is NATO still relevant?

[BostonPirate]

What is your point? You haven't read this link either? US defense spending does not equal US NATO spending. It really isnt that hard of a concept.

what are you talking about US defense spending vs US NATO spending?

This is about who pays for NATO, who benefits from that payment, and who gets criticized for being an overreaching nation.

you can try and change this, but I have consistently been saying ONE THING.

the USA pays a disproporionate ammount of cash for Europes defense as it invests in social programs and infrastructure.

Have you taken a look around at the political climate and our debt and deficit? This shit is for real. Unless the gov't does something, the Soc Sec checks wont go out in august of this year.

Bottom line.

You can change your BS line anywhere you want to. I am a man of bottom lines and that is it.

We cover 75 percent of NATO's defenses and we can't feed the poor andpay our debt to china.

 

[BostonPirate]

NATO spending is mostly money we'd be spending on our military regardless.

but if our allies feel that the world is in a perpetual state of peace, why should the US feel compelled to maintain an army stronger than is needed to, say, repel potential invaders from Mexico or blow up Canada's tank?

I disagree that we would be spending it otherwise, but I agree that if the European nations and NATO allies think the world is so safe that defensive forces are all they need, we need to stop feeling obligated to save them from themselves and cut them free.

 

[BostonPirate]

Now you are moving into ridiculous land. All US defense spending is accountable to the NATO alliance.... Thank you for contributing your Pacific fleet to the European cause....

You spend close to 5% on your GDP on 'defense'. Nobody is asking you for it.

you are moonbat. That is NOT what I said, and you KNOW that.

You're a waste of my time. You are interested in an argument for the sake of arguing. Limited understanding of how the USA spends is why the two parties can get away with manipulating their minions.

glad to know your personal level of independent thinking stops at liberal talking points.

later

 

[Tengilethos]

NATO spending is mostly money we'd be spending on our military regardless.

but if our allies feel that the world is in a perpetual state of peace, why should the US feel compelled to maintain an army stronger than is needed to, say, repel potential invaders from Mexico or blow up Canada's tank?

Because NATO members are not your only allies, you have Israel and South Korea and Taiwan to defend? And we don't think the world is in a perpetual state of peace, just that it looks like there won't be wars in Europe for the foreseeable future, except in Georgia perhaps, if you believe that Georgia lies in Europe.

And we do support the United States in Afghanistan for example, where the United States suffered 1531 casualties of 2433 total, while the US allies had about 900 casualties. The United States takes a disproportional share of the burden but NATO contributed strongly in this operation.

 

[BostonPirate]

You haven't got a clue to what US expenditure on NATO is, so I don't think you can justify statements like this. Suffice to say that non US NATO expenditures on Afghanistan have been considerable, and certainly far exceeding US expenditure on Libya. NATO expenditures are rather minimal compared to the entire US defense budget.

Now much has the netherlands contributed to their own defense and to NATO support?

Did you guys have a crisis last year because you didnt want to fight the afghan war anymore?

who do you think pays for your social programs? indirectly the USA does, by enabling NATO members to just piss in the wind about their fortunes and expect the USA to pick up the tab.

its going to end, Dude, mark my words. If you think the Euro is crashing now, just wait till you all have to build adequate millitary structures.

Why isn't the EU doing this crap? why hasn't the EU built a force to defend Europe?

 

[BostonPirate]

Where are your figures? We spent over 2.000.000.000 on Afghanistan, this in defense of the US. That is only one tiny nation in Europe. Again and again, nobody is forcing you to spend 5% of GDP on your military. But quit your b/s about NATO spending until you can deliver some figures. You wanna cut spending? Dont go to war in Iraq.

no girl, its not just one nation, its your home. YOU are not Europe, you are one dutchman.

how about you supply some info at this point. To compare with the info we have both already supplied...

Are you in Leiden or not? Is this city in the netherlands or not? Do you know what your nation spends on military defense? Did your nation have a governmental crisis or not as a result of assisting in the NATO action in Afghanistan?

How many troops have the dutch committed to the defense of the people of Libya?

U.S. defense secretary this week urged NATO allies including the Netherlands to do more in Libya to share the burden with France and Britain, which are carrying out most of the air strikes.
The Dutch government, however, is still refusing to let its six F-16 fighter jets involved in the mission to carry out airstrikes. Instead they will continue to enforce the no-fly-zone above Libya.

In addition, the government announced Friday it will send experts in psychological operations and legal affairs to join the mission.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/10/3691392/netherlands-extends-involvement.html#ixzz1PCOgbYTE

mind games and lawyers.. why should I NOT be surprised by this.

Heres a clue to all the readers out there....

he either doesn't know, or he knows YOU knowing these answers makes most of his arguments MOOT.

 

[Kulindahr]

Permanent American bases come out of the Pentagons budget, not NATO's so we actually spend alot more than these figures suggest.

I'm going to add to my "reorganization of NATO" proposal.

The US should ask NATO countries to state which U.S. bases in Europe they consider to be essential to NATO. We rank them according to how essential our European allies consider them, and keep the most important dozen. These will then become NATO bases, operations paid for by NATO.

Some of these then become bases for the ready forces. Air bases would be shared, letting other nations' pilots rotate through, drilling and training together.

A couple could become "warehouse" bases, where armor and artillery and such are waiting in Europe for Americans to come operate at need. Additional would be materiel bases, where munitions which get expended at rapid rates in operations of long duration would be stored for future need, alleviating a problem that's occurred in Libya.

In terms of policy, I would restrict the use of the ready forces to operations in areas actually bordering NATO. Libya would obviously count; Iraq would be debatable; Afghanistan would be out. Obviously if NATO had been attacked all restrictions would be off. The idea is that NATO clearly has an interest in what happens next door to its members.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Good lord I've seen enough b.s., bluster, and nonsense with numbers & budgets being bandied about. Here are the facts.

The U.S. shares for the three NATO funds, which have fallen over the past three decades, currently range from
about 22%-25%.

NATO Civil Budget - US Share 21.74% - $ 84.1 million (2010)

NATO Military Budget - US Share 25% - $430.38 million (2010)

NATO Security Investment - US Share 21.7% - $197.41 million (2010)

Total Spending On NATO Directly: $711,890,000 of the total NATO budget of approx. $3.0 billion.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/142718.pdf

 

[BostonPirate]

What info have you supplied. None, just conjecture and parroting opinions. As to yourquestions, yes to all, 8.500.000.000 euros and for the last question>>> see graph on page one.

What is your point exactly? Trying to discredit the messenger with completely unrelated b/s? What is your second link trying to prove? That we are sticking to the UN mandate? Where are your figures? After all your grandstanding, is it really that difficult to come up with some numbers on NATO related US spending? Provide some facts instead of pretending your are some kind of television lawyer.

I parrot no mans opinions, am not affiliated with any political party, and I only seek a strong USA that is solvent internally. THAT would benefit the EU nations more right now than the ridiculous money we are doling out to you guys.

As I thought...

You can make the demands for answers, but you are in short supply of the ones that interfere with your ideology.

 

[BostonPirate]

I'm going to add to my "reorganization of NATO" proposal.

The US should ask NATO countries to state which U.S. bases in Europe they consider to be essential to NATO. We rank them according to how essential our European allies consider them, and keep the most important dozen. These will then become NATO bases, operations paid for by NATO.

Some of these then become bases for the ready forces. Air bases would be shared, letting other nations' pilots rotate through, drilling and training together.

A couple could become "warehouse" bases, where armor and artillery and such are waiting in Europe for Americans to come operate at need. Additional would be materiel bases, where munitions which get expended at rapid rates in operations of long duration would be stored for future need, alleviating a problem that's occurred in Libya.

In terms of policy, I would restrict the use of the ready forces to operations in areas actually bordering NATO. Libya would obviously count; Iraq would be debatable; Afghanistan would be out. Obviously if NATO had been attacked all restrictions would be off. The idea is that NATO clearly has an interest in what happens next door to its members.

it would definitely help the problem we have with the Europeans cooking the books to make it look like we aren't covering their asses as much as we really do, thats for sure, and it would bring our spending down considerably. It would serve our interests better and reduce the deficit.

The EU nations need to build up their own defenses, and instead of handing out military aid, we need to grow industry here at home by selling to them and letting them spill their own blood for their own ideas. Charging for munitions in Libya was just the start.

America does not need to be the godfather of global military interests any longer.

The USA needs to do what these other nations are doing, spending first on itself through social programs, and second on THEIR defense, third is not of any real concern to them... the americans do that global stuff.

They can hardly blame us for defending them in the same way they choose to defend themselves.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd support kuli's idea of a collective strike force btw, first need to rewrite the NATO chapter though.

PLEASE don't call it a "strike force"! That's suggestive that we ought to go strike someone with it. I called it a "ready force" quite deliberately.

 

[BostonPirate]

You suffer from an extreme case of selective deafness. I answered all your questions, you have answered none. But keep believing your none existent facts& figures. US nr. One!!! Woohoo!!!

@MR tnx, see also link on page one, which BP chose to ignore as well.

I'd support kuli's idea of a collective strike force btw, first need to rewrite the NATO chapter though.

If you didn't keep evading the questions asked about your nations defense, that would almost ring half true.

If only NATO were the only way we spend money to defend you, the answers you are asking would fit in that neat little box your leaders sell you on how the arangement is fair and equitable.

If we cut you off, you will have no basic means of support for you rmilitary defense, so I see the importance of minimizing the expense and the gifts the USA makes to your nation and the EU. IF thats how you want to live so be it.

You are lost in your own gov'ts sea of BS. I tell ya what. we will continue to pay for your defense, and you can pay for and give all americans the healthcare system you have.

I promise we will pay 2 percent of our GDP or less for it.

Hows that for a deal, champ?

 

[JB3]

This thread is entertaining.

 

[JayHawk]

To be honest with you, i don't see why the US doesn't just ask the UK if it can position a land based missile defence system on one of the British bases in Cyprus. Why have battleships doing the job, although we should all know this is a make-do option after Obama rightfully (to appease Russia) shelved plans to build in the Czech Rep. or Poland.

It is much less expensive to operate a Destroyer or Cruiser where you perceive the threat.

1) Platform is mobile and can be positioned anywhere
2) Upgrading equipment can occur when the ship rotates stateside instead of paying exorbitant local fees to transport material to a land based site
3) Maintaining Americans overseas is expensive, often an easier target than US bases and something we are desperate to reverse. We want more people home not the other way around.
4)As soon as you are 12 nautical miles from land the politics on shore have zero bearing on our decision to defend or not defend a specific chunk of earth.

The land based system? It is entirely make do and they still will push for a missile shield. The shield is about 45% coverage and about 55% a goodwill close ally gesture that keeps a desirable set of countries at our table and on our side. However our long range BMD plans are afloat. In that way you can cover more areas with less assets as it is unlikely North Korea will launch on Japan at the same time that and middle eastern country would launch on an ally. So a calculated gamble really but a good one none the less.

 

[JayHawk]

Good lord I've seen enough b.s., bluster, and nonsense with numbers & budgets being bandied about. Here are the facts.

The U.S. shares for the three NATO funds, which have fallen over the past three decades, currently range from
about 22%-25%.

NATO Civil Budget - US Share 21.74% - $ 84.1 million (2010)

NATO Military Budget - US Share 25% - $430.38 million (2010)

NATO Security Investment - US Share 21.7% - $197.41 million (2010)

Total Spending On NATO Directly: $711,890,000 of the total NATO budget of approx. $3.0 billion.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/142718.pdf

So how many ARGs and CSGs were employed for libya and for how long? I can tell ya the Boxer was there and the Bataan is now. The Enterprise was headed there being taken from her other mission for Libya. But using only one deployed battle group can easily destroy your "OMG these are the actual numbers accounting" SO for my argument I used the cost of ONE

SO..... at 4.1 million a day to operate at sea during combat operations...

Libya started on 19 March... so doing some extremely simple math... 85 days into the conflict....that is 340 Million...

SO since the military budget is 430 then the US only paid 90 million in Afghanistan?


Maybe for toilet paper.... or a hammer. Point is your official numbers are SHITE.

oh and BTW the 4.1 million a day I used is in 1993 dollars and cost... I am sure it hasnt increased a bit.

 

[zelenabanana]

What does the intervention in Libya have to do with European security interests and defense spending?

NATO was made as balance to Warsaw Pact.

It was made as defending organization.

What NATO does nowadays is brutal agression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya... in a serve to the USA interests or ex colonial powers to prove they are "something" (read: France).

I would say, there's no need for NATO to exist any longer. There's no Warsaw Pact, so no need for this brutal agressive organization to exist.

Plus, I expect NATO member states to pay damages they made and responsible ones to be on trial for war crimes.

I.e. the one who killed civilians in Serbian city of Nish including pregnet woman during 1999., who order "Shoot" onto international train Belgrade - Athens

(except Greece, the only NATO member state which stepped out of bombing against Serbia) as well as for other 3 000 civilians killed by NATO during bombing 1999. and for bombed hospitals, schools, markets, and other civilian targets. Shouldn't forget NATO bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrade, saying it was a mistake (ROFL... how good and smart NATO bombs were so didn't bomb US or UK embassy mistakely, right? )

 

[JayHawk]

Shouldn't forget NATO bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrade, saying it was a mistake (ROFL... how good and smart NATO bombs were so didn't bomb US or UK embassy mistakely, right? )

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.


Yeah the good Chinese being the clever copy country they are were collecting our military hardware for duplication. We just let them have some directly so they wouldnt have to look around.

 

[BostonPirate]

NATO was made as balance to Warsaw Pact.

It was made as defending organization.

What NATO does nowadays is brutal agression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya... in a serve to the USA interests or ex colonial powers to prove they are "something" (read: France).

I would say, there's no need for NATO to exist any longer. There's no Warsaw Pact, so no need for this brutal agressive organization to exist.

Plus, I expect NATO member states to pay damages they made and responsible ones to be on trial for war crimes.

I.e. the one who killed civilians in Serbian city of Nish including pregnet woman during 1999., who order "Shoot" onto international train Belgrade - Athens

(except Greece, the only NATO member state which stepped out of bombing against Serbia) as well as for other 3 000 civilians killed by NATO during bombing 1999. and for bombed hospitals, schools, markets, and other civilian targets. Shouldn't forget NATO bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrade, saying it was a mistake (ROFL... how good and smart NATO bombs were so didn't bomb US or UK embassy mistakely, right? )

aparently your European neighbors thought it wasn't a good idea letting you people commit genocide on each other.

Still stinging a little from that whole hitler thing, YA know.

But hey.. it would have saved a butload of cash if we hadn't helped out there, only to get told how evil we are by the people we meant to help.

Does anyone see a trend here?

I agree with you, Z- Banana. The USA ought not be in NATO any longer.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Maybe for toilet paper.... or a hammer. Point is your official numbers are SHITE.

Yeah, the facts are damnable aren't they?

But you, as many Americans in this debate only focus on the deployment costs of US armed forces. You and those who think like you are demanding that because the USA is spending a TRILLION per annum on a bloated, economy crushing, uber-nationalist defense program, covering every corner of the Earth, that those fucking Euro pigs need to stop spending money on their own citizens and instead divert those monies to a US style defense stance, YET in the same breath expecting them to take a backseat to whatever the USA wants.

Do you realize how hypocritical you and your ilk sound to Europeans? The USA demanded that our allies come along for Afghanistan, and in most minds, rightfully so. Many allies came along. Many even came along for Iraq, where they were massively opposed but yielded due to allied connections NATO and otherwise. And NOW, because of Libya all of a sudden Americans are wanting to balance nickels and dimes? Come on!

Since you and BP, and others are DEMANDING that Europeans spend more money on defense because the US is, and if not "you'll" leave. Fine! Leave! As I've said above, nothing is stopping the USA from slashing its own defense spending. NOTHING. Yet every year it goes up and up and up. Why is that? So how is it you feel you are entitled to demand Europe to spend such an unhealthy amount of money for USA's global ambitions?

 

[MoltenRock III]

aparently your European neighbors thought it wasn't a good idea letting you people commit genocide on each other.

Still stinging a little from that whole hitler thing, YA know.

But hey.. it would have saved a butload of cash if we hadn't helped out there, only to get told how evil we are by the people we meant to help.

Does anyone see a trend here?

I agree with you, Z- Banana. The USA ought not be in NATO any longer.

LMAO! {Text removed by moderator} Don't want to be in NATO any longer, good, go. It's the article I quoted earlier that was titled: "Let Europe Be Europe; Why the United States must withdraw from NATO". I think the US should leave NATO.

But instead, you, just as nearly every rednecked Republican I've ever encountered prefer pissing rights on the internet of a "my dad can beat up your dad" mindset, with your mantra of how strong and mighty the USA military is, as if "you" have anything to do with the "mightiness" of it in any way, shape, or form. Jayhawk as a solider, yes. You? Nope.

Hence is why no US politician has ever been punished at the ballot box for continuing the enlargement of the US military complex. Any politician in the US that dares touch that engorged vacuum of cash is labeled a pussy, French surrender monkey, or other slur.