-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If you want further facts about the aim to increase I suggest you read this
North Atlantic Alliance (5 September 2015). Written at Newport, Wales. Wales Summit Declaration (PDF). Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 4–5 September 2014. London: Government Digital Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
You'll find the links on the Wikipedia page for the 2014 summit
No I want the evidence that counties are all increasing defence spending by sufficient amounts to meet the target. as I just dont believe that. i,e Proof of your claim nobody is dragging their feet.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Whee did you get that information?
I'm sure it was probably a source probably dismissable as "MSM" but I have no reason to think those facts are wildly wrong enough to make your claims true. If I can find the NATO spending papers themselves I will link them.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Whee did you get that information?
I'm sure it was probably a source probably dismissable as "MSM" but I have no reason to think those facts are wildly wrong enough to make your claims true. If I can find the NATO spending papers themselves I will link them.
So you have no proof upon which to base your claim that nobody is dragging their feet?
I looked it up...
Your MSM source was indeed completely and utterly full of shite. There is a lot of dragging of feet.
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf
Page 5.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If you want further facts about the aim to increase I suggest you read this
North Atlantic Alliance (5 September 2015). Written at Newport, Wales. Wales Summit Declaration (PDF). Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 4–5 September 2014. London: Government Digital Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
You'll find the links on the Wikipedia page for the 2014 summit
No I want the evidence that counties are all increasing defence spending by sufficient amounts to meet the target. as I just dont believe that. i,e Proof of your claim nobody is dragging their feet.
But that is not what Trump is claiming and also not what you were claiming originally.
What do you decree as "sufficient"? There was no agreement on a rate of increase, or even a commitment to do anything except aim toward a target by 2024 (which I have stated numerous times now and provided a link to evidence).
Some countries are increasing spending rapidly (especially the Baltic States in fear of Russia) others are moving at steady increases. None are "doing nothing" or signalling that they don't still see the target as unachieveable.
Trump has nothing to complain about until 2023. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
If you want further facts about the aim to increase I suggest you read this
North Atlantic Alliance (5 September 2015). Written at Newport, Wales. Wales Summit Declaration (PDF). Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 4–5 September 2014. London: Government Digital Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
You'll find the links on the Wikipedia page for the 2014 summit
No I want the evidence that counties are all increasing defence spending by sufficient amounts to meet the target. as I just dont believe that. i,e Proof of your claim nobody is dragging their feet.
But that is not what Trump is claiming and also not what you were claiming originally.
What do you decree as "sufficient"? There was no agreement on a rate of increase, or even a commitment to do anything except aim toward a target by 2024 (which I have stated numerous times now and provided a link to evidence).
Some countries are increasing spending rapidly (especially the Baltic States in fear of Russia) others are moving at steady increases. None are "doing nothing" or signalling that they don't still see the target as unachieveable.
Trump has nothing to complain about until 2023.What? You keep making claims about spending.. I have provided a link that shows you are wrong. You have not provided a single link backing up your assertion about how much the countries are spending. Stop claiming otherwise.
And rate of increase matters. If Trump stays in the Paris agreement and then does absolutely nothing about lowering emissions and indeed they go up.. nobody would be allowed to criticise until 2025? That is the target date
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Whee did you get that information?
I'm sure it was probably a source probably dismissable as "MSM" but I have no reason to think those facts are wildly wrong enough to make your claims true. If I can find the NATO spending papers themselves I will link them.
So you have no proof upon which to base your claim that nobody is dragging their feet?
I looked it up...
Your MSM source was indeed completely and utterly full of shite. There is a lot of dragging of feet.
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf
Page 5.
What on earth are you linking that for?
I don't know how many more times I need to explain that the summit was in 2014 with a 10 year aim. Those figures only go to 2016
Do you have an annual increase that is acceptable to you? Was one ever set down in the targets? No. So what is your point. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
What on earth are you linking that for?
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Because your claim was bullshit and I decided to prove it.
And of course I will link to actual data on NATO members Defense GDP spending when talking about NATO members GDP spending.... beats the crap out of a wikipedia link and some vague memories of a MSM article.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
What on earth are you linking that for?
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Because your claim was bullshit and I decided to prove it.
To deflect from your bullshit claims earlier? That there was a 2% commitment they aren't meeting?
The links were to the actual Summit papers, they just happened to be easiest to find on a Wikipedia page.
I have already said that I'll find the source of the numbers I posted.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
What on earth are you linking that for?
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Because your claim was bullshit and I decided to prove it.
To deflect from your bullshit claims earlier? That there was a 2% commitment they aren't meeting?
The links were to the actual Summit papers, they just happened to be easiest to find on a Wikipedia page.
I have already said that I'll find the source of the numbers I posted.
I have already posted a link to the numbers. You were wrong.
And there was a commitment. Just as supposedly those signing up to Paris are making commitments....
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
What on earth are you linking that for?
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Because your claim was bullshit and I decided to prove it.
To deflect from your bullshit claims earlier? That there was a 2% commitment they aren't meeting?
The links were to the actual Summit papers, they just happened to be easiest to find on a Wikipedia page.
I have already said that I'll find the source of the numbers I posted.
I have already posted a link to the numbers. You were wrong.
And there was a commitment. Just as supposedly those signing up to Paris are making commitments....
It's a commitment to aim to a target by 2014. Not now as previously claimed.
By the way your numbers are estimates. I'm still hunting for the actuals. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
What on earth are you linking that for?
@Crucial said in US Politics:
There are 28 NATO members. 5 pay higher than the 2% target.. Of the remaining 23 all have increased spending since the target and only one didn't increase in the last 12 months (nothing to do with Trump). No one is dragging their feet , they are working toward a target budget by budget.
Because your claim was bullshit and I decided to prove it.
To deflect from your bullshit claims earlier? That there was a 2% commitment they aren't meeting?
The links were to the actual Summit papers, they just happened to be easiest to find on a Wikipedia page.
I have already said that I'll find the source of the numbers I posted.
I have already posted a link to the numbers. You were wrong.
And there was a commitment. Just as supposedly those signing up to Paris are making commitments....
It's a commitment to aim to a target by 2014. Not now as previously claimed.
By the way your numbers are estimates. I'm still hunting for the actuals.They are not all estimates.
"NATO collects defence expenditures from Allies on a regular basis and presents aggregates
and subsets of this information. Each Allied country’s Ministry of Defence reports current
and estimated future defence expenditure according to an agreed definition of defence
expenditure, and represent payments actually made, or to be made, during the course of
the fiscal year. NATO also makes use of up-to-date economic and demographic information
available from the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European
Commission, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In view
of the differences between this definition and national definitions, the figures shown may
diverge considerably from those which are quoted by national authorities or given in national
budgets. Research and development expenditures related to major equipment are included
in equipment expenditures and pensions paid to retirees in personnel expenditures.
The cut-off date for information used in this report is 1 July 2016. Figures for 2016 are
estimates.
Graphs:
NATO Europe and Canada – Defence expenditures (annual real change)
Defence expenditure as share of GDP (%)
Equipment as a share of Defence Expenditure (%)
Tables:
Defence expenditures (million national currency)
Defence expenditures (million US dollars)
Defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP and annual real change
Real GDP and per capita
Defence expenditures per capita and military pers" -
And I just keep coming back to the hypocrisy of it all. Trump has a go at countries for showing no signs of hitting a target... he is a terrible diplomat. If the US dragged its heels over the Paris accord.. open season.
-
@Crucial
You misread my post. The video posits no conspiracy theory whatsoever. Where did I say that? I said this was my personal opinion.Brennan and Clapper (I concede not Comey so far) have a history of lying . One of many articles on them -
We had, shall we say, a very surveillance friendly President.
Then add in a couple of factors - a hated opponent, election year, expectation Clinton would win, Obama and Clinton being from the same party, and very recent verified flouting of FISA.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447973/nsa-illegal-surveillance-americans-obama-administration-abuse-fisa-court-response"The rules from 2011 forward were simple: Do not use American identifiers. Yet NSA used them — not once or twice because some new technician didn’t know better. This violation of law was routine and extensive, known and concealed."
I say there is shitload more evidence of illegal surveillance/unmasking (whtever you want to call it) than Trump or his associated dong anything illegal in regards to Russia.
Today, the House subpoenaed Brennan, Rice and Powers to answer questions about unmasking.
-
@antipodean yep, and the same thing is happening in NZ following the National budget and criticism from Labour, not exclusive to Trump, although helps the pro-Trump regime paint thier picture.
-
What the heck is the pro trump regime?
-
I recall Trump also generally referring to the amount that other NATO cou tries have been in arrears over the years. I would love to know the actual dollar amount of spending by each member nation over the years and as a percentage of gdp, and compare it to usa. I am sure that this would show that the usa has a real grievance. Forget the nitpicking over 2% by 2024....
US Politics