Trump says US may abandon automatic protections for Nato countries

[ivwshane]

SORRY you are right. Obama secured the removal of HUGE quantities (hopefully essentially all) of Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. Which could have fallen into ISIS's hands by now. That was a massively good thing for Obama to get sorted, probably much better than another mini-war or whatever the alternative solution(s) would have been.

Yes, well done, Obama. My recollection of events is failing me here, quite badly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/obama-red-line-erased-as-assad-chemical-weapons-us/

So then your issue isn't that Obama did nothing it's that he didn't do enough or didn't do what you think he should have done? Kind of a big difference isn't it?

 

[pcgeek11]

The implicit agreement in NATO has been that the U.S. will continue to provide a large portion of the military muscle behind the organization for the following reasons:

- It means European nations, whom we're all afraid will go to war with each other, will maintain relatively small self-defence oriented forces
- In exchange, the U.S. gets some level of preferential treatment when it comes to trade and political say in international affairs
- Also, as the biggest economy, the U.S. benefits disproportionately from a lack of war and the continued dominance of its preferred systems of democracy and capitalism

This isn't a kindness of their hearts thing; international politics is never about that. This system works because it works for everyone.

Many will disagree with the bold text above. I for one.

 

[pcgeek11]

It is baffling that people think the US has negotiated this situation out of kindness instead of strategic national interest.

What sucks is that Trump's stupidity is harming the US even though he isn't elected by making our allies wonder how sound our commitments really are. What an idiot.

Obama has also contributed greatly with his lack of commitment.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

So then your issue isn't that Obama did nothing it's that he didn't do enough or didn't do what you think he should have done? Kind of a big difference isn't it?

Imagine if, instead of the second big war with Iraq/Saddam. The West (mainly the US/UK) had negotiated to remove Iraqs weapons of mass destruction, and any chemical weapon stock piles. (Ignoring that the weapons of mass destruction thing, turned out to be mostly a bluff or misunderstanding by the West).

We might now be in a world, where Syria is like it was thirty years ago (stable), Iraq (still stable) and no crazy ISIS/ISIL nonsense etc.

But it is so easy with HINDSIGHT, for me to say these things. I'm still not sure what the best way is (going forwards), for the West to handle the "Middle East", ISIS/ISIL and the huge migrant crisis coming from Syria and other such countries.

This sudden change in Turkey, could be a bad sign for the coming future. Maybe it is the start of something big again, in the Middle East ?

I'd feel safer with a strong and well supported NATO. It has sort of kept the peace (by and large), so far. The day Russia is no longer scared of Nato, may be a problematic one, for the West. Sooner or later.

 

[yllus]

Yes, and only 5 countries met it last year. Trump's approach would have been better if he argued we should kick out of NATO any nation repeatedly missing their spending commitments.

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

Agreed, that'd be a far better way to publicly nudge action on members who are lagging in their fiscal commitments.

Many will disagree with the bold text above. I for one.

I'm sure it waxes and wanes as governments come and go in each country, but I do think as a general rule it's undeniable. Countries defer to the U.S. heavily for the sake of the military alliance.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans have a responsibility to stand up to Trump when he says these things.

 

[chucky2]

No, actually you said just what I expected.

LOL, okey dokey. First I don't understand, then, after I did, it's what you expected. You're name isn't Nickie by chance, is it?

If you want to force the issue with the allies, fine. Do it in treaty negotiations, which are usually behind closed doors, though privacy isn't absolutely necessary. What you don't do is mouth off about it during a campaign, causing uncertainty about whether the US will honor it's treaty obligations negotiated in good faith. Do so during negotiations. Hell call for a renegotiation of the treaty if need be.

Doing what Trump did imperils not just our allies faith in us wrt nato, but for any nation for any alliance with the US.

LOL, it doesn't imperil anyone, except the NATO countries that are playing us for Captain America suckers letting us blow our treasure protecting them while they blow theirs...doing whatever non-Mil activities they're doing with it. These countries btw have already have had this addressed privately/semi-privately, by Bummer, and they've already lol at him/US. So you can see the subtle tactics aren't working; and they never should have been needed to begin with, so much for good faith NATO "partners".

And no, I'm just a bit left of center. Not that it matters. :|

Mmmm...time will tell...

 

[Thebobo]

Stop weasel-posting, motherfucker

Whats weasel-posting?

 

[BxgJ]

LOL, okey dokey. First I don't understand, then, after I did, it's what you expected. You're name isn't Nickie by chance, is it?



LOL, it doesn't imperil anyone, except the NATO countries that are playing us for Captain America suckers letting us blow our treasure protecting them while they blow theirs...doing whatever non-Mil activities they're doing with it. These countries btw have already have had this addressed privately/semi-privately, by Bummer, and they've already lol at him/US. So you can see the subtle tactics aren't working; and they never should have been needed to begin with, so much for good faith NATO "partners".



Mmmm...time will tell...

I was referring to the distinction between Obama (or Trump) calling for the Allies to do more, and Trump saying we may not honor the treaty, in order to get them to do more. Not your knowledge of whether or not Obama had said the same thing as Trump.

It's an important difference, which I still think you don't understand. You think the difference is that they may do more to keep the alliance due to Trump's tactics, I said that the way he did it would cause far worse problems than other options. The difference is in the consequences, not the goal.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

I've done some digging (and found the following and/or was supplied it from another forum like source), and found out that 28 years ago, Trump apparently said that he does NOT like the fact that the US is spending so much money on the military. When other countries are NOT necessarily paying their fair share.
He even says (28 years ago), he probably won't try and become president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI&feature=youtu.be

You got it right. The NATO Charter requires its member nations to spend 2% of GDP on defense. The US spends more in order to subsidize healthcare and social programs in other countries. Trump is only asking them to meet their obligations or else stop expecting the US taxpayer to subsidize their societies.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

republicans have a responsibility to vote for trump when he says these things.

ftfy. ()

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

You got it right. The NATO Charter requires its member nations to spend 2% of GDP on defense. The US spends more in order to subsidize healthcare and social programs in other countries. Trump is only asking them to meet their obligations or else stop expecting the US taxpayer to subsidize their societies.

They (the countries involved), REALLY need to sort out fairer Nato funding. Partly because it is potentially weakening Nato, which may cause further crisis (like Crimea (although Ukraine was NOT a member of Nato, then) etc, which may be in part to possible weaknesses being apparent, in Nato, which Russia decided to exploit).

But also because it is unfair on the US, and other countries which pay a lot more into Nato.

Maybe they need to do stuff like the EU does (I'm not sure of the exact details), whereby there are penalties (fines) and stuff, if things are not done/met. So have big NATO meetings, decide where the goalposts are going to be (targets). Then give them rigid (but reasonable) dead-lines.
So if the dead-lines are NOT met. Then E.g. $35,000,000 fine per day, until goals one and goals two are sorted out and fixed.

On the plus side, the US does claw back some money (indirectly), because they sell a lot of arms and jet fighters etc, as a result of some of the alliances and stuff. So things are not all bad.

 

[rudder]

I think Trump should read up on how a military alliance works. Hint: Being wishy-washy about it is a good way to render it completely useless.

Maybe he knows. Those baltic countries are required to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense... which they do not. Why? because they know they US is bound by a treaty to come to their aid. Fuck that. And turkey? I would not want one American to die defending that country.

Trumps issue is with how the treaty membership is lopsided. Why should the U.S. spend so much defending other NATO members when they don't spend the required money themselves?

 

[glenn1]

No, actually you said just what I expected. If you want to force the issue with the allies, fine. Do it in treaty negotiations, which are usually behind closed doors, though privacy isn't absolutely necessary. What you don't do is mouth off about it during a campaign, causing uncertainty about whether the US will honor it's treaty obligations negotiated in good faith. Do so during negotiations. Hell call for a renegotiation of the treaty if need be.

Doing what Trump did imperils not just our allies faith in us wrt nato, but for any nation for any alliance with the US.

And no, I'm just a bit left of center. Not that it matters. :|

I don't give a shit about their precious feelings. Honor your treaty obligations and the implied threat is moot. Or don't and you're not worth defending and you can brush up on your Russian. Either way the free ride is over and if it upsets Europe then tough shit.

 

[CitizenKain]

Trump and his followers are morons who don't know shit, this isn't surprising. Trump just does what Putin wants.

 

[glenn1]

Trump and his followers are morons who don't know shit, this isn't surprising. Trump just does what Putin wants.

And you're an enabling sucker who won't even stand up for what's right for our own country.

 

[sandorski]

You got it right. The NATO Charter requires its member nations to spend 2% of GDP on defense. The US spends more in order to subsidize healthcare and social programs in other countries. Trump is only asking them to meet their obligations or else stop expecting the US taxpayer to subsidize their societies.

No, the US spends more because it chooses to. Usually just to buy Votes for Politicians.

 

[Jhhnn]

You got it right. The NATO Charter requires its member nations to spend 2% of GDP on defense. The US spends more in order to subsidize healthcare and social programs in other countries. Trump is only asking them to meet their obligations or else stop expecting the US taxpayer to subsidize their societies.

Or maybe we should just spend less on the military to subsidize healthcare & social programs in this country.

It's not like Nato members are extorting us to spend what we do.

 

[glenn1]

Or maybe we should just spend less on the military to subsidize healthcare & social programs in this country.

It's not like Nato members are extorting us to spend what we do.

I'm fine with that also. But then if we can't defend some country who continues to not pay its 2% GDP defense spending obligation because of our cutbacks then so be it. I guess Spaniards or whoever can get used to being a vassal state.

 

[CitizenKain]

And you're an enabling sucker who won't even stand up for what's right for our own country.

So when did you cowards on the right bend over for Putin?

 

[Victorian Gray]

There seems to be some confusion re the 2% expenditure. That's a target that was set in, I think, 2006. It is not a treaty requirement.

 

[sandorski]

There seems to be some confusion re the 2% expenditure. That's a target that was set in, I think, 2006. It is not a treaty requirement.

I don't think this is accurate. I remember the figure being talked about way back in the '80's. Mainly because Canada was being criticized even then for Low Expenditures.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm fine with that also. But then if we can't defend some country who continues to not pay its 2% GDP defense spending obligation because of our cutbacks then so be it. I guess Spaniards or whoever can get used to being a vassal state.

Please. Stop with the fear mongering-

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ies-in-europe-should-deter-russian-aggression

 

[glenn1]

So when did you cowards on the right bend over for Putin?

Since when did the left lose its pacifism and decide they wanted to pay more for defense?

 

[glenn1]

Please. Stop with the fear mongering-

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ies-in-europe-should-deter-russian-aggression

So an Op-Ed is supposed to convince me that U.S. taxpayers should subsidize the defense of Europeans who can't be troubled to spend their own taxpayer money to do so? If anything you linking an article with the premise "Russia Is Outmanned and Outgunned" should lead the U.S. to reduce its own unilateral and unrequited spending on the defense of others who don't want to be troubled to do it themselves.