Donald Trump printed out made-up £300bn Nato invoice and handed it to Angela Merkel
100 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;52020371]M1 what?[/QUOTE]
Hint: It's not the Garand. It's the tank variant.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52019504]I agree, seems super counter-productive. The thread about Trump transmission staff purging their electronic devices also smells fake to me.
Either way, to continue the discussion of the US and NATO military budgets, I made a calculation of what the US could save - TODAY - if NATO could remain safe by having every country spend 2% of its GDP:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XwBsaqh.png[/IMG]
The US alone (or well, almost) is spending so much that it could cut its budget by about 25% and still pull every other country up to that recommended spending when we're talking actual dollars. So if the US is simply "picking up the slack" why the fuck is it spending so much more than it needs to? By my calculations, the US could cut its spending to 2.5% GDP, which is admittedly still 0.5% more than what NATO countries are supposed to spend ideally, and pick up the slack from literally everyone who is currently spending less. What's the point of having other countries spend more when the US is - seemingly very willingly, considering the extra 50b in Trump's new budget - picking up the slack three times over already?[/QUOTE]
The USA obsesses over their military, it's a huge point in their pride to have more tanks than homeless people, and they've got a lot of homeless people. "since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence." I think it's a popular idea over there for Right winged folk to believe that European freedom,liberty and socialism is payed for by American militancy and without it we'd all be overrun by terrorists or something. I think Andrew Klavan (One of the more convincing nutcases, his stuff is often high quality) raised such a point. Though of course, I'm not american, I've only been there breifly, in liberal circles, and so all my information on what right wing Americans believe in is second hand at best.
But yeah, having a free market, nationalist, militant neighbour (golly, that sounds like some kind of facism with extra freedom) is alright, I guess.
Even if this is fake, why do I bet Trump was the kinda kid who tried to forge a school note for himself
"Donild is not alowd to go 2 skool 2day - love, dad"
[editline]28th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Jack;52023178]since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence.
[/QUOTE]
We learned it from you, [i]DAD[/i]
[editline]28th March 2017[/editline]
I don't want to quote that chart again but does Iceland really put like, $16k a year into NATO? :v:
[QUOTE=Kylel999;52024364]
We learned it from you, [i]DAD[/i]
[/QUOTE]
Alright, you have a point, but while UK military expenditure is grossly non-proportionate to the amount we spend on nice things... We ain't got shit on the US when it comes to military expenditure. Even if we were the same size, pop, and GDP, we'd have half the tanks (Unless of course that increase facilitated a more right wing, militant stance, which it probably does)
[QUOTE=Kylel999;52024364]I don't want to quote that chart again but does Iceland really put like, $16k a year into NATO? :v:[/QUOTE]
Well, it's "military spending", but I think that number is wrong as well. Their military numbers about 200 people, and I really, really doubt you can hire 200 people on $16k a year.
[editline]28th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Jack;52023178]The USA obsesses over their military, it's a huge point in their pride to have more tanks than homeless people, and they've got a lot of homeless people. "since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence." I think it's a popular idea over there for Right winged folk to believe that European freedom,liberty and socialism is payed for by American militancy and without it we'd all be overrun by terrorists or something. I think Andrew Klavan (One of the more convincing nutcases, his stuff is often high quality) raised such a point. Though of course, I'm not american, I've only been there breifly, in liberal circles, and so all my information on what right wing Americans believe in is second hand at best.
But yeah, having a free market, nationalist, militant neighbour (golly, that sounds like some kind of facism with extra freedom) is alright, I guess.[/QUOTE]
The thinking of classical American conservatives is "better to fight the enemy on their turf than ours". Our military is not that large for the size of our country (we [I]are[/I] fucking huge), but we spend a lot on force-projection, the ability to put boots on the ground and bombers in the air anywhere, anytime. By making sure the frontlines are in "anywhere but America", we avoid having to deal with the damages of war. Which isn't a bad concept, all things considered, but the implementation has gotten derailed.
If you want to be cynical, it also helps Republicans get elected. Pointing at an external threat, then claiming to be the only one who can save you from it, is a classic political strategy. That doesn't quite explain why conservative scholars espouse the same ideas, though.
There's also a bit of America: World Police thinking going on, at least with the lower-class conservatives (read: poor redneck Republicans). There are Bad Guys out there, and someone has to deal with them, and if we're the only ones to step up to bat, so be it. That mode of thinking is fading, though, since that's basically the justification for the Iraq war and that was such a disaster that we're still recoiling from it. It also doesn't jibe with low-class conservative's xenophobia, because it also implies that we need to take care of refugees and other after-effects of "The Bad Guys". Trump ran on an isolationist military policy, which played better with that type of conservative, but he doesn't seem to be sticking to it.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52024688]Well, it's "military spending", but I think that number is wrong as well. Their military numbers about 200 people, and I really, really doubt you can hire 200 people on $16k a year.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, should be noted that the world bank simply listed them at 0%, but that just fucked up my chart so I put in a small as to be completely insignificant instead. Wasn't aiming to release this in a journal after all.
I like how you guys always jump the shark the moment a story like this appears.
A tip how to spot a fake story next time: "reportedly" "supposedly" "anonymous source in the White House"
[QUOTE=BananaMed;52027036]I like how you guys always jump the shark the moment a story like this appears.
A tip how to spot a fake story next time: "reportedly" "supposedly" "anonymous source in the White House"[/QUOTE]
The worrying thing is that in previous statements that source has been true, and the fact that you can't tell is worrying, the fact that we were discussing the chance that it might of happened, and not the chance that it was insane like you could of thought of previous administrations is fucking worrying.
I hate Trump as much as the next guy but countries need to start meeting that 2% themselves, as I understand a handful of countries flat out dont pay that 2% and then ask the US for aid and suddent they carry the addition .5-1.5% on top.
[QUOTE=BananaMed;52027036]I like how you guys always jump the shark the moment a story like this appears.
A tip how to spot a fake story next time: "reportedly" "supposedly" "anonymous source in the White House"[/QUOTE]
Yeah, screw all that "innocent until proven guilty" shit, lets call them out with accusations and slander before legal proceedings.
Genius...
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52027598]Yeah, screw all that "innocent until proven guilty" shit, lets call them out with accusations and slander before legal proceedings.
Genius...[/QUOTE]
The irony in this post is reaching levels I have never seen before.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.