Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Make America Great Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final



    sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

    It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Belgian military strength is 32000,but it will go down the next years,strength of the ground forces is 12000 men;with a lot of luck, if there is a crisis, Belgian would have ONE operational batallion .

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    The agreement was reached in 2014 that the NATO members would have their defense expenditures up to 2% by 2024. US tax dollars do not go to Brussels, but to the Defense Department to support US troops in NATO. NATO is the US's alliance and it has prevented war in Europe since its founding in 1947. There is no 'defense fund' that the allies pay into and NATO countries do not owe the US any money, as we haven't given them any for NATO. The contribution goes to US forces and defense in the alliance.

    Trump's press conference yesterday was absolute nonsense and no one agreed to go to 4% defense expenditures. Trump takes 'big and tough' in public, but does not one-on-one which clearly demonstrates that he is both a blowhard and a moral coward.
    We all know there is no pie of monies and it doesn't go directly to Brussels, but hell it does have a nice complex and how many employees ...?? The increase has been asked diplomatically for how long, how many presidents...Perhaps the undiplomatic approach was called for, and it worked...Who is the blow hard and coward...??

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Holliday View Post

    By trying to get them to pay "Their fair share"..(Sound Familiar)...and keeping your taxes dollars at home and not in Brussels.....but of course you already knew that....Ill give you kudos for not posting a link....
    The agreement was reached in 2014 that the NATO members would have their defense expenditures up to 2% by 2024. US tax dollars do not go to Brussels, but to the Defense Department to support US troops in NATO. NATO is the US's alliance and it has prevented war in Europe since its founding in 1947. There is no 'defense fund' that the allies pay into and NATO countries do not owe the US any money, as we haven't given them any for NATO. The contribution goes to US forces and defense in the alliance.

    Trump's press conference yesterday was absolute nonsense and no one agreed to go to 4% defense expenditures. Trump takes 'big and tough' in public, but does not one-on-one which clearly demonstrates that he is both a blowhard and a moral coward.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well we do use them,

    please find below a map of where Belgian forces are deployed just at this moment.

    You'd think we are the bloody Roman empire.

    https://www.mil.be/nl/pagina/overzicht

    What we will NOT do however is spend twice as much money to do the same.

    Cambronne

    That's OK then, forgive for cutting this short, but really have to go now, cu later
    What the heck is your serviceman/women doin in Florida....??? Where's my rifle !!!!

    OK, I do see what you mean tho.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Well we do use them,

    please find below a map of where Belgian forces are deployed just at this moment.

    You'd think we are the bloody Roman empire.

    https://www.mil.be/nl/pagina/overzicht

    What we will NOT do however is spend twice as much money to do the same.

    Cambronne

    That's OK then, forgive for cutting this short, but really have to go now, cu later

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post


    For Belgium to spend 2% a year, we'd have to deploy to insane places, or simply park an (undermanned for lack of recruits) armoured divison in the Ardennes.

    Not going to happen.

    There's another aspect as well - in upcoming years we'll be replacing fighter/bombers, minesweepers, frigates, buying drones and even in-flight refueling capabilities.

    .
    Thats the whole point isn't it...? If you don't deploy to "insane" places, someone else has to pick up the slack....Even if you don't agree to those places...then whats the point in spending monies to replace fights/bombers, mine sweeps and frigates..or even in flight fueling..Your never gonna use them...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    All 2%s are not created equal - Greece for example, apparently and logically, spends more, as does Poland but they can simply put their army on their national border and that makes sense.

    Also their GDP is comparatively lower.

    For Belgium to spend 2% a year, we'd have to deploy to insane places, or simply park an (undermanned for lack of recruits) armoured divison in the Ardennes.

    Not going to happen.

    There's another aspect as well - in upcoming years we'll be replacing fighter/bombers, minesweepers, frigates, buying drones and even in-flight refueling capabilities.

    In any one year any of those are paid, the Belgian defence budget will jump above 2%, in other years, obviously it will have to go down to be invested in other things.

    The price of a 35 fighters, for instance weighs much more on the budget of a small nation compared to a bigger one, nevertheless 35 Belgian planes, in the sense of power projection, are more useful to to NATO than 35 Polish ones who can't move.

    All these things are obvious to anyone with even an ounce of common sense.

    NATO is not a golf club where you pay a fee to be a member - it's an Alliance where the total is supposed to be more than the sum of the parts.


    I think it is always a good idea to park an armored division in the Ardennes.

    Anyway, I accept that meeting the 2% goal might be completely unrealistic for Belgium.
    I cannot and do not disagree with anything you have said.
    Rather, my issue is with the politicians who apparently agreed to meet the 2% goal. They are the ones who should have shown a little more common sense before committing to a course of action they should have known wasn't possible.

    And I am not really taking issue with Belgium so much as the larger, wealthier states.
    I am not saying Trump is right to make this an issue or that it is possible, but rather that the NATO leaders made a committment (2%) and have since failed to follow through on it.
    That gives Trump (and previous US presidents) a right to call attention to the problem.
    Perhaps not exactly in the way he has done it, but he can still complain about it.

    I can't complain about Belgium too much. I have loved every minute I have been there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    My post was a reply to Cambronne - I'll await his response.

    If he too considers it nothing but "smoke and mirrors", I'll draw my conclusions from that

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    We have not slightest intention to prove anything.

    Take it or shove it.
    So your post was nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post

    Unless you can prove an average of 2 percent, you are still posting nothing more than any other Euro apologist.
    We have not slightest intention to prove anything.

    Take it or shove it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    All 2%s are not created equal - Greece for example, apparently and logically, spends more, as does Poland but they can simply put their army on their national border and that makes sense.

    For Belgium to spend 2% a year, we'd have to deploy to insane places, or simply park an (undermanned for lack of recruits) armoured divison in the Ardennes.

    Not going to happen.

    There's another aspect as well - in upcoming years we'll be replacing fighter/bombers, minesweepers, frigates, buying drones and even in-flight refueling capabilities.

    In any one year any of those are paid, the Belgian defence budget will jump above 2%, in other years, obviously it will have to go down to be invested in other things.

    The price of a 35 fighters, for instance weighs much more on the budget of a small nation compared to a bigger one, nevertheless 35 Belgian planes, in the sense of power projection, are more useful to to NATO as 35 Polish ones who can't move.

    All these things are obvious to anyone with even an ounce of common sense.

    NATO is not a golf club where you pay a fee to be a member - it's an alliance.
    Unless you can prove an average of 2 percent, you are still posting nothing more than any other Euro apologist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    The alliance has set a target for its members of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence - but the likes of France, Germany and Canada are among more than 20 members not meeting the objective, figures show.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ct-attack.html
    All 2%s are not created equal - Greece for example, apparently and logically, spends more, as does Poland but they can simply put their army on their national border and that makes sense.

    Also their GDP is comparatively lower.

    For Belgium to spend 2% a year, we'd have to deploy to insane places, or simply park an (undermanned for lack of recruits) armoured divison in the Ardennes.

    Not going to happen.

    There's another aspect as well - in upcoming years we'll be replacing fighter/bombers, minesweepers, frigates, buying drones and even in-flight refueling capabilities.

    In any one year any of those are paid, the Belgian defence budget will jump above 2%, in other years, obviously it will have to go down to be invested in other things.

    The price of a 35 fighters, for instance, weighs much more on the budget of a small nation compared to a bigger one, nevertheless 35 Belgian planes, in the sense of power projection, are more useful to NATO than 35 Polish ones that can't move.

    All these things are obvious to anyone with even an ounce of common sense.

    NATO is not a golf club where you pay a fee to be a member - it's an Alliance where the total is supposed to be more than the sum of the parts.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 13 Jul 18, 08:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    And just how is Trump 'making America great again'?
    By trying to get them to pay "Their fair share"..(Sound Familiar)...and keeping your taxes dollars at home and not in Brussels.....but of course you already knew that....Ill give you kudos for not posting a link....

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    And just how is Trump 'making America great again'?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X