Unknown (in this case it is Anne Kirby) is using the same logic as Trump. 2% is the target number not the required number and all contribute, a fact that even Anne recognizes in her comment: "Non-US allies will AIM to meet the goal." There are no warning letters from creditors and NATO does not kick countries out for non-payment as landlords do. That would defeat the entire purpose of NATO.
The primary point of my post was to point out that keeping the peace is a better way to prosperity, something that was blindingly obvious after WWI let alone WWII. That, after all, was the thrust of Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex (1961). Trump went further than that in his condemnation of those countries he considers deadbeats (a concept with which he is familiar). He clearly said he would invite invasion and destruction, outcomes that are hardly admirable. Trump fails.
This is directly from the NATO site and describes the indirect and direct funding. I include this as there seems to be some confusion about who is responsible for what: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
Wait, that 2% of GDP for defence ...that isn't 2% given to NATO, it's 2% of GDP put toward each nation's own defence services, right? So, that would seem the idea of an unpaid invoice owed to NATO isn't a real thing as implied on social media.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of NATO is to avoid a major war breaking out by stating to an aggressor nation, if you attack one of us, we will all stand against you. The expected outcome is that the aggressor will realize they can't win by trying to pick off smaller nations one at a time.
As you know, a bundle of sticks is harder to break than one stick...the Romans used this as a symbol of their military/political power, called a fasces.
I stand by my comment Priscilla. So what are you working on? I always admire your beautiful quilts. I am working on a quilt for my son with crab fabrics that I've been collecting. Should be done by the summer. Anne
ReplyDelete