Trump's remarks on NATO set off freakout

[clownboy]

So what you are saying is NATO works.

Yep, and also a good advertisement for each of the client states to pay for it.

 

[RetiredUSN]

It's fascinating watching former conservatives rush to the support of a strengthened Russia at the expense of weakened (and abandoned) allies, all just because Trump drops a verbal turd without giving it any thought. One genuinely wonder if he's an evil version of Charles Xavier, because it's extremely difficult to explain how they can defend literally anything he says...even as Pence rushes to go into damage control mode and contradict it.

Coming from a person who knows very little about the extensive manpower, logistics, costs, loss of life, and other personal sacrifices that american servicemen and servicewomen have to endure while maintaining European security.

Try doing 4 or 5 ten month deployments in a 7 year period yourself........................and then come back and tell us all about how it really is.

 

[Cardinal]

Coming from a person who --

I sincerely doubt anything worthwhile follows that.

 

[RetiredUSN]

I sincerely doubt anything worthwhile follows that.

Of course you don't, and I expected that of you because you offer nothing on the subject other than the usual garbage.

People like you never take into account, the sacrifices that U.S. service men/woman have to go through, or the costs to our own taxpayers.

 

[Cardinal]

Of course you don't, and I expected that of you because you offer nothing on the subject other than the usual garbage.

People like you never take into account, the sacrifices that U.S. service men/woman have to go through, or the costs to our own taxpayers.

So what you're saying is we should abandon our allies and ignore our treaties then.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

So what you are saying is NATO works.

One would have to see Russia as a threat in order for that statement to be true.

Which means absolutely nothing, except you cannot form a good argument.

Accusing one of having a poor argument is a poor argument in and of itself.

 

[Redress]

Yep, and also a good advertisement for each of the client states to pay for it.

Absolutely they should, but I would argue that NATO is too important to make that a condition. Not important in a world sense, but important to us, the US.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Absolutely they should, but I would argue that NATO is too important to make that a condition. Not important in a world sense, but important to us, the US.

So.... **** everyone else. America First.

Are you sure you're not voting for Trump?

I'd like to clarify my opposition to NATO predates Trump.

My opposition to Corporatist free-trade agreements predates Sanders AND Trump.

AND, my opposition to Hillary predates Sanders and Trump AS WELL.

I knew she was a hazard to the Obama Administration THE MOMENT he appointed her such.

 

[apdst]

And that comment comes from...where...exactly?



Then you don't know what NATO is.



It's a good point if you believe that alliances aren't important.

The United States provides most of the muscle for NATO. It's time for the other members nations to put out.

Estonia has 5,000 troops, Albania 8,000, Luxemburg 900, Iceland ZERO. Seeing how those nations, with the exception of maybe Iceland are going to be the front line, they need to build up their armed forces.

A lot of folks piss-n-moan about The size of America's military. Ours is so big, because theirs are so small.

 

[Top Cat]

Loose cannon.

 

[Redress]

So.... **** everyone else. America First.

Are you sure you're not voting for Trump?

I'd like to clarify my opposition to NATO predates Trump.

My opposition to Corporatist free-trade agreements predates Sanders AND Trump.

AND, my opposition to Hillary predates Sanders and Trump AS WELL.

I knew she was a hazard to the Obama Administration THE MOMENT he appointed her such.

Dude, the topic is NATO. No one cares which loser you support.

 

[coldjoint]

Dude, the topic is NATO. No one cares which loser you support.

He said something about NATO, he doesn't like it. He also told you what loser he did not support. Other than that....

 

[Cardinal]

The United States provides most of the muscle for NATO. It's time for the other members nations to put out.

Estonia has 5,000 troops, Albania 8,000, Luxemburg 900, Iceland ZERO. Seeing how those nations, with the exception of maybe Iceland are going to be the front line, they need to build up their armed forces.

A lot of folks piss-n-moan about The size of America's military. Ours is so big, because theirs are so small.

Yes, everybody is obligated to provide a prerequisite percentage. Your point?

 

[Redress]

The United States provides most of the muscle for NATO. It's time for the other members nations to put out.

Estonia has 5,000 troops, Albania 8,000, Luxemburg 900, Iceland ZERO. Seeing how those nations, with the exception of maybe Iceland are going to be the front line, they need to build up their armed forces.

A lot of folks piss-n-moan about The size of America's military. Ours is so big, because theirs are so small.

I started to fact check this, and it was so stupid with just Estonia I stopped. Let's look at just how stupid. Estonia actually has 17,500 active duty military, including the defense league(armed, trained, drilling government run militia). That is about 1.3 % of the countries population. For comparison, the US has about 2.1 million in the military, active duty and reserves. That is about .6 % of the population. So over double the percentage of service in Estonia. It should also be noted that Estonia met the goal given to NATO member countries for spending.

 

[apdst]

Yes, everybody is obligated to provide a prerequisite percentage. Your point?

My point? My point should be obvious. The other member nations need to bring more to the table.

 

[Cardinal]

My point? My point should be obvious. The other member nations need to bring more to the table.

Based on what? Create an actual argument, man. Beginning, middle, end. I'm not going to prompt you every single post until, twenty posts later, you finally make some kind of point as it pertains to the OP.

 

[Romanii]

Oh no, that's terrible! How dare Trump suggest that we shouldn't automatically & unconditionally go to war on the basis of an outdated agreement which needs to be revised anyhow ... this man is obviously a moron.

 

[upsideguy]

Turkey is almost as far from the North Atlantic as one can get in the northern hemisphere.

NATO has outlived its usefulness, and is about to get us started in WWIII.

On that, The Donald has a good point.

Perhaps you should look at your map once again..... Turkey is not about how far it is from the US.... its about its geographic position vis-a-vis Europe and particular world hot spots.

Trump only has a good point to those that have never left the US., physically or intellectually.

 

[apdst]

I started to fact check this, and it was so stupid with just Estonia I stopped. Let's look at just how stupid. Estonia actually has 17,500 active duty military, including the defense league(armed, trained, drilling government run militia). That is about 1.3 % of the countries population. For comparison, the US has about 2.1 million in the military, active duty and reserves. That is about .6 % of the population. So over double the percentage of service in Estonia. It should also be noted that Estonia met the goal given to NATO member countries for spending.

Do you understand the difference between, "total strength", and, "deployable strength"?

If Russia invades Turkey, Estonia isn't going to ssend it's entire 17,000 personel to Turkey.

But, I'll admit I made the mistake of assuming that everyone knows how the member commitment works. I'll be more specific in the future.

 

[apdst]

Based on what? Create an actual argument, man. Beginning, middle, end. I'm not going to prompt you every single post until, twenty posts later, you finally make some kind of point as it pertains to the OP.

I've already made my pointt, twice. Its not my fault you can't keep up.

 

[Redress]

Do you understand the difference between, "total strength", and, "deployable strength"?

If Russia invades Turkey, Estonia isn't going to ssend it's entire 17,000 personel to Turkey.

But, I'll admit I made the mistake of assuming that everyone knows how the member commitment works. I'll be more specific in the future.

If Russia invades Turkey, Estonia has no real military interest, but would still likely send troops. And probably a larger portion of their population than the US would, despite the US having a large military interest in keeping Russia out of Turkey.

I will admit that I made the mistake in assuming every one knows how the real world works, what ratios are, larger strategic pictures(what would we want Estonia to do in such a situation...hint: guarding their borders would be pretty important to us) and the strategic value of Estonia to us, which is pretty valuable(Tallinn alone would be a huge port for us in the event of a war with Russia, which we would want to hold as long as possible).

 

[apdst]

If Russia invades Turkey, Estonia has no real military interest, but would still likely send troops. And probably a larger portion of their population than the US would, despite the US having a large military interest in keeping Russia out of Turkey.

I will admit that I made the mistake in assuming every one knows how the real world works, what ratios are, larger strategic pictures(what would we want Estonia to do in such a situation...hint: guarding their borders would be pretty important to us) and the strategic value of Estonia to us, which is pretty valuable(Tallinn alone would be a huge port for us in the event of a war with Russia, which we would want to hold as long as possible).

Estonia and Turkey are members of NATO. You don't have a clue how NATO works, do you?

Whether, or not Estonia actually deploys troops to Turkey, the point is, they only have 6,000 that they can deploy. That's only about one-quarter of an American division.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

He said something about NATO, he doesn't like it. He also told you what loser he did not support. Other than that....

I have a whole arsenal armed and ready for deployment should s/he try to contest the point that Russia is no threat, that is what terrifies him/er.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

If Russia invades Turkey, Estonia has no real military interest, but would still likely send troops. And probably a larger portion of their population than the US would, despite the US having a large military interest in keeping Russia out of Turkey.

I will admit that I made the mistake in assuming every one knows how the real world works, what ratios are, larger strategic pictures(what would we want Estonia to do in such a situation...hint: guarding their borders would be pretty important to us) and the strategic value of Estonia to us, which is pretty valuable(Tallinn alone would be a huge port for us in the event of a war with Russia, which we would want to hold as long as possible).

Russia is not as big a threat as you would have you Warmonger-in-Chief say it is. It is so blatantly obvious what your and your Dear Leader's agenda is.

 

[Ahlevah]

It doesn't matter what intentions exist deep within the maddened caverns that make up Donald's id are. What matters is what he says and the chaos that ensues among our closest and most strategic allies as a result. When the leading NATO power essentially says "Screw NATO," then the individual NATO members flee to self reliance. This creates the potential for an entire line of dominos constructed entirely of Crimeas. Which, if you had bothered to so much as Wiki NATO in the first place, you would know was specifically created to prevent.

Only five of NATO's 28 countries are living up to their financial commitments to the alliance. Trump is right:

It was not the first time that Trump has criticized NATO, formed in 1949 by the United States, Canada and 10 European countries to defend one another against the Soviet Union. His primary objection has been economic. Washington pays about a fifth of NATO’s direct costs, more than any other country, and roughly 75 percent of all military spending, according to a 2015 NATO report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c48430-4f51-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html

Sorry, but if a country isn't willing to honor its commitments to provide the funding necessary for its own defense, then why should we defend them?