5 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Andrew Tate could not enter Canada even if he wanted to because he is inadmissible. The legal charges and indictments arsing from alleged human trafficking and rape have done that. It's like a Pattaya punter staying in a shared toilet fan room saying he wouldn't buy a luxury villa in Krabi because he doesn't like the number of farangs there. 😁

And because he "can't own the land"!

On 4/26/2026 at 4:51 PM, Yellowtail said:

Oh, name calling how clever, you must be a man of the left, yes?

On 4/26/2026 at 4:51 PM, Yellowtail said:

Oh, name calling how clever, you must be a man of the left, yes?

On 4/26/2026 at 4:51 PM, Yellowtail said:

Oh, name calling how clever, you must be a man of the left, yes?

.... you must be 'a man of th lef, yes?'

What a stuipid ignorant comment.

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

.... you must be 'a man of th lef, yes?'

What a stuipid ignorant comment.

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

.... you must be 'a man of th lef, yes?'

What a stuipid ignorant comment.

Guess I hit a nerve, sorry brother.

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Guess I hit a nerve, sorry brother.

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Guess I hit a nerve, sorry brother.

OK. I was brought up in a society where sharing / community sharing was the norm and everybody helped to ensure kids had food, clothes etc. and more, and I never once heard 1 peson object to sharing / contributing.

If that labels me as 'a man of the left' that makes me proud.

6 minutes ago, scorecard said:

OK. I was brought up in a society where sharing / community sharing was the norm and everybody helped to ensure kids had food, clothes etc. and more, and I never once heard 1 peson object to sharing / contributing.

That's how I grew up as well. and then the government took it over the whole thing turned to sh*t.

6 minutes ago, scorecard said:

If that labels me as 'a man of the left' that makes me proud.

No, that's not what labels you a leftist, that's what labels me a liberal.

Oh, the pearl-clutching irony, it is to laugh.

On 4/21/2026 at 9:09 AM, fredwiggy said:

Trump's is power and not money. He was a billionaire so he wanted to be God. If he would help the common man in America more, he would be looked at more favorably.

You've got to be kidding. So the reason Trump and family set up a crypto company was just for fun? And all the other wheeling and dealing that they are doing with foreign government was just to pass the time? And it's a sure thing that his lawsuit against the IRS for $10 billion is just a prank?

Of course, Americans who would support Canada are NOT traitors.

They are the majority actually. Most Americans are decent. Trump and his maga fascist regime are indecent.

On 4/26/2026 at 11:12 AM, Yellowtail said:

I know

Then % of GDP measure is fairly arbitrary. In principle, it should cost the same for the US to defend itself if was half as rich, compared to now. 2% was arrived at because at the time that was the level most spent at. The problem is when you disentangle defence commitments you get very different pictures of what countries spend their defence budget on.

For instance, France and the UK are nuclear powers; so a portion of their budgets are spent on maintaining and upgrading those (roughly 15-20%).

The problem what a lot of people don't realise is that NATO does not treat "defence exenditure" as the same as "defence budget". For instance, for some NATO members, military pensions are not 50%pai d out of defence ministry budgets. So there are two numbers. So the UK's MOD has a $65bn budget, 2% of GDP using the Daily Express headline. But the UK provides the code of NATO's intelligence capabilities, and so including that, plus all the military pensions an widows benefits as a result of fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, actual spend rises to 2.5% of GDP.

ea

But not all members have the same defence commitments. Besides their nuclear deterrant, the US, UK and France also have, to varying degrees, global expeditionary capabilties outside of the operational area of NATO. There are British. American and French troops all over the world, for reasons that are to do with national priorities, not international partner priorities. But you don't see Polish and German troops on the other side of the world, largely because they have very different histories.

So the headline numbers

US defence spending, based on NATO definition: ~$920bn, 3.5% GDP

US defence spending, based on Pentagon rules: ~$860bn, 3.3% GDP

Stripping out non-US Homeland, non-NATO; 50% of Pentagon spend (conservative, some put it at 70%): $430bn, 1.4% GDP actual spend on US/NATO defence

UK defence spending, based on NATO definition: ~$75bn, 2.3% GDP

UK defence spending, based on MOD rules: ~$65bn, 2.0% GDP

Stripping out non-Home Nations , Non-NATO: 65% of MOD spend: ~$42bn, 1.1% GDP

France defence spending, based on NATO definition: ~$70bn, 2.1% GDP

France defence spending, based on Ministre des Armées rules: ~$65bn, 2.0% GDP

Stripping out non-Department, non-NATO: 60% of MdA spend: ~$39bn, 1.1% GDP

Germany defence spending, based on NATO definiton: ~$105bn, 2.2% GDP

Germany defence spending, base on BMVg rules: ~$95bn, 2.0% GDP

Stripping out non-Bund, non-NATO: 90% of BMVg spend: $86bn, 1.6% GDP

Poland defence spending, based on NATO definition: $40bn, 4.2% GDP

Poland defence spending, based on MON rules: $45bn, 4.0 GDP

Stripping out non-Polski, non-NATO: 90% of MON spend: $41bn, 3.9% GDP

Puts a very different spin on how much countries are paying for their own direct national defence.

Of course, the US, UK and France can't just forget about their international interests, especially the US/UK as Atlantic nations. But it illustrates why latching on to "2% of GDP" is flawed; it was a simplistic political goal that has little basis in reality.

Of course even things line the 1.4% of US GDP spend is simplistic, because you cannot disregard US expeditionary capability, which comes into play if Europe needed to be reinforced rapidly, or UK global intelligence listening posts which are vital for NATO early warning.

It would have been better to agree spending targets on , the capabilties. For instance, the Baltic states are always going to have very small GDPs, and basing defence spending on GDP won't go far on buying 5th Gen US aircraft or German tanks. But it would go a long way in supporting high tech drone defence units, military medicine. Similarly the Czechs; I've worked with their CBRNe chaps, absolutely first rate, unmatched subject matter knowedge bar none, so they can provide core NATO CBRne capabilties. Rather than spreading resources over a broad range of capabilties, and doing none well, focus on your strengths. NATO already does this to an extent.

Obviously having a spending target is useful to avoid accusations of "freeloaders", but the messaging needs to shift, away from frankly untrue insults directed at members towards acknowledging the incredible capabilities that NATO possesses that are not the result of just one or two members, but the result of a genuine alliance of democratic equals.

Fully optimised NATO;

United States — “System backbone”

Primary roles:

• Strategic lift (air & sea)

• Global ISR, satellites, intelligence fusion

• Missile defence architecture

• Nuclear umbrella

• High-end airpower scaling

Poland + Eastern flank — “Heavy land shield”

Countries: Poland, Romania, Finland (increasingly), others nearby

Primary roles:

• Massed land forces (tanks, artillery)

• Forward defence

• Territorial depth and resilience

Germany — “Logistics & industrial hub”

Primary roles:

• Rear-area logistics (transport, maintenance, supply chains)

• Armoured formations (but not primary mass provider)

• Defence industrial base (production, repair, sustainment)

• Command and control infrastructure

United Kingdom — “Expeditionary + maritime edge”

Primary roles:

• Carrier strike groups

• Special forces

• High-end airpower

• Nuclear deterrent (shared strategic role)

• North Atlantic security

France — “Autonomous strike & southern flank”

Primary roles:

• Independent expeditionary capability

• Mediterranean & African security

• Nuclear deterrent

• High-end air and naval strike

Italy & Spain — “Mediterranean control”
Primary roles:

• Naval forces (Mediterranean dominance)

• Air policing southern Europe

• Amphibious operations

Turkey — Regional power & gatekeeper

Primary roles:

• Black Sea security

• Large standing army

• Drone warfare and regional projection

Baltic States — Denial & tripwire, Countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

Primary roles:

• Territorial defence

• Anti-armour, air denial

• Host-nation support for NATO forces

• Norway, Denmark, Netherlands — “High-end niche specialists”
  Primary roles

• Submarine hunting (ASW)

• F-35 airpower integration

• Naval-specialised roles

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Then % of GDP measure is fairly arbitrary. In principle, it should cost the same for the US to defend itself if was half as rich, compared to now. 2% was arrived at because at the time that was the level most spent at. The problem is when you disentangle defence commitments you get very different pictures of what countries spend their defence budget on.

For instance, France and the UK are nuclear powers; so a portion of their budgets are spent on maintaining and upgrading those (roughly 15-20%).

The problem what a lot of people don't realise is that NATO does not treat "defence exenditure" as the same as "defence budget". For instance, for some NATO members, military pensions are not 50%pai d out of defence ministry budgets. So there are two numbers. So the UK's MOD has a $65bn budget, 2% of GDP using the Daily Express headline. But the UK provides the code of NATO's intelligence capabilities, and so including that, plus all the military pensions an widows benefits as a result of fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, actual spend rises to 2.5% of GDP.

ea

But not all members have the same defence commitments. Besides their nuclear deterrant, the US, UK and France also have, to varying degrees, global expeditionary capabilties outside of the operational area of NATO. There are British. American and French troops all over the world, for reasons that are to do with national priorities, not international partner priorities. But you don't see Polish and German troops on the other side of the world, largely because they have very different histories.

So the headline numbers

US defence spending, based on NATO definition: ~$920bn, 3.5% GDP

US defence spending, based on Pentagon rules: ~$860bn, 3.3% GDP

Stripping out non-US Homeland, non-NATO; 50% of Pentagon spend (conservative, some put it at 70%): $430bn, 1.4% GDP actual spend on US/NATO defence

UK defence spending, based on NATO definition: ~$75bn, 2.3% GDP

UK defence spending, based on MOD rules: ~$65bn, 2.0% GDP

Stripping out non-Home Nations , Non-NATO: 65% of MOD spend: ~$42bn, 1.1% GDP

France defence spending, based on NATO definition: ~$70bn, 2.1% GDP

France defence spending, based on Ministre des Armées rules: ~$65bn, 2.0% GDP

Stripping out non-Department, non-NATO: 60% of MdA spend: ~$39bn, 1.1% GDP

Germany defence spending, based on NATO definiton: ~$105bn, 2.2% GDP

Germany defence spending, base on BMVg rules: ~$95bn, 2.0% GDP

Stripping out non-Bund, non-NATO: 90% of BMVg spend: $86bn, 1.6% GDP

Poland defence spending, based on NATO definition: $40bn, 4.2% GDP

Poland defence spending, based on MON rules: $45bn, 4.0 GDP

Stripping out non-Polski, non-NATO: 90% of MON spend: $41bn, 3.9% GDP

Puts a very different spin on how much countries are paying for their own direct national defence.

Of course, the US, UK and France can't just forget about their international interests, especially the US/UK as Atlantic nations. But it illustrates why latching on to "2% of GDP" is flawed; it was a simplistic political goal that has little basis in reality.

Of course even things line the 1.4% of US GDP spend is simplistic, because you cannot disregard US expeditionary capability, which comes into play if Europe needed to be reinforced rapidly, or UK global intelligence listening posts which are vital for NATO early warning.

It would have been better to agree spending targets on , the capabilties. For instance, the Baltic states are always going to have very small GDPs, and basing defence spending on GDP won't go far on buying 5th Gen US aircraft or German tanks. But it would go a long way in supporting high tech drone defence units, military medicine. Similarly the Czechs; I've worked with their CBRNe chaps, absolutely first rate, unmatched subject matter knowedge bar none, so they can provide core NATO CBRne capabilties. Rather than spreading resources over a broad range of capabilties, and doing none well, focus on your strengths. NATO already does this to an extent.

Obviously having a spending target is useful to avoid accusations of "freeloaders", but the messaging needs to shift, away from frankly untrue insults directed at members towards acknowledging the incredible capabilities that NATO possesses that are not the result of just one or two members, but the result of a genuine alliance of democratic equals.

Fully optimised NATO;

United States — “System backbone”

Primary roles:

• Strategic lift (air & sea)

• Global ISR, satellites, intelligence fusion

• Missile defence architecture

• Nuclear umbrella

• High-end airpower scaling

Poland + Eastern flank — “Heavy land shield”

Countries: Poland, Romania, Finland (increasingly), others nearby

Primary roles:

• Massed land forces (tanks, artillery)

• Forward defence

• Territorial depth and resilience

Germany — “Logistics & industrial hub”

Primary roles:

• Rear-area logistics (transport, maintenance, supply chains)

• Armoured formations (but not primary mass provider)

• Defence industrial base (production, repair, sustainment)

• Command and control infrastructure

United Kingdom — “Expeditionary + maritime edge”

Primary roles:

• Carrier strike groups

• Special forces

• High-end airpower

• Nuclear deterrent (shared strategic role)

• North Atlantic security

France — “Autonomous strike & southern flank”

Primary roles:

• Independent expeditionary capability

• Mediterranean & African security

• Nuclear deterrent

• High-end air and naval strike

Italy & Spain — “Mediterranean control”
Primary roles:

• Naval forces (Mediterranean dominance)

• Air policing southern Europe

• Amphibious operations

Turkey — Regional power & gatekeeper

Primary roles:

• Black Sea security

• Large standing army

• Drone warfare and regional projection

Baltic States — Denial & tripwire, Countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

Primary roles:

• Territorial defence

• Anti-armour, air denial

• Host-nation support for NATO forces

• Norway, Denmark, Netherlands — “High-end niche specialists”
  Primary roles

• Submarine hunting (ASW)

• F-35 airpower integration

• Naval-specialised roles

Indeed

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Of course, Americans who would support Canada are NOT traitors.

They are the majority actually. Most Americans are decent. Trump and his maga fascist regime are indecent.

The anthem that's gone viral at a game with no Canadian team