Forum Thread

Pence's visit to Europe

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 7 Posts
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Pence at least acted more Presidential than Trump. However the policies are still totally wrong. Europe does not want to spent more on defense regardless of what the NATO chief said. The point is quite simple; no one wants an "new" arms race. When the last one occurred; the "desert" in Arizona (as well Iraq and Afghanistan) is now full with parked war junk. The demand on Europe only will others like Russia and China, boost their war junk as well. Sorry; the only purpose I see is that the US wants Europe to buy more American made junk, so Trump can lower the price of the F35 disaster, for instance etc. Europe should be so smart to help their own industry not the "greedy" US one.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It's all about making the war junk manufacturing base happy. The primary purpose of politics today.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: It's all about making the war junk manufacturing base happy. The primary purpose of politics today.
    Amen
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The demand for more military spending is based on a somewhat arbitrary 2 percent of GDP. For those interested, here is a link to the past spending of NATO countries as a percent of GDP and in total spending.

    Defense Spending of NATO Countries

    Is the 2 percent number realistic? Maybe it should be more about 1 percent. At 2 percent, countries like Germany, Netherlands, and Demark would have to increase expenditures by 80 percent. Canada would have to double its expenditures.

    Dutch makes a good point about how a country could increase expenditures. The obvious answer is buy more military equipment. For the United States, a major exporter in increasingly expensive military equipment, it would be good for our country and jobs. It's one way Trump can meet his campaign promise to create jobs. Last year's model of a tank is obsolete? Buy the newest model every year with it's latest electronic gadgetry. The old can go to the military graveyard.

    Do we really fear an invasion or attack by Russia or China or North Korea or Iran or ISIS? I hardly think so. But that's the fear that helps sell military expenditures. In a way it is no different than the fear mongering that goes on by the NRA and gun manufacturers to get you to buy more guns. Maybe one day every family in America will be required to spend so much money as a percent of their family income on home defense. Ha.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The obvious answer is buy more military equipment. For the United States, a major exporter in increasingly expensive military equipment, it would be good for our country and jobs.

    WOW... is all this NATO BS is really about: "Those guys need to buy more US Military Hardware?".

    I live in state that does not build US weapons, so that angle of politics gets lost on me sometimes.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Selling arms is big business for the United States, even without NATO sales.

    CNN Money short video

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Selling arms is big business for the United States, even without NATO sales.

    CNN Money short video

    Yes Schmidt; you've got the picture. I also saw an "neat" thing about Trump's price reduction on the F35 ; Most of the price reduction comes forth out of using more "robots"; Thus Trump's idea of more "employment" goes into the waste basket. What a joke!!