Donald Trump right on European defence spending, says NATO chief

[mrwebb8825]

Maybe Trump will strike a deal with Putin to build strategic air and missile bases along Russia's threatened borders IF Russia kicks in it's fair share, just to put the fear of God in the rest of the NATO groups living off handouts from the US. Russia could cover the expense in the same fashion as Venezuela covers it's loan payment to China. Free oil.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Naam said:

that's an opinion without any evidence.

What's that?  Russia invaded Crimea or the referendum was done illegally after the invasion? As for the referendum being illegal, here's the evidence.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

Quote

According to article 73 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine^[88] and article 3 of the 2012 Ukrainian law "On all-Ukrainian referendum", territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum where all the citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote, including those that do not reside in Crimea.^[89] The Central Election Commission of Ukraine also stated that there are no judicial possibilities, according to the legislation of Ukraine, to initiate such changes.^[

 

Continuing reading that link for others who state why the referendum was illegal and improper.  I like this one:

Quote

Many scholars and politicians (Neil Melvin, Robert McCorquodale, John Kerry, John B. Bellinger III, Marc Weller among few) have stated that the referendum was conducted under the cover of assault rifles and, thus, the result was obtained through violence.

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I think the big stick NATO carries helps keep Russia at bay big time.  But, Putin can do what he wants.  Unlike leaders of Western countries who need approval from various government departments.  So, makes Russia a big question mark as to what will happen.

 

You are wrong about Crimea, it's was given to Ukraine.  Russia forcibly took it back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

 

The new elections in Ukraine did not allow Crimea to become independent.  That would require an action by the Ukraine government, not just Crimea.  The referendum that was held was bogus.  Done after Russia invaded.  Illegally.

I am sorry but you keep saying that you think the big stick NATO carries helps keep Russia at bay big time, but I ask when? Where? How?

 

NATO never stopped Russia in the Crimea with Ukraine, or in Syria. Or in Georgia, Kosovo, or their invasion into Afghanistan in 1979. Or China entering the Korean War, or aiding in the Vietnam War, or China's invasion of Tibet in 1950-51. In fact in the 67 year history of NATO, I am trying to find one instance where NATO stopped Russia from doing anything, and I can't find even one instance. So I certainly don't see how NATO is keeping Russia at bay Big Time, or any other time.

 

But these other countries aren't NATO Members, which you claim makes a big difference. Does it? Turkey and Greece are both NATO Members since 1952. They also now share the island of Cypress. But in 1974 Turkey invaded Cypress and tried to annex the whole island to themselves. So in essence you have one NATO Member attacking another. So how did NATO handle that?

 

NATO did absolutely nothing to stop the violence. They allowed Greece to withdraw from NATO which they did for about 6 year period to resolve this. The UN Security Counsel finally drew a Red Line in the sand across the country, like they did in Korea, where Greeks were force to go to one side of the island and the Turks to the other, and the fighting stopped. Big Deal!

 

I am not against a World Peace Keeping Force to keep World Peace. This is what the United Nations are suppose to be doing instead of Vito this or Vito that, and arguing among themselves.  But to me NATO is just one Big Toothless Tiger that we keep funneling money into ever year for the past 67 years, to sit and watch. I just think we need something better than this. 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

I am sorry but you keep saying that you think the big stick NATO carries helps keep Russia at bay big time, but I ask when? Where? How?

 

NATO never stopped Russia in the Crimea with Ukraine, or in Syria. Or in Georgia, Kosovo, or their invasion into Afghanistan in 1979. Or China entering the Korean War, or aiding in the Vietnam War, or China's invasion of Tibet in 1950-51. In fact in the 67 year history of NATO, I am trying to find one instance where NATO stopped Russia from doing anything, and I can't find even one instance. So I certainly don't see how NATO is keeping Russia at bay Big Time, or any other time.

 

But these other countries aren't NATO Members, which you claim makes a big difference. Does it? Turkey and Greece are both NATO Members since 1952. They also now share the island of Cypress. But in 1974 Turkey invaded Cypress and tried to annex the whole island to themselves. So in essence you have one NATO Member attacking another. So how did NATO handle that?

 

NATO did absolutely nothing to stop the violence. They allowed Greece to withdraw from NATO which they did for about 6 year period to resolve this. The UN Security Counsel finally drew a Red Line in the sand across the country, like they did in Korea, where Greeks were force to go to one side of the island and the Turks to the other, and the fighting stopped. Big Deal!

 

I am not against a World Peace Keeping Force to keep World Peace. This is what the United Nations are suppose to be doing instead of Vito this or Vito that, and arguing among themselves.  But to me NATO is just one Big Toothless Tiger that we keep funneling money into ever year for the past 67 years, to sit and watch. I just think we need something better than this. 

Not sure why you keep bringing up countries that NATO has nothing to do with?  NATO's mission is to protect fellow members.  Not deal with issues in Afghanistan or even Cyprus.

 

The UN is another topic.  Let's stick to the topic.  European defense, Trump, NATO, etc.

 

 

[GOLDBUGGY]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I think the big stick NATO carries helps keep Russia at bay big time.  But, Putin can do what he wants.  Unlike leaders of Western countries who need approval from various government departments.  So, makes Russia a big question mark as to what will happen.

 

You are wrong about Crimea, it's was given to Ukraine.  Russia forcibly took it back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

 

The new elections in Ukraine did not allow Crimea to become independent.  That would require an action by the Ukraine government, not just Crimea.  The referendum that was held was bogus.  Done after Russia invaded.  Illegally.

27 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Not sure why you keep bringing up countries that NATO has nothing to do with?  NATO's mission is to protect fellow members.  Not deal with issues in Afghanistan or even Cyprus.

 

The UN is another topic.  Let's stick to the topic.  European defense, Trump, NATO, etc.

 

 

What I have been trying to tell you this whole past while, and others to, is that it is not NATO's Mission to just protect fellow members. This is only your belief.

 

NATO is a Military Alliance.  NATO has been involved in Bosnia, and also Afghanistan, and this is why I brought it up. They were also involved in helping Pakistan during their Earthquake in 2005. You just see NATO being there to protect Europe which is wrong. That was never the intent of NATO.  But I agree with Trump. 

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

What I have been trying to tell you this whole past while, and others to, is that it is not NATO's Mission to just protect fellow members. This is only your belief.

 

NATO is a Military Alliance.  NATO has been involved in Bosnia, and also Afghanistan, and this is why I brought it up. They were also involved in helping Pakistan during their Earthquake in 2005. You just see NATO being there to protect Europe which is wrong. That was never the intent of NATO.  But I agree with Trump. 

Afghanistan was just training, advice and assistance to the Afghan security forces. Bosnia is much closer to home and they were definitely involved there.

 

NATO's main mission statement is this:

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

Quote

NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

Sure, it's gets involved in areas outside this a bit, but this is the main purpose of NATO.

[Xircal]

19 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

 

Not so.  Germany's current troop levels are way below the 370,000 ceiliingg. Active personnel total 180,000.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=germany

 

 

And it spends way too little on maintaining its equipment.

." A parliamentary report leaked to the German press last month and obtained by the Washington Post detailed the shocking state of disrepair of Germany’s military hardware. Only one of its four submarines is operational. Only 70 out of its 180 GTK Boxer tanks are fit for deployment. ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/germany-military-hardware-disrepair-exposure

 

 

Your link is almost three years old. A lot has happened since then and Germany is upgrading its armed forces: http://www.janes.com/article/63277/german-puma-aifv-production-ramps-up

 

[Naam]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

What's that?  Russia invaded Crimea or the referendum was done illegally after the invasion? As for the referendum being illegal, here's the evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

a questionable source

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

Your link is almost three years old. A lot has happened since then and Germany is upgrading its armed forces: http://www.janes.com/article/63277/german-puma-aifv-production-ramps-up

 

So, has German defense spending reached the 2 percent level yet?

http://www.dw.com/en/von-der-leyen-dubious-about-natos-2-percent-rule/a-17907143

 

And is the size of Germany's active armed service members anywhere near the treaty limit of 370,000?

[Xircal]

On 11/19/2016 at 2:41 AM, robblok said:

just give up on Nato no wars have been fought in Europe in ages

 

I think you're forgetting the Bosnia War of 1992-1995 in which NATO was also involved in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_intervention_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

 

As for th idea of disbanding NATO I think that would be a grave mistake. It acts as a deterrent to the Russian Federation's ambitions to expand its sphere of influence which is especially significant in the present climate.

 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So, has German defense spending reached the 2 percent level yet?

http://www.dw.com/en/von-der-leyen-dubious-about-natos-2-percent-rule/a-17907143

 

And is the size of Germany's active armed service members anywhere near the treaty limit of 370,000?

 

Quote

As of 10 November 2015, the Bundeswehr has a strength of 176,752 active soldiers, placing it among the 30 largest military forces in the world and making it the second largest in the European Union behind France in terms of personnel. In addition the Bundeswehr has approximately 40,000 reserve personnel (2014). With German military expenditures at €34.4 billion, the Bundeswehr is among the top ten best-funded forces in the world, even if in terms of share of German GDP, military expenditures remain average at 1.2% and below the NATO recommendation of 2%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr

[Xircal]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So, has German defense spending reached the 2 percent level yet?

http://www.dw.com/en/von-der-leyen-dubious-about-natos-2-percent-rule/a-17907143

 

And is the size of Germany's active armed service members anywhere near the treaty limit of 370,000?

 

Probably not, but don't forget that NATO came to the aid of the US after 9/11 and over 1,000 NATO soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

 

Also, the US likes to play the role of the world policeman and in that respect it should be prepared to contribute the largest portion of the NATO budget and not complain just because other poorer countries haven't met their budget targets.

[GOLDBUGGY]

On 21/11/2559 at 6:58 PM, craigt3365 said:

Afghanistan was just training, advice and assistance to the Afghan security forces. Bosnia is much closer to home and they were definitely involved there.

 

NATO's main mission statement is this:

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

Sure, it's gets involved in areas outside this a bit, but this is the main purpose of NATO.

So this is your way of agreeing with what I said then?

[ilostmypassword]

On 11/21/2016 at 8:21 PM, Xircal said:

 

Probably not, but don't forget that NATO came to the aid of the US after 9/11 and over 1,000 NATO soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

 

Also, the US likes to play the role of the world policeman and in that respect it should be prepared to contribute the largest portion of the NATO budget and not complain just because other poorer countries haven't met their budget targets.

Except, and here I have to give Trump credit as much as I hate to, now the next president says at least that he doesn't want to contribute so much to NATO. And I'm not sure what it means to say that the "US likes to play the role of world policemen." Certain factions do but I think in the wake of the Iraq debacle, the majority of the US citizenry isn't nearly so gung ho as it used to be.