Defense Contributions of Nato Countries vs the Social Welfare Spending of Nato Countries

[Pessimystic]

you get exactly what you guys want..... an empire, a world order you helped create. That you are now in the process of dismantling for shits and giggles

Actually, many of us do not want the US extended around the globe. That is one of the reasons many of us voted for the guy.
History is littered with failed empires, as you well know, since I take it you are from the UK.

 

[Pessimystic]

The money we save on not supporting NATO could be better directed at new weapons R&D. We need to make sure that we retain not only our current military dominance, but ramp it up by a ridiculous margin. I'm all for military spending, it creates jobs and technology and keeps the US on top of the food chain.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Actually, many of us do not want the US extended around the globe. That is one of the reasons many of us voted for the guy.
History is littered with failed empires, as you well know, since I take it you are from the UK.

well go be isolationists and we'll get on with our lives

 

[Islam Imamate]

A lot of people like to look down there nose at the United States; but most of these countries have not been meeting their end of the bargain when it comes to contributing to Nato defense. (Which is 2% of their GDP)

They also have jack shit for a military themselves and spend around 30% of their GDP on social service programs. I'm not opposed to social services by any means, but these countries are basically bumming the U.S.'s military support and then spending what they should be contributing to their defense and NATO on themselves.

The following attachments are two graphs that depict the Defense expenditures of Nato countries and the list of Countries ranked by social welfare spending.

Defense expenditures of Nato countries

Spoiler: Defence expenditures of NATO countries

List of countries by social welfare spending

Spoiler: List of countries by welfare spending

What people like you and Trump don't understand is that having these free riders was always an expected part of the plan. NATO is an alliance that has historically been used to further the foreign policy of the US so we benefit from having as many members even if that means many of them will be free riders. You think anyone gives a fuck if Latvia or Albania don't meet the spending requirements or what Luxemberg or Slovenia think about the direction of NATO? No because NATO is the US. Look at the difference in spending in raw terms, we're spending that much because we get something out of it. Think of it as the US owning the majority of shares and thus taking ownership as a result.

The 2nd great power of NATO is the UK which is a distant second in military might to the US yet is far surpasses the vast majority of the other NATO members in terms of ability to project power and in general military capacity. The rest of them just don't really matter that much.

As far as these countries spending on their own social welfare, that too was part of the plan. If you want these countries acquiesce to the international order created and underpinned by America then it has to lead to their success as nations. These countries are generally democratic and have decided it worthwhile to invest in these social welfare policies and are able to do so in part due to the prosperity that the US international order has brought. We in the US don't have these policies not because its not possible or because of these free riders but because we lack the political will to implement them.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Like I said it sounds like a win, win.

Lol, less cooperation with historic allies is now a win? Yeah, what we need less of in the world are alliances. Would you also like more enemies while we're at it?

 

[Pessimystic]

well go be isolationists and we'll get on with our lives

I'm talking mainly about military isolationism. There's no reason other business can't be conducted as usual.

 

[Reefer1]

they cant take all of them.... thats why theres something called the "international community". Especially when its western nations that are destabilising the region more than anyone. We have a moral duty to take our share of the innocent people fleeing the warzones

International community, what are all the other muslim nations doing ? if they don't want these people why the fuck should the west. Muslims first and foremost have a moral duty to helping these muslims, not the west.

Except vast majority are NOT fleeing war zones nor are they innocent, but nice talking points there bud.

Feel free to take in a few muslim refugees into your house since your moral duty demands so. Since you feel so strongly and care so much.

 

[Islam Imamate]

e t

International community, what are all the other muslim nations doing ? if they don't want these people why the fuck should the west. Muslims first and foremost have a moral duty to helping these muslims, not the west.

Except vast majority are NOT fleeing war zones nor are they innocent, but nice talking points there bud.

Feel free to take in a few muslim refugees into your house since your moral duty demands so. Since you feel so strongly and care so much.

Most Syrian refugees are in the neighboring Muslim countries.

The vast majority are not innocent? Not innocent of what exactly?

 

[Reefer1]

e t

Most Syrian refugees are in the neighboring Muslim countries.

The vast majority are not innocent? Not innocent of what exactly?

I'm talking about all the fucks flooding Europe, vast majority are not even from nations in any conflict what so ever and all are criminals border hoppers.

So buddy according to you how many borders does a person get to illegally cross before you lose you boo hoo innocent rapefugee status and become a straight up criminal 1 2 3 6 10ish ?

 

[Prutfis]

They spend their money on their citizens and not weapons. Should I be outraged?

The past 15 years it has been eu countries assisting the US in their modern crusade.

 

[oldshadow]

Lol, less cooperation with historic allies is now a win? Yeah, what we need less of in the world are alliances. Would you also like more enemies while we're at it?

Never said we can't be allies but we can sure cut back a hell of a lot on the troops and money we chip in.

We don't need half as many overseas bases these days and we can sure as hell back away quite a bit in the world police shit.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

I'm talking mainly about military isolationism. There's no reason other business can't be conducted as usual.

I dont know how that would effect your standing in the world

 

[MayhemMonkey]

International community, what are all the other muslim nations doing ? if they don't want these people why the fuck should the west. Muslims first and foremost have a moral duty to helping these muslims, not the west.

Except vast majority are NOT fleeing war zones nor are they innocent, but nice talking points there bud.

Feel free to take in a few muslim refugees into your house since your moral duty demands so. Since you feel so strongly and care so much.

If we are creating a mess, its on us to clean it up. So no..... its not on the muslim countries to take people as we are the ones fucking up the region..... what dont you understand about that? WE have the moral duty to help them

also the "take some muslims into your house" argument is fucking dumb.... especially seeing as Scotland has plenty of room for immigrants/refugees. We would welcome them if they manage to get here. Unlike assholes like you

 

[panamaican]

I think that weakening the Western alliance or killing NATO altogether (or at least the U.S. leaving) is the ultimate goal of Trump and Putin (I think Trump is mostly too stupid to get it, but that's what he's being pushed into doing). In other words, it's not an incidental, unfortunate side effect of a desire to speed things up.

Personally, I agree. But you can tell from this thread that plenty of people aren't thinking beyond the "Why aren't they paying their 2%?" portion of this.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Personally, I'd rather see money spent on helping people than killing people.

Look at the socialist limp wrist over here.

No wonder Professor Jordan Peterson calls Marxism a "murderous ideology."

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This was the post WW2 paradigm, which the US thrived off for years, so whats the problem now?

That the US continues to want to be the global empire, just like in the immediate post WWII period.

Frankly, I think some good can come out of it. Whatever cuts the funding of that aggressive, imperialistic military alliance is good.

 

[Wet Blanket]

Look at the socialist limp wrist over here.

No wonder Professor Jordan Peterson calls Marxism a "murderous ideology."

All that damn mouse clicking has destroyed my once agile wrist.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Trumps rant about NATO is nothing more than an underhanded way to get European countries to buy more military hardware from US companies.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yea he was off a little.

"By NATO’s count, total defense spending of all NATO members stood at about $957 billion in 2017. The United States’ share was about $686 billion. Do the math, and the percentage of U.S. spending is about 72 percent. (We don’t know the source for the 90 percent number."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-misleads-us-defense-spending-nato-bud/

You're wrong and so is Trump, FYI.

You're confusing the US Government's military budget with NATO's budget. Those are two different budgets.

US pays for 22% of NATO's annual civilian and military budgets. Germany pays 14%, France and UK pay 10% each and the rest pay between 0.15(Luxembourg) to 7% (Canada).

I hope this helps.

 

[SiKnSiN]

Trumps rant about NATO is nothing more than an underhanded way to get European countries to buy more military hardware from US companies.

Bingo. Just as criticism of the energy deals is only to push them to buy expensive American LNG. It's no secret Trump has made a big effort in increasing our arms trade. And looking at the current military landscape, NATO countries are the next prime targets.

There's already been $40 billion worth of NATO member deals passed on for Congressional approval since Trump took office.