An issue the United States hopes to highlight at the NATO conclave is the amount of money that member countries pay in proportion to their other commitments. The defense outlays of some NATO partners are less than half those of the United States -- as a percentage of gross domestic product.Umm, no duh!
Of course, none of them is currently engaged in a unilaterally-declared invasion of a sovereign state that had done nothing to American interests since, oh, I don't know, ever? Sure, thirteen years before we invaded this time, Hussein had invaded a tiny emirate off the Saudi Arabian border called Kuwait and correctly, the US and NATO, along with other United Nations members, sent armed forces into repel the invasion.
But you see, Mr. Bush, they're called defense forces because you're supposed to use them to stop someone from hurting you or your friends, neither of which Iraq had done in quite some time. Now, true, NATO is the nominal authority in Afghanistan right now, and perhaps on that basis, they ought to pony up a bit more coin, but as far as I can see, there's no need to bankrupt western Europe for a fight you've avoided for as long as you could: the hunt and capture of Osama.
I can't say I blame them for leaving the US twisting in the wind. One can only imagine the hue and cry you and your Republican cronies would have raised if, say, France was beating up on Qatar over some imagined slight or other, and having a tough time of it.
You'd probably call it "justice," and not ante up one dime more.
snarkasm, snarcasm, snarky
Bush
Iraq
NATO
Posts
