|
Post by bluehen on Mar 10, 2022 21:37:27 GMT
trump is president in the minds of 70-85 IQ types That is so funny.
Ok I'll go 75 -90
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 11, 2022 0:11:21 GMT
trump is president in the minds of 70-85 IQ types Maybe those 75-90 IQ types can explain how getting MORE money from the NATO partners destroys NATO ?
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 11, 2022 4:21:53 GMT
trump is president in the minds of 70-85 IQ types Maybe those 75-90 IQ types can explain how getting MORE money from the NATO partners destroys NATO ? Let’s ask Trump how it could destroy NATO: Making the alliance, or parts of it, conditional on defense spending could completely destroy NATO. Regardless, we didn’t go that far, and it hasn’t destroyed NATO. But ‘getting more money from the NATO partners’ has been pretty much irrelevant: www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htmSo Trump complained to make other counties pay more of their fair share of the direct contributions: www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074Going from over 22% to a 16% contribution for 0.3% of the allied spending is minuscule. We basically made Germany pay more. What about actual defense spending? It has been on the rise for all of NATO counties since 2014. In 2018 when Trump was expressing he wanted NATO allies to pull their weight, the US represented 68.9% of defense spending by NATO counties. It was 70.1% in ‘19, estimated 69.8% in ‘20 and estimated 69.2% in ‘21. Our spending is a higher percent every year after 2018. www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdfSo it’s largely meaningless rhetoric, targeted at the 70-85 IQ types that eat up news that says ‘Trump makes NATO pay their fair share!’
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 11, 2022 17:09:40 GMT
Making the alliance, or parts of it, conditional on defense spending could completely destroy NATO. Really? ALL members agreed in 2014 to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024. Did they all want to destroy NATO? When Trump took office, only SIX of the 29 countries were doing it. The entire agreement is based on each country being able to supply weapons and troops on short notice if needed. If they refuse to spend money on weapons and troops, what good are they to the agreement? If speaking TRUTH to the member countries threatens to destroy the entire agreement, then it wasn't much of a coalition to begin with. Does anyone remember this nasty tweet from Trump? “We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share and living off the fat of the land. We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves.”Sure sounds like Trump, doesn't it. But no. It was none other than John F. Kennedy, in 1961. This crap has been going on a long time. Was JFK trying to "destroy NATO"? Funny, I don't see that claim anywhere in the literature. So Trump complained to make other counties pay more of their fair share of the direct contributions: I actually didn't know this. Thanks. He asked for them to pay more, and they DID! How about that. Actually, Germany didn't pay more, Canada and Turkey did. The US Share just dropped from 22% to 16. Great. But, as you say... that's not big money. It was more of a symbolic gesture. The REAL money is in what the member countries pay toward defense. THAT is what Trump made the most noise about. And THAT is what he was threatening them over. Here's something else I didn't know: Beside calling out the countries who weren't spending 2% of GDP on defense, after signing a pledge to do so, Trump actually proposed that they ALL INCREASE their defense spending to 4%! THAT would have be a significant increase in NATO strength and a clear signal to Putin the the NATO alliance is a serious one. That is not "meaningless rhetoric". It was a clarion call to the other members that they need to do more. Wouldn't it be great today if they have all agreed and done it? As Trump departed office, the number of countries finally reaching their commitment to 2% of GDP defense spending was up to 10. Still far short. Despite all the attempts to convince them to protect themselves. They're all pretty fired up to increase defense spending now. Now that Putin is on the march in their direction. A bit late. Bottom line: Trump was trying to STRENGTHEN NATO, not destroy it. And, he wasn't doing this at the behest of Putin because they are "butt-buddies".
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Mar 11, 2022 20:43:44 GMT
I have learned some definitely can't move on. I'll let you attach the labels.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 12, 2022 0:21:40 GMT
Making the alliance, or parts of it, conditional on defense spending could completely destroy NATO. Really? ALL members agreed in 2014 to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024. Did they all want to destroy NATO? When Trump took office, only SIX of the 29 countries were doing it. The entire agreement is based on each country being able to supply weapons and troops on short notice if needed. If they refuse to spend money on weapons and troops, what good are they to the agreement? If speaking TRUTH to the member countries threatens to destroy the entire agreement, then it wasn't much of a coalition to begin with. Does anyone remember this nasty tweet from Trump? “We cannot continue to pay for the military protection of Europe while the NATO states are not paying their fair share and living off the fat of the land. We have been very generous to Europe and it is now time for us to look out for ourselves.”Sure sounds like Trump, doesn't it. But no. It was none other than John F. Kennedy, in 1961. This crap has been going on a long time. Was JFK trying to "destroy NATO"? Funny, I don't see that claim anywhere in the literature. So Trump complained to make other counties pay more of their fair share of the direct contributions: I actually didn't know this. Thanks. He asked for them to pay more, and they DID! How about that. Actually, Germany didn't pay more, Canada and Turkey did. The US Share just dropped from 22% to 16. Great. But, as you say... that's not big money. It was more of a symbolic gesture. The REAL money is in what the member countries pay toward defense. THAT is what Trump made the most noise about. And THAT is what he was threatening them over. Here's something else I didn't know: Beside calling out the countries who weren't spending 2% of GDP on defense, after signing a pledge to do so, Trump actually proposed that they ALL INCREASE their defense spending to 4%! THAT would have be a significant increase in NATO strength and a clear signal to Putin the the NATO alliance is a serious one. That is not "meaningless rhetoric". It was a clarion call to the other members that they need to do more. Wouldn't it be great today if they have all agreed and done it? As Trump departed office, the number of countries finally reaching their commitment to 2% of GDP defense spending was up to 10. Still far short. Despite all the attempts to convince them to protect themselves. They're all pretty fired up to increase defense spending now. Now that Putin is on the march in their direction. A bit late. Bottom line: Trump was trying to STRENGTHEN NATO, not destroy it. And, he wasn't doing this at the behest of Putin because they are "butt-buddies". It is meaningless rhetoric to say he made NATO allies pay their fair share. Aside from a slight change to the administrative cost structure, nothing changed. In fact, the US defense spending is a larger percent of the total defense spending by NATO countries now than in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 12, 2022 4:00:30 GMT
Ah… Back at your favorite game: straw man shooting.
When was the last time Trump said HE “made NATO pay their fair share”? I don’t remember ever hearing him say it. In fact, he still says they don’t.
Fact is: Total NATO defense spending has increased every year since Trump was elected. It was declining in the years prior to his Presidency. His fiery rhetoric made a difference. There’s still a long way to go.
Trump did not destroy NATO. Trump never wanted to destroy NATO. In fact, he made it stronger.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 12, 2022 12:50:57 GMT
So what exactly are you giving Trump credit for?
Reducing the administrative cost share from 22% to 16%?
For wanting defense spending for NATO nations to increase, even though it has increased every year since 2014?
His rhetoric is that he wanted NATO countries to pay their fair, which by all accounts and his words they still aren’t. So what are you giving him credit for?
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Mar 12, 2022 13:53:37 GMT
trump is president in the minds of 70-85 IQ types A high IQ is like a tall basketball player.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 12, 2022 16:05:55 GMT
So what exactly are you giving Trump credit for? Reducing the administrative cost share from 22% to 16%? For wanting defense spending for NATO nations to increase, even though it has increased every year since 2014? His rhetoric is that he wanted NATO countries to pay their fair, which by all accounts and his words they still aren’t. So what are you giving him credit for? www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdfTrump’s highlighting the issue accelerated non-US spending. Trump also increased US defense spending. The combination created an increase in Total NATO spending… which had been declining. Look, I never said “Trump made Europe pay their fair share”. Only YOU said that. All I’ve been trying to show is: Trump never wanted to “Destroy NATO”. Libs say that all the time. Like repeating it will make it true. Sometimes, you have to threaten to break things to fix them. In the Sales/Negotiation world, this is a known strategy called “Go for No”. It’s a very powerful tactic. Sometimes, you have to remind the other side what life would be like if you DON’T get a deal . NATO resisted all efforts from a long series of US Presidents trying to get them to spend more on their own defense. Trump made some gains. Putin is making more.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 12, 2022 19:39:18 GMT
But non-US spending was increasing since 2014, before Trump.
YoY% spending growth decreased every year from 2017 to 2020 from the NATO link posted. Where do you get acceleration from?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 12, 2022 20:09:36 GMT
But non-US spending was increasing since 2014, before Trump. YoY% spending growth decreased every year from 2017 to 2020 from the NATO link posted. Where do you get acceleration from? From looking at the slope of the graph on page 4. In 2014 and 2105, the slope was lower. I see the other chart showing decreases in % growth. I don't know what the difference is in their data. It doesn't really matter to me. The chart of the top of that page show increasing TOTAL Nato spending. Putin gets all the credit for the increase starting in 2014. Still though... Trump's goal was always to STRENGTHEN NATO, not destroy it. That's why he asked them all to increase defense spending to 4%. The very idea of it shocked them all. I guess it also made them think 2% wasn't so bad. Another well-known sales negotiation strategy.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Mar 12, 2022 21:28:01 GMT
Page 4 shows what I would eyeball as a linear increase in non-US defense spending, which is mathematically a decrease in growth. It is the exact same data, just presented in a different way... not sure what you are missing.
Giving Trump credit for increased defense spending of NATO countries is a stretch. Claiming he caused an acceleration in spending is objectively false, even if he gets credit for the increases, because it did not accelerate.
Considering how many times Trump called NATO obsolete, and even reports that he wanted to withdraw from NATO, I think it is suspect to claim that his goals were always to strengthen NATO. Maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 12, 2022 21:34:31 GMT
. Maybe I'm missing something. I've come to the same conclusion.
|
|