Fact checking Trump Part A

[PLC1]

Tweet #1: NATO countries paying their fair share:

TRUMP: "I will tell you, a big difference over the last year, money is actually starting to pour into NATO from countries that would not have been doing what they're doing now had I not been elected, I can tell you that. Money is starting to pour in." — speech to U.S. troops in Sicily on Saturday
TRUMP tweet: "Many NATO countries have agreed to step up payments considerably, as they should. Money is beginning to pour in."

Reality:

THE FACTS: First, no money is pouring in and countries do not pay the U.S. Nor do they pay NATO directly, apart from administrative expenses, which are not the issue.
The issue is how much each NATO member country spends on its own defense.
Although the president is right that many NATO countries have agreed to spend more on their military budgets, that is not a result of the NATO summit this past week at which Trump pressed them to do so. The countries agreed in 2014 to stop cutting their military spending and to start increasing it "toward" 2 percent of their gross domestic product by 2024.
That goal was set during the Obama administration and is less than an ironclad commitment.

source: AP

 

[dogtowner]

Has he obtained agreement from NATO members to increase their contribution ? Yes, and it's not pennies. When was the last time that happened? As I recall, never.

 

[PLC1]

Has he obtained agreement from NATO members to increase their contribution ? Yes, and it's not pennies. When was the last time that happened? As I recall, never.

No. It's not a "contribution" in the first place, and there's no money "pouring in" in the second place. Check the link.

 

[Openmind]

Has he obtained agreement from NATO members to increase their contribution ? Yes, and it's not pennies. When was the last time that happened? As I recall, never.

That is left to be seen! IF other NATO country contribute more toward THEIR OWN DEFENSE, it will be targeted toward fighting terrorism, NOT toward building new super ship or nuclear missiles. . .which is what Trump is interested in in order to get more contract for the US defence industry.

By the way, the "2%" contribution has NEVER been into a fixed, set contract. It is a "goal" that most countries have agreed to, without ever promising to setting it into a "done deal!"

 

[dogtowner]

No. It's not a "contribution" in the first place, and there's no money "pouring in" in the second place. Check the link.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15/nato...mber-states-to-increase-defense-spending.html

NATO says otherwise.

 

[Openmind]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15/nato...mber-states-to-increase-defense-spending.html

NATO says otherwise.

By the way, the "2%" contribution has NEVER been into a fixed, set contract. It is a "goal" (a pledge) that most NATO countries have agreed to, without ever promising to setting it into a "done deal!" And. . .the "goal" to reach that 2% was only set in 2014 and is to be reached by 2024!

So. . .Trump is being extremely demanding and very "loose" with "facts" about countries not meeting their share! They do have until 2024. . .if they wish!

 

[PLC1]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15/nato...mber-states-to-increase-defense-spending.html

NATO says otherwise.

Yes, there is pressure for member nations to increase military spending to 2% of GDP. The OP makes that clear. The pressure to do so dates from 2014.

 

[Openmind]

Yes, there is pressure for member nations to increase military spending to 2% of GDP. The OP makes that clear. The pressure to do so dates from 2014.

Correct again. . .but the goal is to reach that 2% of GDP target by 2014. . .and it is NOT an obligation, but a pledge.

Just as the G7 had PLEDGED to support the development of new technology to limit the use of fossil fuel and pollution.

Apparently, Trump doesn't believe a "pledge" is very important. . . so why does he believe other nations would take the "pledge" of 2% of GDP more seriously?

 

[The Scotsman]

NATO is an arms dealing ring for the US so what does the US care apart from arms sales and influence?
I'm assuming that the KSA deal will help the ailing US arms makers whilst the EU puts more cash up?

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, there is pressure for member nations to increase military spending to 2% of GDP. The OP makes that clear. The pressure to do so dates from 2014.

Keep reading

 

[PLC1]

Keep reading

OK

THE FACTS: Members of the alliance are not in arrears in their military spending. They are not in debt to the United States, or failing to meet a current standard, and Washington is not trying to collect anything, despite the president's contention that they "owe massive amounts of money." They merely committed in 2014 to work toward the goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024.

 

[dogtowner]

NATO is an arms dealing ring for the US so what does the US care apart from arms sales and influence?
I'm assuming that the KSA deal will help the ailing US arms makers whilst the EU puts more cash up?

The French and English MN ake their own jets etc. Germany may be prohibited. AnD there are roughly 38000 US troops deployed in europe. It's considerably more than some arms sales. It protects the entire economy there.

 

[dogtowner]

OK

Keep reading


NATO data confirmed Tuesday showed that last year spending increased in real terms by 3.8 percent among European allies and Canada. This boosted NATO's funds by about $10 billion. Even though such figures were slightly above expectations, Stolenberg told reporters the momentum has to continue.

The new U.S. administration has repeatedly said that all 28 NATO members have to comply with their commitment to the spending target. At the moment, only five of them respect the 2 percent contribution: the U.S., Greece, the U.K., Estonia and Poland.

 

[PLC1]

Keep reading


NATO data confirmed Tuesday showed that last year spending increased in real terms by 3.8 percent among European allies and Canada. This boosted NATO's funds by about $10 billion. Even though such figures were slightly above expectations, Stolenberg told reporters the momentum has to continue.

The new U.S. administration has repeatedly said that all 28 NATO members have to comply with their commitment to the spending target. At the moment, only five of them respect the 2 percent contribution: the U.S., Greece, the U.K., Estonia and Poland.

All 28 NATO members have to comply with their commitment to the spending target, or else what?
Only five of them respect the 2 percent contribution, but the money is just pouring in.

 

[dogtowner]

All 28 NATO members have to comply with their commitment to the spending target, or else what?
Only five of them respect the 2 percent contribution, but the money is just pouring in.

It is now.