nauseus

So dramatic!

What a crock.

The ignorance here is shown up in that curious comment you just replied to.

That is correct and that is the serious money.

I didn't overlook anything. Go away.

Is your name Biden?

Just read the NATO treaty. Much better.

Biden 19th best? I bet St Francis was be rolling over in his crypt (with laughter).

Not really. Trump was repeating parts of a conversation from years ago.

You can see what I've said already today.

The current National Defense Authorization Act requires the senate and House to approve US withdrawal from NATO. All these other rules and conditions are from NATO and apply to any NATO member. Are you saying that the US should have special rules? You think my point is moot but do you have a point at all?

Trump has said too much this time (again) but I doubt that he seriously means to cancel US membership of NATO - I don't think he can do that anyway - as far as I understand it, the US National Defense Authorization Act stops any President from unilaterally taking the USA out of NATO without significant Senate and House approval. Similarly, I do not believe that he is seriously advocating any Russian attack on any part of Europe. If the European NATO members wanted rid of US influence then I suppose they could form their own alliance but a NATO without the USA would not be much of a deterrent at all. Why you mention NORAD is a mystery, it is nothing to do with NATO and it looks like that you are just speculating. Like Trump, maybe you should slow down a bit.

How romantic!

Please stop pasting in that same old blurb. Thanks in advance.

Well let's face it, "quality" candidates are in short supply all round.

I think they agreed it in 2006 too. Yes, I agree it was fair for Trump to criticize this failure in 2017 but his comments a few days ago were poorly worded, foolish and unnecessary.

If you mean that if you want him to lose the next election, then yes, you should be encouraging him to keep speaking like he is.

And I disagree back. Trump is on a roll with these primaries, so far, but he talks too much after them and can't recognize the best time to shut t/f up. Whether off-the-cuff or that he didn't mean to be taken seriously, it really doesn't matter - it's what the people in America and the rest of the world think that matters - especially right now.

I'll leave the call outs to you.

You enjoy your CNN now, you hear?

I think that many will be worried about it, especially those who have not heard his views on this before, as he expressed in 2017, in Belgium at NATO, I think? However, this time his words are more careless. I think Trump has gone too far with this and that he would be better off laying low for a bit - if he wants to have any chance in November.

I was talking about what he said in Europe, at NATO, when was President. Not last Saturday.

Take care and be respectful then. RIP.

A bit like paying your membership of the flying club then expecting a free plane! The contributions required by NATO are peanuts compared to 2% of any nation's GDP. If those 100 tanks were to be required in a hurry, who do you think NATO would look to to supply them?

Trump did not suggest that NATO 'partners' pay or have to pay the USA at all! In fact NATO members are expected to spend a minimum of 2% of their individual GDP's on their own militaries, which can include direct and indirect funding to NATO itself. "NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (around EUR 3.3 billion for 2023). These funds enable NATO to deliver capabilities and run the entirety of the Organization and its military commands". https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm But, in fact, nearly 20 years after the agreement less than half NATO members are still yet to make the 2% mark. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/defence-spending-pledges-by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/