Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Some Mathematics for Banandangees; and the rest who think the US pays more to cover NATO shortfalls
Topic Started: Jun 14 2018, 03:53 AM (256 Views)
Stoned
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 14 2018, 09:46 AM
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.
Repubolicon hypocrite is fast becoming one word.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
doglaugh Braha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha. That is a good one. Stoned quoting our ass-wipe foreigner Canadian talking about hypocrisy. Two of the worse hypocrites here. doglaugh Braha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Jun 14 2018, 03:53 AM
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:

Posted Image

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!
OK, but now let's get back to what the uproar here has been. Canada won't come close to paying their fair share, and that my friend is the beef.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ImaHeadaU
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
NATO has only ever required its members to "move toward the 2% guideline."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Canada won't come close to paying their fair share, and that my friend is the beef.

That's not beef, that's baloney.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Come on Brew, with your vast knowledge and asserted position of influence in the Canadian Government, you can rectify this terrible issue. Pay up pikers!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ImaHeadaU
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Pat
Jun 15 2018, 12:31 AM
Canada won't come close to paying their fair share.
Canada doesn't owe anything to anybody.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
From NATO

VII. CONCLUSIONS

31. In a strictly legal sense, the pledge to increase defence spending from Wales confirmed at the subsequent summit in Warsaw and the Special Meeting in Brussels, is non-binding. However, the transatlantic bond remains the bedrock of our freedom, prosperity, and way of life. It is critical that we all continue to invest in it, politically, militarily, and financially, and that we share the responsibilities of security just as we all share the benefits. Burden sharing remains a crucial issue for Alliance cohesion. Sharing the burden fairly is a necessity, not a choice. We need to provide sufficient resources to implement the capability pledge. We cannot allow this commitment to be watered down – again.
Edited by Banandangees, Jun 15 2018, 06:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

32. Therefore, implementing the Wales capability pledge and acquiring additional capabilities must be an absolute priority, and is a sine qua non for NATO’s effectiveness as well as for its credibility. The goal must be to modernise our forces to make them more mobile and interoperable so that they will be able to perform a broader spectrum of tasks that range from war-fighting to peacekeeping, as well as disaster relief operations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ImaHeadaU
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Yes, they agreed to work toward 2% of GDP over ten years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis