This is why they have all those wonderful social programs in

[CID1990]

Scandinavian countries are even bigger consumers of the US umbrella than the rest of Europe because they have not been in NATO

they also don't pay to play with NATO.

Did Norway and Denmark leave NATO or something?

Otherwise, Sweden is the only Scandanavian country not in NATO.

With the NATO membership I was referring specifically to Sweden and l should have said that specifically, especially due to your habit of latching onto irrelevant semantic and running with it. Denmark and Norway are NATO members but they have not upheld their military obligations as members as they pertain to maintaining certain capabilities.

Glad I inspired you to go look it up, though.

What I said still stands- many European countries have been able to progressively downsize their militaries for the last 50 years as a direct result of our own military spending.

If we weren't playing world police (which GATW must think I agree with or something) the social spending levels in Europe- especially in Scandinavian countries- would be unsustainable.

[SDHornet]

Hey Obama, the 80s called….they want their foreign policy back.

(Did I do that right?)

Yes...yes you did.

And Cid is cleaning house in this thread.

[CID1990]

On a side note, Poland, remembering the last time they relied on Western European power to help them out, are now the number 1 customers of the M1 Abrams tank.

They don't have paid vacay though so its irrelevant.

Actually I think my previous idea is a good one- free European vacations and medical tourism for Americans in Europe in exchange for being big brother on the playground.

[Grizalltheway]

Did Norway and Denmark leave NATO or something?

Otherwise, Sweden is the only Scandanavian country not in NATO.

With the NATO membership I was referring specifically to Sweden and l should have said that specifically, especially due to your habit of latching onto irrelevant semantic and running with it. Denmark and Norway are NATO members but they have not upheld their military obligations as members as they pertain to maintaining certain capabilities.

Glad I inspired you to go look it up, though.

What I said still stands- many European countries have been able to progressively downsize their militaries for the last 50 years as a direct result of our own military spending.

If we weren't playing world police (which GATW must think I agree with or something) the social spending levels in Europe- especially in Scandinavian countries- would be unsustainable.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the Scando countries have pretty robust economies and large tax bases from which to draw if they had to start ponying up more for defense (and I'm not saying they shouldn't). It's not as though it would be a North Korea situation where they'd literally be choosing between guns and butter.

[bandl]

[CID1990]

With the NATO membership I was referring specifically to Sweden and l should have said that specifically, especially due to your habit of latching onto irrelevant semantic and running with it. Denmark and Norway are NATO members but they have not upheld their military obligations as members as they pertain to maintaining certain capabilities.

Glad I inspired you to go look it up, though.

What I said still stands- many European countries have been able to progressively downsize their militaries for the last 50 years as a direct result of our own military spending.

If we weren't playing world police (which GATW must think I agree with or something) the social spending levels in Europe- especially in Scandinavian countries- would be unsustainable.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the Scando countries have pretty robust economies and large tax bases from which to draw if they had to start ponying up more for defense (and I'm not saying they shouldn't). It's not as though it would be a North Korea situation where they'd literally be choosing between guns and butter.

Military spending is not as simple as just buying tanks (like Poland). On top of the material things, there's also supply and logistics, and even doctrine- which takes a years long commitment to develop (and a commitment to continual spending).

Add having a defense capability that would compensate for our exit from Europe and they arent as solvent as you think they are.

The reality is we've gotten ourselves into this: EU countries aren't going to accept the social disorder of diverting money to building up their defenses, and we're stuck defending their way of life because Russian hegemony in Europe would be an economic disaster to them AND us.

[Chizzang]

Military spending is not as simple as just buying tanks (like Poland). On top of the material things, there's also supply and logistics, and even doctrine- which takes a years long commitment to develop (and a commitment to continual spending).

Add having a defense capability that would compensate for our exit from Europe and they arent as solvent as you think they are.

The reality is we've gotten ourselves into this: EU countries aren't going to accept the social disorder of diverting money to building up their defenses, and we're stuck defending their way of life because Russian hegemony in Europe would be an economic disaster to them AND us.

Wait a minute... are you admitting what I think you're admitting..?
Jesus - You might get your Halliburton Christmas Gift Certificate Card deleted with talk like that

[CID1990]

Military spending is not as simple as just buying tanks (like Poland). On top of the material things, there's also supply and logistics, and even doctrine- which takes a years long commitment to develop (and a commitment to continual spending).

Add having a defense capability that would compensate for our exit from Europe and they arent as solvent as you think they are.

The reality is we've gotten ourselves into this: EU countries aren't going to accept the social disorder of diverting money to building up their defenses, and we're stuck defending their way of life because Russian hegemony in Europe would be an economic disaster to them AND us.

Wait a minute... are you admitting what I think you're admitting..?
Jesus - You might get your Halliburton Christmas Gift Certificate Card deleted with talk like that

I'm not admitting anything

I'm simply pointing out what I've always pointed out

The rest of the world (especially the EU), with the help of Alfred Thayer Mahan, has us over a barrel on defense

And they achieve artificial social and political success by it

[mrklean]

OUR military spending is THEIR military spending.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/ ... obamaputin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm guessing that the same people who like to point to the European social utopia (paid mommy leave for all!) also complain about US military presence all over the world.

You can't do both.

Bitch about the 1.5 TRILLION US Dollars that we wasted on the freaking F-35...1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!

[Skjellyfetti]

Norway is 2nd in NATO in defense spending per capita.

They spend $1,328 per citizen on defense.

The US spends $1,891.

That ain't so bad.

Denmark is in fifth. Not too shabby.

http://imgur.com/b5g2Yzc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The countries at the bottom of the list - that are most at risk of an invasion from Russia - spend the least. Countries in the Balkans and in the Baltics that were in the former Soviet states or satellite states.

Those are the countries you should have an issue with. And, their joining of NATO is part of the hostility the Russians feel towards us. So, they are a root cause and don't contribute their weight.

So, you'd certainly have my back if you wanted to kick them out of NATO.


But, I guess you're only talking about Sweden, right?

[kalm]

Norway is 2nd in NATO in defense spending per capita.

They spend $1,328 per citizen on defense.

The US spends $1,891.

That ain't so bad.

Denmark is in fifth. Not too shabby.

http://imgur.com/b5g2Yzc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The countries at the bottom of the list - that are most at risk of an invasion from Russia - spend the least. Countries in the Balkans and in the Baltics that were in the former Soviet states or satellite states.

Those are the countries you should have an issue with. And, their joining of NATO is part of the hostility the Russians feel towards us. So, they are a root cause and don't contribute their weight.

So, you'd certainly have my back if you wanted to kick them out of NATO.


But, I guess you're only talking about Sweden, right?

With the NATO membership I was referring specifically to Sweden and l should have said that specifically, especially due to your habit of latching onto irrelevant semantic and running with it. Denmark and Norway are NATO members but they have not upheld their military obligations as members as they pertain to maintaining certain capabilities.

[CID1990]

Norway is 2nd in NATO in defense spending per capita.

They spend $1,328 per citizen on defense.

The US spends $1,891.

That ain't so bad.

Denmark is in fifth. Not too shabby.

http://imgur.com/b5g2Yzc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The countries at the bottom of the list - that are most at risk of an invasion from Russia - spend the least. Countries in the Balkans and in the Baltics that were in the former Soviet states or satellite states.

Those are the countries you should have an issue with. And, their joining of NATO is part of the hostility the Russians feel towards us. So, they are a root cause and don't contribute their weight.

So, you'd certainly have my back if you wanted to kick them out of NATO.


But, I guess you're only talking about Sweden, right?

Nope.

I'm talking about all of the EU western European countries, and to a great extent I am referring to the Scandinavian countries.

Nice chart, but you've proven my point and part of the answer is in your chart. I'll let you run off and do some more internet research before I explain to you in terms you may be able to understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

Start with having a look at spending as a percentage of GDP, and then look at those numbers historically. NATO countries in the EU have not kept to their obligations. Turkey and Germany are the only traditional members who come close.

Any moron can look up raw defense spending.

[CID1990]

OUR military spending is THEIR military spending.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/ ... obamaputin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm guessing that the same people who like to point to the European social utopia (paid mommy leave for all!) also complain about US military presence all over the world.

You can't do both.

Bitch about the 1.5 TRILLION US Dollars that we wasted on the freaking F-35...1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!

You take the prize for irrelevance

At least try, like Jelly

[Skjellyfetti]

Start with having a look at spending as a percentage of GDP, and then look at those numbers historically. NATO countries in the EU have not kept to their obligations. Turkey and Germany are the only traditional members who come close.

Denmark and Norway actually spend more as a percentage of GDP than Germany.

And, Sweden spends the same as Germany as percentage of GDP.

Military expenditure (% of GDP)
Norway: 1.4%
Denmark: 1.3%
Sweden: 1.2%

Germany: 1.2%

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS. ... t&sort=asc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, you're correct. The US spends MUCH more on defense spending. If you'd like to talk about cutting defense spending to these levels then I'm right there with you.

[kalm]

Norway is 2nd in NATO in defense spending per capita.

They spend $1,328 per citizen on defense.

The US spends $1,891.

That ain't so bad.

Denmark is in fifth. Not too shabby.

http://imgur.com/b5g2Yzc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The countries at the bottom of the list - that are most at risk of an invasion from Russia - spend the least. Countries in the Balkans and in the Baltics that were in the former Soviet states or satellite states.

Those are the countries you should have an issue with. And, their joining of NATO is part of the hostility the Russians feel towards us. So, they are a root cause and don't contribute their weight.

So, you'd certainly have my back if you wanted to kick them out of NATO.


But, I guess you're only talking about Sweden, right?

Nope.

I'm talking about all of the EU western European countries, and to a great extent I am referring to the Scandinavian countries.

Nice chart, but you've proven my point and part of the answer is in your chart. I'll let you run off and do some more internet research before I explain to you in terms you may be able to understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

Start with having a look at spending as a percentage of GDP, and then look at those numbers historically. NATO countries in the EU have not kept to their obligations. Turkey and Germany are the only traditional members who come close.

Any moron can look up raw defense spending.

Didn't dig up the historical numbers but Germany is only at 1.2% now. The U.S. accounts for 75% percent of NATO spending.

Defense contractors be like...

Only Poland this year joined the four other countries, out of 28 total NATO members, that are meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. The other four are the U.S., Great Britain, Greece and Estonia.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls- ... 1434978193" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Start with having a look at spending as a percentage of GDP, and then look at those numbers historically. NATO countries in the EU have not kept to their obligations. Turkey and Germany are the only traditional members who come close.

Denmark and Norway actually spend more as a percentage of GDP than Germany.

And, Sweden spends the same as Germany as percentage of GDP.

Military expenditure (% of GDP)
Norway: 1.4%
Denmark: 1.3%
Sweden: 1.2%

Germany: 1.2%

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS. ... t&sort=asc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, you're correct. The US spends MUCH more on defense spending. If you'd like to talk about cutting defense spending to these levels then I'm right there with you.

You're still missing it, Jelly. Keep trying.

I've already said that they haven't upheld their obligations in NATO. I also mentioned that some of the answer is in your chart- but you have to measure historical spending over time for each country.

Current military spending as a function of GDP is listed at current levels. You've shown nothing of the historical values. Germany has a much more robust, symmetrical military than Denmark or Norway in terms of materiel and capability. Denmark and Norway have not kept their capabilities symmetrical; in other words, they are narrowly focused in terms of what they choose to do in terms of capability. Denmark, for example, has a decent regional submarine force. On the other hand, they don't have anything near the land forces they would need to preserve their own borders.

Germany got where they are in terms of GDP spending because they did a lot more in the 60s and 70s, and their military infrastructure is such that they could hold their own in a fight with the Russians at least until we got into the fight. The Scandinavian countries would be a walkover because their military spending has been static for years and they have chosen to specialize- specifically because they would rely on us entirely. Again- they have freed up a LOT of capital under the assumption that the US guarantees their sovereignty.

You are correct about the Baltic States- they spend less than anyone- but that is irrelevant to what I am talking about. They are recent members, and in our stupidity we brought them onboard as associates. But they have weak economies and they don't have the social programs that they do in the west. So, immaterial.

Please continue to refer to your chart if you like- it does not accurately tell the story of NATO capabilities or the relative contributions of the members, and it certainly does not reflect that the US carries the lion's share of the defense burden there. If the western EU countries had to pick up the slack of the loss of basically what amounts to .5 percent of the US GDP they would be in trouble.

Back to the original assertion: if we stopped guaranteeing the freedom of Europe- many countries there would have hard choices about what to cut in order to build their own defenses.

[Pwns]

Well, crap. Next you're going to tell me those charts showing the US doesn't give as much in foreign aid in proportion to GDP as many other countries is misleading.

[kalm]

Somewhat related...

Meet The Defense Ministers Of Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Germany
By Tiffany Willis on February 4, 2014



http://www.liberalamerica.org/2014/02/0 ... s-germany/

[houndawg]

Start with having a look at spending as a percentage of GDP, and then look at those numbers historically. NATO countries in the EU have not kept to their obligations. Turkey and Germany are the only traditional members who come close.

Denmark and Norway actually spend more as a percentage of GDP than Germany.

And, Sweden spends the same as Germany as percentage of GDP.

Military expenditure (% of GDP)
Norway: 1.4%
Denmark: 1.3%
Sweden: 1.2%

Germany: 1.2%

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS. ... t&sort=asc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, you're correct. The US spends MUCH more on defense spending. If you'd like to talk about cutting defense spending to these levels then I'm right there with you.

We could save money on schools by sending our kids to Europe to be educated. They'd get a better education and come back with at least one extra language. And we could say that we're spending the money to keep our kids safe.

[93henfan]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the Scando countries have pretty robust economies and large tax bases from which to draw if they had to start ponying up more for defense (and I'm not saying they shouldn't). It's not as though it would be a North Korea situation where they'd literally be choosing between guns and butter.

Military spending is not as simple as just buying tanks (like Poland). On top of the material things, there's also supply and logistics, and even doctrine- which takes a years long commitment to develop (and a commitment to continual spending).

Add having a defense capability that would compensate for our exit from Europe and they arent as solvent as you think they are.

The reality is we've gotten ourselves into this: EU countries aren't going to accept the social disorder of diverting money to building up their defenses, and we're stuck defending their way of life because Russian hegemony in Europe would be an economic disaster to them AND us.

Precisely. That is why every military action nowadays is by a "US-led coalition". We're the only ones with an adequate log train. All the rest just hop a plane to the staging area and ask where we want them to stand.

I was reading a WaPo article yesterday about the Saudis wanting Assad deposed by force. The prince was asked when he will be leading this charge of the Saudi light brigade and his exact words were, "we will be part of the US-led coalition".

Gotta love these trillionaires planning our wars for us.

[kalm]

Military spending is not as simple as just buying tanks (like Poland). On top of the material things, there's also supply and logistics, and even doctrine- which takes a years long commitment to develop (and a commitment to continual spending).

Add having a defense capability that would compensate for our exit from Europe and they arent as solvent as you think they are.

The reality is we've gotten ourselves into this: EU countries aren't going to accept the social disorder of diverting money to building up their defenses, and we're stuck defending their way of life because Russian hegemony in Europe would be an economic disaster to them AND us.

Precisely. That is why every military action nowadays is by a "US-led coalition". We're the only ones with an adequate log train. All the rest just hop a plane to the staging area and ask where we want them to stand.

I was reading a WaPo article yesterday about the Saudis wanting Assad deposed by force. The prince was asked when he will be leading this charge of the Saudi light brigade and his exact words were, "we will be part of the US-led coalition".

Gotta love these trillionaires planning our wars for us.

And name one candidate (other than Ron Paul) even paying lip service to this.

[YoUDeeMan]

Precisely. That is why every military action nowadays is by a "US-led coalition". We're the only ones with an adequate log train. All the rest just hop a plane to the staging area and ask where we want them to stand.

I was reading a WaPo article yesterday about the Saudis wanting Assad deposed by force. The prince was asked when he will be leading this charge of the Saudi light brigade and his exact words were, "we will be part of the US-led coalition".

Gotta love these trillionaires planning our wars for us.

Scream it loud...from every mountain top.

The Blacks in Wilmington are saying that they need more money per child to educate their Black population. Equal access to funds is no longer enough and is not fair....the are demanding that more money be spent per Black child than per White child.

Screw that. Except our weak clown Dems are caving in and will give them their money.

But, in the meantime, not one of them is asking Governor Markell to redirect spending from our military.

We have enough money...our priorities are screwed up.

[Chizzang]

Precisely. That is why every military action nowadays is by a "US-led coalition". We're the only ones with an adequate log train. All the rest just hop a plane to the staging area and ask where we want them to stand.

I was reading a WaPo article yesterday about the Saudis wanting Assad deposed by force. The prince was asked when he will be leading this charge of the Saudi light brigade and his exact words were, "we will be part of the US-led coalition".

Gotta love these trillionaires planning our wars for us.

Scream it loud...from every mountain top.

The Blacks in Wilmington are saying that they need more money per child to educate their Black population. Equal access to funds is no longer enough and is not fair....the are demanding that more money be spent per Black child than per White child.

Screw that. Except our weak clown Dems are caving in and will give them their money.

But, in the meantime, not one of them is asking Governor Markell to redirect spending from our military.

We have enough money...our priorities are screwed up.

Indeed,
Our Federal Government has mountains of extracted revenue
the last thing we need them doing is looking around for more money

We need them focused on balanced responsible application of said stolen funds

[Skjellyfetti]

It's not specific on where the money is going... just "central and eastern Europe."

I would assume focused on countries in the Baltics. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania aren't exactly liberal social utopias.

I doubt much, if any, of this money is going to Scandanavia.

And, at the NATO summit...

...where is it going?

Today, we will agree to enhance our forward presence in the east of the Alliance. In Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and here in Poland. We will deploy, by rotation, a robust, multinational battalion in each of the countries. Making clear that an attack against one Ally will be met by forces from across the Alliance.

http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-up ... 016/#14498

[DSUrocks07]

It's not specific on where the money is going... just "central and eastern Europe."

I would assume focused on countries in the Baltics. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania aren't exactly liberal social utopias.

I doubt much, if any, of this money is going to Scandanavia.

And, at the NATO summit...

...where is it going?

Today, we will agree to enhance our forward presence in the east of the Alliance. In Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and here in Poland. We will deploy, by rotation, a robust, multinational battalion in each of the countries. Making clear that an attack against one Ally will be met by forces from across the Alliance.

http://www.interpretermag.com/russia-up ... 016/#14498

CBC News reports that each multi-national battle group will consist of roughly 1,000 soldiers.

While "framework nations" will provide "headquarters oversight, leadership and other essential support units that allow the battalion to function and fight," they do not have to provide all of the troops. The UK, for example, is reported by the BBC to be providing around 500 soldiers to their battle group in Estonia, with other states contributing the remainder. An additional 150 British troops will be deployed in Poland.

Canada will also provide six CF-18 fighter jets to join the Baltic air policing mission, which is currently conducted by Eurofighter Typhoons and F-16s from the British and Portuguese air forces.

Ooooh scary