Anyone with common sense doesn't need to do "research." Just look at the number of European troops in NATO, the armaments dedicated to NATO by European countries, etc. And it's not as if Europe is poor. The EU economy is among the world's largest economies, much larger than Russia's. Sader- Please stop feverishly skowering the Internet, take off your glasses, lean back, maybe sip a nice single malt and start using your god given common sense.
"Common sense?" I think you have pretty well established that is one of your stock fall back positions and answers when you have no facts to back up your arguments. You virtually never support arguments with actual facts and criticize those who do. You often dissemble, change the subject, use hyperbole, or go on personal attacks (for which you were called out on recently and for which, to your credit, you agreed).
In this particular case, you are the one who questioned the lack of financial support from other countries for their own defense. I cited specific numbers from an objective source. You never did and simply made unsubstantiated claims. It is not up to me to prove your negative argument.
"In a speech in Brussels, outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that America's military alliance with Europe faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, owing to what he characterized as the United States' disproportionate funding of NATO operations, and of allies "willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets."
In decrying the inability of all NATO members to contribute to operations, such as enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya, Gates said, "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't. The military capabilities simply aren't there."
Gates: Prospects for U.S.-NATO alliance "dim"
The United States contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO's budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $711.8 million.
But that factors in only direct payments, not deployments of personnel which - outside of special operations, such as in Afghanistan or Libya - may be used to train European forces (for example, in anti-terrorism skills) that benefit U.S. security.
In February NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that over the past two years, "defense spending by NATO's European member nations has shrunk by some 45 billion dollars" - the equivalent of Germany's entire annual defense budget.
Gates' argument that by slashing their defense budgets European countries are allowing the U.S. to pick up the slack comes when the United States is already spending more on defense than all other nations on the planet combined, according to Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich."
From a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Counsel:
"Ninety percent of NATO’s budget is paid for by just 6 of its 28 members."
Last Edit: May 1, 2016 22:54:05 GMT -5 by sarasota
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
Kudos for actually posting something of value to this discussion. Just hope you didn't have to "feverishly skower the internet." But I am guessing it was pretty easy to find, like mine was.
My my last comment will be that while the argument is Europe isn't paying its fair share of defense, undoubtedly when NATO was first created, proportionately the U.S. likely paid an even greater share. There is a very detailed RAND report on U.S. defense spending that can also be easily found. This is not simply a dollars and cents issue for the United States. There are political considerations, spheres of influence, pre-positioning forces for our own national security.
But, again, thanks for deviating from your usual M.O.