Trump's anti-NATO mindset

[Rogue Valley]

Defense Secretary Carter Ash with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford


NATO’s Not Obsolete, Says Joint Chiefs Chairman

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, flipped the script on Trump’s recent eyebrow-raising assessment, saying the alliance isn’t out of touch, but a candidate who challenges its importance is.

Considering NATO obsolete is a consequence of hiring foreign-policy advisers who are quite cozy with the Putin regime.


Eyeing Russia, Poland Wants More NATO Troops

As with the border wall and abortion, Trump doesn't have a clue.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

As with the border wall and abortion, Trump doesn't have a clue.

He tried to use the Mexican-Guatemalan border as an excuse, yet - they do not have a friggen wall there...

 

[Cavendish]

Not every American wants war with Russia as a consequence of having to defend "allies" in Russia's sphere of interest.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Until Putin decided to renew the old Cold War into a new generation of west vs. east, NATO was well on its way to becoming obsolete.

Besides, NATO was mostly on the US anyway in terms of funding and operations.

 

[reinoe]

Defense Secretary Carter Ash with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford


NATO’s Not Obsolete, Says Joint Chiefs Chairman



Considering NATO obsolete is a consequence of hiring foreign-policy advisers who are quite cozy with the Putin regime.


Eyeing Russia, Poland Wants More NATO Troops

As with the border wall and abortion, Trump doesn't have a clue.

Look carefully at this paragraph...

The U.S. has been sending military forces to Poland and other nations in the region for more frequent training as part of the European Reassurance Initiative, the Obama administration’s attempt to ease NATO’s elevated fears. This week, Pentagon officialsannounced plans to send more tanks and armored vehiclesto Europe and rotate troops as part of the initiative. Poland will host some of the equipment.

Nothing in there about French troops, or English troops, or Italian troops. When the U.S. is sending 99% of the troops and equipment, then NATO is useless.

 

[chuckiechan]

He tried to use the Mexican-Guatemalan border as an excuse, yet - they do not have a friggen wall there...

True. But we don't use the brutal enforcement techniques Mexico does.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Look carefully at this paragraph...

Nothing in there about French troops, or English troops, or Italian troops. When the U.S. is sending 99% of the troops and equipment, then NATO is useless.

You need to brush up on NATO exercises held in Poland and the Baltic states last year. Many NATO nations participated.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

True. But we don't use the brutal enforcement techniques Mexico does.

Actually, we do.

 

[DaveFagan]

Defense Secretary Carter Ash with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford


NATO’s Not Obsolete, Says Joint Chiefs Chairman



Considering NATO obsolete is a consequence of hiring foreign-policy advisers who are quite cozy with the Putin regime.


Eyeing Russia, Poland Wants More NATO Troops

As with the border wall and abortion, Trump doesn't have a clue.

NATO is an obsolete dinosaur and used to control the EU. We have the scumbag Turkey in NATO and Turkey's shooting down of a Russian jet could have triggered WWIII. The USA is the Nation initiating the Cold War, not Russia. "War is good business, and business is good." War, fear, hot War, cold War, drug War, terror War and it all gins up the profit stream of the Military Industrial Corporate Complex. The USA initiated a COUP in the Ukraine and has managed a narrative campaign to blame Russia. It only works on the sheep in the USA.

 

[joG]

Not every American wants war with Russia as a consequence of having to defend "allies" in Russia's sphere of interest.

But they will surely get war sooner than later and larger and more deadly, if Nato were trashed.

 

[joG]

Until Putin decided to renew the old Cold War into a new generation of west vs. east, NATO was well on its way to becoming obsolete.

Besides, NATO was mostly on the US anyway in terms of funding and operations.

The support and funding must change. But the European policy makers know this. They just don't know how to explain it to their populations.

 

[cabse5]

Until Putin decided to renew the old Cold War into a new generation of west vs. east, NATO was well on its way to becoming obsolete.

Besides, NATO was mostly on the US anyway in terms of funding and operations.

This "on the US" is a symptom of socialist countries that 'wish to be generous'. Lots of money in the socialist budget to micromanage social issues but rarely the money for defense. NATO countries leave their defense up to the US. Their cost is primarily gratis.

Trump's clumsy way of pointing out the inadequacy of NATO's defense, NATO's unwillingness to defend and the cost to the US to defend NATO.

EDIT: would attacks by foreigners snap the socialist NATO countries out of their unwillingness to defend themselves funk? The jury is out.

 

[cabse5]

The support and funding must change. But the European policy makers know this. They just don't know how to explain it to their populations.

It's ideology. It's socialism that is the roadblock.

 

[MTAtech]

I have no issue with an intelligent discussion about the value of NATO. What I do object to is a presidential candidate who has scant knowledge about the subject matter and likely never read a book on the topic, making declaratory and definitive statements about NATO.

Essentially, that's my major objection to Trump in general. He has lots of opinions on areas he has little or no knowledge. If he was a barber, it wouldn't be a problem but it is a problem if he were president.

 

[MTAtech]

This "on the US" is a symptom of socialist countries that 'wish to be generous'. Lots of money in the socialist budget to micromanage social issues but rarely the money for defense. NATO countries leave their defense up to the US. Their cost is primarily gratis.

Trump's clumsy way of pointing out the inadequacy of NATO's defense, NATO's unwillingness to defend and the cost to the US to defend NATO.

EDIT: would attacks by foreigners snap the socialist NATO countries out of their unwillingness to defend themselves funk? The jury is out.

You do realize that the UK and France have nuclear weapons and maintain an army and a navy, right? Germany isn't allowed, as a condition of them losing World War II, from having a military but it still spends $44 billion a year along with Italy's $17 billion.

NATO's cost to the U.S. is about $725 million per year.

 

[cabse5]

You do realize that the UK and France have nuclear weapons and maintain an army and a navy, right? Germany isn't allowed, as a condition of them losing World War II, from having a military but it still spends $44 billion a year along with Italy's $17 billion.

NATO's cost to the U.S. is about $725 million per year.

US budget sacrifices need to be made where ever they can be made. The debt is 19+trillion and rising.

 

[cabse5]

You do realize that the UK and France have nuclear weapons and maintain an army and a navy, right? Germany isn't allowed, as a condition of them losing World War II, from having a military but it still spends $44 billion a year along with Italy's $17 billion.

NATO's cost to the U.S. is about $725 million per year.

Tell me what any of these socialist countries have done to protect themselves against radical Islam, for example? Russia? Against anyone?

The point isn't NATO should disband their militaries, it is that NATO should be willing to use their militaries more often.

 

[MTAtech]

US budget sacrifices need to be made where ever they can be made. The debt is 19+trillion and rising.

The money the U.S. spends on NATO is a rounding error on a rounding error.

What I have pointed out here before, the Federal government spends most of the money in five areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. Trump is proposing to grow military expenditures and not touch anything of the remaining four. Slashing NATO down to zero doesn't fill any fiscal holes. Moreover, his tax-plan slashes government revenue -- and mostly on the wealthiest.

So, if people are interested in cutting that $19 trillion debt that you speak, they are either talking about increasing revenue or cutting the big five or they don't know what they are talking about. Trump is on record as stating that he wants to reduce the debt -- which means running surpluses. He's also on record of increasing military spending and not touching entitlements. As I said previously, his tax-plan slashes government revenue. Trump makes the fiscal hole, not only bigger, but much bigger.

One can safely say that Trump is one of those people that I mentioned that don't know what they are talking about, since his plans just can't work mathematically.

 

[cabse5]

The money the U.S. spends on NATO is a rounding error on a rounding error.

What I have pointed out here before, the Federal government spends most of the money in five areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt. Trump is proposing to grow military expenditures and not touch anything of the remaining four. Slashing NATO down to zero doesn't fill any fiscal holes. Moreover, his tax-plan slashes government revenue -- and mostly on the wealthiest.

So, if people are interested in cutting that $19 trillion debt that you speak, they are either talking about increasing revenue or cutting the big five or they don't know what they are talking about. Trump is on record of stating that he wants to reduce the debt -- which means running surpluses. He's also on record of increasing military spending and not touching entitlements. As I said previously, his tax-plan slashes government revenue.

One can safely say that Trump is one of those people that I mentioned that don't know what they are talking about, since his plans just can't work mathematically.

NATO skirmishes always suck the US into greater conflicts. The US bears the brunt of the military and financial load in these sucked skirmishes.

EDITardon me for no reading this post of yours to its entirety. A thriving economy creates tax revenue. Great amounts of it. A thriving economy created a few months of budget surpluses of a 'non-balanced' budget for George W. while in office.

 

[274ina]

Germany has huge trade surplus..................and WE PAY for THIER defense?

We have $19 TRILLION in DEbt..........................How about YOU pay for THEIR defense from YOUR
paycheck.

A special defend OTHERS payroll tax....................