| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Some Mathematics for Banandangees; and the rest who think the US pays more to cover NATO shortfalls | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 14 2018, 03:53 AM (254 Views) | |
| Brewster | Jun 14 2018, 03:53 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
On different threads, Banandangees and several other Righties are crying that the US is paying extra for its military because many NATO nations (especially Canada) aren't paying the 2% of their GDP that they're supposed to be committed to. I say that's Horse Patootie. It has nothing to do with NATO. The US is spending a huge amount on its military because they want to be the biggest, baddest kid on the block. How do we decide who's correct? Let's apply a few facts, based on this NATO chart: ![]() How do we decide if the US's huge military has no relationship to covering other's NATO Commitments? We total up what all nations including should be paying as a NATO commitment. Then total up what all but the US is actually paying into their NATO commitment, then calculate their shortfall. If the US's total is equal or less than the their own commitment and the other nations shortfall, then the it could be claimed that the US is compensating for other's shortfalls. If it comes to more than that, then the Righties crying is all BS, the US just wants its outrageous military because it wants it. OK, so what SHOULD the US pay, as its legitimate commitments? As per the Chart the US is paying 3.6%, which comes to $664 Bn. Bringing that down to 2% means the US should be paying 664*2/3.6 = $369 Bn. Now as you can see, the rest of the countries average out to about 1.2% of their commitments, more or less. So let's say they should be paying a little less than twice as much as they are. Totaling the numbers on the graph shows that they are paying (40.7+43.6+60.3+109.6)=$254.2Bn instead of 254.2*2/1.2=$424Bn. Which comes to a shortfall of 424-254=$170Bn. So the US were paying their own share plus the shortfall of the rest, they would be paying 369+170=$539Bn But you're not! You're paying $664Bn! That's 664-539=$125 Billion more than NATO commitments plus covering the shortfall require! The facts Prove it - it's time to quit the crying... The US is spending a huge amount on its military not because they're being forced to cover other's shortfall, but because they want to be the biggest, baddest kid on the block! Edited by Brewster, Jun 14 2018, 03:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Jun 14 2018, 08:58 AM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now the great educater from the North Woods is teaching us all about Mathematics. By golly, he just might be smarter than our other Menses, the fabulous Stoner. Lol. Try as he may, Kanada is a slacker. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 14 2018, 09:46 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not teaching math, I'm showing you how you're being hypocritical, claiming you're supporting NATO when you're really just playing bully. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jun 14 2018, 09:48 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you denying that Canada does not pay it's 2% of GDP for the mutual defense? |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 14 2018, 10:07 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This thread has nothing to do with whether we pay our 2% or not. This is about the US playing with expensive toys it doesn't need and then hypocritically using the rest of NATO as an excuse, while crying that we're not paying our share. Canada promised to be up to 2% by mid 2020's, and I see no reason to think we won't. But whether we do or not won't make the slightest difference to the class bully south of us, who will not slow down defense spending no matter what. As that bully, it's your business - spend the money you don't have as you see fit, I don't care If you want those toys no matter what, be men about it and admit that's what you're doing, don't blame us, nor the rest of NATO. Edited by Brewster, Jun 14 2018, 10:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jun 14 2018, 10:25 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which is all about Canada not paying 2% of it's GDP towards the common defense. Do you admit it or not? |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Jun 14 2018, 10:53 AM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Brew never admits fault. It's a lefty thing. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 14 2018, 11:06 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Answered already, post #5. Entirely lost your ability to read, Berton? Edited by Brewster, Jun 14 2018, 11:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jun 14 2018, 12:20 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am glad to see that you admit that Canada sucks big time. |
![]() |
|
| Banandangees | Jun 14 2018, 02:29 PM Post #10 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
All that "Horse Patootie" doesn't explain why Canada has only expended (according to NATO printings) .99% of the NATO recommended GDP rate for decades. You (Brew) say that Canada "promises" to be up to it's 2% by the 2020s. Promises. NATO has been in existence for 69 years and Canada has never reached 50% of that NATO recommended 2% in all those years: II. BURDEN SHARING IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT https://www.nato-pa.int/download-file?filename=sites/default/files/2017-11/2017%20-%20210%20PC%2017%20E%20bis%20-%20BURDEN%20SHARING%20REVISITED%20-%20KALNINS%20REPORT.pdf The debate about fair sharing of the burden is as old as the Alliance itself. When the Alliance was founded in 1949, the economies of the European allies were still recovering from the devastating impact of the Second World War. The United States provided assistance with its “European Recovery Program (ERP)”, the Marshall Plan, while extending its conventional and nuclear “umbrella” to deter Soviet/Warsaw Pact aggression. As Europe’s economies grew, so did the intensity of debates on Alliance burden sharing. The main feature of those debates was the perceived imbalance in the United States’ contribution to the common defence compared to other Allies. By the "2020s, it could be 80 years since NATO's existence for Canada to meet NATO's recommendation on "Burden Sharing." Why should anyone believe that Canada will? PROCRASTINATION at the expense of others. Why not just drop out and not have to do any BURDEN SHARING? Canada is a straggler nation when it comes to NATO's defense BURDEN recommendations. It creates hostility among the members (at it's tax payers) who have met NATO's original recommendations. Canada's wants the benefits of NATO membership but not the responsibility.... typical of liberalism. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





10:34 PM Jul 11
