- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:54 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:54 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Too lazy to read the entire thing?
I read the entire thing when you first posted it. Nothing in the link even remotely refers to the US paying for any other nations military
It DOES reference that the US pays for approximately 20% of NATO’s common/shared infrastructure—of which we are overwhelmingly the primary and majority user. So yes, we are paying for our own forces to use these assets. We are not subsidizing these other countries own domestic forces.
1
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:55 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
what do we lose if we keep 2.4% of our GDP.
What the hell are you talking about? 2.4% of our GDP is our defense spending. Trump wants to almost double that to $1.5 trillion.
We arent spending 2.4% because of NATO guidelines. He wants to leave NATO and spend 4+%.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:55 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Reconciliation
It’s not a reconciliation bill whatsoever.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:56 pm to kingbob
Oh no, how is Europe going to fund their free healthcare and 3 month vacation systems now?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:56 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Where is that quote in the link you provided?
The money the US contributes to NATO goes into two main types of funding: direct common funding for shared operations and infrastructure, and the much larger national defense budgets of member countries.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:56 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
To protect whom? Think real hard.
You honestly believe that we have forces in Europe to protect Europeans?
We have them there to enable quick deployment elsewhere. It’s not 1963 anymore.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:57 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I read the entire thing when you first posted it. Nothing in the link even remotely refers to the US paying for any other nations military
quote:
As of 2023, NATO members’ combined active military forces totaled an estimated 3.3 million. The US military accounts for approximately 42% of that number. For comparison, the world’s largest active military by total enlisted forces is China, with 2 million people.
Do you consider a subsidy paying for something? That may be where the confusion is.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:57 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Also…what do we lose if we keep 2.4% of our GDP.
That’s our own defense spending, moron
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It’s not a reconciliation bill whatsoever.
You sure????
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:59 pm to LetsGoBrandon
We get absolutely NOTHING from NATO except grief and advice from those fricks while they grift the money we pay in.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
We have them there to enable quick deployment elsewhere. It’s not 1963 anymore.
Precisely.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:59 pm to Indefatigable
That’s a fair concern.
It’s also fair to point out that if we weren’t constantly playing world cop in the Middle East for Israel, bailing Europe out of wars for the last century and tilting at windmills for neocon globalists we wouldn’t need to deploy US troops and spend our money for zero ROI.
Taking it further, it’s worth pointing out that many of those NATO bases would immediately be closed by the host nations without America staffing and help to pay for them because they have neither the will or current military capability to effectively man them absent our armed forces.
Unfortunately for them as they’re fully extended due to social welfare programs as they import more and more net takers and shutdown their manufacturing base due to global warming concerns they have no ability to take on the void that we would leave as their welfare addicted population won’t allow austerity cuts to reallocate spend to a military buildup.
It’s also fair to point out that if we weren’t constantly playing world cop in the Middle East for Israel, bailing Europe out of wars for the last century and tilting at windmills for neocon globalists we wouldn’t need to deploy US troops and spend our money for zero ROI.
Taking it further, it’s worth pointing out that many of those NATO bases would immediately be closed by the host nations without America staffing and help to pay for them because they have neither the will or current military capability to effectively man them absent our armed forces.
Unfortunately for them as they’re fully extended due to social welfare programs as they import more and more net takers and shutdown their manufacturing base due to global warming concerns they have no ability to take on the void that we would leave as their welfare addicted population won’t allow austerity cuts to reallocate spend to a military buildup.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:59 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Do you consider a subsidy paying for something? That may be where the confusion is.
What are we paying for in your mind?
We have by far the largest military in NATO. We use—by several orders of magnitude—more of NATO’s infrastructure and common assets than any other member. We compensate the host nation and/or pay for our own upgrades and expansions to their facilities.
We are not writing checks to fund their militaries. We are paying them to use their shite for our own benefit.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That’s our own defense spending, moron
We spend over 3% on our own defense spending.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:I did. I read it twice and there's no mention of the U.S. giving 31 other countries money for their military.
See the link above.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:00 pm to LetsGoBrandon
Yes!!!
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:01 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I did. I read it twice and there's no mention of the U.S. giving 31 other countries money for their military.
Do you not consider a subsidy a gift?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:01 pm to tide06
quote:
That’s a fair concern. It’s also fair to point out that if we weren’t constantly playing world cop in the Middle East for Israel, bailing Europe out of wars for the last century and tilting at windmills for neocon globalists we wouldn’t need to deploy US troops and spend our money for zero ROI. Taking it further, it’s worth pointing out that many of those NATO bases would immediately be closed by the host nations without America staffing and help to pay for them because they have neither the will or current military capability to effectively man them absent our armed forces. Unfortunately for them as they’re fully extended due to social welfare programs as they import more and more net takers and shutdown their manufacturing base due to global warming concerns they have no ability to take on the void that we would leave as their welfare addicted population won’t allow austerity cuts to reallocate spend to a military buildup.
Having assets in Europe is called being prepared.
Withdrawing all of our assets to the Western Hemisphere would leave us totally scrambling when something needed doing elsewhere.
It’s very shortsighted to argue that we don’t benefit from forward deployment of assets, be it in Europe, Qatar/Bahrain, Diego Garcia, or Japan/Korea.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:02 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It’s not like we aren’t going to forward position assets in Europe if we withdrew from NATO.
Why do we need to forward position troops in Europe in 2026?
How does that benefit us?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:02 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Do you not consider a subsidy a gift?
Where do you see a subsidy?
I see leases and capital investment.
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News