say those 3 or 4 guys bring other things to the table apart from money, say you have a long running and historic bond with those guys and therefore find it palatable that they cant pay as much as everyone else who is doing slightly better than them, there is many factors than it just it being about the fee and going down that route is a dangerous game to play as despite his blustering americas economy isnt as robust as he would have people believe, its hysterical that a person who has gone bankrupt twice, and who chronically mismanaged the money he inherited from his father is trying to run america like a business and talking about other countries paying bills and such like but the reality is that those who he is preaching to just want to hear what he says and have no interest in economic policies or relations with other countries as they all believe that america is the best place in the world.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter kaz7
- Start date
You bloody Maga loving bastard!!!The whole bill paying thing is absolute fucking nonsense. The running costs of NATO are nothing to do with how much countries spend on defence. The US is the joint biggest contributor with Germany at around 16% each. The UK and France pay 10-11% each and the other 28 countries pay the rest. These “bills” that Trump goes on about are what each country should be spending on their own defence and it doesn’t go to the US government. The US chooses to spend 3.6% of its GDP on its military but that is to project its power worldwide with only a fraction NATO related. Of course every country should be spending appropriate amounts on their own defence but that’s nothing to do paying the US anything. It would only come to the crunch if a NATO country got invaded and Article 5 was invoked. So far Article 5 has only ever been invoked once and that was by the US after 9/11 and every NATO member did their bit as required. For Trump to threaten not to stand by its obligations increases the chances exponentially of Article 5 needing to be invoked again because Russia could assume they’ll get a free run if they invade a NATO country on their border.
Basically your analogy is complete horseshit.
It's based on each person's condition. It's like saying pay 2% of your income in taxes. It doesn't matter if you make 10000 or 10 million. As you'd be paying the same 2%. By the way, this not for the benefit of others. But rather, for your own benefit :)say those 3 or 4 guys bring other things to the table apart from money, say you have a long running and historic bond with those guys and therefore find it palatable that they cant pay as much as everyone else who is doing slightly better than them,
there is many factors than it just it being about the fee and going down that route is a dangerous game to play as despite his blustering americas economy isnt as robust as he would have people believe, its hysterical that a person who has gone bankrupt twice, and who chronically mismanaged the money he inherited from his father is trying to run america like a business and talking about other countries paying bills and such like but the reality is that those who he is preaching to just want to hear what he says and have no interest in economic policies or relations with other countries as they all believe that america is the best place in the world.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a fee!Let me explain by analogy:
Suppose we have a crew of 20 friends who get together weekly for expensive dinners. And we pay money into a fund to got to that dinner based on how much money each person makes.
Now suppose 3 or 4 guys choose not to pay but keep coming to dinner to eat. And then one day I complain and say only those who pay should come for dinner...
Then one of those guys asks, are you going to tell the bouncer to toss us out if we don't pay? And I say yeah! You must pay, if you don't of coz the bouncer should toss you out.
The conclusion any common sense person should reach is that I really want you to pay your fee.
To conclude the important point is that I want bouncers tossing you... Is Frankly comical.
You're woefully out of your depth so do yourself a favour and read the replies that explain it to you, then read them again until you grasp it.
That's an analogy to simplify. It's not that complicated. Stop pretending it is. Spend 2% of GDP on defense. That's the mandate NATO came up with.For the umpteenth time, it's not a fee!
You're woefully out of your depth so do yourself a favour and read the replies that explain it to you, then read them again until you grasp it.
FFS!
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
The funniest thing about this analogy is your reference to "friends."Let me explain by analogy:
Suppose we have a crew of 20 friends who get together weekly for expensive dinners. And we pay money into a fund to got to that dinner based on how much money each person makes.
Now suppose 3 or 4 guys choose not to pay but keep coming to dinner to eat. And then one day I complain and say only those who pay should come for dinner...
Then one of those guys asks, are you going to tell the bouncer to toss us out if we don't pay? And I say yeah! You must pay, if you don't of coz the bouncer should toss you out.
The conclusion any common sense person should reach is that I really want you to pay your fee.
To conclude the important point is that I want bouncers tossing you... Is Frankly comical.
The second funniest thing is that you'd have a bouncer toss them out, which explains why the reference to "friends" is so funny.
S
S
Sale Moor Blue
Guest
What's George Bush doing these days?
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
First, there are no domestic defence spending requirements or obligations in the NA treaty—the defence spending as a percentage of GDP is a guideline, not a mandate. There are no provisions for a NATO member to withhold support or military aid to another member due to them not meeting that 2% target, and that spending does not go to the US or other NATO members. Calling it a mandate or referring to the spending as “unpaid fees” is just patently false and exceedingly ignorant.Ah yes! This is where you pretend Trump is the one who sets the NATO spending recommendations. Lol.
In case you are as clueless as you pretend to be, it's a minimum of 2% GDP for each of the 31 members.
"Meet your fee requirements!" That's the request.
Ukraine is a separate issue. Stop conflating unrelated issues. One is about countries failing to meet their obligations. The other is about a war...
Lord have mercy
Second, Trump is the one threatening to withhold military support for NATO countries if Russia invades them if they don’t pay whatever he deems to be their “fair share”, which he has been consistently vague defining, or has moved the goalposts past the NATO targets even saying that NATO countries should double defence spending to 4% (and even higher)!
So he is literally setting the requirements, completely outside of the NA treaty, for NATO members to receive military support and aid from the US, by far largest military within NATO (which is largely by the US’ design, I might add).
My god, this isn’t an act, is it?
Please, please educate yourself on the NA treaty and NATO member obligations before jumping in to this sort of debate:
Last edited:
Which the UK does!That's an analogy to simplify. It's not that complicated. Stop pretending it is. Spend 2% of GDP on defense. That's the mandate NATO came up with.
FFS!
It is that complicated, and more so. There is a Defence spending agreement that NATO members agreed to, this will not suit every member as each has there own internal and external pressures to operate within, Luxembourg, for example, clearly don't feel that Defence is as high a priority as the US do but then they don't swan around the world bombing any **** that doesn't bow to their will.
Here is a link to some stats that you'll want to consider.
Make it mutual interest acquaintances then :)The funniest thing about this analogy is your reference to "friends."
The second funniest thing is that you'd have a bouncer toss them out, which explains why the reference to "friends" is so funny.