Trump's remarks on NATO set off freakout

[Tigerace117]

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 How dare Trump suggest that we shouldn't automatically & unconditionally go to war on the basis of an outdated agreement which needs to be revised anyhow ...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.

NATO isn't "outdated"......

 

[Jredbaron96]

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.

Are you realy complaining about Estonia?

It has a population of just 1.3 million, 25% of which are ethnically Russian and have historically refused to integrate. Not surprisingly, the Estonian Defense Forces aren't eager to rely on recruiting manpower from a group that would form the perfect fifth column.

The Estonian GDP (nominal) is just 23.8 billion dollars, compared to 16.77 trillion for the USA. Despite this Estonia still spends over 2% of it's budget on the armed forces, but that still accounts to just $488 million.

And yet Estonia still has 17% of it's population in reserve. Estonia pulls it's own weight, the fact that it doesn't compare to the US is through no fault of it's own.

 

[RetiredUSN]

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

The European Union and other Nato countries should be in the forefront in protecting their own interests, borders, and waters.

We still we have a carrier group deployed in the "Med" 24/7 and 365 days every year, even during peacetime due to a useless and outdated NATO treaty agreement. There is another carrier group going through "works up's" for months on end to replace that carrier when it's deployment ends at the 6-10 month period. Europe and NATO countries enjoy the security and wealth generated from free trade, but cannot have their own patrol forces and carrier groups? Now, our carrier deployments are in the 9-10 month range, where they used to be 6 months at a time. It costs about 2.5 million dollars a day to operate a battle group depending on who's numbers you research.

The entire European Union combined, has a grand total of 3 carriers, 8 missile submarines, and 50 patrol submarines which limits any real forward projection of power, and this pretty much makes them a land locked fighting force.

We have over 70,000 military personnel stationed in Europe 24/7........ 365 days each year.

 

[SailaWay]

what you are seeing if you have glasses to see is a worldwide change in stopping liberalism and it is TRUMP leading the charge like teddy roosevelt leading the charge to stop the harm of monopolies .. TRUMP will be stopping Monopolies plus liberalism

 

[Cardinal]

The European Union and other Nato countries should be in the forefront in protecting their own interests, borders, and waters.

We still we have a carrier group deployed in the "Med" 24/7 and 365 days every year, even during peacetime due to a useless and outdated NATO treaty agreement. There is another carrier group going through "works up's" for months on end to replace that carrier when it's deployment ends at the 6-10 month period. Europe and NATO countries enjoy the security and wealth generated from free trade, but cannot have their own patrol forces and carrier groups? Now, our carrier deployments are in the 9-10 month range, where they used to be 6 months at a time. It costs about 2.5 million dollars a day to operate a battle group depending on who's numbers you research.

The entire European Union combined, has a grand total of 3 carriers, 8 missile submarines, and 50 patrol submarines which limits any real forward projection of power, and this pretty much makes them a land locked fighting force.

We have over 70,000 military personnel stationed in Europe 24/7........ 365 days each year.

Those are fascinating statistics. Do you agree then that we should abandon our allies and ignore our treaties as Trump says?

 

[Thoreau72]

I hope that on some level you understand that NATO and concepts such as MAD are the very things that have kept WWIII at bay.
Trump has never made a "good point". He is a hollow shell filled with sound bytes and bankrupt of morals.
And with this type of nonsense, he will get us into a war of the likes we have never seen.

I certainly agree with your assessment of Trump, but just like the blind hog finding the occasional acorn, even a man like Trump can make the random accurate statement.

NATO has evolved into a criminal organization, and its actions in Libya in cahoots with Hillary show that. Libya is even further from the North Atlantic than Afghanistan.

 

[Thoreau72]

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.

Chill dude, my point about geography was intended as humor, playing on the full name of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Perhaps we should change it to Planetary Treaty Organization, eh? Maybe Global Treaty Organization?

 

[Redress]

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.

So you do not know the difference between a political interest, and a military one. That is pretty amazing.

 

[Redress]

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.

I have not claimed Russia is a big threat. Do try and actually read what is written. Do you find reading that difficult?

 

[ocean515]

LOL...how many "liberals" do you honestly believe are Republicans? We know what you are saying.

It's not my responsibility to account for your cognitive dissonance challenges in order for you to comprehend simple statements.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Trump engaged in massive demagoguery last night, playing on fears of the other and warning of enemies both within and without.

Former World Chess Champion and current Russian dissident Gary Kasparov perhaps said it best...

Garry Kasparov ✔ @Kasparov63
I’ve heard this sort of speech a lot in the last 15 years and trust me, it doesn’t sound any better in Russian.

 

[Mithros]

The European Union and other Nato countries should be in the forefront in protecting their own interests, borders, and waters.

We still we have a carrier group deployed in the "Med" 24/7 and 365 days every year, even during peacetime due to a useless and outdated NATO treaty agreement. There is another carrier group going through "works up's" for months on end to replace that carrier when it's deployment ends at the 6-10 month period. Europe and NATO countries enjoy the security and wealth generated from free trade, but cannot have their own patrol forces and carrier groups? Now, our carrier deployments are in the 9-10 month range, where they used to be 6 months at a time. It costs about 2.5 million dollars a day to operate a battle group depending on who's numbers you research.

The entire European Union combined, has a grand total of 3 carriers, 8 missile submarines, and 50 patrol submarines which limits any real forward projection of power, and this pretty much makes them a land locked fighting force.

We have over 70,000 military personnel stationed in Europe 24/7........ 365 days each year.

Do you really think that it's a good idea for each country in Europe to maintain a military force sufficient to defend its borders from its neighbors? That's setting up conditions for a Europe wide arms race, and that didn't work so well the last two times we tried it.

The scariest thing to me is forgetting the lessons that cost so many lives to learn in the first place. People entered into WWI knowing that it was a stupid idea, but they did it anyway. Now we're in a situation where anything on the scale of a world war is going to involve nuclear weapons. There won't be anything left.

If we want to bicker about small sums of money fine, but any rhetoric aimed at destabilizing longstanding alliances in Europe could literally lead to the destruction of the world.

 

[apdst]

Are you realy complaining about Estonia?

It has a population of just 1.3 million, 25% of which are ethnically Russian and have historically refused to integrate. Not surprisingly, the Estonian Defense Forces aren't eager to rely on recruiting manpower from a group that would form the perfect fifth column.

The Estonian GDP (nominal) is just 23.8 billion dollars, compared to 16.77 trillion for the USA. Despite this Estonia still spends over 2% of it's budget on the armed forces, but that still accounts to just $488 million.

And yet Estonia still has 17% of it's population in reserve. Estonia pulls it's own weight, the fact that it doesn't compare to the US is through no fault of it's own.

No, I'm making a point about the flaws of NATO.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, I'm making a point about the flaws of NATO.

You did a very poor job, since you singled out a country that does all it reasonably can to support NATO.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I can't understand the demand that European countries should spend more money on their military. Because UK, France and Germany together spend more than double on their military compared to Russia. Instead it seems just that you need a discussion on prioritizing, coordination and increased efficiency amongst the NATO states militaries, and that require that the member states honor Article 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

An important discussion is also how to reduce the number of nukes the NATO states and Russia have, because having thousands of nukes is just insane. Because it is unnecessary to threaten the world with that absurd level of potential genocide. That if NATO states and Russian only had 100 nukes each it would still be more than enough deterrent. Because what country would want to have their biggest cities annihilated? Also you have the risk of accidents, huge cost of keeping the nukes and that the Russian nukes falling in the wrong hand if things destabilize in Russia.

You can also discuss if it is a so smart idea for USA and Europe to be so dependent on oil from the middle east, that Saudi Arabia now can have the world’s third biggest military spending. A country that is one of the world’s most brutal and fundamentalist dictatorship, especially since both the Iranian revolution and Saddam show what can happen then western countries allied themselves with brutal dictators.

 

[apdst]

You did a very poor job, since you singled out a country that does all it reasonably can to support NATO.

I mentioned several countries. You did a poor job of understanding the point.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I mentioned several countries. You did a poor job of understanding the point.

No, you did a ****ty as usual job presenting your point.

You listed Estonia, Albania, Luxembourg, and Iceland, four nations who's combined population is smaller than Colorado as evidence other NATO countries don't pull their own weight, as if anyone of these states aren't limited by either small economies or small populations.

 

[digsbe]

I think America should stand behind our allies. However, our allies shouldn't abuse us and skimp out on military spending/training because they know the US has their back. NATO is essentially a club that says "if something happens America will bail you out."

 

[apdst]

No, you did a ****ty as usual job presenting your point.

You listed Estonia, Albania, Luxembourg, and Iceland, four nations who's combined population is smaller than Colorado as evidence other NATO countries don't pull their own weight, as if anyone of these states aren't limited by either small economies or small populations.

Four nations who spend 1%, or less of their GDP in defense. Hungary's defense spending is .5% of its GDP. The United States' defense spending accounts for 3.5% of her GDP.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Four nations who spend 1%, or less of their GDP in defense. Hungary's defense spending is .5% of its GDP. The United States' defense spending accounts for 3.5% of her GDP.

Estonia spends 2.07% of it's GDP on defense.


Iceland and Luxembourg spending anything worthwhile on their military is pointless; they don't have the manpower or infrastructure to support a large standing force in the first place. Albania has bigger issues to worry about like poverty and dilapidated infrastructure.

The US spends so much on defense because we have allies and foreign presence that require the ability to project power on a global scale. Most of NATO are small states with much smaller populations and economies, expecting them to pull anywhere near the USA's weight is just unrealisitc.

And finally, the amount of money a nation spends on it's military doesn't really mean jack ****. Saudi Arabia spends more on their armed forces than anyone in Europe including Russia, but nobody would think Saudi Arabia can take on any European power.

 

[Socrates1]

I've said repeatedly that what Trump brings to the Presidency is nothing but chaos, in particular on the international stage. I noted that his petty snit with the mayor of London was just a tiny hors d'oeuvre -- a microcosm -- of the discord he would engender with our closest and most strategic allies. I was expecting the genuine alarms among our allies to be set off after (shudder) he might have been elected President. Trump, however, couldn't wait til January, so apparently he said "Screw it, I'll start now."


Pence, meanwhile, has been put in the position of having to appear to directly contradict Trump while also echoing his sentiments:



I already feel sorry for a Trump administration's press secretary.

Trump's remarks on NATO set off freakout - POLITICO

With over 700 billion PER YEAR fees screw them . Pay for your own protection . Let Germany pay 700 plus billion per year !

 

[apdst]

Estonia spends 2.07% of it's GDP on defense.


Iceland and Luxembourg spending anything worthwhile on their military is pointless; they don't have the manpower or infrastructure to support a large standing force in the first place. Albania has bigger issues to worry about like poverty and dilapidated infrastructure.

The US spends so much on defense because we have allies and foreign presence that require the ability to project power on a global scale. Most of NATO are small states with much smaller populations and economies, expecting them to pull anywhere near the USA's weight is just unrealisitc.

And finally, the amount of money a nation spends on it's military doesn't really mean jack ****. Saudi Arabia spends more on their armed forces than anyone in Europe including Russia, but nobody would think Saudi Arabia can take on any European power.

Again, you're looking at it from the wrong angle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

 

[RetiredUSN]

Those are fascinating statistics. Do you agree then that we should abandon our allies and ignore our treaties as Trump says?

The more important question whether the pansy azzed governments in Western Europe will step up to the plate and act like big boys and girls. Big boys and girls know how to take care of themselves. Meanwhile the USA continues to waste billions upon billions of dollars on the protection of Europe.

And yes, I would ignore these treaties until I see a real effort put forth by the Euro's.

Screw em.......

 

[RetiredUSN]

Do you really think that it's a good idea for each country in Europe to maintain a military force sufficient to defend its borders from its neighbors? That's setting up conditions for a Europe wide arms race, and that didn't work so well the last two times we tried it.

The scariest thing to me is forgetting the lessons that cost so many lives to learn in the first place. People entered into WWI knowing that it was a stupid idea, but they did it anyway. Now we're in a situation where anything on the scale of a world war is going to involve nuclear weapons. There won't be anything left.

If we want to bicker about small sums of money fine, but any rhetoric aimed at destabilizing longstanding alliances in Europe could literally lead to the destruction of the world.

No.... it's not rhetoric.

The European union and other non NATO European could as a collective set their own combined defense strategy. But they will not do it as long as they see the USA as a willing pit bull.

Small sums of money? That's BS.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Again, you're looking at it from the wrong angle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

...that doesn't address anything I said. That's just an article listing the member states of NATO.