• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll take a dementia patient over a psychopath any day of the week.

Considering President Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term, from a scientific perspective , in 2029 it might be interesting to see how these two gents are doing.
 
Do you really think Biden is the final decision maker in the White House? I don't.

Considering President Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term, on a scientific basis, in 2029 it might be interesting to see how these two gents are doing.

Didn't Nancy run the White House during Reagen's second term?


:giggle:
 
Do you really think Biden is the final decision maker in the White House? I don't.
It's unlikely that he is (on most matters), just as it was unlikely that Trump was. That's why critics - if they're being honest - have to resort to "On So-and-So's watch", because "So-and-So" is often enough not directly involved or responsible. The authority has been delegated, or people with agendas are just running with them.
 
Actually, there is something "disgusting" about requiring allies to "pay up" for effective use of the NATO terms of agreement.

What disgust me is that there is no such thing as "paying" to be in NATO. NATO is not a country club where you have to "buy" your right to participate and then pay green fees every time you play. It is a political treaty for defense where countries undertake some obligations to one another - none of which is financial as there is no such thing as a NATO annual fee - except to maintain the treaty headquarters' building and upkeep. There are also some specific contributions that are negotiated on a piece by piece basis.

For instance, the NATO AWACS fleet is operated on the basis of specific undertakings by the nations who elected to participate to provide so many trained personnel in positions x, y and z and to provide for their portion (as agreed) of the operating costs. Similarly, before the fall of the wall, there were specific number of escorts that some NATO countries (including Canada) agreed to keep available for the protection of convoys in the Atlantic. Then there were specific formations that some countries agreed to make available for the defense of Europe - The British Army on the Rhine, Canada's brigade as part of it, etc.

There was no actual amount of money any member country had to "pay" to "NATO".

How much money countries spend on defense is up to them and based on their individual view of their requirement. The US is NOT, repeat NOT, spending what it is spending on defense BECAUSE of any NATO undertaking but because that is what the US considers necessary for the defense of its own interests around the world. The 2% undertaking is just that: an undertaking by NATO nations to spend that much on their own defense - not on aggregate NATO defense -, because it sends a signal to potential enemies, not because it contributes to collective defense. Lichtenstein could spend 10% of its GDP on defense and it would make no difference whatsoever to NATO's collective defenses, whereof Canada's contribution can, for all practical purpose, be entirely used in collective defense because there are little to no threat against our own territory, even if it only amounts to one percent of our GDP.

BTW, Brad, I am sick and tired of people (even in these fora) always presenting Canada as a "free rider". Canada has the seventh largest NATO defense budget in terms of spending in actual dollars. Who beats us: the US, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Every one of those countries has a much larger population than Canada and, except for Poland, has a higher GDP. Moreover, every one of those countries needs to spend on their own defense as a deterrence from invasion - not necessarily as a contribution to alliance collective defense - whereas Canada needs very little in terms of deterrence and as a result is mostly contributing to collective defense with its spending.

I think it's safe to say that requiring allies to "pay up" means having funded their military so it is something of a worthwhile contribution to NATO based on that country's ability to generate. And I think it is safe to say Canada and other nations can do far better.

Now if everyone wants to nuance the shit out of words or other details because orange man bad, have fun. Should be no complaints about status quo of the CAF then.
 
I think it's safe to say that requiring allies to "pay up" means having funded their military so it is something of a worthwhile contribution to NATO based on that country's ability to generate. And I think it is safe to say Canada and other nations can do far better.

Now if everyone wants to nuance the shit out of words or other details because orange man bad, have fun. Should be no complaints about status quo of the CAF then.
There is nothing nuanced when a potential president states out loud and publicly that he would encourage a foreign competitor/enemy to do whatever they want to an allied nation if they don’t « pay ».

American foreign policy is going to go down a dangerous path if he ends up winning.
 
Yeah, .... Trump is orange hitler... I don't know how the world coped during his last run... Everything that is reported in media about Trump is and has been accurate and true with nothing but all our best interests at heart.
 
If it's the same path as his last term, I'm guessing a lot of Americans will be ok with that.
It seems though that the path of his last term ended with him losing the election. So more Americans were not actually ok with that.
 
It seems though that the path of his last term ended with him losing the election. So more Americans were not actually ok with that.
That was then. This is now. It's a long way to November. Let's live in the present.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top