NATO complains about cuts to its funding by member states, despite really having a zero purpose in t - Polidicks

[quote]BRUSSELS — Alarmed by years of cuts to military spending, the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, issued a dire public warning to European nations, noting that together they had slashed $45 billion, or the equivalent of Germany’s entire military budget, endangering the alliance’s viability, its mission and its relationship with the United States. That was two years ago. Since then, with the Afghan war winding down and pressure from the European Union to limit budget deficits, Europe has only cut deeper. Now, as President Obama wrestles with his own huge budget deficit and military costs, the responsibility for keeping NATO afloat has fallen disproportionately onto the United States, an especially untenable situation as priorities shift to Asia. [B]The United States finances nearly three-quarters of NATO’s military spending, up from 63 percent in 2001. And yet among the alliance’s 28 nations, experts note, only the United States, Britain and Greece are meeting NATO’s own spending guidelines of 2 percent of gross domestic product.[/B] Even Britain and France — the two leading European nations willing to project military might — are slipping further. France says that by 2014 it may cut deeper still — to just 1.3 percent of G.D.P., down from 1.9 percent this year. By comparison, the United States spent 4.8 percent of its G.D.P. on the military in 2011. In 2012, for the first time, military spending among Asian nations, in particular China, exceeded that of the Europeans. “We are moving toward a Europe that is a combination of the unable and the unwilling,” said Camille Grand, a French military expert who directs the Foundation for Strategic Research. “European countries are continuing to be free riders, instead of working seriously to see how to act together.” Increasingly, without United States assistance, military experts said, Europe’s armed forces have trouble carrying out basic operations as its dwindling financial and political commitment has derailed multiple initiatives intended to make the continent more self-reliant. [B]NATO’s deputy secretary general, Alexander R. Vershbow, a former senior Defense Department official, said that “the financial crisis has been corrosive to the alliance” and that relations between the European Union and NATO remained “dysfunctional.”[/B] Even as Britain and France have boasted of operations in Libya and Mali, those interventions have revealed Europe’s weakness more than its strength. In Libya, the United States supplied intelligence, drones, fighter and refueling aircraft, ammunition stocks and missiles to destroy air defenses, and in Mali the French required American intelligence, drones, and refueling and transport aircraft. Senior American officials have warned that unless European countries spend more on defense, they risk “collective military irrelevance.” A senior American official said that Washington was eager for partnership in the Middle East and Asia, but that “Europe’s decision to abdicate on defense spending increasingly means it can’t take care of itself, and it can’t be a valuable partner to us.”[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world/europe/europes-shrinking-military-spending-under-scrutiny.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1366995922-z5lo/B7SVCQ67GoOzI4hCQ[/url]

gotta beat those communists

[quote]In Libya, the United States supplied intelligence, drones, fighter and refueling aircraft, ammunition stocks and missiles to destroy air defenses, and in Mali the French required American intelligence, drones, and refueling and transport aircraft.[/quote] I knew this but didn't put the two together. [quote]“Europe’s decision to abdicate on defense spending increasingly means it can’t take care of itself, and it can’t be a valuable partner to us.”[/quote] So this guy wants to throw them under the bus that fucking stupid. [quote]And yet among the alliance’s 28 nations, experts note, only the United States, Britain and Greece are meeting NATO’s own spending guidelines of 2 percent of gross domestic product.[/quote] Greece with it's high amount of debt is contributing 2% of it's GDP yet the other 28 aren't that's fucked up.

"Pls spend more on the military even though there's a economic crisis kthnx" Also, [quote][B]Greece are meeting NATO’s own spending guidelines of 2 percent of gross domestic product.[/quote] [/B]That sure went great for Greece

Greece is still paying NATO? They should probably withdraw that funding, they might actually be able to use that cash to provide jobs for the unemployed with it.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40432629]Greece is still paying NATO? They should probably withdraw that funding, they might actually be able to use that cash to provide jobs for the unemployed with it.[/QUOTE] more like buy a new sub

It's funny, if you look at NATO they're kind of an ironic group. They fought against communists... By forming a group where no individual was any more important than any other and anything that affected one part of the group would rouse the other parts to action to assist their partner. Seriously, did they never consider that it would look a little silly? I know it was to stave off invasion rather than fight against the principles of communism itself, but I just found it funny.

NATO should get decomissioned entirely. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNAcECXLuxw[/media] Also think about that in relation with the whole price fixing scheme.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;40433278]It's funny, if you look at NATO they're kind of an ironic group. They fought against communists... [b]By forming a group where no individual was any more important than any other[/b] and anything that affected one part of the group would rouse the other parts to action to assist their partner. Seriously, did they never consider that it would look a little silly? I know it was to stave off invasion rather than fight against the principles of communism itself, but I just found it funny.[/QUOTE] Oh come on... The US... (I recognise that and I'm not even American)

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40433302]NATO should get decomissioned entirely. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNAcECXLuxw[/media] Also think about that in relation with the whole price fixing scheme.[/QUOTE] the only source you post is a russia today source, aka anti anything american ever source.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40433302]NATO should get decomissioned entirely. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNAcECXLuxw[/media] Also think about that in relation with the whole price fixing scheme.[/QUOTE] Russia Today keeping up that fine standard of being insane.

Guys this isn't funny, the Warsaw pact could take the world over!

Honestly. NATO should just put money into naval forces and just use it to protect shipping lanes from piracy. A lot of nations already do this, but it's quite literally one of the only useful things I can think of them doing with an actual affect.

Perhaps it should be re-purposed as an international policing agency, a organization that is there for human rights and is not influenced by one countries agenda.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40432629]Greece is still paying NATO? They should probably withdraw that funding, they might actually be able to use that cash to provide jobs for the unemployed with it.[/QUOTE] It's sort of a commitment. They already dogged a bunch of their other commitments already. Damn Greeks

[QUOTE=Phaselancer;40434187]Perhaps it should be re-purposed as an international policing agency, a organization that is there for human rights and is not influenced by one countries agenda.[/QUOTE] That was more or less the goal of it to begin with, and no matter how hard it tries critics would never admit if it did that.

And you can't blame them that much they are annoyed people aren't pulling their weight that they agreed to. America doesn't want to hold every countries hand militarily cause they don't want to do it themselves.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;40434267]That was more or less the goal of it to begin with, and no matter how hard it tries critics would never admit if it did that.[/QUOTE] No the original goal was to unite the west against the Soviet Union in the face of another war. It was only after the Soviet's collapsed and NATO started being seen as entirely useless that it started bombing genocidal factions and dictators.

They still seem to do a better job than the UN.