. The purchase has dragged on for 20+years. It only finally got around to building ships to reach its far north in the past few years. It is not reasonable to expect the USA to shoulder the burden of the alliance. It is Europe that is most at risk of Russian expansionism. The loss of the Baltic states and the millions of refugees that would result, would impact Europe, not the USA.

Whos numbers are these who do not contribute enough? Usa have been blackmaling members for years, but right now we are grateful to step up and leave, because Usa F up literally their chance to be the greatest empire throughout the history by greed. Think about it, we gave you almost everything you wanted, but it was not enough!

7 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

I am fully aware of what NATO is all about. Do you? If NATO members are unwilling to contribute their fair share, then the alliance will not perform effectively.For many years, NATO members did not contribute fairly and did not meet the agreed upon budget. As of 2024, 9 countries were significantly below the financial contributions; Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Montenegro, and Croatia. In 2025, most of these countries were supposed to have met the budget, but the data is not yet available to show that they did. Other countries, have been intentional laggards, doing the bare minimum; Italy and Germany were content to let the UK, France, and the USA carry the burden of defense. Even the UK is unable to secure its own foreign assets as it has neglected its navy and airforce.

An alliance does not work if its members are not contributing and participating fairly. If it had not been for Trump, Canada would never have met its 2% goal, nor started to invest in its own defense and air and sea rescue capability. As it is, Canada has still not made a purchase decision for some defense aircraft. The purchase has dragged on for 20+years. It only finally got around to building ships to reach its far north in the past few years. It is not reasonable to expect the USA to shoulder the burden of the alliance. It is Europe that is most at risk of Russian expansionism. The loss of the Baltic states and the millions of refugees that would result, would impact Europe, not the USA.

Do I have to remind you, we are not the reason Usa is bankrupt! You cant blaim that on us, but thats what sells among Mage supporters, there have to be an outside enemy, and thats who?

Lets blaim Europe, those bastards, not because we got F over by our own, and supporting Israel takes both dollars and reputation, hill Putin, blaim Zelensky and the rest of the europe, and not forget the poor immigrants who just wants to work a for dollar or two. Trow them out

Brilliant, good team work, nobody will understand the real reasons as long as we repeat it enough times,

Here we go, instant love of war.

Why do so many Americans want war, with anybody?

10 hours ago, Hummin said:

Whatch the world moves forward, and thats going to be without Usa. Canada and every other european country is teaming up, making new deals, and have new projects out of usa hands. And as the australian you are, who are Australia teaming up with ?

According to Jamie Dimon (who knows something about economics), the EU growth has fallen significantly compared to the GDP growth of the USA over the past 50 years. A graph I posted recently showed that, so has Canada's. You have 2 failing economies teaming up...

How do you think that's going to work out? Add in the suicidal empathy of net zero and mass unvetted 3rd World immigration to "prop up the dwindling population", and I'm forecasting Sharia Law and a 3rd world economy within a generation. But, what do I know? I'm no Jamie Dimon.

10 hours ago, Hummin said:

You have to remember what is realistic compared to what we contribute with. Didnt we team up in Afghanistan after a a few towers went down, and Usa acted like it was the end of the word ?

Look back on it, Usa was just shocked they got some of their own medicine back prime time, and a few thousands died, while the numbers of the revenge is still counting

Cynical said, but true.

Did you not understand the questions?

Do you think the spending is unimportant?

Do you think members that go year after year not meeting their monetary commitment should just be given a pass?

10 hours ago, Hummin said:

Whos numbers are these who do not contribute enough? Usa have been blackmaling members for years, but right now we are grateful to step up and leave, because Usa F up literally their chance to be the greatest empire throughout the history by greed. Think about it, we gave you almost everything you wanted, but it was not enough!

NATO funding is public information.

23 hours ago, Hummin said:

Do I have to remind you, we are not the reason Usa is bankrupt! You cant blaim that on us, but thats what sells among Mage supporters, there have to be an outside enemy, and thats who?

Lets blaim Europe, those bastards, not because we got F over by our own, and supporting Israel takes both dollars and reputation, hill Putin, blaim Zelensky and the rest of the europe, and not forget the poor immigrants who just wants to work a for dollar or two. Trow them out

Brilliant, good team work, nobody will understand the real reasons as long as we repeat it enough times,

The issue is NATO, not the financial status of the USA, nor is its support of Israel. The USA contributes 15% of the operating budget of NATO and approx. 60% of the overall national defense spending allocations. The USA is questioning, why it has to contribute so much while many countries do the bare minimum. If the USA reduced its defense spending it could address the financial issues that so worry you. Why do you expect the USA to have a large defense budget while countries like Spain, Italy and others do the bare minimum?

I support the concept of NATO. However, I do understand the USA's concern and position.NATO members did not act in good faith. Countries like Canada left the burden of their defense to the USA. Look at Canada. It does not have the capability of defending its sovereignty. It's available fighter aircraft is hovering at around 40 and it occupies the second largest land mass in the world. It does not have a naval fleet capable of securing its own coasts and waters from foreign fishing fleets and illegal transits. It does not have domestic airlift capacity to respond in the event of a natural catastrophe, like an Earthquake that levels Vancouver. It has 1 operating submarine in a fleet that was 4. Small Australia has 6. If it had not been for Trump, Canada would not be investing in its own security. It's like that for other NATO members as well, as though, not as bad. Germans want the US military bases closed. Fine. The USA can do that and save at least $3billion. It can still meet its NATO budget commitments. Germany can defend itself with the assistance of other Europeans. If and when Germany is attacked, the USA can assist as per Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Until then, the USA can save $3 billion+ per annum.

Europeans want it both ways: They want the USA to go away, but they expect the USA to be there to protect them. They complain about Putin, but they still allow Russian "tourism", and discrete financial transactions.

On 4/21/2026 at 10:26 AM, Hummin said:

Whos numbers are these who do not contribute enough? Usa have been blackmaling members for years, but right now we are grateful to step up and leave, because Usa F up literally their chance to be the greatest empire throughout the history by greed. Think about it, we gave you almost everything you wanted, but it was not enough!

NATO's published data. You are welcome to visit the NATO site and see for yourself.

And no, Europe is not stepping up. It offers lip service and lectures others.

What did you give me? Have you relinquished the exploitive economic chains that are choking Africa and Canada? Have you compensated the Asians, Latin Americans and Africans for the resources that were looted and the people enslaved?

It is Europe which left a legacy of colonial brutality.

On 4/21/2026 at 10:26 AM, Hummin said:

Whos numbers are these who do not contribute enough? Usa have been blackmaling members for years, but right now we are grateful to step up and leave, because Usa F up literally their chance to be the greatest empire throughout the history by greed. Think about it, we gave you almost everything you wanted, but it was not enough!

Europe needs to take responsibility and contribute more. As a US citizen, I am frustrated with my tax dollars being used to defend an ungrateful continent.

12 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Europe needs to take responsibility and contribute more. As a US citizen, I am frustrated with my tax dollars being used to defend an ungrateful continent.

12 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

NATO's published data. You are welcome to visit the NATO site and see for yourself.

And no, Europe is not stepping up. It offers lip service and lectures others.

What did you give me? Have you relinquished the exploitive economic chains that are choking Africa and Canada? Have you compensated the Asians, Latin Americans and Africans for the resources that were looted and the people enslaved?

It is Europe which left a legacy of colonial brutality.

Simple MAGA rhetoric. What Trump wants is not justice or principle, but for others to pay more for America’s mistakes, its wars, and the consequences of its own choices. He is not correcting empire, he is cashing out what is left of it. And in the end, your own side sold you out through greed, from what was once the best and most promising empire the modern world had seen.

Yes, Europe has a colonial legacy. Nobody serious denies that. But America is hardly in a position to lecture as if it stands outside war, coercion, exploitation, and imperial behaviour itself. So no, this is not some noble correction of history. It is grievance politics dressed up as strength.

And as for NATO, yes, the data exists. The real question is what you think it proves. Burden-sharing disputes inside alliances are normal. They do not suddenly prove that Europe contributes nothing or that the alliance has no value. Europe is already rearming and preparing for a future where American reliability can no longer be taken for granted.

The deeper irony is this: while you lecture Europe about empire, you cheer for a man who is actively dismantling the very alliance structure that gave the West its longest period of relative stability and strength.

17 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Simple MAGA rhetoric. What Trump wants is not justice or principle, but for others to pay more for America’s mistakes, its wars, and the consequences of its own choices. He is not correcting empire, he is cashing out what is left of it. And in the end, your own side sold you out through greed, from what was once the best and most promising empire the modern world had seen.

Yes, Europe has a colonial legacy. Nobody serious denies that. But America is hardly in a position to lecture as if it stands outside war, coercion, exploitation, and imperial behaviour itself. So no, this is not some noble correction of history. It is grievance politics dressed up as strength.

And as for NATO, yes, the data exists. The real question is what you think it proves. Burden-sharing disputes inside alliances are normal. They do not suddenly prove that Europe contributes nothing or that the alliance has no value. Europe is already rearming and preparing for a future where American reliability can no longer be taken for granted.

The deeper irony is this: while you lecture Europe about empire, you cheer for a man who is actively dismantling the very alliance structure that gave the West its longest period of relative stability and strength.

Your response to statements about NATO members not meeting there agreed to minimum financial obligation was: "Whos <sic> numbers are these who do not contribute enough?"

Then when you are informed the numbers are NATOs own numbers, and that the numbers are public, you go with: "Simple MAGA rhetoric."

Do you believe NATO members should be required to meet their agreed to financial obligations or not?

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Your response to statements about NATO members not meeting there agreed to minimum financial obligation was: "Whos <sic> numbers are these who do not contribute enough?"

Then when you are informed the numbers are NATOs own numbers, and that the numbers are public, you go with: "Simple MAGA rhetoric."

Do you believe NATO members should be required to meet their agreed to financial obligations or not?

I served in the north in 1989, when much of that infrastructure was still modern and operational. In the years that followed, a great deal of the old Cold War preparedness was scaled down or abandoned. Some of the more sensitive bunker infrastructure near the border disappeared from practical use so quickly that within a short time it already felt like history. This happened in the wider post-Cold War climate, when Europe reduced forces and preparedness as part of the broader arms-control and peace-dividend mindset that followed the Reagan-Gorbachev era and the easing of tensions with Russia.

And honestly, we were also pushed toward more professional and mobile forces, and even changed constitutional interpretations so armed forces could be used abroad in ways that were not strictly tied to traditional territorial defense. I have mentioned this in other discussions as well. But we keep going in circles here, with the same people, and with you, over and over again. The argument does not get better with repetition. It just gets more pointless every time.

And it is only in the last decade that the United States has been loudly demanding that Europe move back toward the expected spending and readiness goals. That is not something you reverse overnight. Decades of drawdown, restructuring, and political thinking do not disappear with the flick of a switch.

Were Germans who didn't support Hitler traitors?

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I served in the north in 1989, when much of that infrastructure was still modern and operational. In the years that followed, a great deal of the old Cold War preparedness was scaled down or abandoned. Some of the more sensitive bunker infrastructure near the border disappeared from practical use so quickly that within a short time it already felt like history. This happened in the wider post-Cold War climate, when Europe reduced forces and preparedness as part of the broader arms-control and peace-dividend mindset that followed the Reagan-Gorbachev era and the easing of tensions with Russia.

And honestly, we were also pushed toward more professional and mobile forces, and even changed constitutional interpretations so armed forces could be used abroad in ways that were not strictly tied to traditional territorial defense. I have mentioned this in other discussions as well. But we keep going in circles here, with the same people, and with you, over and over again. The argument does not get better with repetition. It just gets more pointless every time.

And it is only in the last decade that the United States has been loudly demanding that Europe move back toward the expected spending and readiness goals. That is not something you reverse overnight. Decades of drawdown, restructuring, and political thinking do not disappear with the flick of a switch.

The US has been complaining about NATO members not meeting their agreed to financial obligations for decades, it's only gotten noisy with Trump.

But to be clear, you do not believe NATO members should be required to meet the financial obligations they agree to, is that correct?

Do you believe NATO members should all be allowed to pick and choose which (is any) of their agreed to obligations they meet?

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The US has been complaining about NATO members not meeting their agreed to financial obligations for decades, it's only gotten noisy with Trump.

But to be clear, you do not believe NATO members should be required to meet the financial obligations they agree to, is that correct?

Do you believe NATO members should all be allowed to pick and choose which (is any) of their agreed to obligations they meet?

The real mistake was that we accepted all the necessary adjustments in the spirit of glasnost and post-Cold War optimism. I am glad the reversal is now happening, but it will not happen on American terms. It will happen on European terms. That is the difference.

It would also help if the U.S. understood how much Europe has contributed to the empire it built, and started treating us as allies rather than as dependents. The picture is not nearly as black and white as some would like to pretend.

And yes, Obama started making this demand. But military rebuilding is not instant. Investments take time, procurement takes time, planning takes time, and you do not just throw money into defense without knowing what to spend it on. Norway alone ordered 52 F-35s in 2012, and we are only about 5.3 million people.

What has changed now is that time suddenly feels shorter, because Trump clearly has plans of his own.

Worth mentioning

Glasnost gave Reagan an ending that looked almost cinematic from the American side. U.S.-Soviet tensions eased dramatically during his second term, and later U.S. official history even described the Cold War as ending nearly peacefully and largely on U.S. terms. In retrospect, Europe paid a price for the optimism that followed, because much of the old preparedness was allowed to fade.

Norways plans

Norway is undertaking a historic expansion of its defense capabilities under the Long-term Defence Plan 2025–2036, investing over NOK 1600 billion (approx. USD 150 billion) to bolster military strength against rising security threats. Beyond the major acquisitions of frigates, submarines, and helicopters, Norway is heavily investing in army modernization, long-range precision weapons, and surveillance technology. 

Regjeringen.no +3

Here is a breakdown of other key investment areas according to recent defense plans and government announcements:

1. Army and Land Systems Modernization

• Army Expansion: The army is being developed from one to three brigades, with a new Brigade South, plus reinforced structures in Troms and Finnmark.

• Artillery and Firepower: Substantial orders have been placed with Norwegian company Nammo for long-range, precision ammunition to support the army's K9 artillery guns, extending their range to over 40 km.

• Combat Vehicles: Investments include new medium-weight combat vehicles (CV90), armored reconnaissance systems, and new Main Battle Tanks (Leopard 2).

• All-Terrain Vehicles: Existing all-terrain vehicles and trucks are being replaced as they reach the end of their service life.

• Personal Equipment: Modernization of individual gear for soldiers, including advanced optics, night capacity equipment, personal protection, and clothing. 

  Regjeringen.no +3

2. Air Defence and Autonomous Systems

• Long-Range Air Defense: Norway is acquiring new, high-end long-range air defense systems designed to protect against short-range ballistic missiles.

• NASAMS Upgrade: The quantity of current NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) will be doubled, with upgrades to better defend against drones and missiles.

• Drone Initiative: A newly adopted drone strategy focuses on the integration of unmanned systems with manned systems, focusing on national solutions for command, control, and intelligence.

• Man-Portable Air-Defence System (MANPADS): Strengthening air defense for army units in the northern Finnmark region. 

  Regjeringen.no +2

3. Space-Based Tech, Surveillance, and Intelligence

• Surveillance Technology: Increased focus on satellite-based surveillance and long-range drones to maintain situational awareness in the High North and North Atlantic.

• Andøya Spaceport: Continued funding for the Andøya Spaceport to facilitate rocket testing and launch services, with dedicated budget items for military use.

• Electronic Warfare (EW): Significant investments in enhancing electronic warfare capabilities. 

  Regjeringen.no +4

4. Infrastructure, Munitions, and Logistics

• Stockpiling: Rapidly increasing stockpiles of munitions, spare parts, and fuel to enhance preparedness.

• Infrastructure for Allies: Upgrading military bases and facilities to improve the ability to receive and support Allied reinforcements.

• Property & Construction: Increased funding for modernizing barracks, offices, and maintenance facilities, including those at Ørland air base.

• Home Guard: The Home Guard (Heimevernet) will be increased to 45,000 personnel and receive better equipment, training, and surveillance capabilities. 

  Regjeringen.no +3

Summary of Major Projects (2025–2036)

• Submarines: Germany-Norway partnership to acquire 6 Type 212CD submarines (first delivery 2029).

• Frigates: 5 new anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates (Type 26).

• Helicopters: 6 new Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawks for maritime and Special Forces roles.

• Combat Aircraft: Continued investment in F-35 fighter jets and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft

On 4/21/2026 at 1:18 PM, Slowhand225 said:

Potash is also easily replaced from other sources. You act like they're the only game in town, hardly. We bought from them because it was convenient. Now, they are not so, we'll move on and spend our money somewhere else

Yes the us bought because convenient so now you can spend more of your money somewhere else and bear the cost. A bit dumb from a business point of view. But then...

On 4/21/2026 at 1:18 PM, Slowhand225 said:

Of course you can't be bothered, you're wrong.

Bleating on about how wrong a person is doesn't make your opinion right. It is a tad immature.

Of course you can always contradict my facts with imaginary "real" ones you have bothered to discover. Buy you can't because mine were researched.

Canadians don't care about your opinion. They'll just carry on doing business elsewhere because their neighbors are not appreciative and are no longer to be trusted.

14 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Bleating on about how wrong a person is doesn't make your opinion right. It is a tad immature.

Of course you can always contradict my facts with imaginary "real" ones you have bothered to discover. Buy you can't because mine were researched.

Canadians don't care about your opinion. They'll just carry on doing business elsewhere because their neighbors are not appreciative and are no longer to be trusted.

Researched by who ? Not you.
You made the claims and then refused to provide information when asked. In fact, you're so lazy you literally told me to do your work for you. 🤣
Its because you didn't have the answers because you made it up.

26 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The real mistake was that we accepted all the necessary adjustments in the spirit of glasnost and post-Cold War optimism. I am glad the reversal is now happening, but it will not happen on American terms. It will happen on European terms. That is the difference.

It would also help if the U.S. understood how much Europe has contributed to the empire it built, and started treating us as allies rather than as dependents. The picture is not nearly as black and white as some would like to pretend.

And yes, Obama started making this demand. But military rebuilding is not instant. Investments take time, procurement takes time, planning takes time, and you do not just throw money into defense without knowing what to spend it on. Norway alone ordered 52 F-35s in 2012, and we are only about 5.3 million people.

What has changed now is that time suddenly feels shorter, because Trump clearly has plans of his own.

Worth mentioning

Glasnost gave Reagan an ending that looked almost cinematic from the American side. U.S.-Soviet tensions eased dramatically during his second term, and later U.S. official history even described the Cold War as ending nearly peacefully and largely on U.S. terms. In retrospect, Europe paid a price for the optimism that followed, because much of the old preparedness was allowed to fade.

Norways plans

Norway is undertaking a historic expansion of its defense capabilities under the Long-term Defence Plan 2025–2036, investing over NOK 1600 billion (approx. USD 150 billion) to bolster military strength against rising security threats. Beyond the major acquisitions of frigates, submarines, and helicopters, Norway is heavily investing in army modernization, long-range precision weapons, and surveillance technology. 

Regjeringen.no +3

Here is a breakdown of other key investment areas according to recent defense plans and government announcements:

1. Army and Land Systems Modernization

• Army Expansion: The army is being developed from one to three brigades, with a new Brigade South, plus reinforced structures in Troms and Finnmark.

• Artillery and Firepower: Substantial orders have been placed with Norwegian company Nammo for long-range, precision ammunition to support the army's K9 artillery guns, extending their range to over 40 km.

• Combat Vehicles: Investments include new medium-weight combat vehicles (CV90), armored reconnaissance systems, and new Main Battle Tanks (Leopard 2).

• All-Terrain Vehicles: Existing all-terrain vehicles and trucks are being replaced as they reach the end of their service life.

• Personal Equipment: Modernization of individual gear for soldiers, including advanced optics, night capacity equipment, personal protection, and clothing. 

  Regjeringen.no +3

2. Air Defence and Autonomous Systems

• Long-Range Air Defense: Norway is acquiring new, high-end long-range air defense systems designed to protect against short-range ballistic missiles.

• NASAMS Upgrade: The quantity of current NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) will be doubled, with upgrades to better defend against drones and missiles.

• Drone Initiative: A newly adopted drone strategy focuses on the integration of unmanned systems with manned systems, focusing on national solutions for command, control, and intelligence.

• Man-Portable Air-Defence System (MANPADS): Strengthening air defense for army units in the northern Finnmark region. 

  Regjeringen.no +2

3. Space-Based Tech, Surveillance, and Intelligence

• Surveillance Technology: Increased focus on satellite-based surveillance and long-range drones to maintain situational awareness in the High North and North Atlantic.

• Andøya Spaceport: Continued funding for the Andøya Spaceport to facilitate rocket testing and launch services, with dedicated budget items for military use.

• Electronic Warfare (EW): Significant investments in enhancing electronic warfare capabilities. 

  Regjeringen.no +4

4. Infrastructure, Munitions, and Logistics

• Stockpiling: Rapidly increasing stockpiles of munitions, spare parts, and fuel to enhance preparedness.

• Infrastructure for Allies: Upgrading military bases and facilities to improve the ability to receive and support Allied reinforcements.

• Property & Construction: Increased funding for modernizing barracks, offices, and maintenance facilities, including those at Ørland air base.

• Home Guard: The Home Guard (Heimevernet) will be increased to 45,000 personnel and receive better equipment, training, and surveillance capabilities. 

  Regjeringen.no +3

Summary of Major Projects (2025–2036)

• Submarines: Germany-Norway partnership to acquire 6 Type 212CD submarines (first delivery 2029).

• Frigates: 5 new anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates (Type 26).

• Helicopters: 6 new Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawks for maritime and Special Forces roles.

• Combat Aircraft: Continued investment in F-35 fighter jets and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft

You claim: "And yes, Obama started making this demand. But military rebuilding is not instant. Investments take time, procurement takes time, planning takes time, and you do not just throw money into defense without knowing what to spend it on."

But hat is simply not true. It did not start with Obama. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush all complained about NATO members not meeting their financial commitments, long before Obama.

Again, it only got noisy with Trump, and as a result of the noise, finally, some of the slacking NATO members have stepped up spending and agreed increase spending. as has every

You went on to say: "Norway alone ordered 52 F-35s in 2012, and we are only about 5.3 million people."

Which is only because of the war in Ukraine and because Trump got noisy. I believe Norway had never met their financial commitment to NATO, and recommitted to the 2% in 2014, and did not finally meet it until 2024.

The USA has been complaining about NATO members not meeting their financial commitment since before I was born, and the first you heard of it was in 2014.

Why do refuse answer simple questions and have a back-and-forth discussion?

On 4/20/2026 at 6:18 PM, Jingthing said:

I'm really asking.

A lot of Canadians feel they are already at war with the U.S.

They know it's a Trump thing and most Americans woudn't support it but he is the kegally elected grand poobah mafia boss of the USA outfit.

So if this breaks out into something more real, I already know I will support CANADA over my own country.

I see this as Canada against Trump and I consider Trump a traitor to most everything good and decent about real American values.

But technically, wouldn't that make me and others traitors?

I wouldn't relish being a traitor but somehow that seems better than supporting Trump in TOTALLY EVIL MADNESS.

Well I too am an American, feel that I am very patriotic, spent 8 years or so in VN and military teaching US mil how to protect fellow soldiers and same with teaching ARVN troops and then worked for the government for 30 more years and truly love AMERICA and what it used to stand for. That is all gone now with the MAGA crew helping push Trump into the presidency, then the US Congress too afraid of Trump to counter any of his anti-US Constitution law changes or ignoring them totally. I do not favor anything about Trump except total impeachment of his and the entire administration that has supported him his first term and this term to date. I sure hope the Democrats win (I have never been a fan of the Democrat party nor the issues they support) but i do support them now to get rid of Trump and then hopefully trying to get the true American feelings trusted once again though IMHO it may take decades before that ever happens if even then. Voters since I became eligible to vote, have become apathetic more or less about the candidates and what they stand for. The rich and powerful learned to support monetarily , whichever candidate would support their continued drive for more wealth and power no matter which party IMHO anyway. I sure hope Trump is impeached sooner rather than later.

4 minutes ago, Presnock said:

Well I too am an American, feel that I am very patriotic, spent 8 years or so in VN and military teaching US mil how to protect fellow soldiers and same with teaching ARVN troops and then worked for the government for 30 more years and truly love AMERICA and what it used to stand for. That is all gone now with the MAGA crew helping push Trump into the presidency, then the US Congress too afraid of Trump to counter any of his anti-US Constitution law changes or ignoring them totally. I do not favor anything about Trump except total impeachment of his and the entire administration that has supported him his first term and this term to date. I sure hope the Democrats win (I have never been a fan of the Democrat party nor the issues they support) but i do support them now to get rid of Trump and then hopefully trying to get the true American feelings trusted once again though IMHO it may take decades before that ever happens if even then. Voters since I became eligible to vote, have become apathetic more or less about the candidates and what they stand for. The rich and powerful learned to support monetarily , whichever candidate would support their continued drive for more wealth and power no matter which party IMHO anyway. I sure hope Trump is impeached sooner rather than later.

I assume no data supporting your false claims about the unconstitutionality of what Trump is doing.

I bet you loved it when Obama had "a pen and a phone" and he told Congress to pi** up a rope, yes?

Power began steadily shifting from Congress to the president long before Trump. I agree it is a problem, and it needs to be reined in, but why do you only care when you do not like the president?

On 4/20/2026 at 6:18 PM, Jingthing said:

I'm really asking.

A lot of Canadians feel they are already at war with the U.S.

They know it's a Trump thing and most Americans woudn't support it but he is the kegally elected grand poobah mafia boss of the USA outfit.

So if this breaks out into something more real, I already know I will support CANADA over my own country.

I see this as Canada against Trump and I consider Trump a traitor to most everything good and decent about real American values.

But technically, wouldn't that make me and others traitors?

I wouldn't relish being a traitor but somehow that seems better than supporting Trump in TOTALLY EVIL MADNESS.

If you're a white, older, US citizen, you would not be welcome in Canada.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Swift said:

Were Germans who didn't support Hitler traitors?

Nazis thought so.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You claim: "And yes, Obama started making this demand. But military rebuilding is not instant. Investments take time, procurement takes time, planning takes time, and you do not just throw money into defense without knowing what to spend it on."

But hat is simply not true. It did not start with Obama. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush all complained about NATO members not meeting their financial commitments, long before Obama.

Again, it only got noisy with Trump, and as a result of the noise, finally, some of the slacking NATO members have stepped up spending and agreed increase spending. as has every

You went on to say: "Norway alone ordered 52 F-35s in 2012, and we are only about 5.3 million people."

Which is only because of the war in Ukraine and because Trump got noisy. I believe Norway had never met their financial commitment to NATO, and recommitted to the 2% in 2014, and did not finally meet it until 2024.

The USA has been complaining about NATO members not meeting their financial commitment since before I was born, and the first you heard of it was in 2014.

Why do refuse answer simple questions and have a back-and-forth discussion?

You are mixing three different things and pretending they are all the same.

Yes, the United States has complained about NATO burden-sharing for decades. But that is not the same as the modern 2% framework, which was politically locked in at the 2014 Wales Summit, where allies agreed to halt the decline and move toward 2% within a decade.

So when I say Obama started making this demand in the form we now keep debating politically, I am talking about the modern benchmark and the post-2014 pressure around it, not pretending no American president ever complained before that. Those are two different things.

And your Norway point is simply off. Norway’s F-35 decision was made in 2012, before the Wales pledge, before Trump’s noise campaign, and before the later stages of the Ukraine war changed the atmosphere again. So no, that was not something created by Trump shouting.

It is true that Norway did not reach NATO’s 2% guideline until 2024. But that still does not erase the fact that serious long-term investments were being made years earlier. Defense procurement is measured in years and decades, not in media cycles and campaign slogans.

And this is the part you keep avoiding: the United States was never just some innocent accountant standing outside the system. Up here in the north, we have long served as part of NATO’s, and in practice America’s, eyes and ears on Russia. Norway’s value was never only about a percentage on paper. It was geography, intelligence, the High North, maritime reach, and strategic positioning.

That is what you keep avoiding: what NATO is as a package, not just as a set of numbers.

40 minutes ago, connda said:

If you're a white, older, US citizen, you would not be welcome in Canada.

There's a lot of snarky insinuations to unpack there.

Canada has a points based system for normal migration. I've checked and do not qualify mostly based on age. I also don't qualify for Australia normal points basis or retirement visa. Canada has no retirement visa.

There is not one question about race on their survey for that.

So I'm guessing you're talking about their path for refugees. Whatever that is at the moment is their own damn business.

To contrast the main way to get refugee status in maga fascist Trump's America is to be a ... wait for it ... a WHITE South African.

That says a lot.

Simple numbers. The once mighty and proud Royal Navy has a grand total of 15 surface combat ships.

Fifteen.

If they are lucky, they can get 3 to sea at any one time. Their 2 carriers spend 90% of their time in port. Even France has more ships.

We can go on if you like. But it is an example of how NATO has slacked off and rode Uncle Sugar's coat tails for years.