President Donald Trump wants US allies to pay all costs associated with hosting US troops and a bit more

May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#52
I am actually 100% okay with this even though I think Trump is once again intentionally being an asshole to our allies. Because most countries I think will tell us to take our troops back rather than allow themselves to be charged a premium for the "privilege" of having US troops stationed there.


It will help reduce the military overreach of the US and in the end likely reduce the size of the military's budget which is already fucking outrageous. Win win in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Arkage
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
#53
I am actually 100% okay with this even though I think Trump is once again intentionally being an asshole to our allies. Because most countries I think will tell us to take our troops back rather than allow themselves to be charged a premium for the "privilege" of having US troops stationed there.


It will help reduce the military overreach of the US and in the end likely reduce the size of the military's budget which is already fucking outrageous. Win win in my opinion.

But it is a privilege. Many countries have not had to field the military they would have otherwise because of our military expenditure. Over 50 years of money they could spend on other things.

Besides, cost plus 50% is hardly a 'premium'. We are risking the lives of our soldiers. If we did it for cost, we'd be ripping ourselves off. Doing it at a loss nowadays is just silly, and it took Trump to hold our allies responsible and demand payment for our services.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#54
But it is a privilege. Many countries have not had to field the military they would have otherwise because of our military expenditure. Over 50 years of money they could spend on other things.

Besides, cost plus 50% is hardly a 'premium'. We are risking the lives of our soldiers. If we did it for cost, we'd be ripping ourselves off. Doing it at a loss nowadays is just silly, and it took Trump to hold our allies responsible and demand payment for our services.
And if thats how you see it thats fine, but don't be surprised when this gets criticism from all sides. Including our allies.
 
Nov 19, 2018
103
63
160
#55
We here in the Baltics are not really thinking this sounds awesome.... Ukraine war and all is a little too close to home for us.
Right so they have a choice
We here in the Baltics are not really thinking this sounds awesome.... Ukraine war and all is a little too close to home for us.
fAir point. I think it’s best all countries get a choice though. I’m not too familiar with Ukraine geopolitics but I doubt everyone agrees on whether the USA should be there or not.

I think the USA is headed for decline though and it will be best for everyone to divest from the dianasaur thrashing in the tar pit.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#57
Criticism from the people being asked to pay for something they have benefitted from for decades? The horrors.
Well I see it as being a fair criticism to make. You obviously don't. Thats the difference.

Also you act as if its only them that has benefited from it. The US has gotten its own various benefits as well.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
#58
Well I see it as being a fair criticism to make. You obviously don't. Thats the difference.

Also you act as if its only them that has benefited from it. The US has gotten its own various benefits as well.
Of course we have. But there is no need to keep providing it for free, and Trump has already negotiated billions for the US.

You are so desperate to turn this into a bad thing but you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing, and it's hilarious because it exposes you.

People might criticize it! Oh noes! My sides.
 
Oct 26, 2018
1,731
1,181
230
#59
1. If the US wants to impose putting US military on foreign soil for self interest = US should pay

2. If the foreign country is asking for US military to come help protect it = Foreigner should pay

3. If there is a mutual benefit to both, and both agree there is = US and other country should somehow split the costs
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#60
Of course we have. But there is no need to keep providing it for free, and Trump has already negotiated billions for the US.

You are so desperate to turn this into a bad thing but you've got nothing. Absolutely nothing, and it's hilarious because it exposes you.

People might criticize it! Oh noes! My sides.
I am calling it a bad thing because in my opinion it is a bad thing. I don't like the idea of the US shaking down its allies for what essentially amounts to protection money. If you disagree then thats fine. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just saying how I feel about the issue.

1. If the US wants to impose putting US military on foreign soil for self interest = US should pay

2. If the foreign country is asking for US military to come help protect it = Foreigner should pay

3. If there is a mutual benefit to both, and both agree there is = US and other country should somehow split the costs
This seems pretty fair compromise actually. I like it.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
2,516
2,904
240
#61
I am calling it a bad thing because in my opinion it is a bad thing. I don't like the idea of the US shaking down its allies for what essentially amounts to protection money. If you disagree then thats fine. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just saying how I feel about the issue.
A shakedown?

Is it any wonder why so many countries walk all over us? Having a spine is not an "affront" to our allies. Or at least it shouldn't be.
 
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#62
A shakedown?

Is it any wonder why so many countries walk all over us? Having a spine is not an "affront" to our allies. Or at least it shouldn't be.
Telling an ally "Hey I will protect you don't worry.......but you gotta pay me to do it or else I won't." probably isn't the best look from a diplomatic perspective is all I am saying.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,720
1,780
385
#63
I am calling it a bad thing because in my opinion it is a bad thing. I don't like the idea of the US shaking down its allies for what essentially amounts to protection money. If you disagree then thats fine. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just saying how I feel about the issue.
Asking people to pay for a service is not a shakedown. We aren't threatening them with violence. We could just stop protecting them. But see, we provide a very valuable service. One they are willing to pay for. And if they aren't, win win.

Shakedowns are when you use the threat of force to extract money. For example, if you want me to pay taxes for your pet projects, say, health care or free education, you are shaking me down via the threat of government force if I refuse to pay.

Trumps plan, thus, is exactly the opposite of a shakedown. My tax dollars will no longer be taken from me to pay for the protection of people in foreign countries. We will remove the shakedown of the American public and replace it with a fair, voluntary exchange of goods and services between countries.

Don't mind the ringing in your ears, it's just cognitive dissonance.
 
Feb 22, 2018
1,731
1,930
325
#64
This is good for the US two-fold; those allies that do agree to pay more means more money for Us government. Those that refuse means abandonment of bases, thus less money spent protecting allies. You can be secure without having 700 bases abroad. Culling at least half of them would be a great policy.
 
Likes: desertdroog
May 22, 2018
4,021
2,823
265
#65
This is good for the US two-fold; those allies that do agree to pay more means more money for Us government. Those that refuse means abandonment of bases, thus less money spent protecting allies. You can be secure without having 700 bases abroad. Culling at least half of them would be a great policy.
I wholeheartedly agree with the second part. The US burns untold billions on its military and needs to reign that spending in and put it towards more worthwhile ventures at home.
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
2,516
2,904
240
#66
Telling an ally "Hey I will protect you don't worry.......but you gotta pay me to do it or else I won't." probably isn't the best look from a diplomatic perspective is all I am saying.
"I'm doing a service for you. Pay me what I am owed" works in every culture around the world. What is the problem exactly?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2, 2017
338
290
200
#68
The EU and NATO without American military are incapable of defending themselves. As someone who has been on many joint exercises with German, French and British soldiers, they will be the first to tell you that.
BS.

From the boogeyman Russia?

Russia is no threat to anyone and is in many ways a poor third world nation.
 
Nov 2, 2017
338
290
200
#70
This statement is so clueless it’s hard to even address it.
It is the west that is expanding eastward through the EU and NATO, not the other way around. US, NATO and the EU are the ones provoking Russia.

Russia is also a poor nation that is hurting even more now because of the sanctions. This is the flagship of the Russian navy: https://static01.nyt.com/images/201...arge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

A rusty steamboat from the Soviet Union. You can not even compare they're technology to the technology western EU nations have. Its not even on the same level.
 
Dec 18, 2010
8,238
959
660
51
washington d.c.
#71
It is the west that is expanding eastward through the EU and NATO, not the other way around. US, NATO and the EU are the ones provoking Russia.

Russia is also a poor nation that is hurting even more now because of the sanctions. This is the flagship of the Russian navy: https://static01.nyt.com/images/201...arge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

A rusty steamboat from the Soviet Union. You can not even compare they're technology to the technology western EU nations have. Its not even on the same level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces

I recommend looking at conventional ground forces as well as nuclear submarines in particular. Be a good start for you.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,912
3,145
410
#72
I think the concern here should be the last time Europe had big time armies they spent years killing each other.

European armies lead to the worst and most horrific war the world has ever seen, and then they followed it up with the sequel that was even worse and took even more lives.
 
Apr 18, 2018
8,011
13,015
555
USA
dunpachi.com
#75
I think the concern here should be the last time Europe had big time armies they spent years killing each other.

European armies lead to the worst and most horrific war the world has ever seen, and then they followed it up with the sequel that was even worse and took even more lives.
That's nothing compared to what happens when you let European ideologies escape their borders.

Seems like we need a giant containment field around Europe and they can play nice or play naughty in their pram.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,663
2,193
415
#76
This is all well and good, but ignores the fact that it is also in the USA's interests to have bases located throughout the world.

It seems particularly short sighted for the USA to pick a fight with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia when those bases serve to curtail Chinese power.

I can't really see this happening.
It's not about picking a fight. It's about reigning in the deficit caused in part by providing defense to foreign countries. Basically, it's like when parents tell their 30 year old kids that they need to start paying their own way. There is a big difference between picking a fight and not getting screwed. These bases are not protecting America from China. They are protecting foreign nations from China.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,912
3,145
410
#77
According to the annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which tracks arms inspections worldwide, the total number of global arms transactions between 2014 and 2018 was 7.8% higher than the previous five years and 23% higher than the number sold between 2004 to 2008. The five largest exporters in the past five years have been the US, Russia, France, Germany and China, which together accounted for 75% of total weapons exports.

According to the data, the United States recorded a 29% increase in arms deals, mainly due to increased demand from countries in the Middle East, and its market share rose from 30% to 36%, while Russia saw a 17% decrease, because of less imports from two major customers - India and Venezuela. Now its market share stands at 21% compared to 27% five years prior.

"The United States has further strengthened its position as the world's leading arms supplier," said Dr. Ode Fluernet, director of the arms transfers database at the research institute. "The US has exported weapons to at least 98 countries in the last five years. These shipments usually included advanced weapons such as fighter planes, short-range cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and a large number of guided bombs."
Will the US position as an arms dealer be effected negativly or positivly by this development? Looks like for now the US is making bank on selling arms across the globe.
 

JLB

Member
Dec 6, 2018
128
97
170
#78
The EU and NATO without American military are incapable of defending themselves. As someone who has been on many joint exercises with German, French and British soldiers, they will be the first to tell you that.
About damn time for EU and NATO to heavily invest on military then. Its unfair for US troops to pay the price and run all the risks.