Didn't you see what she said, though? She isn't going to be drawn into a debate over it.

Basically, she and much of Europe just demands that America provide for their defense, and are outraged at the suggestion that we might not if they don't start making their own contributions to the effort.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

There are a lot of things that get counted into "Defense spending" that might not immediately seem like military might. We count spending on veterans as well as foreign economic aid in our Defense numbers.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't particularly care how it is allocated as long as it is consistent and agreed upon by all parties involved.

I then don't want to see disparity in provisions for equipment and personnel. I don't want any future battlefield fought by mostly Americans or American lid for equipment.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Good luck with that.

These are all sovereign nations with their own budgetary processes. We can try to put some basic guidelines in the rules for what constitutes "Defense spending," but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for everyone to agree to an exact set of rules for that.

And it's even more doubtful that we would see future battles not fought by mostly Americans and American equipment. That's part of what comes from having more money and people than most everyone else in the alliance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Then you should understand the resentment and it certainly sounds justified. When a deal is negotiated and both sides feel equity, it is a good deal. If in the course of decades and other events, one side no longer feels equity, but the other does, a deal needs to cease or be renegotiated so both sides feel equity. And if the sides that feel equity are all bent out of shape because our lack of equity calls for a renegotiation, it comes down to leverage. And right now, I don't see Europe having any leverage. So fuck em. Every last one of them.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Like I said,...good luck with that.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Wow, petty resentment as the sole rationale for foreign policy. As slowguy said, good luck with that

Well it would seem to me that Trump and team are holding all the cards, and they hold none. We agree to pull back, they have a choice to put real military assets on the table/money or just have a short fall. Sounds fine to me. That's is called risk acceptance. Clearly a sizeable portion of the American electorate are fine with no NATO, I would think more are fine with a pullback to lesser levels.

Only people I hear getting all bent out of shape are the Europeans who have used our cloak of protection to fund social programs, and bureaucrats who say you can't do that. It is the way it is for a reason and you just have to trust us. But sorry, that narrative just isn't working anymore. Maybe it is temporary, and I'm sure you are counting on that. I'm hoping it doesn't. I'm hoping the populism in Britain, US, and spreading across Europe crushes the existing order and all those that have helped sustain or perpetuate it fade away man. I'm not kidding when I think the world needs an enema.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Doesn't look like there's really all that much daylight between Trump and Pence on this.

There isn't a lot of difference on the funding aspect of NAT, both have asked for other countries to do their fair share.

The differences are in NATO itself. Pence said the U.S is 100% in support of NATO but Trump said NATO is obsolete. I see that as a pretty big gap unless I missed where the administration translated his comments into what he really meant.

Come on, man. I'm pretty sure Trump has also said we're committed to NATO, but they have to pay up.

And Pence is saying pretty much exactly that. So is Mattis. You're making something out of nothing. They appear to be on the same page.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, not really. He said he didn't want to pull out, but he also said NATO is obsolete, that we have to reconsider NATO, that NATO has to be changed, that he would look into getting rid of NATO, that we pay more than our fair share, that NATO is supposed to cover terrorism and doesn't have the right countries for that, and that we have to be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. I think anyone can see that his messaging on this subject is a bit mixed at best, and certainly leaves room for NATO countries to be concerned. They certainly aren't lock step with a message of long term commitment to NATO that the VP spoke about.

If people in the LR are making something out of nothing, well then so are the governments of a significant number of NATO countries.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

His message might be mixed, and it might be giving Europe cause for concern, but it's simply not 100% different from Pence's position. Not even close.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't think that claim was made by anyone here, unless I missed it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Wasn't that the OP, or did this thing get so convoluted?

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Yeah, that's the point of the entire thread. That Trump and Pence are giving 100% different signals on NATO, and nobody knows what to do about it, and the Russians love what Trump said, and the Europeans love what Pence said, and what are we to make of all that.

Basically, Trump has given some ambiguous statements which seem designed to pressure Europe into paying their fair share. Pence has explicitly said they need to pay their fair share. There's not really any real conflict between their statements on NATO.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, I didn't start the thread, but I don't think that's the point. The point seemed to be that there's enough ambiguity between Pres Trump's previous statements and those made by the VP and SecDef so as to cause so questioning about what the administration's policy really will be moving forward, and/or to question whether the Pres and his surrogates are completely on the same page with regard to the administration's foreign policy.

As far as I can tell, you're the first person to say the policies were 100% different.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

As far as I can tell, you're the first person to say the policies were 100% different.

I don't know what to tell you. That was Sanuk's claim.

As for ambiguity, I think it's deliberate- but again, there appears very little conflict between Trump and Pence and Mattis, and the message seems crystal clear: Europe has to start paying its fair share.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, Sanuk has tried to bring the focus back to the original point. With that said, I see how smarter people could easily expand the scope and read to much into it. That what happens when smart people start discussing clear cut or mundane topics. ;)

The communication is consistent, but the message seems to be clear when read on paper. But leaves rational people able to read into it what they want to. Creating confusion.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

http://www.msn.com/...r-AAn8zyf?li=BBnb7Kz


what's with Canada?

He sounds very Hitlerian there.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Canada was a very big supporter of NATO at the time of the Cold War. I spent a significant amount of my school years as a military brat on Canadian bases in Germany and even France ( before they kicked everybody out in 1967). We closed all our bases in Germany after the cold war ended in the 1990's as it was determined by our government that since the cold war was over, they were no longer needed. There are still some CDN troops in Europe associated with other bases, usually American or British AFAIK, but our boots on the ground commitment is now very small compared to what it was in the cold war era. Hence we are now only paying about 1% of GNP towards NATO.

IMHO, NATO is more or less something of the past, but I understand why the USA wants to maintain a continued presence due to the fact that the bases in Europe make hops to troubled areas like the middle east or parts of Africa much more convenient. Also, mayors of towns where bases are located put a considerable amount of pressure on the German government to keep these bases open as there loss would dramatically effect local economies.

As for NATO itself, I agree that it has to be redefined.

Yeah but he didn't get el chapo. Trump got el chapo

Thanks for your insights

I'm confused. I thought the NATO agreement was that you had to spend at least 2% of your GNP on defense not contribute 2 percent of your GDP to NATO. Having said that as a Canadian I am embarrassed that it appears we are spending about 1 percent of our GDP on defense.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I was talking to my dad not long ago about this very topic. At the time when in Germany as a teenager, he was 2nd in command of one of the bases. All I'm really doing is paraphrasing what we recently discussed.