The first Gulf war certainly came at a fortuitous time for countries that had a lot of troops needing re-location, especially if you could find a country rich enough to pay for it. Someone like Saudi Arabia perhaps 
Why would you and your far left Socialist Ilk be so keen on appeasing KGB Putin’s Chicom allies and so keen to deliver western forces to their inevitable deaths and surrender, in a strategically illiterate and nonsensical move in the Eurasian wastelands.
Knowing that the joint Russia/China TSENTR exercises were/are a clear rehearsal for exactly that scenario ?.
Socialists make crap poker players.They laughably show their hand before the game has even started they can’t help themselves.
The Russians didn’t back down at all.JFK and Kruschev reached a deal.Nothing more nothing less.2.03.57-.
Especially 2.03.42-45.
Funding for defence was 5.5% of gdp in 1984 which was 62,841.845 million equivalent value as of 2024 198,333.348 million. Funding in 2024 was 2.3% of gdp or 58,980.694 million ie 29.7% of what it was thats less than a third.
If you really thimk thats a “slight tappering off” then have i got a deal for you…every tenner you give me ill give you £2.97 back
The Jupiter missile system that was located in Turkey and Italy was obsolete by 1962 and would have easily been intercepted by the Russians at that time - hardly a equivalent trade. If they had been of any use they would have been re-deployed - they were scrapped so that tells you a lot of what the military thought of them. A bit like swapping an Austin A35 with a knackered engine for a new Ford Zodiac.
If you want to think that the Russians didn’t back down then that’s fine.
US defence spending was 6.24% of GDP in 1984. In 2024 it was 3.45%. Every country involved effectively reduced their military spend significantly as a result of the end of the cold war.
It wasnt that the uk reduced funding it wzs sir bent overs suggestion that it was a slight tapering off rather than admit trump is right
Fair enough, I thought it was worth bringing the fact that the US had also heavily reduced its spending to the discussion worthy. It’s always good to keep things in context I believe.
Well in 1984 american gdp was 4,038 billion dollars 6.24% of that is 251.9712 billion which is equivalent in 2024 to $760,737,187,264.68. In 2024 gdp was 29,724 billion dollars 3.45% of that is 1,025.478 billion an INCREASE of 134.8%
Kinda looks like trump is right again
It would be helpful if you could show the same statistics for the other countries that we are discussing. All showing the US in isolation does is highlight how well their economy seems to be doing. Strangely enough is Trump not complaining that their economy has been suffering for the last 40 years?
To be fair i thought it would be less after biden and barac had their hands on the tiller. I knew it wouldnt be as big a decrease as the uk but never thought it would be over a third more
I really ought to stop taking lefty crap at face value and assuming they have done the maths
Just a general point regarding defence spending. The US has global commitments that the other members of NATO don’t have (Canada excepted). Having 2 oceans to defend doesn’t come cheap. It does however give you the opportunity for greater trading between a lot more nations. You can’t have it both ways (unless your transgender of course). I saw the other day figures that show California has the 4th highest GDP in the world. Not bad for somewhere that’s not even a country.
US defence spending for 2024 is forecast to be $842 billion
Too bad then that we are an island with the north sea, irish sea, english channel and the atlantic. Wonder why with all that potential our trading has been crap for the last 40 years of course things were improving since 2020 untill the last9 months
I was using your figgues but now i know your franglais in disguise only he would think 842 billion is less than 760 billion
The argument is not that the US hasn’t spent more than it would have had it matched inflation. It’s that it’s spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped as dramatically as its NATO partners. The figures you posted would suggest that the US economy has done a lot better than its NATO allies in the last 40 years which is in contrast to Trumps claim that it is not doing well. Yes, compared to China and other emerging economies the US is statistically struggling but this is not necessarily a reflection of their overall economic performance. Statistics can be used to support two opposing arguments at the same time if you simply choose what information to base them on.
There is no opposing argument. America has spent more on defence than any other nato member. It matters not wheather you measure it in monetry terms gdp or lengths of a rats foot.
Gdp is a fools errand it is a fluctuating number not fixed so it matters not whether a percentage of one number is bigger or smaller than a different percentage of a different number. If you think it does ill give you 50% of 100 pounds if you give me 10% of 1000 pounds. According to you thats a good deal for you.
Do you really think that the Russians didn’t know that the Jupiter system was obsolete in terms of destructive power.
The same as the missiles that it put in Cuba.
They were effectively tactical nukes not strategic.
The argument was over location and time interval from launch to target and the distrust that tactic created in the balance of power between strategic nuke armed peer adversaries.
Not the difference between a Hiroshima type hit v an all out maximum yield mutually assured destruction exchange, where ironically that distrust and instability would have inevitably led to.
The relevant bit is that even if the situation had have gone no deal pear shaped JFK never at any time put the BAOR on notice to march on East Germany and Poland then Ukraine.
That film, especially it’s ending, is a factual docu drama not fictional East Enders.
But if you really want to turn the Cold War hot then sending a message with a pre emptive strategic attack on Russia’s ally China would be the way to get Russia’s attention.Telling them they are next.
Not marching our army into a grave on Russia’s and China’s terms and turf and giving China our food, fuel and cash in exchange for worthless garbage made by slave labour.
Sir bent overs 
Of course it has.
No one has said otherwise.
% of GDP is a useful tool.
Do you really think that Portugal could spend the same as the US on defence? It’s entire GDP is less than the US spend.
I previously said
The US has been involved in many actions outside of the cold war.
They have fewer troops in Europe now, but more elsewhere. During the 2000’s they also had less expense on the USSR front, but more elsewhere.
If they were still maintaining the same size forces in Europe the expenditure woulod be greater. They are not so the expenditure is less.
Who said that? No one I can see.