French president marks Bastille Day by raising military spending to meet NATO goal

[TomSea]

French president marks Bastille Day by raising military spending to meet NATO goal
By Associated Press
Jul 14, 2018 | 5:35 PM


Fireworks illuminate the sky near the Eiffel Tower as part of Bastille Day celebrations in Paris on July 14. (Julien de Rosa / EPA/Shutterstock)

France's military had something extra to celebrate Saturday as it showed off its might for Bastille Day celebrations: a budget boost from President Emmanuel Macron.

The pomp-filled parade down Paris' Champs-Elysees suffered a couple of glitches, as two police motorcycles crashed during a performance and there was an apparent color miscalculation in the red, white and blue smoke sprayed by fighter jets zooming over the Paris skyline.

Overall, however, the event was about celebrating France's security forces. While thousands paraded through central Paris, around 110,000 others fanned out around the country to protect Saturday's celebrations, on alert after a Bastille Day truck attack in 2016 in Nice killed 86.

Read more at: http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-france-bastille-day-20180714-htmlstory.html

[Right_in_Virginia]

Well, well, well.  Good news.

Thank you, President Trump.

[dfwgator]

Gagnant !



(But go Croatia, anyway!)

[edpc]

They were at 1.82% last year.  Trump really showed them, getting that 0.18% out of them.   

[Cyber Liberty]

They were at 1.82% last year.  Trump really showed them, getting that 0.18% out of them.   

A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

[edpc]

A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

So?  They can spend all they want on defense.  It only matters if they can fight.  For instance, Saudi Arabia spends 10% of GDP on their military.  They can’t even effectively deal with Yemen.  Who wants them in NATO?

[Cyber Liberty]

So?  They can spend all they want on defense.  It only matters if they can fight.  For instance, Saudi Arabia spends 10% of GDP on their military.  They can’t even effectively deal with Yemen.  Who wants them in NATO?

I think the willingness of any of the allies to fight is a reasonable thing to discuss.  I'm not sure criticizing a US President for France not kicking in sufficiently financially is.

[darroll]

You mean the US is not supposed to support all of the NATO countries obligations?

[edpc]

I think the willingness of any of the allies to fight is a reasonable thing to discuss.  I'm not sure criticizing a US President for France not kicking in sufficiently financially is.

It is when you equate the 0.18% raise with an increased effectiveness in deterrence and ability.  I'd rather have an effective fighting force spending 1.5% of GDP than an untrained mess spending 3.0% on my flank.  He's equating the amount spent on effectiveness, without any consideration to things on which it's spent.  It's nice to have expensive Aegis cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers.  They're not much good, however, if you have crew crashing them into cargo ships.

[Cyber Liberty]

It is when you equate the 0.18% raise with an increased effectiveness in deterrence and ability.  I'd rather have an effective fighting force spending 1.5% of GDP than an untrained mess spending 3.0% on my flank.  He's equating the amount spent on effectiveness, without any consideration to things on which it's spent.  It's nice to have expensive Aegis cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers.  They're not much good, however, if you have crew crashing them into cargo ships.

I guess it's fair to criticize a US President for not instantly fixing, the day he took office, the degraded skills of the Naval personnel who crashed vessels into cargo ships. 

[Frank Cannon]

It is when you equate the 0.18% raise with an increased effectiveness in deterrence and ability.  I'd rather have an effective fighting force spending 1.5% of GDP than an untrained mess spending 3.0% on my flank.  He's equating the amount spent on effectiveness, without any consideration to things on which it's spent.  It's nice to have expensive Aegis cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers.  They're not much good, however, if you have crew crashing them into cargo ships.

Then we should shut down NATO since we will never be able to trust our allies.......based on your reasoning.

[Cyber Liberty]

Then we should shut down NATO since we will never be able to trust our allies.......based on your reasoning.

I'm reminded of a fellow in the old west due to be executed on the gallows. The executioner bought a fresh piece of rope from the General Store...you guessed it.  The condemned man was angry because the rope was new.

[edpc]

I guess it's fair to criticize a US President for not instantly fixing, the day he took office, the degraded skills of the Naval personnel who crashed vessels into cargo ships.

Then we should shut down NATO since we will never be able to trust our allies.......based on your reasoning.

The way you trust your allies and make up for past training lapses is by engaging in joint excercises - preparing against long established, known foes.  What you don't do is compromise readiness or competency by suspending operations, saying they are provocative and expensive.

[Cyber Liberty]

The fact that you could find fault in this development says more about you than your argument.

[edpc]

The fact that you could find fault in this development says more about you than your argument.

The fact you think paying more for something might somehow automatically make it better says your more interested in ideology than reason or result.  The 2% number is arbitrary, since its relative to the nation's GDP.  They may need more at some point to procure modern arms.  It'll drop considerably once you have the hardware.

Keeping to fixed percentages, especially in times of growth, is a lazy way to budget and leads to things like hammers that cost hundreds of dollars....

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-30/news/vw-18804_1_nut

The fact is, there never has been a common NATO fund.  There was an agreement each nation would spend a percentage of GDP on their own defense.  It's somewhat comical for this president to openly accuse nations of ripping off the US when it's not close to being accurate and he's been a famously professional deadbeat for decades.

[Cyber Liberty]

Your hatred of all things Trump renders you an unserious poster.  Check back with me when you can find a molecule of good he's done.

That was the most tortured refutation I think I've seen.

[edpc]

You have to make it about me, because none of it was incorrect.  That's what is unserious.