Defense Spending

[JoeWeber 2,299]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

So, what part of "America can only control its own spending, not its allies spending" are you having a hard time getting your head around? I said it once before in this thread, but clearly a repeat is needed. Get your own house in order. Make your argument where it needs to be made. At your politicians and your fellow citizens. America's errors are not the fault of others, they are yours to own and fix.

What part of our allies signed an agreement to spend more on defense and continue to welsh on it year after year are you having a hard time with? 

[gowlerk 1,912]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

What part of our allies signed an agreement to spend more on defense and continue to welsh on it year after year are you having a hard time with? 

We are working on the 2% thing. I'll bet you we get there before you do.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

We are working on the 2% thing. I'll bet you we get there before you do.

????? We're over 4% and have been. What are you referring to?

[jakee 1,255]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

????? We're over 4% and have been. What are you referring to?

Have you already forgotten you said you’re spending too much? A little consistency, please.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

????? We're over 4% and have been. What are you referring to?

I am talking about the general push within NATO to get to 2%. You work your way down and maybe we'll work our way up. Again, it's not our fault that you overspend. The party which holds the balance of power in our Parliament has stated it opposes any move toward increasing defense spending. Neither of the parties in the US are willing to decrease spending. Sucks to be an American taxpayer I guess.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Realistically Canada meeting the 2% target (which I can not find anywhere that we agreed to do, although it may be so) would require a 50% increase in the defense budget. Unlike in the US the defense industry does not have its fingers in the till of the nation. The only way to spend that kind of money quickly would be to just hand it over to American defense corporations to dispense to their shareholders. Very unlikely. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I am talking about the general push within NATO to get to 2%. You work your way down and maybe we'll work our way up. Again, it's not our fault that you overspend. The party which holds the balance of power in our Parliament has stated it opposes any move toward increasing defense spending. Neither of the parties in the US are willing to decrease spending. Sucks to be an American taxpayer I guess.

The not our fault argument is unbecoming. Stick with the fact that Canada and others have been welshing on a defense spending agreement. Whether or not you personally think 2% of GDP is too much is irrelevant. 

[jakee 1,255]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

The not our fault argument is unbecoming. Stick with the fact that Canada and others have been welshing on a defense spending agreement. Whether or not you personally think 2% of GDP is too much is irrelevant. 

Your entire fucking argument is that it’s Canadas fault the US has to spend trillions of pointless dollars on military equipment sufficient to crush every other army in the world 10 times over.

 

Its not Canada’s fault. It’s your fault.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Soon enough Joe will be complaining that Canada is not doing enough to defend the people of Taiwan.

There was actually a "show of force" in the Taiwan straights and at the Islands China built. I think it was two years ago and Canada had a destroyer sail by both. I believe it was with US and Australian naval forces.

[Phil1111 911]

19 minutes ago, jakee said:

Your entire fucking argument is that it’s Canadas fault the US has to spend trillions of pointless dollars on military equipment sufficient to crush every other army in the world 10 times over.

 

Its not Canada’s fault. It’s your fault.

Well actually its"

The current strategic doctrine, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued in his Quadrennial Defense Review of early 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks), is a package of U.S. military requirements known as 1-4-2-1. The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively".

The general policy objectives are to (1) assure allies(?Canada here?) and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary."

Its five? eight? enemies at once? ......Where is Trigirl to help us out.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Phil1111

[jakee 1,255]

15 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well actually its"

The current strategic doctrine, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued in his Quadrennial Defense Review of early 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks), is a package of U.S. military requirements known as 1-4-2-1. The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively".

The general policy objectives are to (1) assure allies(?Canada here?) and friends; (2) dissuade future military competition, (3) deter threats and coercion against U.S. interests, and (4) if deterrence fails, decisively defeat any adversary."

Exactly. And for the benefit of Joe, who still seems to be struggling to follow what’s going on, this policy is not in the NATO handbook. It’s purely and completely the result of domestic US politics. R

[gowlerk 1,912]

19 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well actually its"

 

Whatever

Edited March 30, 2022 by gowlerk

[Phil1111 911]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/its-vs-its/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_4-SBhCgARIsAAlegrVykuxU9ancGZjz4ZYxr6REeOH_WgModiZJ08rFEM47-VCKUX1mnZUaAi7PEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Your kindness is

[gowlerk 1,912]

Just now, Phil1111 said:

Your kindness is

I'm just confused now. And not fast enough on the edits.

[Phil1111 911]

4 minutes ago, jakee said:

Exactly. And for the benefit of Joe, who still seems to be struggling to follow what’s going on, this policy is not in the NATO handbook. It’s purely and completely the result of domestic US politics. R

It used to be fight 21/2 wars simultaneously. I think it has something to do with the "world hates America syndrome".

I like em. I find them amusing. Especially Joe.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Phil1111

[JoeWeber 2,299]

27 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

It used to be fight 21/2 wars simultaneously. I think it has something to do with the "world hates America syndrome".

I like em. I find them amusing. Especially Joe.

Why thank you. The origin of the 2% GDP agreement:

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

[gowlerk 1,912]

21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

See, weasel words. Guideline, Defense Ministers agreement. Was it part of a treaty? Anyway, just like your nation ours is run by the government of the day. And just like you we sometimes ignore things like this when it is seen as being in our national interest. Do you need examples, because I'm pretty sure I can find many. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

32 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

See, weasel words. Guideline, Defense Ministers agreement. Was it part of a treaty? Anyway, just like your nation ours is run by the government of the day. And just like you we sometimes ignore things like this when it is seen as being in our national interest. Do you need examples, because I'm pretty sure I can find many. 

Interesting how you view an agreement. I guess spitting in your palm and shaking hands is immediately voidable, too.

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Why thank you. The origin of the 2% GDP agreement:

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance’s military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

Hey look Joe - did you notice that nowhere in there was the commitment for the US to take up the slack from people not spending 2%? 
 

So again, it is really unbecoming of you to moan that it is someone else’s fault that you are spending more than double what you agreed to spend. It’s not their fault, it’s your fault.

[Phil1111 911]

I'll concede that Joe has a point on 2%. But perhaps it should be 1.5%

Australia has currently boosted its defense budget to 2.2%. In part because it recognizes China as a threat in its region.

[gowlerk 1,912]

38 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Interesting how you view an agreement. I guess spitting in your palm and shaking hands is immediately voidable, too.

Just like the trade agreements some nations are known to tear up at will.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Just like the trade agreements some nations are known to tear up at will.

And some people too, apparently. Maybe I viewed it differently than you because in my life I have always considered my word to be my bond and that an honest persons handshake was worth more than the most tightly worded contract. Weasel words notwithstanding. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe I viewed it differently than you because in my life I have always considered my word to be my bond and that an honest persons handshake was worth more than the most tightly worded contract. 

We are not talking about your or my word. We are talking about how nations behave. Specifically about the USA vs Canada. While we most likely have among the very best relationships that exist between nations anywhere there is no shortage of agreements broken between us. Your word is not your nations word and neither is mine. In the history of defense cooperation between our nations Canada has always been there when the cause was just and we could get behind you. But we don't blindly follow your lead for very good reasons. Canada will increase its defense budget in the current climate, but not to the absurd levels of the US. I believe this rant came because you feel you would like to pay less taxes. Again, get your own house in order.

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

We are not talking about your or my word. We are talking about how nations behave. Specifically about the USA vs Canada. While we most likely have among the very best relationships that exist between nations anywhere there is no shortage of agreements broken between us. Your word is not your nations word and neither is mine. In the history of defense cooperation between our nations Canada has always been there when the cause was just and we could get behind you. But we don't blindly follow your lead for very good reasons. Canada will increase its defense budget in the current climate, but not to the absurd levels of the US. I believe this rant came because you feel you would like to pay less taxes. Again, get your own house in order.

 

Arrogance, much? I was simply explaining a possible reason why I considered an agreement made between the entire suite of NATO Defence Ministers to be binding. Telling me, or America, (you're all over the map with who does what to whom) to get it's house in order as if Canada is superior in every way is presumptuous in the extreme. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Arrogance, much? I was simply explaining a possible reason why I considered an agreement made between the entire suite of NATO Defence Ministers to be binding. Telling me, or America, (you're all over the map with who does what to whom) to get it's house in order as if Canada is superior in every way is presumptuous in the extreme. 

This may help you come to terms with your disappointment.

https://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139

 

Although the 2 percent pledge is not a legally binding commitment by NATO’s member states, its inclusion in the declaration was widely perceived as a meaningful, even historic step. The goal had been present in the debate over NATO’s future and burden sharing at least since the alliance’s summit in Riga in 2006. A month before that summit, Victoria Nuland, then the U.S. ambassador to NATO, called the 2 percent metric the “unofficial floor” on defense spending in NATO.² But never had all governments of NATO’s 28 nations officially embraced it at the highest possible political level—a summit declaration. In light of the heightened attention to security since the start of the Ukraine crisis, the 2 percent issue has assumed increased political relevance.

But is the 2 percent metric useful? And can it be fulfilled? What is its real meaning? The answers to those questions are of great significance for the debate on the future of the transatlantic alliance.