Army Guy Posted February 22, 2017 Author Report Posted February 22, 2017 NATO statement of responsabilties. 2006 agreement signed , each member are to spend 2 % of GDP, 2014 agreement signed that each member would spend 20 % of it's military budget on new equipment. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm Nato Defense spending.... http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canada-and-germany-derail-nato-request-to-increase-military-spending-targets Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, Army Guy said: NATO statement of responsabilties. 2006 agreement signed , each member are to spend 2 % of GDP, 2014 agreement signed that each member would spend 20 % of it's military budget on new equipment. I guess you missed the guideline part. There is no are, no commitment, it is a guideline. As I said before, all member countries, including the US, have substantially dropped their military spending in the wake of the 2008 recession. Perhaps all member countries need to arrive at a consensus, and not have Herr Trump dictate. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 22, 2017 Author Report Posted February 22, 2017 35 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Why have we been freeloading? Based on what criteria? We have been a very significant contributor to NATO for years, and our spending was very close to the 2% target that NATO set in 2006, or 40 years after you are calling us freeloaders. Canada's NATO commitment is our contribution commitment, and we are making that. The 2% target is something that was set in 2006, but that is not about a commitment to being part of NATO. Show me this document you said our PM signed. Why ? because it is a Canadian thing to do....Based on contributions or the lack of..... Discribe a very significant contributor to NATO for years, how long is years, and what is a very significant contributor ? and very close to the 2 % of GDP level....And according to NATO's own records since 2006 the highest we have ever come is 1.5 % of GDP not even close to 2.0%......unless you have different figures.....Now if you want to track before 2006 go right ahead.....your right we where close to 2.0 % however we had 2 Bases in Europe and over 9000 troops directly involved in NATO operations in Europe....At the time the smallest force in europe,and we supported very little else.....to thin this task force down they agreed to support NATO operations in Norway, a once in a year fly over.....lots of support there and in the 90's they closed out our european bases to save a few bucks......... since then our commitment is declined, to where we are today....almost nothing, and yet our PM touts our commitments is more than funding.....ahhh we are sending troops to europe.....ahhhh NO Canada's commitment is the 2006 agreement....which is 2 % of GDP plus 20 % of military expenditures on new equipment.....and no we have not meet none of those goals...your starting to sound like trudeau now ......our commitment is our contribution, with out the AHHH, or UMMM's .... no it is not.....contributions such as troop and equipment contributions are not enough compared to the other nations that are above the 2 % of GDP mark and still sending troops and equipment to NATO tasks.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Army Guy said: And according to NATO's own records since 2006 the highest we have ever come is 1.5 % of GDP not even close to 2.0%......unless you have different figures You are the one talking about the past 50 years, I am putting it in that context. 4 minutes ago, Army Guy said: NO Canada's commitment is the 2006 agreement....which is 2 % of GDP plus 20 % of military expenditures on new equipment guideline I am not saying don't spend more, I am saying we need to make that decision and not Trump. We need to decide if we are willing to increase our overall taxation by 7% (personal, corporate, sales, etc.) or not. We have to agree that we are going to borrow to meet that commitment, or we are going to cut services. We need to make those decisions, and I don't remember anybody talking about them in the 2015 election. Canadians have not had a say in what our commitments are. You seem intent on laying this on Trudeau, when it was Harper that supposedly made that commitment, and then dropped his spending dramatically and didn't suggest he would suddenly spend an additional $20 billion/year in 2015 campaign. Personally I think we should raise taxes and spend more on the military, but I don't make the decisions. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 22, 2017 Author Report Posted February 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You are the one talking about the past 50 years, I am putting it in that context. guideline I am not saying don't spend more, I am saying we need to make that decision and not Trump. We need to decide if we are willing to increase our overall taxation by 7% (personal, corporate, sales, etc.) or not. We have to agree that we are going to borrow to meet that commitment, or we are going to cut services. We need to make those decisions, and I don't remember anybody talking about them in the 2015 election. Canadians have not had a say in what our commitments are. You seem intent on laying this on Trudeau, when it was Harper that supposedly made that commitment, and then dropped his spending dramatically and didn't suggest he would suddenly spend an additional $20 billion/year in 2015 campaign. Personally I think we should raise taxes and spend more on the military, but I don't make the decisions. Trump is only doing what most US presidents did not want to do, or in trumps favor he does not know how to use any politically correctness.....he talks without thinking....that being said, it still does not give Canada the right to fly under the radar and not live up to agreed terms..... The fact That Canada signed on to this commitment in 2006, and once again in 2014 agreeing to all the changes, made in order to protect the alliance....or are you saying Canada was there bobbed their heads up and down, and left with no intention of living up to a major defensive pact guide lines..........I think your guide line observation is just that....why even have a guide line if no one is paying it any heed to it.....might as well have been a new rule for the dress code for the lunch room. I get it your concerned over new taxation.....so am i however lets remember that this government spent 30 bil in a blink of an eye....with no consideration to increased taxes....in fact most liberals were in favor, even saying 30 bil was a drop in the bucket....IF and i say IF this becomes a national issue then your right we as a nation are going to have to sit down and hammer out HOW we are going to handle this.....it won't be over night, but over a decade to achieve..... And i'm not laying this on the liberals.....I'm laying it on our government present , past and future.....right where it belongs....and lets not forget Canadians they own a part of this as well. And although i have been waiting for some one to take our defense spending seriously....I was really hoping that it would be a Canadian solution.....wishful thinking i guess.....Sad really when we need another nation to force us to take a look at what exactly our responsibilities are..., we have not taken our military seriously since after WWII....korea was just a small bump in the road.....Since then we as a nation have forgotten all the nasty things we had to learn through the blood of our countrymen, as if it was to painful to remember and one day we will have to pay that cost once again....problem is my time in the military is over, i have a daughter in the forces now, and soon a son who wants to follow his old mans foot steps.....i desperately tried to talk him into joining the airforce,,,,,,no way he said.... and i am concerned very concerned.... just as all the Canadians that have sons and daughters in the forces should be.....If we are going to treat them like dirty laundry....then we as a nation atleast owe them to either shut down the forces....or properly equip and fund them..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, Army Guy said: I get it your concerned over new taxation.....so am i however lets remember that this government spent 30 bil in a blink of an eye Except of course the increased spending was $10 billion, and it is supposed to be an investment over a few years to build infrastructure to increase our future capabilities. You are confusing a predicted, and inflated, deficit with spending - two very different things. The best way to treat our soldiers is no more stupid missions like Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, ?Impact said: I guess you missed the guideline part. There is no are, no commitment, it is a guideline. As I said before, all member countries, including the US, have substantially dropped their military spending in the wake of the 2008 recession. Perhaps all member countries need to arrive at a consensus, and not have Herr Trump dictate. Perhaps you missed the statement by the Trump administration, a statement supported by the head of NATO? Trump won't force NATO members to increase their spending, if they don't, the United States will simply curtail its support for collective defense..........Europe (absent the UK) and Canada, without full US backing and support, will then be following the dictation of not the Trump administration, but of Putin's...the same Putin that already supplies ~1/3 of Europe's oil and natural gas. Simply put, absent the United States, Putin can dictate to Europe his any desires and whims, through not only the threat of force, but his ability to cripple their economies nearly overnight.........if Putin wants the Baltic States, the EU isn't going to stop him. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 11 hours ago, ?Impact said: I suggest you look up the track record of Diefenbaker. What of it? 4 hours ago, Wilber said: Until the guy who kept his sword takes away your plow and the land you use it on. IMO Well said....... 4 hours ago, ?Impact said: What is the proper spending, that is up to Canadians to decide, not Trump. Sure, but the previous GoC agreed to the increase.......if the current GoC decides we do not need to follow suite, the Americans and Europeans that do increase their commitment to NATO, will decide the implications for Canadians. Simple as that really. Quote
OftenWrong Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 4 hours ago, Wilber said: Until the guy who kept his sword takes away your plow and the land you use it on. IMO It is only honourable if everyone does it and even then, if you are outnumbered 10 to 1 you are screwed even if no one has anything more than their fists. Yup. Reminds me of one time when I was a kid, had an argument with another kid who had a baseball bat. I had a big rock. The kid said, "put down your rock, and I'll put down my bat". So I did. And then... Quote
OftenWrong Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 4 hours ago, eyeball said: Somebody should tell Pence to go piss up a rope. Anyone who goes around the planet deliberately making as many enemies as America does is no ally of anyone - America is the proverbial rogue nation that a real alliance of more civilized nations should have put back in its place decades ago, I see. Perhaps you prefer a better country, like Russia then? Quote
eyeball Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 No, Russia can go piss up the very same rope for the very same reason. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Altai Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) For US, NATO means selling weapons and making money. Woohhh Russia is going to attack you, would you like to buy some our weapons ? Hooooowwhhh Iran is going to attack you, would you like to buy some of our weapons ? Wtfff Norther Korea is going to attack you, woul you like to ........ NO !!! Edited February 22, 2017 by Altai Quote "You cant ask people about their belief, its none of your business, its between them and their God but you have to ask them whether or not they need something or they have a problem to be solved." Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed The Conqueror"We are not intended to conquer someone's lands but we want to conquer hearts." Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed The Conqueror
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 4 hours ago, Altai said: For US, NATO means selling weapons and making money. You don't need to be a member of NATO for the US to sell arms to. Their true superior weapons are not even for sale to NATO, and much of what NATO nations can get are also available to the many countries the US considers Major non-NATO allies; a list started about 30 years ago and keeps growing. They recently added a new category between these non-NATO allies and NATO with the US—Israel Major Strategic Partner Act (note Israel was one of the first major non-NATO allies). Then of course there are many other groups and countries the US sells arms to, although they do them under the table. War, or the threat of war, is a very profitable business. Quote
Altai Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: You don't need to be a member of NATO for the US to sell arms to. Their true superior weapons are not even for sale to NATO, and much of what NATO nations can get are also available to the many countries the US considers Major non-NATO allies; a list started about 30 years ago and keeps growing. They recently added a new category between these non-NATO allies and NATO with the US—Israel Major Strategic Partner Act (note Israel was one of the first major non-NATO allies). Then of course there are many other groups and countries the US sells arms to, although they do them under the table. War, or the threat of war, is a very profitable business. These are not my words, these are what a NSA agent says. US still supports NATO because these countries always want to renew their weapons or new members buys weapons. Dont you remember how US was gone mad when Turkiye didnt interested with US weapons and wanted to buy Chinese and Russian weapons. Last time a country named Montenegro was joined NATO and they wasted a huge amount of money to buy NATO weapons. NATO is also a pillow between US and Russia-China and these new NATO member countries are covering Russia from all sides. Secondly, I dont think that US has any ultra advanced weapons. Its just a Hollywood scenario. They cant dare to attack to any strong countries such as Russia or Turkiye or China. Quote "You cant ask people about their belief, its none of your business, its between them and their God but you have to ask them whether or not they need something or they have a problem to be solved." Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed The Conqueror"We are not intended to conquer someone's lands but we want to conquer hearts." Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed The Conqueror
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, Altai said: Secondly, I dont think that US has any ultra advanced weapons. Its just a Hollywood scenario. They cant dare to attack to any strong countries such as Russia or Turkiye or China. MAD is a no-win scenario, so no they can't attack Russia or China. US does have some superior weapons, although Russia has many similar ones as well and China is not too far behind. There are many weapons the US does not share with it's allies like the F-22, nuclear attack submarines, even aircraft carriers which is more than just the boat but the who fleet and air power it contains. Each one of those aircraft carrier fleets (the US has 10) has more power than many countries, including many of the US allies. Yes, Hollywood does overplay the capabilities but don't underestimate them either. One of the most important strategic weapons is intelligence gathering and the US does have very advanced capabilities there. Certainly technology plays a big part, as does the human assets. Quote
Rue Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 I agree with Derek and Army Guy on this issue. (Derek I still want the Gripen man!!!!) The US is perfectly right to say it should not have to carry NATO financially which it has done. NATO can not have its cake and eat it too as long as its only the US baking and serving it. Canada has free-loaded off the US defence umbrella since the end of WW2. That is a fact. We had the third largest navy at the end of WW2 and we should have a very large one given the amount of coast lines we have. We have no navy. We can excuse a small ill equipped army, an air force whose jets always seem aged and in need of replacement, but we have zero excuses having no navy. Trudeau feels if he sends 600 troops to Latvia or engages in the mission we now do in Iraq that's enough to justify underspending in NATO. He has said so, Its not true. Canada's role in Afghanistan, currently in Iraq, in the Libya air war, were all part of being NATO. So is having an operational navy. I personally think NATO is a left over vestige of a cold war era. Today's no.1 threat is terrorism, then China predatory pricing. Russia is most certainly perceived as a threat to the Baltic states, Ukraine, Poland. Finland, Sweden, Norway, Western Europe, Bulgaria, Romania, but the painful reality is that is not necessarily in the US's best interests. The US has a right to a foreign policy that is pro American interests just like every other nation. After WW2 the US rebuilt Europe and Japan and since then its supposed to provide financing for the world while being pissed at, at the same time. The very people who call it evil demand it buy their oil and protect them. The very people who complain about the US are the first to expect the US Navy to continue as it is today the no.1 rescue organization on the high seas which it is. People complain how many US overseas military bases there are but not the spin of jobs they create in the countries they are in. The US military has unfairly been asked to keep the world safe. Obama was the first President to regularly make speeches apologizing for the US's military strength and role as a world policeman. He sent this message for 8 years. Now suddenly Trump is the bad guy because he says you can't have it both ways-youc an't expect us to pay trillions for our military and benefit from it, and then in the next breath piss on us? Take a look. For the US to put military bases in Japan and South Korea it had to agree to completely unfair trading rules allowing both countries to dump Cars in to the US continental market but not allow the US to export the same amount back. The US paid big fees to the Philippines for its bases. Look at the economic spin off in nations where the US has set up bases. Why does no one mention that in Europe? I do not blame the Canadian military. I blame the politicians who don't properly fund them/ The Canadian military would be more than willing to pull its weight with a properly equipped navy, army, coast guard and air force. Yah tell that to Trudeau and that sad Defence Minister who can barely jeep a straight face with all the lies he's told to parrot out on behalf of Trudeau. Trump has signalled what he thinks Canada is-a dumping ground for his illegals and a reliable source for oil. Trudeau has signalled him we will be just that for the US. Now when Christinia Fryland the Foreign Minister met with Rex Tillerson the US Sec. of State, and told him the Canadian national symbol was the beaver, Tillerson said oh yah Trump loves them but got into trouble in the election because of mentioning that to a reporter. Quote I come to you to hell.
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 Why does the US have so many overseas bases? Are they being requested by the host nations, or forced upon them by the US. If the US is giving concessions for those bases, I would expect the latter. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Why does the US have so many overseas bases? Because it can. If the U.S. abandoned all "overseas" bases, Canada and other nations would freak out. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: Because it can. If the U.S. abandoned all "overseas" bases, Canada and other nations would freak out. Really? When has Canada ever asked the US to establish overseas bases? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Because it can. If the U.S. abandoned all "overseas" bases, Canada and other nations would freak out. Not to mention, a single US carrier doing shore leave in your country can suddenly make tourist season seem like a slow day. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Really? When has Canada ever asked the US to establish overseas bases? Whenever it wanted Canadian air assets and other support based overseas. You think Canada was gonna pay for that ? LOL !!! Canada even screwed up a simple base lease with the UAE. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11519479 Edited February 22, 2017 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Whenever it wanted Canadian air assets and other support based overseas. You think Canada was gonna pay for that ? LOL !!! Remember, "bases" are swampy bad places where Kermit the Roosevelt lives. 1 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Not to mention, a single US carrier doing shore leave in your country can suddenly make tourist season seem like a slow day. Yes, I don't know how many sailor they allow on leave at one time but even 20% would be a thousand tourists. I don't know if that situation applies to Canada, do US carriers dock in any Canadian ports? There are probably a limited number of ports they can dock in anyway. 3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Whenever it wanted Canadian air assets and other support based overseas. You think Canada was gonna pay for that ? LOL !!! Canadian air assets to support US wars you mean? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ?Impact said: Canadian air assets to support US wars you mean? U.S., UN, NATO...whatever. Canada is never the leader...always the follower. The world is so scared of Canada's "soft power". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 Meanwhile in Russia... MOSCOW — The Russian military received a sweeping array of new weapons last year, including 41 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the wide-ranging military modernization will continue this year, the defence minister said Wednesday. Minister Sergei Shoigu told lawmakers the air force will receive 170 new aircraft, the army will receive 905 tanks and other armoured vehicles while the navy will receive 17 new ships this year. Amid tensions with the West, the Kremlin has continued to spend big on new weapons despite Russia’s economic downturn. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/planes-tanks-and-ships-oh-my-russian-military-gets-a-sweeping-massive-upgrade Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.