• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can anyone Trumpsplain this one for me?

Airyaman said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071387078901030913

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The idea of a European Military didn’t work out
too well in W.W. I or 2. But the U.S. was there
for you, and always will be. All we ask is that
you pay your fair share of NATO. Germany is
paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much
larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!

4:52 AM - 8 Dec 2018

So I'm trying to understand. Having a European military did not work out for WW1 or 2, yet Trump wants the Europeans to spend more on military now? What's the difference? There was no European military.

Why is Donnie so friggin' dumb?
Click to expand...
He is telling them if they want our continued military support cough up some more money

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
jnug said:
We spend as high a percentage of our GDP on Military expenditures because we want to. Its not more complicated than that.

As for Europe, 4% pf their GDP's by country which is what Trump has been yammering about would amount to a remilitarization of Europe, without question the dumbest thing anybody ever asked for or heard about.

As for wanting NATO, we want NATO no matter how much yammering we might do about it. Virtually all of the European partners have a plan to get to 2% of their GDP which by the way is not common fund. Its a percentage of GDP spend on their own defense initiatives.
Click to expand...
Why is a militarized Europe bad?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Airyaman said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071387078901030913

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The idea of a European Military didn’t work out
too well in W.W. I or 2. But the U.S. was there
for you, and always will be. All we ask is that
you pay your fair share of NATO. Germany is
paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much
larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!

4:52 AM - 8 Dec 2018

So I'm trying to understand. Having a European military did not work out for WW1 or 2, yet Trump wants the Europeans to spend more on military now? What's the difference? There was no European military.

Why is Donnie so friggin' dumb?
Click to expand...

It is a threat......Pay up and maybe America can help you again, or decide now to be New Chinese Empire serfs.....them be the choices.

I am glad I could help!

:2wave:
 
Amelia said:
Trump is providing the biggest incentives ever for European nations to increase their military spending. To protect themselves against the U.S.
Click to expand...
Fo you think they are concerned that Trump is planning an invasion lol

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
jnug said:
"Pulling their weight"? Who sets the standard for pulling their weight? The 2% of GDP is a target. It is not a requirement nor a standard for NATO membership. One reason its not is because the collective organization and mostly the US gets more out of the membership than the 2% could ever actually touch for relevance to the actual makings of a contemporary day military alliance.

Now if somebody wants to make the case that our 4% of GDP makes up one heck of a lot of difference go right ahead. You would be better off trying to build an escalator to the Moon than talking us down to a lower number than 4%, NATO or no NATO.

By the way, anybody that thinks that just because Europe is not dominated by the nutty Royals that governed their geopolitical environment through most of the 20th century needs to learn how to read a map. We do not under any circumstances what a remilitarized Europe nor even close to one.

As for the threat from the Soviet Union, as I have stated before, we have to lead. We have to lead. The allies will follow if we lead. The entirety of post WW2 general peace has been based on us leading and there is nobody outside of the Authoritarian regimes prepared to fill the vacuum we are leaving in our wake.

Since we just buried a President that knew something about leading, leading is building a coalition to take on the invasion of Kuwait. Its not insulting every Tom, Dick and Larry ally you have will fumbling for the zipper on the front of the fly of every dictator you can find!

While I am at it the ONLY country to have benefited in actual Article 5 NATO Treaty support from its NATO allies is .......the USA.
Click to expand...
Not to talk Ill of the dead but imo the biggest failure of ghb was the gulf war. It was a missed opportunity to place a large (Germany size) base in Kuwait or Iraq. It would of provided a huge stabalizing factor in the ME.

We could of had land, air, and naval presence. Instead we left and we got ISIS and nuclearized Iran.

We dont need that base in Germany. Not that large. Europe is stable now. We are needed elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
What are the facts?
Click to expand...

I am not sure, but Trump apparently wasn’t either when he attacked the Europeans. My point is that if he has an issue, he should spell it out carefully without rancor. For example, he could try speaking of our allies as he speaks about Russia.
 
Nickyjo said:
I am not sure, but Trump apparently wasn’t either when he attacked the Europeans. My point is that if he has an issue, he should spell it out carefully without rancor. For example, he could try speaking of our allies as he speaks about Russia.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Trump is attacking the Europeans?

Let me put it another way... Do you equate telling someone you won't be paying their way any longer unless they make some changes with attacking them?

I agree it certainly puts them on notice about the status quo, but I don't see it as an attack. I see it as forcing them to make a choice.

In any case, Trump has already spelled it out to them...without rancor...last year. This latest tweet was just a reminder.
 
What is keeping the European countries from paying their dues in fair amounts anyway?
 
DDD said:
What is keeping the European countries from paying their dues in fair amounts anyway?
Click to expand...

For the zillionth time...its not about NATO dues. Even Trump does not complain about contributions to NATO dues.
 
TurtleDude said:
Don't you know? Trump is planning to invade England, France and Luxembourg and install a born again dictator in the Vatican!
Click to expand...

And you just released the battle plans!! Good going. Now our troops will be walking into a trap!!
 
Airyaman said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071387078901030913

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The idea of a European Military didn’t work out
too well in W.W. I or 2. But the U.S. was there
for you, and always will be. All we ask is that
you pay your fair share of NATO. Germany is
paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much
larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!

4:52 AM - 8 Dec 2018

So I'm trying to understand. Having a European military did not work out for WW1 or 2, yet Trump wants the Europeans to spend more on military now? What's the difference? There was no European military.

Why is Donnie so friggin' dumb?
Click to expand...

All of a sudden the Liberals are okay with a large defense budget and foreign intervention.
 
apdst said:
All of a sudden the Liberals are okay with a large defense budget and foreign intervention.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Talk about projection of something that is not even implied...
 
jnug said:
Stop right there. Trump never talks about NATO dues though there is such a thing as the genera fund. He always talks about the percentage of GDP of each country allotted to its defense which has nothing to do with NATO dues.
Click to expand...
Call it whatever you want, the meaning is the same; each member is obligated to pay a given amount to maintain NATO. I provided a link detailing which were not meeting their obligations.
 
Nickyjo said:
Is the 4% an amount mandated by NATO guidelines or sone other standards?
Click to expand...

Neither. It was Trump wanting other nations to spend as much as we do. The current goal is 2%.
 
Bullseye said:
Call it whatever you want, the meaning is the same; each member is obligated to pay a given amount to maintain NATO. I provided a link detailing which were not meeting their obligations.
Click to expand...

Pay a given amount? To who?
 
Airyaman said:
How so? Funding for NATO is figured by a formula based on the national income of it's members.
Click to expand...

Airyaman said:
Eh, no.

Do you understand NATO, and what the 2% goal is?
Click to expand...

Airyaman said:
Pay more how?
Click to expand...

Airyaman said:
OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Does that 2% figure into the "fair share of NATO"? Who gets the 2%? Or is the 2% something else?
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna keep reading the thread past that post. Let's just clear this up now.

The 2% has nothing to do with Nato funding. In joining Nato, nations agree to spend 2% of their GDP on their military. Members have not lived up to this agreement. Trump is in the right according to an explicit agreement signed and broken by Nato members.


Trump's right. Period.


Nato funding is something different, not the "2% of GDP on military" requirement. There's an equation for funding Nato HQ etc and that has nothing to do with the 2% of GDP to be spent on one's own military.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I'm not gonna keep reading the thread. Let's just clear this up now.

The 2% has nothing to do with Nato funding. In joining Nato, nations agree to spend 2% of their GDP on their military. Members have not lived up to this agreement. Trump is in the right according to an explicit agreement signed and broken by Nato members.

Trump's right. Period.
Click to expand...

Well, at least someone knows what the 2% is.

That said, what is he right about? That some don't spend more? Sure, but the expectation and latest revised agreement is to meet the 2% by 2024.
 
Airyaman said:
Well, at least someone knows what the 2% is.

That said, what is he right about? That some don't spend more? Sure, but the expectation and latest revised agreement is to meet the 2% by 2024.
Click to expand...

Nato members signed an agreement to spend 2% of their GDP on their military. They have defaulted on that agreement. They are wrong. Trump is right.
 
Airyaman said:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071387078901030913

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

The idea of a European Military didn’t work out
too well in W.W. I or 2. But the U.S. was there
for you, and always will be. All we ask is that
you pay your fair share of NATO. Germany is
paying 1% while the U.S. pays 4.3% of a much
larger GDP - to protect Europe. Fairness!

4:52 AM - 8 Dec 2018

So I'm trying to understand. Having a European military did not work out for WW1 or 2, yet Trump wants the Europeans to spend more on military now? What's the difference? There was no European military.

Why is Donnie so friggin' dumb?
Click to expand...

what an amazingly insulting way to disrespect so many men and women who have more honor and bravery in their pinky nails than Trump has is his entire bloated, orange body.
 
Fletch said:
And you just released the battle plans!! Good going. Now our troops will be walking into a trap!!
Click to expand...
Lmao, best laugh of my morning

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom