EU has already lost the Trump vs. EU Trade War

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Doug, 

2 points:

1) Other countries spending more doesnt benefit US unless US spends less. This is not the same as saying that NATO countries should not spend more, but there is a US domestic policy at play here too. 

2) Libya is really a bad example because it really was not a defense mission. No NATO member was attacked. 

Let me be clear - I think the US should force Europes hand and just close all bases in Europe with immediate effect. Simple. the big question is then if your one true God Donald will decrease US military spending accordingly and spend that money social programs??? 

True, but if the other NATO members budget a full 2% and pay their agreed on contribution, the the US would not need to budget 3.5% (or whatever the number it actually is) and only contribute 2% (thereby saving a whopping 1.5% of the American GDP! Wouldn’t this equate to the US spending less and others more?

Keep in mind that 2% of the US GDP already dwarfs the contribution of any other member!

The defaulting members need to pay what they owe to date and immediately begin contributing their full 2%!

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

This forum has a tendency to overlook the nuances and go for punch-lines... 

Outrageous comment. Where is your proof?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#DT2020, EU bad, err but Trump, fence/defense, donk.

England = legends. That ain't a punchline. Fact.

 

 

 

Epstein didn't kill himself.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Guest

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

True, but if the other NATO members budget a full 2% and pay their agreed on contribution, the the US would not need to budget 3.5% (or whatever the number it actually is) and only contribute 2% (thereby saving a whopping 1.5% of the American GDP! Wouldn’t this equate to the US spending less and others more?

My suggestion is simpel. Just close all European bases effective immediately.  Cut spending back. NATO is not stopping the US doing this. I am not excusing other NATO countries simply stating that there are also internal US reasons for for US defense which has nothing to with NATO, 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

13 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

No, we gave it all back, it got boring taking over the world to be honest. Was a bit too easy.

Remind me of Poland's amazing territorial history by the way?   

* in the end

* thing

* Portuguese

  More butchering ...

If you're gonna have a pop mate atleast spell it right ...    

England is amazing. Deal with it.

If you look at the link below it shows that the vast majority of important inventions is from Western Europe and the USA (largely former Western Europeans) China has a pathetic 3 and the latest of these was the 12th century, considering their population that is appalling, not creative as not allowed to think or experiment.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/list_of_inventions_by_country.shtml

I would also consider the worldwide web a great invention, courtesy of Sir Tim Berners-Lee in 1989. 

He is an Englishman! 

Just saying...

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

My suggestion is simpel. Just close all European bases effective immediately.  Cut spending back. NATO is not stopping the US doing this. I am not excusing other NATO countries simply stating that there are also internal US reasons for for US defense which has nothing to with NATO, 

Here’s a novel idea...JUST PAY WHAT YOU AGREED TO PAY!

Then this issue would not have arisen!

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then this issue would not have arisen!

EXACTLY! Can't believe you're still talking about this. No wonder it turns into punchlines!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll let you guess which ones ... la la la 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Guest

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Then this issue would not have arisen!

Doug, 

the issue arose because 2 issues were mixed as @Rob Plant pointed out. Also - pls note that we are not talking about membership fees here. We are talking what is called "indirect spending"... 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

50 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Doug, 

the issue arose because 2 issues were mixed as @Rob Plant pointed out. Also - pls note that we are not talking about membership fees here. We are talking what is called "indirect spending"... 

Indirect spending, parking tickets, library fines....whatever.

What we are talking about is countries signing an agreement to set aside the equivalent of 2% of their GDP to provide funding to an organization which would then provide for their national security collectively. These funds COULD be termed as membership fees into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

We are then discussing various members refusing to honor their financial obligations to this organization under the correct assumption that whatever these unscrupulous members chose to do regarding their financial obligation, that those clowns in Washington would still step up and provide enough funds so that Europeans would not have to worry about the Russian bear riding his tanks through the Fulda Gap. Additionally they would not need to spend their hard earned cash to fulfill the other missions detailed in the NATO mission statement as the need arose.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! You can candy coat it all you want or make excuses until your head caves in. The fact is that many European nations have been ignoring or underpaying their agreed to contributions to NATO assuming the US would pick up the slack.

Those days are over. Either pay your delinquent fees, upgrade your armed forces so that they are not toy soldiers sitting in barracks and pay your agreed to contributions in full and on time OR build and field your own damned European military and fund it yourself!

We all know how effective that would be.

[Otis11 + 551]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Indirect spending, parking tickets, library fines....whatever.

What we are talking about is countries signing an agreement to set aside the equivalent of 2% of their GDP to provide funding to an organization which would then provide for their national security collectively. These funds COULD be termed as membership fees into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

We are then discussing various members refusing to honor their financial obligations to this organization under the correct assumption that whatever these unscrupulous members chose to do regarding their financial obligation, that those clowns in Washington would still step up and provide enough funds so that Europeans would not have to worry about the Russian bear riding his tanks through the Fulda Gap. Additionally they would not need to spend their hard earned cash to fulfill the other missions detailed in the NATO mission statement as the need arose.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! You can candy coat it all you want or make excuses until your head caves in. The fact is that many European nations have been ignoring or underpaying their agreed to contributions to NATO assuming the US would pick up the slack.

Those days are over. Either pay your delinquent fees, upgrade your armed forces so that they are not toy soldiers sitting in barracks and pay your agreed to contributions in full and on time OR build and field your own damned European military and fund it yourself!

We all know how effective that would be.

But it's only 'wrong' if the US breaks contracts. Get with the program Doug...

And yeah, I'd advocate for letting Europe deal with Russia and have the US focus on helping our neighbors to the South (Stopping the violence/instability in Central and South America, helping them establish good education, etc would go a long way to improve our immigration issues - and would probably boost our economy as well - but if we tried that, anything that goes wrong would be the US' fault for 'intervening')

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Overall I agree that the Jones has had a negative impact on the US economy.

However, the US GoM is currently the best market for OSVs in the world due the super protectionist Jones. Admittedly this is because the world market tanked. put a 40 % tariff on European OSVs and they would still be more cost effictive than US vessels. The GoM for OSVs is 100 % closed to non-American companies. We can't even compete by paying a tarif. But US companies can compete with US vessels here.... 

Hmm, more than a third of the OSV fleet is laid up in the Gulf now. Not sure there's a booming business for EU  OSV tenders there. There's nothing stopping you from supplying ships to Pemex is there? They're also in the gulf. 

The article linked does make very clear the association between the protectionist Jones Act and both merchant marine and shipbuilding. 

[specinho + 439]

On 11/12/2019 at 5:53 PM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Interesting that you see the EU as an adversary. It confirms my impression that the only reason Trump doesn't like EU is because the prefers to negotiate with smaller entities where he has the upper hand... 

Let's compare notes in a few years. 

On 11/12/2019 at 6:55 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

I've mentioned repeatedly that I tend to view the EU as a "Mini Me" version of the United Nations.  Globalism run amok.  For example, Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN Human Rights Commission.

EU countries aren't really the problem.  The EU globalism agenda (and the larger UN globalism agenda) is definitely a problem, in my opinion. 

Obviously, we will disagree; no issue with differences of opinion.

The problem is: they should be proliferating like this:

....... to duplicate the efficiency and all other desirable characteristics by the chosen ones..........

[Marcin + 519]

On 11/14/2019 at 8:00 PM, Rob Plant said:

Yes Rasmus I am saying Germany need to pay their way towards NATO  and yes that benefits the US as they have to pay for what Germany and certain others should be paying

if it was the other way round I would be saying the US should pay their fair share ie 2% GDP

Marcin seems to think it’s fine certain members of NATO don’t contribute their fair share.

1. As @Rasmus Jorgensen already argumented US has its own agenda, much broader agenda so it needs to spend 3.5+% or whatever number it is. EU do not need to subsidize parts of this agenda that serve only US interests and actually some of them are against EU agenda (like US backing economic interests with military threats, China vs US hegemony pursuit: at least 1% of GDP on offensive weapons that could be used ONLY in future conflict with China, keeping bases around the world to ensure control about foreign policies and resources of most of countries).

2. Countries only have interests and bringing morality to geopolitics is against clarity (like concept of not paying fair share, interesting observation but as useful as noting that Xi Jinping entourage co-ordinates color of ties with the boss, whereas Trump team is free to decide). EU pays about 1.5% because it can plus consider points 1 and point 3. Only when US backs off it would be in EU interest to pay more. So it is perfectly fine.

3. US society has very limited influence over US defence spending, it is driven more by MIC, using election cycles with their insane spending as easy leverage. Eisenhower is still right after 60 years. US society is informed only for short-term term particular interests of individual politicians. Donald Trump narrative is to Make America Great Again so selectively bringing issues of EU contribution to NATO, but omiting inconvenient truths: no civilian control over MIC, inefficiences in defence spending (single largest source of very complex corruption by value in the world), Trump himself increasing defence spending to levels not supported by policy needs: Trump is also MIC asset.

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Marcin
typos

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1. As @Rasmus Jorgensen already argumented US has its own agenda, much broader agenda so it needs to spend 3.5+% or whatever number it is. EU do not need to subsidize parts of this agenda that serve onlyUS interests and actually some of them are against EUagenda (like US backing economic interests with military threats, China vs US hegemony pursuit: at least 1% of GDP on offensive weapons that could be used ONLY in future conflict with China, keeping bases around the world to ensure control about foreign policies and resources of most of countries).

Since when do NATO contributions have ANYTHING to do with the US policy towards China? You are fabricating ‘facts’ to fit your agenda.

But by your logic, why was the US called up when Yugoslavia disintegrated? That should have been a strictly European issue.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

1. As @Rasmus Jorgensen already argumented US has its own agenda, much broader agenda so it needs to spend 3.5+% or whatever number it is. EU do not need to subsidize parts of this agenda that serve only US interests and actually some of them are against EU agenda (like US backing economic interests with military threats, China vs US hegemony pursuit: at least 1% of GDP on offensive weapons that could be used ONLY in future conflict with China, keeping bases around the world to ensure control about foreign policies and resources of most of countries).

2. Countries only have interests and bringing morality to geopolitics is against clarity (like concept of not paying fair share, interesting observation but as useful as noting that Xi Jinping entourage co-ordinates color of ties with the boss, whereas Trump team is free to decide). EU pays about 1.5% because it can plus consider points 1 and point 3. Only when US backs off it would be in EU interest to pay more. So it is perfectly fine.

3. US society has very limited influence over US defence spending, it is driven more by MIC, using election cycles with their insane spending as easy leverage. Eisenhower is still right after 60 years. US society is informed only for short-term term particular interests of individual politicians. Donald Trump narrative is to Make America Great Again so selectively bringing issues of EU contribution to NATO, but omiting inconvenient truths: no civilian control over MIC, inefficiences in defence spending (single largest source of very complex corruption by value in the world), Trump himself increasing defence spending to levels not supported by policy needs: Trump is also MIC asset.

 

 

 

I’m wasting my time clearly

as Douglas says you are bringing so many other factors in to this argument that you say are related when in actual fact they are not.

i hope the US does pull all its funding and leaves the EU on its own, I would if I was Trump. The Cold War threat is just not there anymore after all.

i care about my country and we have strong and very modern armed forces and  nuclear weapons so nobody is going to mess with England anytime soon.

i wonder what language Polish people will be speaking in 10 years time if the US did pull out?

be careful what you wish for!!

 

 

[Marcin + 519]

22 hours ago, DayTrader said:

No, we gave it all back, it got boring taking over the world to be honest. Was a bit too easy.

Remind me of Poland's amazing territorial history by the way?   

* in the end

* thing

* Portuguese

  More butchering ...

If you're gonna have a pop mate atleast spell it right ...    

England is amazing. Deal with it. Some massive countries are still happy to be owned by us.

* cough  <commonwealth>

Note - you are reading and typing ENGLISH. Just sayin'

#brexit #DT2020

Portugese (without u) is my personal contribution to Americanization of English.

[Marcin + 519]

38 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I’m wasting my time clearly

as Douglas says you are bringing so many other factors in to this argument that you say are related when in actual fact they are not.

i hope the US does pull all its funding and leaves the EU on its own, I would if I was Trump. The Cold War threat is just not there anymore after all.

i care about my country and we have strong and very modern armed forces and  nuclear weapons so nobody is going to mess with England anytime soon.

i wonder what language Polish people will be speaking in 10 years time if the US did pull out?

be careful what you wish for!!

 

 

I see discussions here more about why? than is it good or bad ?

As I said before US has too much on its plate now to back off Europe. Lets go back to this discussion in 10 years or when US starts changing real policies (not narrative) towards Europe whatever is sooner.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I see discussions here more about why? than is it good or bad ?

As I said before US has too much on its plate now to back off Europe. Lets go back to this discussion in 10 years or when US starts changing real policies (not narrative) towards Europe whatever is sooner.

We’ve got too much on OUR plate because OTHERS refuse to take care of what is on THEIR plate!

The EU wants to globalize to THEIR advantage, the UN is a useless bunch, and Europe needs to defend themselves!

The last one will be a stretch if they are dependent on Russia for their energy needs...but I am sure the wizards in Brussels have a plan.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

22 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

What we are talking about is countries signing an agreement to set aside the equivalent of 2% of their GDP to provide funding to an organization which would then provide for their national security collectively

Absolutely no. NATO members commit to to spending 2 % on THEIR OWN DEFENSE / SECURITY. This is not the same as providing funding for the organization. 

Another thing : The narrative that Europe is defenseless against Russia is plain wrong. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ 

Look at 3 largest European countries combined military spending and compare it to Russia. What is true though is that Europe does not have the same "offensive capabillity" as the US. Not even close.  

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

8 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Absolutely no. NATO members commit to to spending 2 % on THEIR OWN DEFENSE / SECURITY. This is not the same as providing funding for the organization. 

Another thing : The narrative that Europe is defenseless against Russia is plain wrong. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ 

Look at 3 largest European countries combined military spending and compare it to Russia. What is true though is that Europe does not have the same "offensive capabillity" as the US. Not even close.  

Rasmus based on 2016 numbers (latest I could find) the UK was the largest spender in the EU. With a significant nuclear arsenal.

we will be leaving the EU shortly so where does that leave the EU then?

i would say you need the US more than ever, don’t bite the hand that feeds!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Absolutely no. NATO members commit to to spending 2 % on THEIR OWN DEFENSE / SECURITY. This is not the same as providing funding for the organization. 

Another thing : The narrative that Europe is defenseless against Russia is plain wrong. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military-spending/ 

Look at 3 largest European countries combined military spending and compare it to Russia. What is true though is that Europe does not have the same "offensive capabillity" as the US. Not even close.  

Regardless how you look at the spending, many European countries have not honored THEIR OWN COMMITMENT TO SPEND 2% OF THEIR GDP ON THEIR OWN DEFENSE!

Obviously, national defense is a low priority for them, and therefore should be NO priority for the US.

Let me ask you this, where do the funds come from when a NATO mission is executed OUTSIDE of Europe?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Rasmus based on 2016 numbers (latest I could find) the UK was the largest spender in the EU. With a significant nuclear arsenal.

we will be leaving the EU shortly so where does that leave the EU then?

i would say you need the US more than ever, don’t bite the hand that feeds!

Let’s just disband NATO and the UN and let everyone fend for themselves. The American taxpayer would support this initiative.

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Let’s just disband NATO and the UN and let everyone fend for themselves. The American taxpayer would support this initiative.

1. We have complex geopolitical situation around the world at present, many forces at play. I would try to explain why United States will keep its European presence unchanged in the next 10-15 years  no matter what are the actions relating to military spending of European countries. I acknowledge that even taking under consideration that US has broad agenda that covers many topics, still we can say that 2% out of over 4% of GDP of US military spending is somehow related to European security.

2. We can all agree that most important topic for United States (at least for the next 20-30 years) is trying to slow the rise of China, so as to prolong US hegemony. Very difficult task as China has over 4 times US population, population of similar quality. Anything that US does is in the shadow of hegemonic conflict with China. That is why I mention China so often in discussions relating to US and EU.

3. In hegemonic conflict it is much more easier for United States to achieve its goals of slowing China's development if China and United States are the only in the world independent actors of big comprehensive national power. Appearance of other powerful actors that can have mitigating effects on US actions, because have goals divergent from US interests is against US goals. So we finally reached Europe in the analysis. Strong Europe could have independent foreign policy, mitigate many excessive parts of US-China economic war. China for the next 10 years will need technology co-operation with developed countries of Europe or/and East Asia. East Asian countries are too weak or scared of immediate China's presence at its borders, so can be easily subjugated by US. Whereas Europe is larger, much stronger economically, far away from China, in some extent independent from US as far as energy resources are concerned (imports by land routes, US Navy cannot block them). Latest example is technology co-operation relating to 5G. Japan immediately jumped into US embargo train, Europe is considering solutions that suite best its business needs, but under vast pressure of United States to ban Huawei.

4. So summing up the point 3, weak, dependant Europe is good for the US till the end of the US-China hegemony war.

5. Unfortunately this route is very short-sighted from the European point of view. After 15 or so years, after United States will finds its new, smaller place in global world order, space in Western Hemisphere, Europe will be at the strong disadvantage. China will no longer need Europe because: a) it will already develop enough in technology area b) would no longer be under current big pressure of US openly hostile policies. Also United States will not need Europe: a) hegemony war is over no need of allies, b) natural concentration of US on Western Hemispere plus maybe Middle East because of oil c) Europe does not have substantial oil and natural gas resources so protecting it in new set up is not a sound business decision.

6. So summing up point 5 Europe needs to increase its military spending when would see start of US retreat from Eurasia.

Edited November 16, 2019 by Marcin
typos

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 11/16/2019 at 5:16 PM, Marcin said:

1. We have complex geopolitical situation around the world at present, many forces at play. I would try to explain why United States will keep its European presence unchanged in the next 10-15 years  no matter what are the actions relating to military spending of European countries. I acknowledge that even taking under consideration that US has broad agenda that covers many topics, still we can say that 2% out of over 4% of GDP of US military spending is somehow related to European security.

2. We can all agree that most important topic for United States (at least for the next 20-30 years) is trying to slow the rise of China, so as to prolong US hegemony. Very difficult task as China has over 4 times US population, population of similar quality. Anything that US does is in the shadow of hegemonic conflict with China. That is why I mention China so often in discussions relating to US and EU.

3. In hegemonic conflict it is much more easier for United States to achieve its goals of slowing China's development if China and United States are the only in the world independent actors of big comprehensive national power. Appearance of other powerful actors that can have mitigating effects on US actions, because have goals divergent from US interests is against US goals. So we finally reached Europe in the analysis. Strong Europe could have independent foreign policy, mitigate many excessive parts of US-China economic war. China for the next 10 years will need technology co-operation with developed countries of Europe or/and East Asia. East Asian countries are too weak or scared of immediate China's presence at its borders, so can be easily subjugated by US. Whereas Europe is larger, much stronger economically, far away from China, in some extent independent from US as far as energy resources are concerned (imports by land routes, US Navy cannot block them). Latest example is technology co-operation relating to 5G. Japan immediately jumped into US embargo train, Europe is considering solutions that suite best its business needs, but under vast pressure of United States to ban Huawei.

4. So summing up the point 3, weak, dependant Europe is good for the US till the end of the US-China hegemony war.

5. Unfortunately this route is very short-sighted from the European point of view. After 15 or so years, after United States will finds its new, smaller place in global world order, space in Western Hemisphere, Europe will be at the strong disadvantage. China will no longer need Europe because: a) it will already develop enough in technology area b) would no longer be under current big pressure of US openly hostile policies. Also United States will not need Europe: a) hegemony war is over no need of allies, b) natural concentration of US on Western Hemispere plus maybe Middle East because of oil c) Europe does not have substantial oil and natural gas resources so protecting it in new set up is not a sound business decision.

6. So summing up point 5 Europe needs to increase its military spending when would see start of US retreat from Eurasia.

Marcin, 

Good analysis. I don't agree 100 %, but certainly overall. I am curious to mid to longterm predictions and your view on a best course for Europe / EU ? 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

On 11/16/2019 at 4:16 PM, Marcin said:

1. We have complex geopolitical situation around the world at present, many forces at play. I would try to explain why United States will keep its European presence unchanged in the next 10-15 years  no matter what are the actions relating to military spending of European countries. I acknowledge that even taking under consideration that US has broad agenda that covers many topics, still we can say that 2% out of over 4% of GDP of US military spending is somehow related to European security.

2. We can all agree that most important topic for United States (at least for the next 20-30 years) is trying to slow the rise of China, so as to prolong US hegemony. Very difficult task as China has over 4 times US population, population of similar quality. Anything that US does is in the shadow of hegemonic conflict with China. That is why I mention China so often in discussions relating to US and EU.

3. In hegemonic conflict it is much more easier for United States to achieve its goals of slowing China's development if China and United States are the only in the world independent actors of big comprehensive national power. Appearance of other powerful actors that can have mitigating effects on US actions, because have goals divergent from US interests is against US goals. So we finally reached Europe in the analysis. Strong Europe could have independent foreign policy, mitigate many excessive parts of US-China economic war. China for the next 10 years will need technology co-operation with developed countries of Europe or/and East Asia. East Asian countries are too weak or scared of immediate China's presence at its borders, so can be easily subjugated by US. Whereas Europe is larger, much stronger economically, far away from China, in some extent independent from US as far as energy resources are concerned (imports by land routes, US Navy cannot block them). Latest example is technology co-operation relating to 5G. Japan immediately jumped into US embargo train, Europe is considering solutions that suite best its business needs, but under vast pressure of United States to ban Huawei.

4. So summing up the point 3, weak, dependant Europe is good for the US till the end of the US-China hegemony war.

5. Unfortunately this route is very short-sighted from the European point of view. After 15 or so years, after United States will finds its new, smaller place in global world order, space in Western Hemisphere, Europe will be at the strong disadvantage. China will no longer need Europe because: a) it will already develop enough in technology area b) would no longer be under current big pressure of US openly hostile policies. Also United States will not need Europe: a) hegemony war is over no need of allies, b) natural concentration of US on Western Hemispere plus maybe Middle East because of oil c) Europe does not have substantial oil and natural gas resources so protecting it in new set up is not a sound business decision.

6. So summing up point 5 Europe needs to increase its military spending when would see start of US retreat from Eurasia.

Marcin I agree with some of what you say, but not all. I also appreciate there are other political reasons at work here.

However the bottom line for me is that NATO is an alliance of countries with a common goal (or was). To have a working alliance you need to have a basis of trust or that alliance doesn't work. If certain countries renege on what they have agreed to contribute to that alliance then the trust is broken and therefore the alliance is also, in this case NATO.

I therefore agree with @Douglas that NATO should be disbanded or at least have firm commitments from each country and penalties if those commitments aren't met.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

However the bottom line for me is that NATO is an alliance of countries with a common goal (or was). To have a working alliance you need to have a basis of trust or that alliance doesn't work. If certain countries renege on what they have agreed to contribute to that alliance then the trust is broken and therefore the alliance is also, in this case NATO.

I therefore agree with @Douglas that NATO should be disbanded or at least have firm commitments from each country and penalties if those commitments aren't met.

^ this

Ditto the United Nations, which is rapidly heading toward bankruptcy due to lack of annual payment from member countries.  I would love to see the UN evicted from NYC and from the U.S.