Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "'Going to be rough': NATO braces for Donald Trump's return • FRANCE 24 English" video.

  1. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    6
  2.  @HarhaUkko  Rather, the then centre-left government was taken by surprise and needed a breather to come to terms with the sudden reversal in popular opinion. And it was a vote in parliament -- 188 for and 8 against -- that pushed the NATO accession bill through. Referendums are reserved for contentious matters, where the will of the electorate is unclear. Nothing was unclear here. Besides, the following parliamentary election provided a prime opportunity for NATO sceptics to bank on anti-NATO sentiment. One out of the 8 parliamentary naysayers, Ano Turtiainen, dared to run on an anti-NATO platform -- and didn't have his political career prolonged. I'm sorry for your loss.
    3
  3.  @josephlandry8787  Actually, the US would have even more money to spend on the military -- should you so choose -- if it were to introduce universal healthcare. The case for universal healthcare is ironclad.
    3
  4.  @josephlandry8787  That's a false association. We've got quality healthcare practically for free and we've never fallen short of our 2% NATO commitment. Not only that, every single able-bodied male of ours serves in the military for 6 to 12 months without drawing a salary and remains in the reserves till either 50 or 60 years of age, depending on rank. Get back to me when you've made a similar commitment to defence.
    2
  5. Okay then, you can laugh at our Orban, like we laugh at Trump.
    1
  6.  @hellchemical  "Every 3 mounts"? Is that a transliteration from Russian?
    1
  7. ​ @MA-hn9vo  Reality check: are you paying your fair share? I've arrived at a 1.75% US contribution to NATO. Tsk-tsk.
    1
  8.  @MA-hn9vo  My facts are right all right. Study US military doctrine and get back to me.
    1
  9.  @PlaYer-sn5or  What are you on about? I'm saying the US falls short of NATO's 2% target -- by 0.25% at least -- so why should we, who do pay our way, pay protection money to you? Are you in the racketeering business?
    1
  10.  @MA-hn9vo  You should've followed my advice. Oh well, I'll spell it out for you. US military doctrine has it that the armed forces must be prepared to fight two major wars at the same time, in addition to some minor ones. So, in the light of this, what do you think the divisor should be in order to arrive at the share of the US defence budget that is effectively allotted to NATO? I think I'm being generous if I suggest 2.
    1
  11.  @MA-hn9vo  But we are talking about US military doctrine. It decides the military resources that go towards NATO, and how much is reserved for extracurricular activities. Half and half seems a fair assessment. You're not alone, by the way. The UK and France, too, have their extracurricular activities. After the Falklands War, the UK invested heavily in a strengthened garrison on the Falklands Islands and built a new airbase there, too. These forces don't come under NATO, because the islands are south of the Tropic of Cancer, and hence, outside of NATO's "area of responsibility". France also has military installations that don't serve NATO in any conceivable way. You have your installations in Japan and Korea, for instance. Non-NATO, in other words. No need to keep repeating the 2% NATO figure. It's common knowledge. You come up short.
    1
  12.  @MA-hn9vo  "However, this year, a record number of countries have stepped up. Out of the thirty-two NATO allies, twenty-three now meet the 2 percent target, up from just six countries in 2021." Atlantic Council, July 8, 2024. Vast majority, you said? Try to keep up with the news.
    1
  13.  @HarhaUkko  I would put it this way instead: Europe needs NATO, but US involvement is, at the end of the day, optional.
    1
  14.  @HarhaUkko  Yet Finland chose to join NATO, its previous reservations nothwithstanding. Popular support was overwhelming, unprecedented even. You seem to represent a minute minority.
    1
  15.  @Mr.Perry33  Pay your dues to the full then.
    1
  16. Winners don't revel in victimhood.
    1
  17.  @MA-hn9vo  How about your 1.75%? That's below 2%, right, or did I waste 10 years on maths studies?
    1
  18. Say goodbye to your computer chips then.
    1
  19. Sure, we're all dumbfounded at your dumbness.
    1