Japan has actually been pushing for years to have an Offensive Military, instead of a Defensive one. I would support that with them being closely allied with us. They have a long and illustrious Naval history.
I'm a Beaver so I always like Orange. I remember when I was a tot this neighbor lady would bake cookies and make Kool-Aid, then she'd call us tiny tots from around the local neighborhood to her front yard where we'd drink and eat while listening to her read childrens' stories. To this day, I like Kool-Aid and cookies.
I could be wrong but I don't think he's too fond of Trudeau. And let's not forget Rodrigo Duterte. A man of the kind of high intellect that Trump admires.
Just fyi, NATO's obligation to commit to 2% was supposed to be met sometime in the 2020s. It wasn't meant to be met now. Otherwise, Bush, Obama, Clinton, and Trump were right to bring the issue up because Europe has gotten incredibly lax and even arrogant about not meeting their share. For example, during the Cold War, it used to be that you could depend on the UK to compliment the US and patrol and safeguard their waters by themselves with their submarine force. Nowadays, the reports are of Russian subs patrolling freely and messing around in the UK's backyard while the Royal Navy downsizes. And that's from a country that actually meets the 2% standard. Thus, it's a major problem that Europe's own governments and population refuses to address - especially in light of poisonings, invasions, hackings, etc that stem from Russia and Islamic terror attacks that average out at one per month. Meanwhile, there is also the issue of doctrine. Their own military forces need to be not just built up but also should be working in congruent fashion with one another. Who will be the submarine warfare specialists like the UK was during the Cold War? Which countries can actually project power without American naval support ferrying them across the way? Can and will France and Germany reinforce Poland or Greece? Essentially, 2% is a good start to meet treaty obligations but it's actually a long way to go if Europe (or NATO sans US) wants to deter Russia.
The treaty with Germany allows them to have up to 370,000 total military personnel. They have less than 210,000. .
This is a thread asking your opinion....not a thread asking what you think of someone else's opinion....guess you don't have one eh Marz….too bad. The OP...what do you think about NATO...not what do you think about Sly and Riverman
see your quotes....one of Sly's and one of mine....and your post that they don't deserve a response.....it's not difficult ...own your snark if you are going to project it...better yet...express your own thoughts on NATO as I suggested..you tend to wander off topic and single out people with these snippets of condescension...it's a pattern...
I did. NATO is enabling us. If you want to continue letting our government run roughshod be my guest.
Could you fill in some blanks here? Enabling us to do what? Run roughshod over what? Can you see any unintended consequences if NATO stops enabling us? barfo