• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump Brussels Damage Report

Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
im confident he’ll act like a moron today but I’ll be busy most of the day. This thread to for updates about allies that Trump has shit upon

dHeSLtQ.jpg
 
Already did at a breakfast meeting claiming Germany was 60-70% reliant on Russia for energy. They're not. He also made the NATO chief give him credit for increases spending even though it was agreed upon and follows a time frame set in 2014.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Already did at a breakfast meeting claiming Germany was 60-70% reliant on Russia for energy. They're not. He also made the NATO chief give him credit for increases spending even though it was agreed upon and follows a time frame set in 2014.
Click to expand...


I like to know where he gets all his facts from, I still can't believe as a Brit you guys (not all of you obviously) voted him in power, got to be the worst President in US history.
 
glenn1 said:
"Labels allies as delinquent." Well, it might be undiplomatic but the insults are truthful. If you agreed to 2% of GDP defense spending and aren't meeting that obligation and haven't for years (or decades) then that "delinquent" shoe fits perfectly and is probably not strongly phrased enough.
Click to expand...

There is no statutory obligation for countries in NATO to spend 2% on GDP, therefore they are not delinquent. It was a NATO guideline and nothing more. Imagine if you attempted to sue someone over a guideline you both agreed to but made no binding contract for. You would not only lose the lawsuit, you would likely be sanctioned and forced to pay their attorneys fees.

This isn't just undiplomatic, it's transparently stupid and Trump is undermining our mutual security.
 
fskimospy said:
There is no statutory obligation for countries in NATO to spend 2% on GDP, therefore they are not delinquent. It was a NATO guideline and nothing more. Imagine if you attempted to sue someone over a guideline you both agreed to but made no binding contract for. You would not only lose the lawsuit, you would likely be sanctioned and forced to pay their attorneys fees.

This isn't just undiplomatic, it's transparently stupid and Trump is undermining our mutual security.
Click to expand...
Also maybe the people who want to high five Trump for trashing NATO over "spending guidelines" want to look up Article 5 and when was the only time NATO enacted it.

If only Trump were this tough publicly on Russia for

hacking our election.
poisoning people on foreign soil
annexing Crimea

Oh, I just cracked myself up.
 
glenn1 said:
"Labels allies as delinquent." Well, it might be undiplomatic but the insults are truthful. If you agreed to 2% of GDP defense spending and aren't meeting that obligation and haven't for years (or decades) then that "delinquent" shoe fits perfectly and is probably not strongly phrased enough.
Click to expand...

Yet by not being a dick Obama was able to get many countries to agree to increase their spending and they have been. As Trump even acknowledged but wanted personal credit for things started in 2014.
 
brycejones said:
Yet by not being a dick Obama was able to get many countries to agree to increase their spending and they have been. As Trump even acknowledged but wanted personal credit for things started in 2014.
Click to expand...

Always easier to give money to a nice person rather then a rude guy like Trump 😉 .
 
I am in no way agreeing with Trump here, his ranting just accidently crossed one of my personal local geopolitical opinions... Screw Nordstream-2 .. That shit needs to get shut down. NOW.
 
fskimospy said:
There is no statutory obligation for countries in NATO to spend 2% on GDP, therefore they are not delinquent. It was a NATO guideline and nothing more. Imagine if you attempted to sue someone over a guideline you both agreed to but made no binding contract for. You would not only lose the lawsuit, you would likely be sanctioned and forced to pay their attorneys fees.

This isn't just undiplomatic, it's transparently stupid and Trump is undermining our mutual security.
Click to expand...
If the other NATO members don't want to meet the guideline then the US should ignore it as well. I also question how much of a security concern it is if country's much closer to Russia aren't contributing their share.
Why should my tax dollars pay to protect a nation that spends it's tax dollars on health care and education? It's a great deal for them, not so much for the US.
 
Greenman said:
If the other NATO members don't want to meet the guideline then the US should ignore it as well. I also question how much of a security concern it is if country's much closer to Russia aren't contributing their share.
Why should my tax dollars pay to protect a nation that spends it's tax dollars on health care and education? It's a great deal for them, not so much for the US.
Click to expand...
Hopefully we can get the filthy liberals to agree to cut defense spending.
 
Greenman said:
If the other NATO members don't want to meet the guideline then the US should ignore it as well.
Click to expand...

I agree, the US should reduce its defense spending to 2% of GDP or less. Think about all the other things we could pay for, like education and infrastructure!

edit:

dank69 said:
Hopefully we can get the filthy liberals to agree to cut defense spending.
Click to expand...

lmao. beat me to it.
 
Greenman said:
If the other NATO members don't want to meet the guideline then the US should ignore it as well. I also question how much of a security concern it is if country's much closer to Russia aren't contributing their share.
Why should my tax dollars pay to protect a nation that spends it's tax dollars on health care and education? It's a great deal for them, not so much for the US.
Click to expand...

Actually I'd rather we just withdraw from NATO altogether. The "advantages" of having pledges from countries like Iceland to defend the U.S. in case of attack are pointless. And using NATO countries as staging bases to attack countries like Syria is an "advantage" we can/should do without as well as we shouldn't be doing that shit to begin with.
 
Greenman said:
If the other NATO members don't want to meet the guideline then the US should ignore it as well. I also question how much of a security concern it is if country's much closer to Russia aren't contributing their share.
Click to expand...

Sounds great, I'm totally down with the US drastically reducing its military spending! You realize that the US isn't spending all that money on its military because of NATO guidelines, right?

Why should my tax dollars pay to protect a nation that spends it's tax dollars on health care and education? It's a great deal for them, not so much for the US.
Click to expand...

You don't actually think the US spends all that money on its military out of the goodness of our hearts do you? We spend that money because it helps us project power and get what we want, not because we're some nice guy protecting other countries so they can go on vacation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top