On NATO, It's Long Past Time We Raised Our Voices

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned

On NATO, It's Long Past Time We Raised Our Voices

by Patrick Buchanan - LINK

Of President Donald Trump's explosion at Angela Merkel's Germany during the NATO summit, it needs to be said: It is long past time we raised our voices.

America pays more for NATO, an alliance created 69 years ago to defend Europe, than do the Europeans. And as Europe free-rides off our defense effort, the EU runs trade surpluses at our expense that exceed $100 billion a year.

To Trump, and not only to him, we are being used, gouged, by rich nations we defend, while they skimp on their own defense.

At Brussels, Trump had a new beef with the Germans, though similar problems date back to the Reagan era. Now we see the Germans, Trump raged, whom we are protecting from Russia, collaborating with Russia and deepening their dependence on Russian natural gas by jointly building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

When completed, this pipeline will leave Germany and Europe even more deeply reliant on Russia for their energy needs.

To Trump, this makes no sense. While we pay the lion's share of the cost of Germany's defense, Germany, he said in Brussels, is becoming "a captive of Russia."

Impolitic? Perhaps. But is Trump wrong? While much of what he says enrages Western elites, does not much of it need saying?

Germany spends 1.2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, while the U.S. spends 3.5 percent. Why?

Why — nearly three decades after the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the crackup of the Soviet Union and the overthrow of the Communist dictatorship in Moscow — are we still defending European nations that collectively have 10 times the GDP of Vladimir Putin's Russia?

Before departing Brussels, Trump upped the ante on the allies, urging that all NATO nations raise the share of their GDPs that they devote to defense to 4 percent.

Brussels may dismiss this as typical Trumpian bluster, but my sense is that Trump is not bluffing. He is visibly losing patience.

Though American leaders since John Foster Dulles in the 1950s have called for a greater defense effort from our allies, if the Europeans do not get serious this time, it could be the beginning of the end for NATO.

And not only NATO. South Korea, with an economy 40 times that of North Korea, spends 2.6 percent of its GDP on defense, while, by one estimate, North Korea spends 22 percent, the highest share on earth.

Japan, with the world's third-largest economy, spends an even smaller share of its GDP on defense than Germany, 0.9 percent.

Thus, though Seoul and Tokyo are far more menaced by a nuclear-armed North Korea and a rising China, like the Europeans, both continue to rely upon us as they continue to run large trade surpluses with us.

We get hit both ways. We send troops and pay billions for their defense, while they restrict our access to their markets and focus on capturing U.S. markets from American producers.

We are giving the world a lesson in how great powers decline.

America's situation is unsustainable economically and politically, and it's transparently intolerable to Trump, who does not appear to be a turn-the-other-cheek sort of fellow.

A frustrated Trump has already hinted he may accept Russia's annexation of Crimea as he accepted Israel's annexation of Jerusalem.

And he appears earnest about reducing our massive trade deficits in goods that have been bleeding jobs, plants, equipment, capital and technology abroad.

The latest tariffs Trump has proposed, on $200 billion worth of Chinese-made goods, would raise the price of 40 percent of China's exports to the U.S. and begin to shrink the $375 billion trade surplus Beijing ran in 2017.

Trump said upon departing Brussels he had won new commitments to raise European contributions to NATO. But Emmanuel Macron of France seemed to contradict him. The commitments made before the summit, for all NATO nations to reach 2 percent of GDP for defense by 2024, said Macron, stand, and no new commitments were made.

As for Trump's call for a 4 percent defense effort by all, it was ignored. Hence the question: If Trump does not get his way and the allies hold to their previous schedule of defense commitments, what does he do?

One idea Trump floated last week was the threat of a drawdown of the 35,000 U.S. troops in Germany. But would this really rattle the Germans?

A new poll shows that a plurality of Germans favor a drawdown of U.S. troops, and only 15 percent believe that Germany should raise its defense spending to 2 percent of GDP.

While Trump's pressure on NATO to contribute more is popular here, apparently Merkel's resistance comports with German opinion.

Since exiting the Iranian nuclear deal, President Trump has demanded that our European allies join the U.S. in reimposing sanctions. Now he is demanding that the Europeans contribute more to defense.

What does he do if they defy us? More than likely, we will find out
 

rexlunae

New member
What kind of sense does it make to simultaneously complain that we're spending disproportionately on our collective defense within NATO, and also demanding that the target allocation of funds to defense be doubled, to an amount higher than we currently spend? Which is it? We want to spend less by having our allies spend more, or we want all of us to spend a lot more? It can't be both.

The point of all this was to antagonize our allies for Putin's benefit.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What kind of sense does it make to simultaneously complain that we're spending disproportionately on our collective defense within NATO, and also demanding that the target allocation of funds to defense be doubled, to an amount higher than we currently spend? Which is it? We want to spend less by having our allies spend more, or we want all of us to spend a lot more? It can't be both.

The point of all this was to antagonize our allies for Putin's benefit.

Indeed ... this has always been about an audience of one.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
........The point of all this was to antagonize our allies for Putin's benefit.

Right, and LBJ killed Kennedy to become president, right? Your ignorance and willingness to believe such stupidity is frightening.

Trump is telling the old Commie hag Merkel to STOP giving money to Putin, and thats to Putin's benefit. Sure. Okay. One question: How much crack did your mom smoke while she was having you.

Indeed ... this has always been about an audience of one.

Of course, dumb is followed by dumber.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
"the old Commie hag" yuk, yuk, yuk.

Sure stop giving $ to Putin. How much does Donny owe Russian banks? Ah, well since he will not release his tax returns, hard to tell huh?
Did we stop buying Saudi oil after 9-11?
Just how would have Donny stopped Vlad in Crimea if it was on his watch?
But at the base of your post---Pat Buchanan.
 

rexlunae

New member
Right, and LBJ killed Kennedy to become president, right? Your ignorance and willingness to believe such stupidity is frightening.

It's not exactly far-fetched. Trump has a clear affinity for Putin, he's been picking needless fights with our allies, and he's shortly off for a session of heavy petting with Putin.

But you didn't answer my question. How do you square that circle.

Trump is telling the old Commie hag Merkel to STOP giving money to Putin, and thats to Putin's benefit. Sure. Okay. One question: How much crack did your mom smoke while she was having you.

Perhaps because he knows it won't change anything, so it costs him nothing to harp on it.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
........he's been picking needless fights with our allies.........

Needless? They have been ripping us off for decades. When does it finally become a "Need" to bring it up.

And Allies? World War II ended in 1945. Since then they have been bloodsucking parasites, never helping us out when needed, with the exception of England.

That stands in stark contrast to Israel which is a real friend.
 

rexlunae

New member
Needless? They have been ripping us off for decades. When does it finally become a "Need" to bring it up.

And Allies? World War II ended in 1945. Since then they have been bloodsucking parasites, never helping us out when needed, with the exception of England.

That stands in stark contrast to Israel which is a real friend.

NATO didn't even come into existence until after WWII, to check the aggressive expansionism of the Soviet Union. We participated because we felt it was better to fight them over there rather than over here.

When we invoked our treaty with NATO after 9/11, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany joined us in invading Afghanistan. We do regular drills (until Trump gave them up as a gift to Kim Jong Un) with our Pacific allies, including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan.

When has Israel ever joined us in a war or mutual defense pact?
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (five-star general during World War II), Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961

wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png


Military spending in America is 44.32% of the world's total, and already exceeds that of the next 7 countries, combined!

The question remains as to other than benefitting the American military-industrial complex, just whose best interests are being served by investing in massive military budgets that dwarf our nearest rivals!

global-spending-on-military-pie-chart.jpg


Military spending by the rest of the NATO nations (20.72%), excluding America, is already approximately double of that spent by the Russians (5.47%)and Chinese (5.31%) combined - so why is Trump making this an issue!
 
Last edited:

lifeisgood

New member
.... Trump has a clear affinity for Putin...

George W. Bush comes to mind also.

Remember: "I [George W. Bush] looked the man in the eye. I found him [Putin] to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We [Bush and Putin] had a very good dialogue. I [Bush] was able to get a sense of his [Putin] soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."

Clinton guffawed and slapped Yeltsin on the back during one famous, drunken episode on stage.
Bush praised Yeltsin as a straight shooter.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/opinion/2010/06/29/i-looked-the-ma

Where was the outrage THEN?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
"...Germany spends 1.2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, while the U.S. spends 3.5 percent...."
You have to include veterans affairs in that, we spend 7% of GDP, not 3.5%, which is only for current military operation. We spend as much caring for veterans, as we do running the whole military. Even if we ceased all military spending, we would still be spending 700-800 billion annually on veterans.
...Military spending in America is 44.32% of the world's total, and already exceeds that of the next 7 countries, combined!....
If you want peace, prepare for war. :thumb:
 

rexlunae

New member
George W. Bush comes to mind also.

Remember: "I [George W. Bush] looked the man in the eye. I found him [Putin] to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We [Bush and Putin] had a very good dialogue. I [Bush] was able to get a sense of his [Putin] soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country."

Clinton guffawed and slapped Yeltsin on the back during one famous, drunken episode on stage.
Bush praised Yeltsin as a straight shooter.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/opinion/2010/06/29/i-looked-the-ma

Where was the outrage THEN?

You can't possibly be serious.
 

rexlunae

New member
You have to include veterans affairs in that, we spend 7% of GDP, not 3.5%, which is only for current military operation. We spend as much caring for veterans, as we do running the whole military. Even if we ceased all military spending, we would still be spending 700-800 billion annually on veterans.
If you want peace, prepare for war. :thumb:

Most NATO countries have universal health care. You could count a portion of their health Care budgets the same way, but that isn't how we measure military spending.
 

rexlunae

New member
Very serious.

Well then, Yeltsin isn't even the same guy as Putin, so....not sure what the comparison is suppose to be. Bush never was the brightest guy, but considering that he said that at a point in time when Putin wasn't invading countries and annexing territory and having people murdered in the territories of our allies and attacking democracy here and in Europe, I think he gets a little bit of a pass.
 

rexlunae

New member
Very serious.

Well then, Yeltsin isn't even the same guy as Putin, so....not sure what the comparison is suppose to be. Bush never was the brightest guy, but considering that he said that at a point in time when Putin wasn't invading countries and annexing territory and having people murdered in the territories of our allies and attacking democracy here and in Europe, I think he gets a little bit of a pass.
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
BIGGEST%20MILITARY%20BUDGETS.PNG


... If you want peace, prepare for war. :thumb:

It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star general and supreme Allied commander in the European theatre during World War II, that warned of the negative impact of an unchecked military-industrial complex during his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961.

Massive investments in the military results in diminishing returns, and comes at the expense of healthcare, education, infrastructure, cities, poverty, etc.

Most of the nations listed, despite Trump's best efforts, still consider themselves to be American allies - their combined military expenditures alone exceed those of Russia and China!
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
BIGGEST%20MILITARY%20BUDGETS.PNG




It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star general and supreme Allied commander in the European theatre during World War II, that warned of the negative impact of an unchecked military-industrial complex during his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961.

Massive investments in the military results in diminishing returns, and comes at the expense of healthcare, education, infrastructure, cities, poverty, etc.

Most of the nations listed, despite Trump's best efforts, still consider themselves to be American allies - their combined military expenditures alone exceed those of Russia and China!
Si vis pacem, para bellum. :thumb:
 
Top