Jump to content
mugtang

Poland willing to pay US $2 billion a year for permanent military presence

Recommended Posts

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-poland-offers-us-up-to-2-billion-for-permanent-american-military-base/

Quote

Poland wants a permanent U.S. military presence — and is willing to pony up as much as $2 billion to get it, according to a defense ministry proposal obtained by Polish news portal Onet.

The Polish offer reflects a long-standing desire in Warsaw to build closer security relations with the U.S. and put American boots on the ground. The push dates back to Poland’s entry into NATO in 1999, but has taken on added urgency in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region four years ago and aggressive posture toward the alliance.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is nice of them but is it worth it to have our 18364th aggressive act against Russia post cold war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poland may well want it. But are they going to be willing to trust Trump to protect them from Russia?

I mean seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Poland may well want it. But are they going to be willing to trust Trump to protect them from Russia?

I mean seriously.

Their choice right?  To offer it I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pokebball said:

There choice right?  To offer it I mean.

I guess we'll wait and see. Nothing is finalized yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Poland may well want it. But are they going to be willing to trust Trump to protect them from Russia?

I mean seriously.

Sure they woll,becayse it will come with a Treaty that gets ratifies, they're footing a lot of the bill, and they're not screwing us both in defense protection & trade, like Germany & France.

 

If only Barry sweet cheeks had found the balls to write some treaties, maybe his "legacy" wouldn't be erased by pen & phone? Even Bill Clinton got treaties ratified.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

That is nice of them but is it worth it to have our 18364th aggressive act against Russia post cold war?

Yes, but only if we back out of Germany and let them know they're on their own for not paying their 2% for 30 years, and screwing us on trade, while WE were their defense department.

 

Let Russia blackmail those idiots over trading their nuclear plants for natural gas ones hooked up to a Russian tsp.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

That is nice of them but is it worth it to have our 18364th aggressive act against Russia post cold war?

Oh FFS.  You Russiophiles are brutal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Yes, but only if we back out of Germany and let them know they're on their own for not paying their 2% for 30 years, and screwing us on trade, while WE were their defense department.

 

Let Russia blackmail those idiots over trading their nuclear plants for natural gas ones hooked up to a Russian tsp.

 

it is our interest to have Ramstein Air Base, regardless of any issues with the Germans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Sure they woll,becayse it will come with a Treaty that gets ratifies, they're footing a lot of the bill, and they're not screwing us both in defense protection & trade, like Germany & France.

 

If only Barry sweet cheeks had found the balls to write some treaties, maybe his "legacy" wouldn't be erased by pen & phone? Even Bill Clinton got treaties ratified.

 

You mean like the Iran Nuclear Treaty and the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

You mean like the Iran Nuclear Treaty and the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty?

Neither was a ratified treaty you do understand right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bluerules009 said:

Neither was a ratified treaty you do understand right?

I do. The Clinton years were back when Republicans cared, or at least pretended to care, about both free trade and being non-partisan about national defense.

When he was campaigning in 1992, according to the story he told me when we were working on NAFTA in 1993, President Carter flew up to see him in North Carolina during the campaign and talked to him passionately about the importance of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the importance of him being able to take on the unions on that issue. To his credit, that was [one of the] most of courageous acts of his presidency, and we worked with him very hard [on it]. The Republicans in the House provided a much bigger percentage of the votes than the Democrats did, and I found myself being the whip for Bill Clinton for that particular issue. We worked, we delivered, and it was very good sense of the future to think that we could reach out to Mexico and Canada and create a much bigger free trade area than we'd ever had before. It was, by the way, a proposal first articulated by Ronald Reagan when he launched his campaign in 1979. So as a Reagan Republican I felt a real pleasure at working with a Democratic president to make it come true.

Newt Gingrich talking about NAFTA

Back during Clinton's days, the GOP hadn't gotten so unhinged that they wouldn't have rushed to approve the TPP just because it was a Democratic president pushing it and wouldn't have rejoiced at the tough inspections and verifications of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Obama getting neither ratified was not his fault. It was the GOP not wanting to hand him a policy "win". Both treaties would have been well within the GOP mainstream in the 1990s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I do. The Clinton years were back when Republicans cared, or at least pretended to care, about both free trade and being non-partisan about national defense.

When he was campaigning in 1992, according to the story he told me when we were working on NAFTA in 1993, President Carter flew up to see him in North Carolina during the campaign and talked to him passionately about the importance of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the importance of him being able to take on the unions on that issue. To his credit, that was [one of the] most of courageous acts of his presidency, and we worked with him very hard [on it]. The Republicans in the House provided a much bigger percentage of the votes than the Democrats did, and I found myself being the whip for Bill Clinton for that particular issue. We worked, we delivered, and it was very good sense of the future to think that we could reach out to Mexico and Canada and create a much bigger free trade area than we'd ever had before. It was, by the way, a proposal first articulated by Ronald Reagan when he launched his campaign in 1979. So as a Reagan Republican I felt a real pleasure at working with a Democratic president to make it come true.

Newt Gingrich talking about NAFTA

Back during Clinton's days, the GOP hadn't gotten so unhinged that they wouldn't have rushed to approve the TPP just because it was a Democratic president pushing it and wouldn't have rejoiced at the tough inspections and verifications of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Obama getting neither ratified was not his fault. It was the GOP not wanting to hand him a policy "win". Both treaties would have been well within the GOP mainstream in the 1990s.

IT was the democrats who derailed the TPP

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CPslograd said:

it is our interest to have Ramstein Air Base, regardless of any issues with the Germans.

Could easily relocate 1 or 2 smaller bases to Poland. We have several in germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I do. The Clinton years were back when Republicans cared, or at least pretended to care, about both free trade and being non-partisan about national defense.

When he was campaigning in 1992, according to the story he told me when we were working on NAFTA in 1993, President Carter flew up to see him in North Carolina during the campaign and talked to him passionately about the importance of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the importance of him being able to take on the unions on that issue. To his credit, that was [one of the] most of courageous acts of his presidency, and we worked with him very hard [on it]. The Republicans in the House provided a much bigger percentage of the votes than the Democrats did, and I found myself being the whip for Bill Clinton for that particular issue. We worked, we delivered, and it was very good sense of the future to think that we could reach out to Mexico and Canada and create a much bigger free trade area than we'd ever had before. It was, by the way, a proposal first articulated by Ronald Reagan when he launched his campaign in 1979. So as a Reagan Republican I felt a real pleasure at working with a Democratic president to make it come true.

Newt Gingrich talking about NAFTA

Back during Clinton's days, the GOP hadn't gotten so unhinged that they wouldn't have rushed to approve the TPP just because it was a Democratic president pushing it and wouldn't have rejoiced at the tough inspections and verifications of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Obama getting neither ratified was not his fault. It was the GOP not wanting to hand him a policy "win". Both treaties would have been well within the GOP mainstream in the 1990s.

The dems couldn't pass TPP either.  Even Hillary came out against it.

Be honest.

the public is wrong on tpp, it would have been a far better way to deal with china than tariffs.  But Hillary and schumer wouldn't have ratified it either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

Could easily relocate 1 or 2 smaller bases to Poland. We have several in germany.

I'm not sure about that.  Don't know if the poles have the sustainment infrastructure.  I know in asia there is no substitute for yokosuka, I think that might be the case with ramstein.

In general I agree with your take, I'm just not sure if there is a substitute for ramstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, happycamper said:

IT was the democrats who derailed the TPP

True, but the gop is no longer the party of free trade either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Poland may well want it. But are they going to be willing to trust Trump to protect them from Russia?

I mean seriously.

Why would they trust the guy who went off today for NATO members not paying what they are required to for defense spending?

Please explain to me how Trump is under Putin's control but wants all the NATO members to put MORE money into defense spending that is designed specifically to counter a Russian threat?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nocoolnamejim said:

I do. The Clinton years were back when Republicans cared, or at least pretended to care, about both free trade and being non-partisan about national defense.

When he was campaigning in 1992, according to the story he told me when we were working on NAFTA in 1993, President Carter flew up to see him in North Carolina during the campaign and talked to him passionately about the importance of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the importance of him being able to take on the unions on that issue. To his credit, that was [one of the] most of courageous acts of his presidency, and we worked with him very hard [on it]. The Republicans in the House provided a much bigger percentage of the votes than the Democrats did, and I found myself being the whip for Bill Clinton for that particular issue. We worked, we delivered, and it was very good sense of the future to think that we could reach out to Mexico and Canada and create a much bigger free trade area than we'd ever had before. It was, by the way, a proposal first articulated by Ronald Reagan when he launched his campaign in 1979. So as a Reagan Republican I felt a real pleasure at working with a Democratic president to make it come true.

Newt Gingrich talking about NAFTA

Back during Clinton's days, the GOP hadn't gotten so unhinged that they wouldn't have rushed to approve the TPP just because it was a Democratic president pushing it and wouldn't have rejoiced at the tough inspections and verifications of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Obama getting neither ratified was not his fault. It was the GOP not wanting to hand him a policy "win". Both treaties would have been well within the GOP mainstream in the 1990s.

I agree the Pacific trade agreement should have been participated in and probably ratified.

The Iran agreement was a joke, Obama couldn't bring it before the Senate without them seeing what he agreed too and it was a horrible agreement.  

Now I think we should trade with Iran to begin with and every other country in the world including North Korea.  I think trade is the way we can change countries and force them to become more like us as their people see and become educated.  Sanctions really don't seem to work especially with authoritarian governments who just make the people suffer and they still do fine if they are in power.

Yet as you say the republican party does not agree with me they are bigtime on being policeman of the world at least since Bush invaded Iraq.  To be consistent they should have participated more in Obama's ridiculous efforts to i guess antagonize everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×