NATO Summit 2018

[atomheartbevo 89449]

 

 

[Shady Ray 1633]

Not sure where else to put this, but it is worth noting in the context of the NATO summit that the non-partisan Scientific Services of the German Bundestag (equivalent to the US Congressional Research Service) came out yesterday with a formal opinion on the legality of the US activities in Syria. A group of legislators sought this guidance as part of their analysis on whether the Anti-IS campaign that Germany currently supports (nominally, at least) is, in fact, permissible under relevant German regulations:

International Valuation of Russian, American and Israeli Involvement in the Syrian Conflict

Unfortunately, only German language is available, but the findings are:

Re Russian Activity in Syria:

Quote

 

The government of one state is authorized to allow another state to intervene. In civil war situations or comparable conflict situations, however, it is sometimes difficult to determine who can represent the affected state. In the case of Syria, however, it is generally assumed that the Assad regime was also empowered under international law to ask Russia for support.

Interim conclusion

Russia's involvement in the Syrian conflict is based on the express consent of the Assad regime, which has international representation rights. In this respect, Russia does not violate the prohibition of force according to Art. 2 No. 4 UN Charter. From the point of view of ius ad bellum , Russian participation in the Syrian conflict is therefore in conformity with international law.

 

 

Re US intervention in Syria:
 

Quote

 

The initial goal of the US intervention in Syria was initially to fight the Assad regime . Since 2012, the US has been supporting its allies in supplying arms to Syrian groups such as the Free Syrian Army.

US arms shipments to various groups have been subsequently exposed. At times, US soldiers also militarily trained Syrian rebel groups.

...

In April 2016, there were initial reports of US military units operating on Syrian soil. There are currently about 2,000 US forces active in Syria. The Russian Foreign Minister assumes ten US bases in Syria. It was not until April 2017 that the first US direct military strike in Syria took place against assets of the Assad regime.

3.2. International legal assessment 

In the Nicaragua judgment, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized that the arming and training of paramilitary forces constitutes a violation of the prohibition of violence. The same is true of the arming and training of Syrian rebel groups by the US since 2012. With regard to the US-British-French military strike against the chemical weapons infrastructure of the Assad regime, reference is made to this agency's opinion of 18 April 2018.

3.2.2. Action against "IS" in the international anti-IS alliance 

As part of the international "anti-IS alliance" in Syria, the US invokes the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter on the following grounds: 

"ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria are not only Iraq, but also many other counties, including the United States and our partners in the region and beyond. States must be able to defend themselves, in accordance with the independent right of individual and collective self-defense, as reflected in the Charter,where the threat is located is unwilling or unreal to prevent the use of its territory. The Syrian regime has shown that it can not and will not confront these safe-havens effectively. Accordingly, the United States has begun to provide necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing ISIL threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further at-tack and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq's borders."

Analysis:

In the context of the fight against the terrorist militia "Islamic State", however, the right to self-defense raises numerous questions of international law: 

Since September 11, 2001, the question of whether the right to self-defense under the Art. 51 UN Charter against non-state actors can be asserted.  In this case, according to a traditional view of international law, terrorist acts must be imputable to the territorial state , and the precise weighting is controversial.

However, in the Syrian conflict, the actions of "IS" can not be attributed to the Assad regime because it itself combats "IS". According to the so-called "unable and unwilling" doctrine , it should suffice if the state from which terrorists operate is incapable or unwilling to suppress acts of terrorism - as the US has stated in the above-mentioned letter expressly issued to the then UN Secretary-General.

However, the customary applicability of this doctrine is not met. Parts of international law are particularly willing to accept the "unable-and-unwilling" doctrine, when non-state groups - like a de facto regime - exert solid territorial control over part of the territory. In this case, however, military measures - subject to the principle of proportionality - would only be admissible against non-state actors.

Since the "IS" has largely lost its territorial power in Syria, the American appeal to the law of self-defense is increasingly difficult to justify. 

Interim Conclusion:

The US military presence in Syria in the fight against the "IS"  on the grounds of self-defense against non-state actors is controversial under existing international law and the decreasing territorial presence of the "IS" in Syria renders America's continuing presence in Syria even less justifiable.

 

 

This is being reported as the "first step" towards German withdrawal from the U.S. Anti-IS coalition, which will certainly pave the way for other EU bit-players to bail, as well. Of course, the impact of Germany et al withdrawing is minimal with respect to the situation on the ground, but it is interesting to to see the German media making such efforts to point out that the Bundestag's legal analysts find  the U.S. anti-IS operations against both IS and Assad's regime to be in violation of international law, only to then clearly deem Russia's participation in military activity against "rebels" in Syria to be legal and justifiable under those very same rules.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[retread 2951]

Flushing economic and political peace down his golden turlet. 

[Shady Ray 1633]

52 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Quote

 

Germans want Donald Trump to pull US troops out of Germany, poll finds
US president has said American military spending to protect Europe is not sustainable

Germans would actually welcome the withdrawal of American troops stationed in their country, a new poll has found – as Donald Trump threatens to pull the plug on military support.

The finding comes on the first day of a Nato summit in which the US president is urging Europe to spend more on defence if it wants to continue to receive American military protection.

But far from being seen as a threat, a YouGov poll for the dpa news agency found that more Germans would welcome the departure of the 35,000-strong American force than would oppose it.

42 per cent said they supported withdrawal while just 37 per cent wanted the soldiers to stay, with 21 per cent undecided. 

Last month the US media reported that the US government was in the process of assessing the cost of keeping troops in Germany ahead of a possible withdrawal, citing Pentagon sources.

But the policy of actually pulling out of the country has not actually reached the negotiating table in his week’s Brussels summit and is not expected to be discussed as a possibility – for now.

The cause of US withdrawal enjoys significant support from across the political spectrum in Germany but is particularly strong with the supporters of certain parties.

Voters for the left-wing Die Linke are particularly in favour of withdrawal, with 67 per cent backing it, as are supporters of the far-right AfD, on 55 per cent. Greens also back withdrawal by 48 per cent.

Less supportive of withdrawal are voters for the centre-right CDU, at 35 per cent, the SPD at 42 per cent, and the FDP at 37 per cent.

The same poll also found significant opposition to militarism in general in the country. Just 15 per cent of all Germans agree with Angela Merkel that the country should increase its military spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2024, with 36 per cent saying the country's already spends too much on its military.

Mr Trump warned Angela Merkel and other European leaders in leaked letters last month that there was “growing frustration in the United States that some allies have not stepped up as promised” on defence spending.

“The United States continues to devote more resources to the defence of Europe when the Continent’s economy, including Germany’s, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us,” he said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/us-troops-germany-public-opinion-pull-out-nato-summit-merkel-a8442021.html

Errrrbody bluffing up in here.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Who did that poll?  I couldn’t easily tell from the article.

[Hornius Emeritus 12420]

Fox News:  Trump is right. Nato is obsolete.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/10/trump-is-right-nato-is-obsolete-and-hes-delivering-that-message-loud-and-clear.html

[HenryJames 65890]

Pulls out of NATO but not a porn star to own the libs.

[Js1 85110]

To my knowledge, there's never been a "this is who can withdraw from Senate-ratified treaties" decision by SCOTUS.  They declined to hear oral arguments in the 70s when Carter pulled out of a Senate-ratified treaty.

I guess if Trump issued notice to withdraw and Congressed passed a resolution against the termination, then SCOTUS would hear it. And we know which way it would end up going.

More power to the executive. Wee!

[Tuco 5076]

14 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Fox News:  Trump is right. Nato is obsolete.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/10/trump-is-right-nato-is-obsolete-and-hes-delivering-that-message-loud-and-clear.html

Awesome echo-chamberism.  Harry Kazian is the Defense Policy expert for the Center of National Interest.  They are the ones who hosted Trump's Mayflower speech. 

Their twitter feed also tweeted out this LA Times article , which I think is actually derisive of historical Republican isolationism. But it has a headline that seems to align Trump with traditional Republican values: "Trump's anti-NATO hostility isn't novel, it revives a long-standing Republican tradition".

Edit:

One of the paragraphs from the LA Times article:

Quote

Republicans didn’t specifically endorse isolationism, but the party was steeped in it. Two of its foreign policy heavyweights, Henry Stimson and Frank Knox, were ousted at the June 1940 GOP convention in Philadelphia for the apostasy of serving in the Roosevelt administration. That month the Republican oracle, the Wall Street Journal, demanded “realism” toward Nazi Germany, which, it decreed, had “already determined the broad lines of our national life for at least another generation.”

I think it's funny because the Center for National Interests has a motto of "America's Voice for Strategic Realism".

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Tuco

[retread 2951]

 

[Shady Ray 1633]

Who did that poll?  I couldn’t easily tell from the article.

Yeah, wasn’t clear at all.

German language article says YouGov conducted the poll on behalf of Deutsche Presse-Agentur.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

He was up at 1AM there tweeting about the Russia investigation and Peter Strozk.

[deech 2251]

I know it's coming, but I can't fathom how he pulls us out of Nato during his first term while it's Russia that is alleged to have have attempted to influence the nation on his behalf. 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, deech said:

I know it's coming, but I can't fathom how he pulls us out of Nato during his first term while it's Russia that is alleged to have have attempted to influence the nation on his behalf. 

I don't think he actually pulls us out.  He either gets the other NATO countries to kick us out, or just make us completely irrelevant to NATO decision making, and then we leave.  Hell, he's already accused Merkel of being beholden to Russia and lied about his meeting with Macron, which Macron called him out on. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, deech said:

I know it's coming, but I can't fathom how he pulls us out of Nato during his first term while it's Russia that is alleged to have have attempted to influence the nation on his behalf. 

He cant pull us out without Senate approval. And in spite of them generally being spineless, they just voted to support NATO 97-2.

[Tuco 5076]

1 minute ago, deech said:

I know it's coming, but I can't fathom how he pulls us out of Nato during his first term while it's Russia that is alleged to have have attempted to influence the nation on his behalf. 

He doesn't really need to pull out of NATO.  And, if he did, that damage could be undone by the next guy.  But we're a democracy.  The NATO countries are democracies.  When he pisses on Germany, the chances that Germany - the not the leaders, but the people of Germany - support sending troops into Afghanistan goes down.  The chance we maintain air bases in Germany goes down.  That's damage which is extremely difficult to reverse. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Our perceived loyalty to Article 5 is what puts NATO in jeopardy in principle.

If Russia invaded Estonia, would the United States run to defend them with Trump in power? 

Would a subservient Congress compel our president to action?  

Skeptical hippo is skeptical

And that’s where the real damage is being done to NATO.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

He doesn't really need to pull out of NATO.  And, if he did, that damage could be undone by the next guy.  But we're a democracy.  The NATO countries are democracies.  When he pisses on Germany, the chances that Germany - the not the leaders, but the people of Germany - support sending troops into Afghanistan goes down.  The chance we maintain air bases in Germany goes down.  That's damage which is extremely difficult to reverse. 

I dont know about that. I've found that Europeans, and particularly Germans, have separated Trump from the Americans they meet.  Some people even come up to you and joke about it, assuming that you dont like Trump either. He really is that fucking stupid.  I guess they may blame some abstract rural American for Trump, but they never meet them and never expect to.

That wasnt the case when W was President when Americans would take some flack abroad because he was President. 

[Js1 85110]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

He cant pull us out without Senate approval. And in spite of them generally being spineless, they just voted to support NATO 97-2.

Actually that’s not settled if Congress has to approve withdrawal. Just ratification. SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on that Bc in the 70s, Carter pulled out of one, Congress didn’t pass a resolution opposing it, and so SCOTUS told Goldwater et al to pound sand on a “political” issue if Congress wasn’t going to pass anything to make it a constitutional issue. 

[Tuco 5076]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

I dont know about that. I've found that Europeans, and particularly Germans, have separated Trump from the Americans they meet.  Some people even come up to you and joke about it, assuming that you dont like Trump either. He really is that fucking stupid.  I guess they may blame some abstract rural American for Trump, but they never meet them and never expect to.

That wasnt the case when W was President when Americans would take some flack abroad because he was President. 

I hope that's the case.  And I'll say the anti-Trump marches - particularly the Women's March - that popped up across the country really demonstrated how much American politics affect the world, and how they are followed by the world. But it's a question of percentages.  At the very least, Trump is sending a message very clearly: you can't count on America.  That includes not counting on American voters to continue to support our alliances.   

[Shady Ray 1633]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I don't think he actually pulls us out.  He either gets the other NATO countries to kick us out, or just make us completely irrelevant to NATO decision making, and then we leave.  Hell, he's already accused Merkel of being beholden to Russia and lied about his meeting with Macron, which Macron called him out on. 

In my opinion, this is all just cynical kabuki theater designed to push more big $$ sales to his big Defense industry donors. Hell, he could just as easily reduce our NATO expenditures to mirror that of the Germans if he is so worked up over being "treated unfairly", but that wouldn't bring profits to the Raytheons, L-3s, Lockheeds, etc., so he won't.

He'd never be able to pull us out on his own. And even if he was, he'd never give up such prime, strategically desirable real estate.

[relapse98 634]

30 minutes ago, retread said:

 

FWIW, stable geniuses don't have to keep reminding people they stable geniuses. Generally, people can determine that on their own based on the 'stable geniuses' words and deeds.

[Shady Ray 1633]

9 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I dont know about that. I've found that Europeans, and particularly Germans, have separated Trump from the Americans they meet.  Some people even come up to you and joke about it, assuming that you dont like Trump either. He really is that fucking stupid.  I guess they may blame some abstract rural American for Trump, but they never meet them and never expect to.

That wasnt the case when W was President when Americans would take some flack abroad because he was President. 

This is absolute truth. If I head up to my local in Munich for a few pints and end up small talking with some random German, they are going to inevitably bring up Trump, and they aren't going to even going to try and determine where I fall on the political spectrum. They will talk about him incredulously and they really do take it as a given that any American they encounter in Europe is of the same mindset re Trump.

[retread 2951]

 

 

[Washpark 176]

F it! I am loading on aerospace and defense stocks. This bia is leading us to a war.

[ScottishHorn 172]

Well, NATO needs to be reformed.  There are no more Soviet tank and troop divisions in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc.  with any intent to invade Europe.  Technology is different too.  We shouldn't be bearing all the costs of this cash cow.  This is another example of the establishment not willing to change or seek efficiency.   

[Washpark 176]

1 minute ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well, NATO needs to be reformed.  There are no more Soviet tank and troop divisions in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc.  with any intent to invade Europe.  Technology is different too.  We shouldn't be bearing all the costs of this cash cow.  This is another example of the establishment not willing to change or seek efficiency.   

Crimea? 

[retread 2951]

Russian troops vacationing in Ukraine?

[ScottishHorn 172]

1 minute ago, Washpark said:

F it! I am loading on aerospace and defense stocks. This bia is leading us to a war.

Who is going to war and over what?  According to the left, Trump and Putin are conspiring buddies so no war with them.  Is Germany going to fight us with broom sticks?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

51 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

FWIW, stable geniuses don't have to keep reminding people they stable geniuses. Generally, people can determine that on their own based on the 'stable geniuses' words and deeds.

And anyone who constantly says he's smarter than everyone else isn't very smart. 

[ScottishHorn 172]

5 minutes ago, Washpark said:

Crimea? 

They are not part of NATO

[Washpark 176]

5 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

Who is going to war and over what?  According to the left, Trump and Putin are conspiring buddies so no war with them.  Is Germany going to fight us with broom sticks?

As a result of stupidity which Trump has shown an abundance. 

[Washpark 176]

Just now, ScottishHorn said:

They are not part of NATO

Your argument implied Russia wasn't invading countries and so was no longer a threat to Europe. I was highlighting that Russia is still very active and willing to invade other countries but hasn't pushed the line to NATO yet. If we dismantle NATO, it may embolden Putin to go further.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

Who is going to war and over what?  According to the left, Trump and Putin are conspiring buddies so no war with them.  Is Germany going to fight us with broom sticks?

You don't need war to sell equipment.  The defense industry wants to use the iPhone model for airplanes.  Everyone has to buy new ones every year.  F35A and B don't have bluetooth and they have an unsightly headphone jack.  That's why they all need to be replaced with F35Cs.  Still, some countries will wait for the F35D since it will have wireless charging and come in pink.

[retread 2951]

I think Putin would have a decent shot at taking Estonia today and getting away with it. There would be a lot of furrowed brows, but what would anybody do? Trump would stop them?

Putin's learned from the Chinese that it's just as well to wait us out and let us destroy ourselves with their willing dupe in the WH.

Edited July 12, 2018 by retread

[ScottishHorn 172]

3 minutes ago, Washpark said:

Your argument implied Russia wasn't invading countries and so was no longer a threat to Europe. I was highlighting that Russia is still very active and willing to invade other countries but hasn't pushed the line to NATO yet. If we dismantle NATO, it may embolden Putin to go further.

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history.  Regardless,  it doesn't mean Russia is going to be a threat to Europe.  Merkel is the one that opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.    She has quite the cozy relationship with Russia.  

[DixonHur 11227]

16 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history.  Regardless,  it doesn't mean Russia is going to be a threat to Europe.  Merkel is the one that opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.    She has quite the cozy relationship with Russia.  

Same is true for SW United States via-a-vis Mexico...I don't think we'd take too kindly to Mexico annexing it though

[Shady Ray 1633]

31 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Soviets way back in the 1700's so there is some history there and a claim that it's part of Russia.  It's actually an interesting history.  Regardless,  it doesn't mean Russia is going to be a threat to Europe.  Merkel is the one that opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.    She has quite the cozy relationship with Russia.  

Plus a pretty significant bit of more recent history, as well. And, given that there certainly weren't any "clean hands" on the EU or US side in that whole Ukraine clusterfuck, either, it wasn't a surprise that Obama (wisely) refrained from allowing shit to escalate to a military confrontation when the Russians went in. Sure, we pitched a loud and visible fit and threw some sanctions in, but the Russians had provided a lot of effective PR showing some shady bidness coming out of our state department and what went on at Maidan. And whether it was accurate or not, the average Western European was pretty well aware that it wasn't nearly as black and white as the US media was making it out to be.

And to echo Hugo's point up-thread, the problem with NATO is the Article 5 mutual defense component.

The alliance long abandoned any semblance of balance with respect to our obligations vs. actual benefits provided to us. 

After the Soviet Union collapsed, the priority shifted from being a rational, defensive alliance to simply being a commercial vehicle by which we could generate more weapons sales for our Defense contractors by forcing two-bit rump states to buy our shit. Look at how many billions of dollars in weapons systems and fighter jets we pushed onto the countries that made up the original post-USSR expansion. Hell, the first tranche of fighter jets alone was over $10B. We had them all join, after which they all gutted their shitty Soviet-era weapons in favor of shiny new fighter jet, and we never thought about the obligations we were taking on.

We would be much better served to have calibrated NATO to be balanced with respect to potential Russian aggression and it's possible impact tor own Western interests. The fact is that Vlad knows we aren't going to die for a bunch of the countries we are on the hook to defend. It is a matter of time before that fact is exposed and we should try to refrain from being even dumber moving forward. But we won't, I fear.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Shady Ray

[Chad Fuck 17566]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Pulls out of NATO but not a porn star to own the libs.

You have this on a bumper sticker?  It works.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Our perceived loyalty to Article 5 is what puts NATO in jeopardy in principle.

If Russia invaded Estonia, would the United States run to defend them with Trump in power? 

Would a subservient Congress compel our president to action?  

Skeptical hippo is skeptical

And that’s where the real damage is being done to NATO.

If Russia invades Estonia today, then yes Trump rushes to defend them.  Russia is invited to help Estonian freedom fighters win control of the country from their oppressive, illegal leaders?  No Trump stays away.

[Grandioso 2592]

Definitely listen to the NYT "The Daily" podcast from today. It's the entire history of NATO and the post-Soviet Russo-US chess match all explained in about 25 minutes. Hugo, for example, probably won't learn anything new but it's a great NATO for Dummies. 

[27-25 2040]

18 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Russia invades Estonia today, then yes Trump rushes to defend them.  Russia is invited to help Estonian freedom fighters win control of the country from their oppressive, illegal leaders?  No Trump stays away.

So, if Russia follows the same playbook in Estonia they've utilized in Crimea, Ukraine and Georgia then Trump turns a blind eye.  Great.

And Estonia is one of the NATO allies that actually does spend more than 2% of GDP on defense.  Right now.

[Grandioso 2592]

2 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

So, if Russia follows the same playbook in Estonia they've utilized in Crimea, Ukraine and Georgia then Trump turns a blind eye.  Great.

And Estonia is one of the NATO allies that actually does spend more than 2% of GDP on defense.  Right now.

The talking points are getting more and more RT by the day. It would not shock me if Trump started going down this slope...

"Estonians are ethnic Russians! Sure, they may be in NATO, but they want a closer relationship with Russia! Look at this poll Sputnik made up...er, took using very scientific statistical methods."

"Putin has an obligation to defend Russian minorities who are oppressed in Estonia!"

 

[27-25 2040]

21 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

So, if Russia follows the same playbook in Estonia they've utilized in Crimea, Ukraine and Georgia then Trump turns a blind eye.  Great.

And Estonia is one of the NATO allies that actually does spend more than 2% of GDP on defense.  Right now.

I forgot to mention Transnistria (Moldova) as well.  But Putin's fine, we're told.

[SimonBolivar 10932]

17 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

So, if Russia follows the same playbook in Estonia they've utilized in Crimea, Ukraine and Georgia then Trump turns a blind eye.  Great.

And Estonia is one of the NATO allies that actually does spend more than 2% of GDP on defense.  Right now.

Estonia is a great ally and a wonderful country. We promised to defend them and we absolutely should. I have a client who is a reserve Marine who got back two weeks ago from training in Lithuania and Latvia. He said they were really nice peoples and both countries were happy to have them there. 

[SimonBolivar 10932]

1 minute ago, 27-25 said:

I forgot to mention Transnistria (Moldova) as well.  But Putin's fine, we're told.

Have you seen the travel doc made by Michael Palin when he traveled Eastern Europe in 2006? He makes a brief stop in Transnistria and it seemed like an absolute clusterfuck already back then.

 

[27-25 2040]

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Have you seen the travel doc made by Michael Palin when he traveled Eastern Europe in 2006? He makes a brief stop in Transnistria and it seemed like an absolute clusterfuck already back then.

 

I have not seen it, but will look.  I have read an article or two about the area and it consistently ranks as the most miserable part of Europe.  

[wildcat09 29258]

3 hours ago, ScottishHorn said:

Well, NATO needs to be reformed.  There are no more Soviet tank and troop divisions in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc.  with any intent to invade Europe.  Technology is different too.  We shouldn't be bearing all the costs of this cash cow.  This is another example of the establishment not willing to change or seek efficiency.   

We aren't you dipshit. There isn't one big fucking pool of money that everyone shares to support their militaries. We spend what we spend because we like having a giant bloated military, not because we have to contribute some of it to NATO.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We aren't you dipshit. There isn't one big fucking pool of money that everyone shares to support their militaries. We spend what we spend because we like having a giant bloated military, not because we have to contribute some of it to NATO.

Plus we keep throwing out our total spend number and comparing it to Germany's or whoever else's.  Nearly all of Germany's spending goes toward NATO.  A fraction of ours does.  We spend more in the Pacific than in Europe.