It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the U.S. Military Subsidizing European Social Porgrams Via NATO?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DerBeobachter




In addition to that they use the NATO and it´s members as if it is their (gods...) own organisation, their own people. Where NATO troops have to fight?


You do understand that for NATO to be used they (member countries) have to vote on it...the US doesn't wield the power to do that.



And i bet the majority of people would be happy with less US military around the world, with less US listenings stations, with Less "Schools of the Americas", with less US three letter clubs doing dirty jobs everywhere for the profits of the USA.


And all the country has to do is ask and we will leave just as we did in the Philipenes just to have them ask us back because they wanted to feel safer than when we weren't there.

It should also be noted that the US pays the host countries for use of the base...so they aren't there for free.



Keep your dollars, and pull your occupying power troops back!


Just wondering but would an occupying force be paying 6 billion dollars a year to be there...No they wouldn't and I bet Germany wouldn't like to lose that 4 billion a year.

Also you do understand that 4 billion a year would have to made up somehow...are the German people ready to cover this loss of money?



That all would make the world a more peaceful and safer place!


Really because without the US presence their would be countries looking to take back land they may feel is theirs...is the German military strong enough to keep another country out on it's own?



And why do people use facebook, for heavens sake, and think that they are taken seriously???


Couldn't agree more.




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Subsonic

I'm from a military family and thus all for an appropriate increase to our defense-budget.

Another side to the story is that the french (among others) still reject a reinvigorated, strong German military.

Also, I'm not sure I want even half of those "wonderful things"... but that is another topic.

I don't mean this in an hostile way, but I can't see why we should be thankful for something we don't want.

*I remember when Ron Paul (who is from Hessen by the way...) brought this issue up 4 years ago, many people here agreed with him.
edit on 26-6-2016 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious

As far as Germany is concerned, raising the military budget to cover Germany's military needs will not solve Europes military problems.

In fact if Germany wants to act on their budget they have to take EU readiness into consideration, and the fact that so many member states of NATO don't contribute the requisite 2% of GDP to military spending.

Germany would be stuck with not only the German military bill, but that of Europe.

For all that Germany does to keep the EU afloat, it would go broke trying to meet the void left by the US.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Subsonic

Yeah nah, let's get this straight, eh?

America wades into a country that has oil or vast amounts of rare metal ores and screws things up, kills the wrong people including their allies and has a new defence budget , then quietly asks the Brits for help because the poor brainwashed Yanks are UTTERLY. OUT. OF. THEIR. DEPTH. YET. AGAIN.

So, yeah, lets get the U.S. out of NATO, and restrain the lunatics so we can have world peace.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Hah!

You think our european neighbours would allow us to "ensure EU defense readiness"?
Only for their own good and "protection" of course...

Nope. That's something only the U.S. can pull off in our day and age.

*Aside from the fact that it would indeed be financially unrealistic.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Ericthedoubter




So, yeah, lets get the U.S. out of NATO, and restrain the lunatics so we can have world peace.


If you think world peace is contingent on only the actions of the US you're going to be sorely disappointed.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious




You think our european neighbours would allow us to "ensure EU defense readiness"? Only for their own good and "protection" of course...


I think if the US pulled out of the NATO accords Germany would be the only nation capable of partially filling the gap financially speaking.

The EU would demand it and Germany would be financially on the hook for it. So would France.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

If they stopped picking fights in oil-rich countries, this world would be a far better place.

Perhaps they should start staring at the Sauds?

Oh, I forgot. They're the GOOD guys, right?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Ericthedoubter




If they stopped picking fights in oil-rich countries, this world would be a far better place.


This has very little to do with Europe's military readiness, or lack thereof.

I always get a kick out of posters who think all the worlds problems would be solved if the US wasn't around.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
It's easy enough to appeal to the US electorate by denigrating the European contribution to NATO. There's votes in that, lazy Europeans versus hard working Americans etc.

Fact remains, though, that even during the height of the cold war in the mid 1980's, 95% of the army divisions, 85% of the tanks, 80% of the combat aircraft and 70% of the warships serving in the European combat area were manned, bought and paid for by the Western European NATO members ... not by the USA.

That's not to be ungrateful to the USA for their contribution then and ongoing commitment today. It's just putting things in perspective.

What the USA (and others) need to do is to cut costs by spending their defence dollars with greater care, with better procurement, common purchasing, buying the best weapons at best value. The JSF F-35, for example, the Zumwalt class destroyers, the ABM systems ... or the QE aircraft carriers, the type 45 destroyers and their already inadequate engines, the Wildcat helicopter ... do any of these projects really represent value for money ? Or what about ending the revolving door for generals and admirals retiring, then going on to work for the defence contractors, isn't there a conflict of interest there ?

Plenty $$$€€€£££ can be saved by NATO simply through better purchasing etc. No need for a US retreat from Europe.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Subsonic



and that the U.S. taxpayer is essentially subsidizing European Democratic Socialism through our military.

Not exclusively US or NATO. It is a UN deal from the start.And it is worldwide.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Subsonic

Until every NATO member is at the already mandated level of defense spending then yes, we are subsidizing other members other budgets, including their social net and even the immigration problems they brought on themselves. The EU is 1st World, about time they started spending militarily like they should. Just being honest, the U.S. Does all the heavy lifting and spending. We need to focus on our on problems as a First Priority for awhile. The EU as a whole, needs to step up.
edit on 26-6-2016 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

If there's no profit, there will be no spending. Germany barely gives out money for the police force, never mind the military.

There's too much pacifism going on in europe and it WILL backfire.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TheShippingForecast

Cutting costs isn't the problem. NATO nations don't contribute the requisite 2% of GDP to the military. There are nations in NATO that don't have enough ammo to train with, German military hardware in neglected and in disrepair, and most EU nations could not prosecute a war for the required 30 days.

It isn't cost cutting that's an issue, it's actually spending the money required for membership in NATO.


edit on 27 6 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: TheShippingForecast

Cutting costs isn't the problem. NATO nations don't contribute the requisite 2% of GDP to the military. There are nations in NATO that don't have enough amp to train with, German military hardware in neglected and in disrepair, and most EU nations could not prosecute a war for the required 30 days.

It isn't cost cutting that's an issue, it's actually spending the money required for membership in NATO.



Well the 2% 'rule' is a fairly stupid concept. Setting defence spending as an arbitrary % of economic output makes no sense at all.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It was set at two percent as a MINIMUM for all member nations to meet certainly conditions. This would allow for regular proficiency training and the ability to prosecute a combat campaign for at least 30 days.

This is not what is happening at all.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ScepticScot

It was set at two percent as a MINIMUM for all member nations to meet certainly conditions. This would allow for regular proficiency training and the ability to prosecute a combat campaign for at least 30 days.

This is not what is happening at all.


2% could be way too much or way too little. Setting defence spending (minimum or otherwise) around GDP makes no sense at all. If relations between Russia and Europe improve and resulting trade increase GDP should we then ramp up defence spending? Or if China stops buying US debt causing a decrease in GDP should you the decrease military spending?

The sane way is to work out what we need the military to be capable of doing then spend what is required, regardless if that is 1% or 5%.

Most European countries have little interest in being able to project power overseas so their milatry budget will inevitably be lower than the US.
edit on 27-6-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

The 30 day requirement was for domestic defense.

They can't even do that.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: ScepticScot


Most European countries have little interest in being able to project power overseas so their milatry budget will inevitably be lower than the US.


To be Frank, without the U. S.'s military umbrella and guardianship of the seas for trade, you damn well know Europe would be spending a hell of a lot more. Europe has gotten used to being protected in a global sense by the United States. For the most part except for the UK and France, they have left the world stage militarily. Does any nation fear a EU army? I would see a real war lead by a EU army, see the EU get routed because they wouldn't be a cohesive unit. And if EU politics are a guide, they probably couldn't even agree on a unified strategy. Just calling it like I see, the EU have let Russia, the U.S. And now China determine the fate of the world. If Russia were to grab Ukraine or the Baltics, the EU alone wouldn't be able to stop them. A full NATO wouldn't either.
edit on 28-6-2016 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2016 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2016 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

To me it sounds a lot like the mob's protection racket.

Sorry, my tin foil hat is in place. I don't see the US doing anything without taking into account some kind of kickback.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join