Could you possibly be less specific.We have 4 years of data that say you're wrong.
Could you possibly be less specific.We have 4 years of data that say you're wrong.
Looks like Chump has joined the elderly poop club. Faux News' morning show "Faux and Friends" put a towel under his butt last week on the show.I think pooping his pants is Slow Joe’s go-to move now, in the presence of foreign leaders.
Your words: They can't take on NATO in a conventional ground war. But this ain't 1942. Likely be tactical nukes.No, I don't seem to agree. Tactical nukes are not certain to be used but even if they are, you still have to secure territory and hold it with armor and infantry.
Not assuming anything other than UK and France's tactical nukes are as good as ours, so ours are not needed."Thus, you seem to agree that fighting them in Ukraine does the US no good and will not matter to the security of NATO countries because any further Russia invasions will involve tactical nukes."
You seem to be assuming that if Russia uses tactical nukes it's all over. NATO won't respond? Nukes haven't been used in Ukraine but we just assume Russia would use them when they go into Poland? The first one to use nukes puts themselves in serious diplomatic, economic, and political peril.
Any other suggestions on how to get deadbeat countries to pay what they agreed to pay? They laugh at Biden.I'm stating the views expressed by trump. He has talked about how NATO is obsolete. He has said he wouldn't help our allies attacked by Russia if they weren't spending their 2%..........directly undermining Article 5 that has been in place for 75 years.
The difference is the money now goes for arms for Ukraine (and to replace what we left for the Taliban thanks to the incompetence of Biden). Under Trump the arms will be for the US.Trump is going to spend as much if not more than any democrat on the military, funneling taxpayer money to big arms suppliers. You need to let that one go or admit trump will do the same or more.
Ugh. Ground forces are still needed when tactical nukes are used. Most are much, much smaller than than warheads placed on intercontinental missiles. You don't seem to understand what they are or their purpose. Read my words and comprehend.Your words: They can't take on NATO in a conventional ground war. But this ain't 1942. Likely be tactical nukes.
Not assuming anything other than UK and France's tactical nukes are as good as ours, so ours are not needed.
Russia obviously doesn't care about "serious diplo, econ, and political peril." That's what Biden said and they laugh at him.
Any other suggestions on how to get deadbeat countries to pay what they agreed to pay? They laugh at Biden.
The difference is the money now goes for arms for Ukraine (and to replace what we left for the Taliban thanks to the incompetence of Biden). Under Trump the arms will be for the US.
Bagram, Bagram, Bagram.Ugh. Ground forces are still needed when tactical nukes are used. Most are much, much smaller than than warheads placed on intercontinental missiles. You don't seem to understand what they are or their purpose. Read my words and comprehend.
You want Europeans to fight a war in Europe and for us to stay home. Not gonna happen nor should it. Russia can compete with Europe. Not with us. A war in Europe is the world's problem. If we had stayed out in WW2 you might be speaking German. Isolationists like you tried to make that happen.
Europe ISN'T PAYING ANYTHING DONALD. Like trump, you still don't understand how NATO works lol.
Yeah, like Obama, you work with your allies and treat them with some respect to get them to SPEND the agreed amounts on defense. Lol. It's not like we're making up the difference because the money doesn't go to NATO.
Repeat they're laughing at Biden as much as you want. Doesn't make it true except in your fantasies.
The Taliban lol. Sure was nice of trump to withdraw all that equipment when he was withdrawing 11,000 troops. Most of the equipment left belonged to the Afghan government........who left town when trump excluded them from the negotiations. How many troops were you willing to lose while they traveled around the country, controlled by the Taliban, retrieving humvees?
You are saying 'tactical' nukes are much smaller than ICBMs? Gee, I never guessed that is what tactical could possibly mean. Thanks Bob for clarifying the obvious.Ugh. Ground forces are still needed when tactical nukes are used. Most are much, much smaller than than warheads placed on intercontinental missiles. You don't seem to understand what they are or their purpose. Read my words and comprehend.
Confused about WW2 again. We were attacked. Look it up (or watch Animal House). Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on Germany. There was no option to stay out, so your last sentence is absurd. Can you not even understand that?You want Europeans to fight a war in Europe and for us to stay home. Not gonna happen nor should it. Russia can compete with Europe. Not with us. A war in Europe is the world's problem. If we had stayed out in WW2 you might be speaking German. Isolationists like you tried to make that happen.
Now that you have mis-explained US involvement in WW2, tell us how NATO works. "Lol."Europe ISN'T PAYING ANYTHING DONALD. Like trump, you still don't understand how NATO works lol.
How soon before your TDS warped thinking concludes it was Trump who made the disastrous, stunningly incompetent decision to close Bagram before our people and allies were out and our equipment removed or destroyed?Yeah, like Obama, you work with your allies and treat them with some respect to get them to SPEND the agreed amounts on defense. Lol. It's not like we're making up the difference because the money doesn't go to NATO.
Repeat they're laughing at Biden as much as you want. Doesn't make it true except in your fantasies.
The Taliban lol. Sure was nice of trump to withdraw all that equipment when he was withdrawing 11,000 troops. Most of the equipment left belonged to the Afghan government........who left town when trump excluded them from the negotiations. How many troops were you willing to lose while they traveled around the country, controlled by the Taliban, retrieving humvees?
Since you have the numbers handy, where is France, Germany and Italy ?According to Nato estimates for 2024, Poland will be the top spender for the second year running, allocating 4.1% of GDP (the total value of goods and services produced).
Estonia is in second place at 3.4% with the US in third place at 3.4%, which is about the same level as it has been spending for the last decade.
The UK comes ninth on the list with 2.3%. The government has committed to increasing that to 2.5% but has not said when this will happen.
The average for Nato members in Europe and Canada is estimated at 2.0%.
Thanks. The EU collectively far exceeds Russia in every economic and military category except number of nukes.First numbers were as a % of GDP and Figure 4 is % of Government Spending. In terms of % of GDP, Nato says the three countries you asked about are between 1% and 1.5%.
"Thus, you seem to agree that fighting them in Ukraine does the US no good and will not matter to the security of NATO countries because any further Russia invasions, as unlikely as that would be given the proven ineptitude of the Russian army, will involve tactical nukes."You are saying 'tactical' nukes are much smaller than ICBMs? Gee, I never guessed that is what tactical could possibly mean. Thanks Bob for clarifying the obvious.
Confused about WW2 again. We were attacked. Look it up (or watch Animal House). Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on Germany. There was no option to stay out, so your last sentence is absurd. Can you not even understand that?
Ask bni, a self-proclaimed student of history, to explain it to you if you are still confused.
Now that you have mis-explained US involvement in WW2, tell us how NATO works. "Lol."
How soon before your TDS warped thinking concludes it was Trump who made the disastrous, stunningly incompetent decision to close Bagram before our people and allies were out and our equipment removed or destroyed?
Sure there was but it was greatly reduced and any political support for it was obviously gone.Bob, this is what you said:
" If we had stayed out in WW2 you might be speaking German. Isolationists like you tried to make that happen."
There was no option for us to stay out of WW2 after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war. Are you saying there were still people calling for us to stay out after those two events?
Did you do your homework on NATO?Bob, this is what you said:
" If we had stayed out in WW2 you might be speaking German. Isolationists like you tried to make that happen."
There was no option for us to stay out of WW2 after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war. Are you saying there were still people calling for us to stay out after those two events?