"Donald Trump Can Go to Hell..."

[DrDoug]

"... and If You Defend His Statement, So Can You." - Erick Erickson

The Trump statement on NATO that's in question (regarding NATO allies needing protection from an increasingly aggressive Russia)?

"Well, let me ask you: Have they paid?"

Which was greeted with enthusiastic applause from Trump supporters.

Erick Erickson, former editor of the conservative web site Redstate and currently at The Resurgent, had this to say about Trump talking about down about our NATO allies (once again)...

Do you people supporting Trump know the only time NATO has ever invoked Article 5 of the 1949 Washington Treaty that established NATO? That’s the article that recognizes an attack on one NATO ally as an attack on all NATO allies requiring defense.

Do you Cheeto Jesus worshipping fools have any idea? Your orange god, of all people, should know.

The only time NATO has ever invoked Article 5 and rushed to the aid of a NATO ally in response to an attack was on September 11, 2001. On that day, monsters murdered 2,977 people in New York City; Washington, DC; and Shanksville, PA.

Almost 3,000 Americans were murdered by monsters and our NATO allies for the first time in the history of the NATO Alliance rose as one and defended American airspace and American interests around the entire freaking world while we wrestled with what had happened.

For some reason i don't think Erick will be voting Trump this fall...

 

[zinfamous]

Harsh, but fair and well-deserved.

I like this part

These are allies. They are not vassal states. These are friends. Our promises do not require shakedowns. We are not the global bully demanding lunch money for protection. We are the shining city on the hill.

MicroMussolini seems to think that membership in NATO is like an HOA with regular dues.

 

[MongGrel]

"You always have to be prepared to walk ..."

:hmm:

 

[flexy]

Not only are the NATO members allies, the entire NATO is mutually beneficial. There is not ONE nation ("the US") "who pays" and the other nations "receive protection" from the US. Only an idiot like Trump can present it as such.

The biggest bonus is actually for the US since NATO allows US forces to present, say, in nations like Estonia, Poland or whatever "at the border" to the East and the M.E. as close as it can get. It allows the US have bases and military hubs and hospitals and training grounds say in Germany, the UK or Spain. When the US is having one of their next operations in the Middle East and they fly missions from, say, Germany...and fly wounded back to Landstuhl/Germany, it's a strategic advantage for the US.

If the US stations missiles in Estonia, Poland, Germany, whatever...it's also an advantage more so for the US rather than the countries where the missiles are stationed. In fact, it makes those nations targets in any potential conflict, hardly to their "benefit".

Just another example how grossly Trump misinterprets things and turns them so they fit his "they're taking advantage OF YOU AND TAKE YOUR MONEY, WIFE AND KIDS!!!" narrative.

Besides, BIG IRONY HERE, why the fuck is he complaining about US forces in NATO nations? Didn't he want to increase military spending? Or has he suddenly turned into a pacifist and now he wants to scale down and "save money"?

 

[interchange]

Attacking the hypocrisy of Trump is low hanging fruit. Same for Erick, a man hell bent on pushing religious freedom bills, which has absolutely nothing to do with anti-gay sentiments, right North Carolina? Wink wink.

 

[glenn1]

Not only are the NATO members allies, the entire NATO is mutually beneficial. There is not ONE nation ("the US") "who pays" and the other nations "receive protection" from the US. Only an idiot like Trump can present it as such.

The biggest bonus is actually for the US since NATO allows US forces to present, say, in nations like Estonia, Poland or whatever "at the border" to the East and the M.E. as close as it can get. It allows the US have bases and military hubs and hospitals and training grounds say in Germany, the UK or Spain. When the US is having one of their next operations in the Middle East and they fly missions from, say, Germany...and fly wounded back to Landstuhl/Germany, it's a strategic advantage for the US.

If the US stations missiles in Estonia, Poland, Germany, whatever...it's also an advantage more so for the US rather than the countries where the missiles are stationed. In fact, it makes those nations targets in any potential conflict, hardly to their "benefit".

Just another example how grossly Trump misinterprets things and turns them so they fit his "they're taking advantage OF YOU AND TAKE YOUR MONEY, WIFE AND KIDS!!!" narrative.

Besides, BIG IRONY HERE, why the fuck is he complaining about US forces in NATO nations? Didn't he want to increase military spending? Or has he suddenly turned into a pacifist and now he wants to scale down and "save money"?

Many big words. In the end it comes down to whether you think it makes sense for American taxpayers to subsidize the social welfare spending of our "allies." Putting some missiles there or using their airspace for the next Iraq isn't worth it. Spending money on an alliance where the primary benefit that you cite is the ability to conduct offensive operations is one we should not be in.

 

[Schmide]

Many big words. In the end it comes down to whether you think it makes sense for American taxpayers to subsidize the social welfare spending of our "allies." Putting some missiles there or using their airspace for the next Iraq isn't worth it. Spending money on an alliance where the primary benefit that you cite is the ability to conduct offensive operations is one we should not be in.

WTF are you talking about. Other than stupid buzzwords. These are economies of scale. As a group, you are much stronger. We may spend more, but we use more. When our planes have a problem in the sky you better have a place to land or a local security force to pull you out.

 

[MongGrel]

Many big words. In the end it comes down to whether you think it makes sense for American taxpayers to subsidize the social welfare spending of our "allies." Putting some missiles there or using their airspace for the next Iraq isn't worth it. Spending money on an alliance where the primary benefit that you cite is the ability to conduct offensive operations is one we should not be in.

Deterrence was always the point of NATO to begin with.

Incirlik in Turkey and a lot of things going on today had been issues for a long time now.

There is a ongoing war with Deash they declared long ago of course.

Trump has so many ties to Putin it is pathetic.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I remember reading his comments...and they were more or less saying that the other NATO members needed to meet their own defense spending obligations - I think something like the US and the UK are the only two nations meeting the defense spending obligated by NATO - everyone else is not spending on it as much as they're supposed to.

That's what he was commenting on. And I seem to remember that he dodged the question of "does that mean you wouldn't help?"

Edit: 5, not 2.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193

 

[DrDoug]

I remember reading his comments...and they were more or less saying that the other NATO members needed to meet their own defense spending obligations - I think something like the US and the UK are the only two nations meeting the defense spending obligated by NATO - everyone else is not spending on it as much as they're supposed to.

That's what he was commenting on. And I seem to remember that he dodged the question of "does that mean you wouldn't help?"

Edit: 5, not 2.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193

Erick Erickson isn't commenting on what Trump said on June 22nd but rather what he said at a rally yesterday in front of his drooling fans. Trump has embraced Putin/Russia and NATO is something that Russia would love to see dissolved.

Trust Trump at your peril... many others have and have ended up being burned by the con artist.

 

[Vic]

Yes, more NATO members need to meet their own defense spending obligations, but that needs to come about through treaty and diplomacy, not through demanding tribute or by turning our armed forces into mercenaries for hire. We are a Republic, not an empire.

 

[Vic]

Erick Erickson isn't commenting on what Trump said on June 22nd but rather what he said at a rally yesterday in front of his drooling fans. Trump has embraced Putin/Russia and NATO is something that Russia would love to see dissolved.

Trust Trump at your peril... many others have and have ended up being burned by the con artist.

I cannot speak enough ill of the Clown. Suffice to say, I don't want anything bad to happen to him until November 8th at 8pm EST. After that..

 

[glenn1]

Yes, more NATO members need to meet their own defense spending obligations, but that needs to come about through treaty and diplomacy, not through demanding tribute or by turning our armed forces into mercenaries for hire. We are a Republic, not an empire.

How the hell is telling so-called allies they need to meet defense spending obligations the same as "demanding tribute"? Do you even know the definition of that phase?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

How the hell is telling so-called allies they need to meet defense spending obligations the same as "demanding tribute"? Do you even know the definition of that phase?

He's said not defending a delinquent nation could be an outcome.
I'm glad Trump brought this up, I'm not glad about all the bluster.

 

[rudder]

Not only are the NATO members allies, the entire NATO is mutually beneficial. There is not ONE nation ("the US") "who pays" and the other nations "receive protection" from the US. Only an idiot like Trump can present it as such.

Sure nations do not pay he U.S. for protection, however many countries do not develop their military and defense to appropriate levels because part of the strategy is the NATO treaty. They know the most powerful military in the world is obligated to,come to their defense. So we spend hundred of billions on our military and other countries

If the US stations missiles in Estonia, Poland, Germany, whatever...it's also an advantage more so for the US rather than the countries where the missiles are stationed. In fact, it makes those nations targets in any potential conflict, hardly to their "benefit".

And the irony being the presence of those missile defense systems in those countries causes potential conflict.

Besides, BIG IRONY HERE, why the fuck is he complaining about US forces in NATO nations? Didn't he want to increase military spending? Or has he suddenly turned into a pacifist and now he wants to scale down and "save money"?

Because we have pilots who get very little flying time. We have aircraft me mechanics going to the aircraft boneyard for parts to keep planes in the air. Maybe if we did not maintain so many overseas bases which benefit other nations... We could spend the money where it is really needed within our military. There are many many units with readiness issues.

 

[DrDoug]

Sure nations do not pay he U.S. for protection, however many countries do not develop their military and defense to appropriate levels because part of the strategy is the NATO treaty. They know the most powerful military in the world is obligated to,come to their defense. So we spend hundred of billions on our military and other countries




And the irony being the presence of those missile defense systems in those countries causes potential conflict.




Because we have pilots who get very little flying time. We have aircraft me mechanics going to the aircraft boneyard for parts to keep planes in the air. Maybe if we did not maintain so many overseas bases which benefit other nations... We could spend the money where it is really needed within our military. There are many many units with readiness issues.

If we didn't have so many worthless military pet projects, many of which the military doesn't want, being voted in and/or kept alive because the congresscritters benefit from the jobs and industry in their districts/state, maybe we would have more money to be spent where it would do the military some real good. Overseas bases are an advantage for both our allies and us. Nature abhors a vacuum and Russia would have no problem stepping in if we were to leave. Putin is a problem and retreating from over there is not an option. Trump's blind ignorance clearly shows that he's a fucking moron and dangerous to the stability of not only the USA but of the world itself.

Putin loves him some Trump for a good reason. Go ahead and wrap your arms around that if you wish to...

 

[glenn1]

If we didn't have so many worthless military pet projects, many of which the military doesn't want, being voted in and/or kept alive because the congresscritters benefit from the jobs and industry in their districts/state, maybe we would have more money to be spent where it would do the military some real good. Overseas bases are an advantage for both our allies and us. Nature abhors a vacuum and Russia would have no problem stepping in if we were to leave. Putin is a problem and retreating from over there is not an option. Trump's blind ignorance clearly shows that he's a fucking moron and dangerous to the stability of not only the USA but of the world itself.

Putin loves him some Trump for a good reason. Go ahead and wrap your arms around that if you wish to...

Please explain how overseas bases are an "advantage for us" in anything but ability to conduct offensive operations which is pointless for a supposed defensive alliance.

Then after that explain how Russia would "step into the vacuum" if we didn't fund other nations' defenses and stage bases and materiel there? Are you suggesting that Spain, etc. would suddenly start signing agreements to allow Russian bases or base their missile systems there? Or do you think massive formations of Russian armor will stream through the Fulda Gap on the way to Paris unless we station troops to defend them in Berlin, Germany rather than Berlin, Pennsylvania?

 

[NTMBK]

Please explain how overseas bases are an "advantage for us" in anything but ability to conduct offensive operations which is pointless for a supposed defensive alliance.

Then after that explain how Russia would "step into the vacuum" if we didn't fund other nations' defenses and stage bases and materiel there? Are you suggesting that Spain, etc. would suddenly start signing agreements to allow Russian bases or base their missile systems there? Or do you think massive formations of Russian armor will stream through the Fulda Gap on the way to Paris unless we station troops to defend them in Berlin, Germany rather than Berlin, Pennsylvania?

No, but it's not inconceivable that the Russians could invade e.g. Estonia. 25% of their population are ethnically Russian... hand out some Russian passports, stir up a little discontent, pull a South Ossetia and grab a nice slice of territory. Or maybe Russia decides they want to link up Kaliningrad with the rest of Russia, and carves out a chunk of Poland and Lithuania.

 

[glenn1]

No, but it's not inconceivable that the Russians could invade e.g. Estonia. 25% of their population are ethnically Russian... hand out some Russian passports, stir up a little discontent, pull a South Ossetia and grab a nice slice of territory. Or maybe Russia decides they want to link up Kaliningrad with the rest of Russia, and carves out a chunk of Poland and Lithuania.

Estonia is meeting its defense spending targets. And why would you link theoretical Russian actions against Estonia to real-world conflicts with non-NATO states there the proximate cause was in large part due to the direct U.S. involvement in the "Color Revolutions" to install pro-Western governments?

 

[sm625]

Trump says something offensive. OMG get him! I'm going to rant and flail my arms in the air until he drops out of the race!

Hillary votes to kill millions of Iraqis and displace millions more. Hillary votes to create the biggest refugee crisis in 80 years if not the biggest in history. OMG I'm with Hillary!

I am a proud sheeple.

 

[brycejones]

I am a proud sheeple.

Here you spoke the truth.

 

[K1052]

Estonia is meeting its defense spending targets. And why would you link theoretical Russian actions against Estonia to real-world conflicts with non-NATO states there the proximate cause was in large part due to the direct U.S. involvement in the "Color Revolutions" to install pro-Western governments?

Pretty much all of the former Soviet satellite nations moved into the orbit of Europe and the US....I don't know maybe because of half a century of subjugation/control/abuse at the hands of the Russians. The Russian sphere of influence cannot be maintained without the active and direct use of their military power. Giving them any further license to do so is contrary to the diplomatic and strategic interests of the United States.

 

[biostud]

NATO member states are the only true allies of US (except for Australia and Japan) with the same core values of democracy and humans rights. Maybe it would be an idea that we try to stick together against those who want to overthrow those values?

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm so glad as a planet we banned together to spend more on defense. War or bust!!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And so begins the Republican revolt in slow motion.

The out layers are revolting next test is the first big establishment guy.

I can't figure out how Trump plans on getting stuff done if Ryan survives his election. Does he really think Ryan won't hold a grudge?