• 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!

Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia


Can't get past the paywall on this device, so it could be lies. Don't know. But I did see that the article is based on unnamed sources, which means it's definitely rumors. Add in the first paragraph and we know that the whole article is spin. The NYT reputation and past behavior also support this.

But tell me...do you have a problem with a President who wants to discuss EVERY possible action with his advisors? Whether he ultimately decides to take that action or not? I don't.
 

We have discussed Trump's initial policy blurt regarding the withdrawal of troops from Syria. I stated at the time that while I would like to see us out of Syria. It would be foolhardy on many levels for the US to suddenly announce its withdrawal and quickly leave. I've said it before, the undeniable foundation, or lack thereof, of the Trump Administration: Poor Prior Planning Produces Piss Poor Performance.

Trump, the authoritarian, does not prepare, does not plan, cannot adhere to anyone else's plan. Donald J Trump is like a monkey with a machine gun. Trump, as we all know, does not understand or does not care that actions have consequences. For the most part he simply makes **** up as he goes along. What's worse is that all too frequently he has a limited view of the world around him. He seems to have made it his life's work not to know much at all about the world beyond his personal space.

Trump's best and brightest have long gone. They aren't coming back. Replacements are difficult to find and it seems Trump is in no real hurry to hire anyone. It's not like America's best is queueing up outside his door wanting to work for him.

Half assed and half staffed is not the way to approach doing the People's work.

Hobbled by the above limitations and countless more our government under Donald J Trump stumbles around on the stage of world affairs. Somebody is going to get hurt. Alliances have been severely damaged and our government can't seem to do enough for the Kremlin. And Trump wants to pull out of NATO!

Just last week Trump said that he plans to leave Syria in NATO's hands. He then threatened to destroy Turkey economically if it attacked the Kurds after we leave.

Do you think Russia is unhappy about any of the above? As Russian aggression continues in Europe do you think NATO might just be as necessary as ever to its member nations? With the exception of the Trump controlled US, NATO nations seem to think so.

Soon it will be NATO's 70th Anniversary. There were plans to hold a celebration in the US with NATO heads of state and dignitaries attending as they did for the 50th NATO Anniversary under President Bush. But plans have changed. NATO will send upper level representatives instead of heads of states. It won't be the grand show of western nation defense commitment.

Why the change in plans? Donald J Trump. Trump was a **** heel in Europe when he disparaged NATO and NATO countries. He was an embarrassment to them and to the US. NATO nations do not want to provide him the repeat opportunity or worse during its upcoming anniversary. Trump scores again for the Kremlin.
 
Can't get past the paywall on this device, so it could be lies. Don't know. But I did see that the article is based on unnamed sources, which means it's definitely rumors. Add in the first paragraph and we know that the whole article is spin. The NYT reputation and past behavior also support this.

But tell me...do you have a problem with a President who wants to discuss EVERY possible action with his advisors? Whether he ultimately decides to take that action or not? I don't.

You're right that it's unnamed sources, although I trust the NYTimes, where conservatives tend to think it's all contrived.

As for your question, do I have a problem with a President who wants to discuss EVERY possible action with his advisors? My answer is, "that depends." But my real concern is that the implosion of NATO is probably Vladamir's #1 wet dream. Why would an American President want to disolve NATO? The only answer that comes to mind involves conspiracy with President Putin. Maybe mine is a failure of imagination.
 
You're right that it's unnamed sources, although I trust the NYTimes, where conservatives tend to think it's all contrived.

To each his own. I tend not to trust spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole...and a few lies...and I dismiss rumors.

As for your question, do I have a problem with a President who wants to discuss EVERY possible action with his advisors? My answer is, "that depends." But my real concern is that the implosion of NATO is probably Vladamir's #1 wet dream. Why would an American President want to disolve NATO? The only answer that comes to mind involves conspiracy with President Putin. Maybe mine is a failure of imagination.

Perhaps it is.

I can think of a number of good reasons to pulling out of NATO...and none of them involve Putin.

1. It is costing us too much money.

2. It has outlived it's usefulness.

3. The EU is big enough to take its place.

4. It is more worried about politics than defense.

5. The other members are not pulling their share of the load.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure that, with a bit of research, I could come up with more.

btw, why should the US leaving NATO cause it to dissolve? If it were a stable, effective organization it would be able to stand no matter who is in it or who leaves.

In any case, a President discussing options and actions with his advisors is just that...discussion. It means nothing. Actual actions mean something. I suggest you try to resist your tendency to see conspiracies where they don't exist.
 
To each his own. I tend not to trust spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole...and a few lies...and I dismiss rumors.



Perhaps it is.

I can think of a number of good reasons to pulling out of NATO...and none of them involve Putin.

1. It is costing us too much money.

2. It has outlived it's usefulness.

3. The EU is big enough to take its place.

4. It is more worried about politics than defense.

5. The other members are not pulling their share of the load.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure that, with a bit of research, I could come up with more.

btw, why should the US leaving NATO cause it to dissolve? If it were a stable, effective organization it would be able to stand no matter who is in it or who leaves.

In any case, a President discussing options and actions with his advisors is just that...discussion. It means nothing. Actual actions mean something. I suggest you calm down...maybe try to resist your tendency to see conspiracies where they don't exist.

The US uses NATO to maintain a global hegemony.

Now if one would want to argue that the US doesn’t benefit nor does it no longer want or need a global hegemony, then that is a different issue.

But without NATO .... that hegemony is gone.
 
The US uses NATO to maintain a global hegemony.

Now if one would want to argue that the US doesn’t benefit nor does it no longer want or need a global hegemony, then that is a different issue.

But without NATO .... that hegemony is gone.

Well...perhaps Trump isn't interested in using NATO to maintain a global hegemony. Perhaps Trump is more interested in a hegemony based on economics and trade. I think that would be more his style than using the military.

Thanks. You've just given me another good reason to consider pulling out of NATO.
 

Can't read the article, pay-wall.

However, why is anyone surprised at this if the headline is true?

Trump has made the point of leaving or cutting US commitments to NATO if the other nations don't commit to paying their "fair share" of GDP/GNP towards military spending. He has also made the point about the United Nations and other nations paying their fair share.

Like any businessman, he doesn't want to waste funds in some money-sink project which could be "better spent" elsewhere.

I don't agree we should pull out of either, because I feel it would weaken our global positioning power. However, I also don't mind a President "brainstorming" with his advisors about various possible actions in either public policy or world diplomacy.
 
To each his own. I tend not to trust spin, speculation, innuendo, hyperbole...and a few lies...and I dismiss rumors.



Perhaps it is.

I can think of a number of good reasons to pulling out of NATO...and none of them involve Putin.

1. It is costing us too much money.

2. It has outlived it's usefulness.

3. The EU is big enough to take its place.

4. It is more worried about politics than defense.

5. The other members are not pulling their share of the load.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure that, with a bit of research, I could come up with more.

btw, why should the US leaving NATO cause it to dissolve? If it were a stable, effective organization it would be able to stand no matter who is in it or who leaves.

In any case, a President discussing options and actions with his advisors is just that...discussion. It means nothing. Actual actions mean something. I suggest you try to resist your tendency to see conspiracies where they don't exist.

I agree with much of what you said but you seem to have left out a big one. Many are asserting that the US military must remain in (Northern?) Syria to prevent Turkey from killing Kurds inside Syria. Turkey is a NATO member yet it has been asserted that they would act unilaterally contrary to US interests. Does this mean that US troops must remain (forever?) in a non-NATO nation (Syria) to protect (some of?) its citizens from harm from a NATO member nation (Turkey)?
 
The US uses NATO to maintain a global hegemony.

Now if one would want to argue that the US doesn’t benefit nor does it no longer want or need a global hegemony, then that is a different issue.

But without NATO .... that hegemony is gone.

The fact that Putin wants NATO gone should tell every American all they need to know.
 
Can't read the article, pay-wall.

However, why is anyone surprised at this if the headline is true?

Trump has made the point of leaving or cutting US commitments to NATO if the other nations don't commit to paying their "fair share" of GDP/GNP towards military spending. He has also made the point about the United Nations and other nations paying their fair share.

Like any businessman, he doesn't want to waste funds in some money-sink project which could be "better spent" elsewhere.

I don't agree we should pull out of either, because I feel it would weaken our global positioning power. However, I also don't mind a President "brainstorming" with his advisors about various possible actions in either public policy or world diplomacy.

Trump does not understand what we get for our participation in NATO nor does he value it. Beyond that he uses GDP numbers that WE willingly spend on National Defense as the benchmark for other NATO allies. We spend 4% of our GDP because we want to, not because we are forced to. You could not talk THIS country down from 4% if your life depended on it.

Frankly, its a ridiculous discussion. Leaving NATO only forwards the geopolitical intentions of one man and one country, Putin and Russia and Putin's Russia clearly represents an adversary. Ergo, supporting the US leaving NATO is supporting Putin's Russia. Thanks for playing.
 
Well...perhaps Trump isn't interested in using NATO to maintain a global hegemony. Perhaps Trump is more interested in a hegemony based on economics and trade. I think that would be more his style than using the military.

Thanks. You've just given me another good reason to consider pulling out of NATO.

Economics and trade? lol... His first years would seem to indicate he wishes to torpedo American global trade to the bottom of the sea. You might not wanna burn those military bridges just yet.

That said, though, I think it would be a wonderful thing to revisit NATO. While America shrinks back into isolationism, Russia and China are both definitely pursuing global economic goals. Perhaps Europe would be in less danger, and make more money, without so many American guns pointed to the East. A global economy has made war far less profitable than it used to be...and given America's inability to deal with Russia on a political front lately, choosing to antagonize it's NATO allies instead, I'm not sure you guys are the best basket for folks to put all their eggs in anyway. :shrug:
 
Well...perhaps Trump isn't interested in using NATO to maintain a global hegemony. Perhaps Trump is more interested in a hegemony based on economics and trade. I think that would be more his style than using the military.

Thanks. You've just given me another good reason to consider pulling out of NATO.

A trade hegemony is hard to maintain without a military hegemony.

It is even harder to maintain when one willingly abandons all of the international institutions that were erected to build that hegemony.

Willingly giving up a position of global dominance just because one feels that they are being screwed somehow makes little sense.

But... hey.... China will probably be much better at it than us... I guess.
 
I agree with much of what you said but you seem to have left out a big one. Many are asserting that the US military must remain in (Northern?) Syria to prevent Turkey from killing Kurds inside Syria. Turkey is a NATO member yet it has been asserted that they would act unilaterally contrary to US interests. Does this mean that US troops must remain (forever?) in a non-NATO nation (Syria) to protect (some of?) its citizens from harm from a NATO member nation (Turkey)?

Good point!

NATO fighting against NATO...a good reason to consider leaving.
 
Good point!

NATO fighting against NATO...a good reason to consider leaving.

Except Trump would have been the instigation for it. Typical Trump by the way. I will create the problem and then present my own solution to a problem I created. Sorry...won't fly. Not even a nice try, as usual.
 
Economics and trade? lol... His first years would seem to indicate he wishes to torpedo American global trade to the bottom of the sea. You might not wanna burn those military bridges just yet.

That said, though, I think it would be a wonderful thing to revisit NATO. While America shrinks back into isolationism, Russia and China are both definitely pursuing global economic goals. Perhaps Europe would be in less danger, and make more money, without so many American guns pointed to the East. A global economy has made war far less profitable than it used to be...and given America's inability to deal with Russia on a political front lately, choosing to antagonize it's NATO allies instead, I'm not sure you guys are the best basket for folks to put all their eggs in anyway. :shrug:

shrug...

You want to run...and finance...NATO, go ahead.

But you betray your bias and ignorance about how Trump uses economics and trade to deal with US foreign relations. Perhaps that's a result of Trump's dealings with your country.

Oh well...
 
Except Trump would have been the instigation for it. Typical Trump by the way. I will create the problem and then present my own solution to a problem I created. Sorry...won't fly. Not even a nice try, as usual.

Oh? Trump told the Turks to hate Kurds?

LOL!!
 
shrug...

You want to run...and finance...NATO, go ahead.

But you betray your bias and ignorance about how Trump uses economics and trade to deal with US foreign relations. Perhaps that's a result of Trump's dealings with your country.

Oh well...

Just our country? lol... Ah, Mycroft, at least you have a sense of humor. :)
 
Oh? Trump told the Turks to hate Kurds?

LOL!!

Good point!

NATO fighting against NATO...a good reason to consider leaving.


That is your earlier post in bold. You can try to square that circle. Good luck!

If there is any chance of a NATO ally fighting a NATO ally it will be Trump leaving the door open for the Turks to attack and attempt to destroy the Kurds which TRUMP WOULD HAVE INSTIGATED by leaving the Kurds unable to defend themselves. We would be forced into the ridiculous position of trying to defend an ally in the fight against ISIS from being destroyed by a NATO ally all courtesy of Donald.

Fortunately, it appears that big mouth Donald who just cannot keep that big trap shut is being backed off of his "getting out of Syria now" claim and is backed off to four months or oh wait, maybe even longer than four months. So maybe Donald should not have discussed anything with Erdogan and should have just kept HIS BIG TRAP SHUT.....AGAIN!
 
Last edited:
A trade hegemony is hard to maintain without a military hegemony.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

It is even harder to maintain when one willingly abandons all of the international institutions that were erected to build that hegemony.

Nonsense. "international institutions" that don't serve the best interest of the US are useless...and possibly dangerous. It may be best to leave such institutions.

Willingly giving up a position of global dominance just because one feels that they are being screwed somehow makes little sense.

What makes you think Trump want to give up a position of global dominance? Heck, look at NAFTA. We were getting screwed. Trump change it without giving up our regional dominance...and it made a lot of sense.

But... hey.... China will probably be much better at it than us... I guess.

They will try. They've been trying for decades. But now they have to deal with Trump. LOL!! He is using their own tactics against them. They didn't see THAT coming.
 
Good point!

NATO fighting against NATO...a good reason to consider leaving.


That is your earlier post in bold. You can try to square that circle. Good luck!

If there is any chance of a NATO ally fighting a NATO ally it will be Trump leaving the door open for the Turks to attack and attempt to destroy the Kurds which TRUMP WOULD HAVE INSTIGATED by leaving the Kurds unable to defend themselves. We would be forced into the ridiculous position of trying to defend an ally in the fight against ISIS from being destroyed by a NATO ally all courtesy of Donald.

Fortunately, it appears that big mouth Donald who just cannot keep that big trap shut is being backed off of his "getting out of Syria now" claim and is backed off to four months or oh wait, maybe even longer than four months. So maybe Donald should not have discussed anything with Erdogan and should have just kept HIS BIG TRAP SHUT.....AGAIN!

Do you actually hear what you are saying???

Look. It's all on Turkey. Keep in mind, they are supposedly a NATO ally.

They want to kill Kurds. They won't stop wanting to kill Kurds.

The US wants to protect Kurds. Heck, even YOU want the US to protect Kurds.

So...it's all Trump's fault that he has to potentially fight a NATO ally? Does your anti-Trump hatred REALLY cause you to excuse Turkey for their actions?

This is all just about the dumbest nonsense I've heard out of you yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom