Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(France 24)   NATO, once vital, then obsolete, then important, is now obsolete again   ( france24.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, NATO, White House official, senior White House, United States, President of the United States, Trump, President Donald Trump, g7 summit  
•       •       •

3597 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2017 at 8:40 PM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-05-18 05:37:37 PM  
Tribute! Tribute to the Emperor!
 
2017-05-18 05:49:31 PM  
The main problem I see with NATO is that they have to buy a lot if their military hardware from us. That is a lot of money flying out of their country. We spend money on defense and it actually boost GDP, not in a way I agree with but it does.

If they can figure that out, they'd spend more on defense.
 
2017-05-18 05:49:50 PM  
Putin gets what Putin wants.
 
2017-05-18 05:54:25 PM  

NewportBarGuy: The main problem I see with NATO is that they have to buy a lot if their military hardware from us. That is a lot of money flying out of their country. We spend money on defense and it actually boost GDP, not in a way I agree with but it does.

If they can figure that out, they'd spend more on defense.


There is a counterbalance

US soldiers are in practically every NATO country

These troops spend money in the local economy

Plus all the local hires and logistics (food, power, etc), the US Military is responsible for uber bucks circulating in NATO countries
 
2017-05-18 06:24:15 PM  
The agreement, which I believe isn't binding, is for nations to reach the 2 percent mark by 2024... so it would really be the next president's job to decide if we'll take measures to punish noncompliance by leaving NATO or whatever. It is also retarded because what is he saying... that we'd pull out of nato if only 3/4 of the nations have reached it? what if it's only one that hasn't managed it? And wouldn't it make more sense to kick out the members who aren't complying rather than leave the alliance ourselves? This basically boils down to Trump being a moron and/or weakening the alliance for no good reason other than to make nice with Russia.
 
2017-05-18 06:49:03 PM  

kbronsito: The agreement, which I believe isn't binding, is for nations to reach the 2 percent mark by 2024... so it would really be the next president's job to decide if we'll take measures to punish noncompliance by leaving NATO or whatever. It is also retarded because what is he saying... that we'd pull out of nato if only 3/4 of the nations have reached it? what if it's only one that hasn't managed it? And wouldn't it make more sense to kick out the members who aren't complying rather than leave the alliance ourselves? This basically boils down to Trump being a moron and/or weakening the alliance for no good reason other than to make nice with Russia.


The language also suggests Trump still believes that everyone "pays in" to NATO and since everyone else "is not paying their share" then the US is somehow stuck with the bill.
The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.

Hey Trump, you want to stop paying "too much"? Then the answer is simple. Cut the US military spending. Make do with five carrier groups. A few hundred fewer fighter jets. etc. Nothing is stopping you.
 
2017-05-18 06:59:56 PM  

Ron Vibbentrop: kbronsito: The agreement, which I believe isn't binding, is for nations to reach the 2 percent mark by 2024... so it would really be the next president's job to decide if we'll take measures to punish noncompliance by leaving NATO or whatever. It is also retarded because what is he saying... that we'd pull out of nato if only 3/4 of the nations have reached it? what if it's only one that hasn't managed it? And wouldn't it make more sense to kick out the members who aren't complying rather than leave the alliance ourselves? This basically boils down to Trump being a moron and/or weakening the alliance for no good reason other than to make nice with Russia.

The language also suggests Trump still believes that everyone "pays in" to NATO and since everyone else "is not paying their share" then the US is somehow stuck with the bill.
The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.

Hey Trump, you want to stop paying "too much"? Then the answer is simple. Cut the US military spending. Make do with five carrier groups. A few hundred fewer fighter jets. etc. Nothing is stopping you.


There's more to NATO members than how much they allocate to defense too: strategic positions, current man power, potential man power, natural and industrial resources and denying all of these to your adversaries. Others im probably not thinking about.

Only a moron would perceive military alliance building as a game that only includes the current military budget. That is not to say that you don't try to address a free rider problem but the big picture is very complex.
 
2017-05-18 07:10:28 PM  

kbronsito: Ron Vibbentrop: kbronsito: The agreement, which I believe isn't binding, is for nations to reach the 2 percent mark by 2024... so it would really be the next president's job to decide if we'll take measures to punish noncompliance by leaving NATO or whatever. It is also retarded because what is he saying... that we'd pull out of nato if only 3/4 of the nations have reached it? what if it's only one that hasn't managed it? And wouldn't it make more sense to kick out the members who aren't complying rather than leave the alliance ourselves? This basically boils down to Trump being a moron and/or weakening the alliance for no good reason other than to make nice with Russia.

The language also suggests Trump still believes that everyone "pays in" to NATO and since everyone else "is not paying their share" then the US is somehow stuck with the bill.
The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.

Hey Trump, you want to stop paying "too much"? Then the answer is simple. Cut the US military spending. Make do with five carrier groups. A few hundred fewer fighter jets. etc. Nothing is stopping you.

There's more to NATO members than how much they allocate to defense too: strategic positions, current man power, potential man power, natural and industrial resources and denying all of these to your adversaries. Others im probably not thinking about.

Only a moron would perceive military alliance building as a game that only includes the current military budget. That is not to say that you don't try to address a free rider problem but the big picture is very complex.


Not to mention that many countries in Europe are a bit jittery about the EUs biggest economy, Germany, building up its military in a big way.....
 
2017-05-18 08:16:59 PM  
Trumps been consistent in one aspect.
Makes threats, then he capitulates.
Like a boy who wasn't loved enough by daddy, or loved too rough? We'll never know...
 
2017-05-18 08:42:26 PM  
You must pay your protection money to the godfather.
 
2017-05-18 08:43:36 PM  
This moron just doesn't understand that threats are everywhere and we need other countries' help and pissing them off helps no one.

/Yes, I understand I could have stopped at the 5th word and still been as correct...
 
2017-05-18 08:45:42 PM  
"We don't want to be paying for everyone's defence"

We're not you farking dipshiat.  Christ, it's been over a year already, how do you still not know how this works?
 
2017-05-18 08:47:59 PM  
Trump, actually doing what the people elected him to do.  I'm OK with this!
 
2017-05-18 08:49:55 PM  
Ok.  Bye.   Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
 
TWX
2017-05-18 08:50:38 PM  

Ron Vibbentrop: Not to mention that many countries in Europe are a bit jittery about the EUs biggest economy, Germany, building up its military in a big way.....


I couldn't imagine why...
 
2017-05-18 08:54:11 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: "We don't want to be paying for everyone's defence"

We're not you farking dipshiat.  Christ, it's been over a year already, how do you still not know how this works?


No. He doesn't know how it or anything else works.
 
2017-05-18 08:57:14 PM  

Sean VasDeferens: Trump, actually doing what the people elected him to do.  I'm OK with this!


You mean the people who elected him are supporters of Putin and want our country to mimic their Christian catering government (minimal to no rights to minorities opposed by the dominant Church and active government arrests of criticizers of their religion) which is actually hiding a corrupt oligarchy.
 
2017-05-18 08:59:50 PM  
NATO should build some golf courses and put his name on it.  Problem solved.
 
2017-05-18 09:07:21 PM  
You know who else wants NATO to diminish. I'm not saying they're telling Trump what position to take. It might all just be a funny coincidence, ha ha, how about that coincidence.
 
2017-05-18 09:08:53 PM  
"The one thing that he doesn't have patience for is this kind of lip service ."

O.o

That's literally the only thing he has patience for.
 
2017-05-18 09:10:01 PM  

NewportBarGuy: The main problem I see with NATO is that they have to buy a lot if their military hardware from us. That is a lot of money flying out of their country. We spend money on defense and it actually boost GDP, not in a way I agree with but it does.

If they can figure that out, they'd spend more on defense.


britain. france, germany, spain, italy


all have very viable arns industries
 
2017-05-18 09:13:02 PM  
Trump has reached the stage of "Fark it, if I'm going out, I'm gonna go out with a farkin' bang!"  Give him any group or organization with an acronym he's heard of, he'll quit it.
 
2017-05-18 09:15:19 PM  

NewportBarGuy: The main problem I see with NATO is that they have to buy a lot if their military hardware from us. That is a lot of money flying out of their country. We spend money on defense and it actually boost GDP, not in a way I agree with but it does.


Every dollar given to the military-industrial complex passes to less and less odious people, until finally it achieves perfect purity in the g-string of a stripper.
 
2017-05-18 09:22:47 PM  

kvinesknows: NewportBarGuy: The main problem I see with NATO is that they have to buy a lot if their military hardware from us. That is a lot of money flying out of their country. We spend money on defense and it actually boost GDP, not in a way I agree with but it does.

If they can figure that out, they'd spend more on defense.

britain. france, germany, spain, italy


all have very viable arns industries


the sweedes too. They aren't nato members but they have partner status and they supply different arms to various members. They haven't had any luck with their gripen fighter though. I think they are the only operator but i've heard its a decent fighter plane for the price.
 
2017-05-18 09:24:01 PM  
Financial overlords musta not said it loud enough the first time.  Watch him change his tune... again
 
2017-05-18 09:28:53 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Sean VasDeferens: Trump, actually doing what the people elected him to do.  I'm OK with this!

You mean the people who elected him are supporters of Putin and want our country to mimic their Christian catering government (minimal to no rights to minorities opposed by the dominant Church and active government arrests of criticizers of their religion) which is actually hiding a corrupt oligarchy.


Have you considered group therapy?
 
2017-05-18 09:58:52 PM  

kbronsito: kvinesknows: NewportBarGuy: The main problem I see with NATO is that they have to buy a lot if their military hardware from us. That is a lot of money flying out of their country. We spend money on defense and it actually boost GDP, not in a way I agree with but it does.

If they can figure that out, they'd spend more on defense.

britain. france, germany, spain, italy


all have very viable arns industries

the sweedes too. They aren't nato members but they have partner status and they supply different arms to various members. They haven't had any luck with their gripen fighter though. I think they are the only operator but i've heard its a decent fighter plane for the price.


Brazil, Austria, a couple others.

The Gripen is a fine machine, but it's a Honda Civic in a world that likes to buy Lamborghinis on credit.
 
2017-05-18 10:01:09 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Sean VasDeferens: Trump, actually doing what the people elected him to do.  I'm OK with this!

You mean the people who elected him are supporters of Putin and want our country to mimic their Christian catering government (minimal to no rights to minorities opposed by the dominant Church and active government arrests of criticizers of their religion) which is actually hiding a corrupt oligarchy.


I have actually met Trumpers IRL who, unironically, spout stuff like "I wish Putin were our president!"

So, you're not far from the mark. The derp is strong.
 
2017-05-18 10:18:25 PM  

Ron Vibbentrop: kbronsito: Ron Vibbentrop: kbronsito: The agreement, which I believe isn't binding, is for nations to reach the 2 percent mark by 2024... so it would really be the next president's job to decide if we'll take measures to punish noncompliance by leaving NATO or whatever. It is also retarded because what is he saying... that we'd pull out of nato if only 3/4 of the nations have reached it? what if it's only one that hasn't managed it? And wouldn't it make more sense to kick out the members who aren't complying rather than leave the alliance ourselves? This basically boils down to Trump being a moron and/or weakening the alliance for no good reason other than to make nice with Russia.

The language also suggests Trump still believes that everyone "pays in" to NATO and since everyone else "is not paying their share" then the US is somehow stuck with the bill.
The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.

Hey Trump, you want to stop paying "too much"? Then the answer is simple. Cut the US military spending. Make do with five carrier groups. A few hundred fewer fighter jets. etc. Nothing is stopping you.

There's more to NATO members than how much they allocate to defense too: strategic positions, current man power, potential man power, natural and industrial resources and denying all of these to your adversaries. Others im probably not thinking about.

Only a moron would perceive military alliance building as a game that only includes the current military budget. That is not to say that you don't try to address a free rider problem but the big picture is very complex.

Not to mention that many countries in Europe are a bit jittery about the EUs biggest economy, Germany, building up its military in a big way.....


Not really. Current Germany military is a fraction of what it was during the cold war. In the late 80s Germany spent ~2.5% of GDP on military, and even then they were in no position to start shiat again. So yes, there's plenty of room for Germany to add on without goose stepping all over the world again.
And they will. Current SecDef is a pure disaster, though.
 
2017-05-18 10:20:09 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: DarkSoulNoHope: Sean VasDeferens: Trump, actually doing what the people elected him to do.  I'm OK with this!

You mean the people who elected him are supporters of Putin and want our country to mimic their Christian catering government (minimal to no rights to minorities opposed by the dominant Church and active government arrests of criticizers of their religion) which is actually hiding a corrupt oligarchy.

I have actually met Trumpers IRL who, unironically, spout stuff like "I wish Putin were our president!"

So, you're not far from the mark. The derp is strong.


img.fark.netView Full Size


/fark I miss George...
 
2017-05-18 10:20:58 PM  

Sean VasDeferens: Trump, actually doing what the people elected him to do.  I'm OK with this!


So you identify as an idiot. I must say, I admire your bravery.
 
2017-05-18 10:46:35 PM  

Redh8t: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: DarkSoulNoHope: Sean VasDeferens: Trump, actually doing what the people elected him to do.  I'm OK with this!

You mean the people who elected him are supporters of Putin and want our country to mimic their Christian catering government (minimal to no rights to minorities opposed by the dominant Church and active government arrests of criticizers of their religion) which is actually hiding a corrupt oligarchy.

I have actually met Trumpers IRL who, unironically, spout stuff like "I wish Putin were our president!"

So, you're not far from the mark. The derp is strong.

[img.fark.net image 425x319]

/fark I miss George...


I work as an audio engineer in a performing arts center. He played my venue right before he passed away (maybe a year before ) and he went out of his way to meet the crew. Very nice and classy guy.
 
2017-05-18 10:46:50 PM  

kbronsito: the sweedes too. They aren't nato members but they have partner status and they supply different arms to various members. They haven't had any luck with their gripen fighter though. I think they are the only operator but i've heard its a decent fighter plane for the price.


Primary usersSwedish Air Force
South African Air Force
Czech Air Force
Hungarian Air Force
 
2017-05-18 10:46:59 PM  
Turkey is in NATO. Fark NATO!
 
2017-05-18 11:16:16 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-05-18 11:28:06 PM  

NewportBarGuy: The main problem I see with NATO is that they have to buy a lot if their military hardware from us. That is a lot of money flying out of their country. We spend money on defense and it actually boost GDP, not in a way I agree with but it does.

If they can figure that out, they'd spend more on defense.


Well, not including France who makes their own tanks, fighters, guns and ships... as does Grt Britain, and Germany... now, the littlest country Luxembourg only has 1 Bn of troops (500 or so ) and a Field Hospital (250 or so)...  Belgium doesn't even have a formed government last time I knew...

The real defense suckers are Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Austria and Finland... with a semi-down vote to Sweden... (Iceland not calculated at this time)... don't get me started on Malta, San Marino, the Holy Sea, and Andorra (Oops, forgot those .01%'ers in Monaco)!
 
2017-05-18 11:51:36 PM  
Well, streaming is killing the traditional movie business.  We are talking about the National Association Of Theater Owners aren't we?
 
2017-05-19 12:03:08 AM  
Because Putin told him to.
 
2017-05-19 12:15:02 AM  

Ron Vibbentrop: The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.


I'd argue that when you invade another country and install a friendlier government there isn't much difference from taking them over, so in my lifetime...

Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, arguably decisive in finishing off Gaddafi, and attempted to restore peace in Somalia, and the tale end of Vietnam.  And lots, and lots of other interventions (the Balkans, of note)

Some of those may have been 'good' wars and we have, in some of those places, deposed dictators, but overall our track record hasn't been great at fixing things since the end of WWII.  In the Cold War the only real success story that pops to mind before the mostly peaceful fall of the Iron Curtain is South Korea, and that was paid for with a lot of blood and still left North Korea to be 'Best Korea'.
 
2017-05-19 12:24:08 AM  
As a child Trump would go to other kids houses and decide which toys they could have.  Entitlement is funny that way.  A racist and nativist electorate loves that story.
 
2017-05-19 12:29:22 AM  
Without the US, NATO is basically the European Union Army. It would effectively bring the EU closer together and create a competitor superpower to the US, Russia and China.
 
2017-05-19 12:58:18 AM  

spiritplumber: Without the US, NATO is basically the European Union Army. It would effectively bring the EU closer together and create a competitor superpower to the US, Russia and China.


The bottom line is: 'It won't happen.'

The U.S. needs it's allies. Congress won't back trump when it comes to this shiat
 
2017-05-19 01:01:54 AM  

Ron Vibbentrop: kbronsito: The agreement, which I believe isn't binding, is for nations to reach the 2 percent mark by 2024... so it would really be the next president's job to decide if we'll take measures to punish noncompliance by leaving NATO or whatever. It is also retarded because what is he saying... that we'd pull out of nato if only 3/4 of the nations have reached it? what if it's only one that hasn't managed it? And wouldn't it make more sense to kick out the members who aren't complying rather than leave the alliance ourselves? This basically boils down to Trump being a moron and/or weakening the alliance for no good reason other than to make nice with Russia.

The language also suggests Trump still believes that everyone "pays in" to NATO and since everyone else "is not paying their share" then the US is somehow stuck with the bill.
The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.

Hey Trump, you want to stop paying "too much"? Then the answer is simple. Cut the US military spending. Make do with five carrier groups. A few hundred fewer fighter jets. etc. Nothing is stopping you.


Except Congres. You know, the people who actually pass the budget.
 
2017-05-19 01:25:15 AM  
Hmm, I wonder who was the last guy he talked to this time?
 
2017-05-19 04:04:33 AM  
Where I live it is the left that bangs the leave NATO drum (Anarchists, communists, and socialists).  Strange bedfellows indeed.
 
2017-05-19 05:20:35 AM  

Beta Tested: Where I live it is the left that bangs the leave NATO drum (Anarchists, communists, and socialists).  Strange bedfellows indeed.


Horsheshoe Theory in action
 
2017-05-19 06:23:52 AM  
Coming from the department of reading too far into things, this shift back seems to follow a meeting where Trump gave Israeli secrets to Russians hmmmmmmm. -- Jolex Alones
 
2017-05-19 09:04:21 AM  
You know who left the fight in 1917 to start a civil war at home -- Trump's bosses.
 
2017-05-19 03:05:39 PM  

Ron Vibbentrop: kbronsito: The agreement, which I believe isn't binding, is for nations to reach the 2 percent mark by 2024... so it would really be the next president's job to decide if we'll take measures to punish noncompliance by leaving NATO or whatever. It is also retarded because what is he saying... that we'd pull out of nato if only 3/4 of the nations have reached it? what if it's only one that hasn't managed it? And wouldn't it make more sense to kick out the members who aren't complying rather than leave the alliance ourselves? This basically boils down to Trump being a moron and/or weakening the alliance for no good reason other than to make nice with Russia.

The language also suggests Trump still believes that everyone "pays in" to NATO and since everyone else "is not paying their share" then the US is somehow stuck with the bill.
The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.

Hey Trump, you want to stop paying "too much"? Then the answer is simple. Cut the US military spending. Make do with five carrier groups. A few hundred fewer fighter jets. etc. Nothing is stopping you.


Except all the growing threats around the world and the countries that will inevitably depend on US. Hey, I'm all for pulling out of Europe and give the opportunity for Europe to handle it's own security threats. After all, we aren't World Police amirite?
 
2017-05-19 03:07:34 PM  

HoratioGates: Ron Vibbentrop: The US pays far far more for its military because it chooses to, and enjoys the benefits of that power just as the British empire enjoyed the benefits of its military power for a century. The US may not actually take over foreign countries, but only an idiot would think the US doesn't benefit from it.

I'd argue that when you invade another country and install a friendlier government there isn't much difference from taking them over, so in my lifetime...

Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, arguably decisive in finishing off Gaddafi, and attempted to restore peace in Somalia, and the tale end of Vietnam.  And lots, and lots of other interventions (the Balkans, of note)

Some of those may have been 'good' wars and we have, in some of those places, deposed dictators, but overall our track record hasn't been great at fixing things since the end of WWII.  In the Cold War the only real success story that pops to mind before the mostly peaceful fall of the Iron Curtain is South Korea, and that was paid for with a lot of blood and still left North Korea to be 'Best Korea'.


Gaddafi shouldn't have been removed. What's there no is much worse.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report