Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

If he is successful in his bid for reelection, then American membership of NATO would be over.

 

Having made a statement like that, he, and by extension the USA, cannot be trusted as allies. He is on record as advocating, or at least suggesting, a Russian attack on Europe. Fine, if that is to be your game, off you go. It will effectively end your ability to operate far beyond your borders, your massive armed forces will be redundant.

 

We (the rest of NATO) should withdraw all basing facilities, land, air and naval.

It is inconceivable that we can allow powerful forces to be based in and operate from the alliance when their Commander in Chief has openly advocated that Russia should attack members of the alliance. The same is true of the posts held by America within various NATO joint headquarters. With Trump in place as President they would be subject to divided loyalties.

 

The same would be true of joint projects - the ending of NORAD for example, would leave a massive air defence gap for Northern USA. The Canadians would have to concentrate on defending their population centres, mainly in the South East of Canada, and not bother too much about the vast empty reaches in the North and West. That would leave a large open flank for the USA. The closure of foreign naval and air bases in Italy and Spain would for example hamstring the US Navy in the Mediterranean - the nearest open port would be on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

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.

 

 

Edited February 13 by nauseus

[candide]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

The biggest problem that the EU and UK face is not Russia, but their own politicians dreams of glory and their overtasking of their own military's by taking on too many commitments with not enough people and equipment to do the job properly, in addition to all the other tasks the politicians have already committed to.

 

A prime example is that the UK is talking about sending 50% of its aircraft carrier fleet (there are only 2 carriers anyway) to the Red Sea. Sending a carrier is easy, BUT the carrier also needs support vessels and a fleet of replenishment vessels for food, water, ammunition, fuel for ships, fuel for aircraft and many other tasks as well.

 

Meanwhile whilst that fleet is in the Red Sea, what covers the tasks it normally does? If you se the 2nd carrier to cover for the first carrier tasks, what do you have left to cover the second carriers tasks.

 

In addition to that you also have to maintain the first carrier and all its equipment, the task force ships that are with it and resupply all the weapons, fuel etc and give all the crews some rest time before the next politician comes up with an equally stupid or even a worse plan.

 

From what I can gather from the UK defence news is that the military is having a big problem with retaining people and recruiting new people.

It's mainly the UK and France. Other countries don't have much extra-territorial ambitions.

Same problem with the French operations against Islamist rebels in Africa. They needed the U.S. logistical support.

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

How romantic!

 

More like cringe....

[FroeyD]

On 2/12/2024 at 7:54 AM, transam said:

McTrump is an embarrassment for the USA.........😟

US has become an embarrassment long before Trump

[FroeyD]

On 2/12/2024 at 8:56 AM, scorecard said:

 

Trump has an appalling track record of not paying many contractors and hotel employees etc., and for not pay dozens of lawyers but has no hesitation to make statements re NATO countries. 

 

He's an Idiot. 

What is the correlation??

[metisdead]

Just a reminder that posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names  will be deleted.  If you don’t want your post to be deleted, spell people’s names correctly.

 

Edit:  A troll post commenting on moderation has been removed.

Edited February 13 by metisdead

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, FroeyD said:

What is the correlation??

You don't see the correlation between not paying your bills and calling out others for not paying your bills?

[FroeyD]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

You don't see the correlation between not paying your bills and calling out others for not paying your bills?

Yes my bad.

cause you said statements so wasn’t sure what you were referring to.

[thaicurious]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

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

 

Your point is moot because even if the USA remained listed as a NATO member, as president, an impeached, indicted, arrested, civil court of justice determined sex abuser who only looks a tad younger because he paints his face orange can decide to not send military aid, effectively negating that membership...

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history

"How can Trump affect the U.S.' role in NATO if elected?

If elected, Trump is institutionally limited from unilaterally pulling the U.S. from NATO because of legislation passed by the Senate last year.

 

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to adopt international treaties like NATO, but it doesn't clarify if the chamber needs to approve withdrawals from treaties.

Recognizing that limitation, the Senate passed legislation that prohibits presidents from drawing the U.S. from NATO without two-thirds Senate approval or an act of Congress.

However, Trump as president could still significantly damage the treaty by attempting to remove the U.S. and sending the matter to the courts.

He could also continue to undermine the U.S.' commitment to other NATO countries.

He could slash U.S. contributions to NATO's collective budget, as his administration sought to do in 2019, retract U.S. troops based in Europe or prevent the admission of new members, which requires unanimous approval.

If a NATO member were attacked, Trump also isn't legally required to send armed forces or respond in a defined manner and could limit U.S. assistance or potentially withhold it entirely.

This is because of the language of the treaty itself, which leaves the onus on members up to interpretation and discretion.

The treaty does not require a specific response from members because it's founded on the trust that all members will collectively safeguard shared values, like individual liberty, democracy and human rights.

But if that trust is gone, so too is the essence of the alliance." (bolding & underlining mine)

[peter zwart]

America, once a fantastic country. Now sunk to the laughingstock of the world with so-called leaders like Biden and Trump. And even worse, the average American who chooses one of the two camps and then ends up at each other's throats. They should form a unity and demand leaders who restore some dignity to the country.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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.

 

 

Do you accept Trump’s statement undermines NATO unity and hence increases the risks to all NATO members?

[thaicurious]

23 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

America, once a fantastic country. Now sunk to the laughingstock of the world with so-called leaders like Biden and Trump. And even worse, the average American who chooses one of the two camps and then ends up at each other's throats. They should form a unity and demand leaders who restore some dignity to the country.

Right, such a laughing stock that the world is shaken at the thought of losing its NATO partner.

 

Biden is not a so-called leader. Biden is the President of the United States of America currently listed by Sienna College Research as the 19th best president the US has ever had. Trump is listed as the 2nd worst. See the difference?

 

https://scri.siena.edu/2022/06/22/american-presidents-greatest-and-worst/

Siena’s 7th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2022

Top Five, Rushmore Plus 1 Remain Unchanged; FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt & Jefferson

Worst Five Again – Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Trump, Harding & Pierce

Biden Enters Ranking 19th, LBJ Moves into Top Ten, Obama 11th, Ike firmly 6th, Ronald Reagan rated 18th Best President (bolding mine)

 

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

Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) is an affiliate of Siena College, located originally in Friars Hall and now in Hines Hall on the college's campus, in Loudonville, New York, in suburban Albany.[1][2][3] It was founded in 1980.[4]

It conducts both expert and public opinion polls...

 

starting in 1982 SCRI has polled presidential scholars in an effort to rate both the United States presidents[10][11] and U.S. First Ladies

 

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

Siena College is a private Franciscan college in Loudonville, New York.[6][7] Siena was founded by the Order of Friars Minor in 1937. The college was named after Bernardino of Siena, a 15th-century Italian Franciscan friar and preacher

 

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

The Franciscans are a group of related mendicant Christian religious orders within the Catholic Church. Founded in 1209 by the Italian saint Francis of Assisi

Edited February 13 by thaicurious
typo

[nauseus]

54 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

Your point is moot because even if the USA remained listed as a NATO member, as president, an impeached, indicted, arrested, civil court of justice determined sex abuser who only looks a tad younger because he paints his face orange can decide to not send military aid, effectively negating that membership...

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history

"How can Trump affect the U.S.' role in NATO if elected?

If elected, Trump is institutionally limited from unilaterally pulling the U.S. from NATO because of legislation passed by the Senate last year.

 

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to adopt international treaties like NATO, but it doesn't clarify if the chamber needs to approve withdrawals from treaties.

Recognizing that limitation, the Senate passed legislation that prohibits presidents from drawing the U.S. from NATO without two-thirds Senate approval or an act of Congress.

However, Trump as president could still significantly damage the treaty by attempting to remove the U.S. and sending the matter to the courts.

He could also continue to undermine the U.S.' commitment to other NATO countries.

He could slash U.S. contributions to NATO's collective budget, as his administration sought to do in 2019, retract U.S. troops based in Europe or prevent the admission of new members, which requires unanimous approval.

If a NATO member were attacked, Trump also isn't legally required to send armed forces or respond in a defined manner and could limit U.S. assistance or potentially withhold it entirely.

This is because of the language of the treaty itself, which leaves the onus on members up to interpretation and discretion.

The treaty does not require a specific response from members because it's founded on the trust that all members will collectively safeguard shared values, like individual liberty, democracy and human rights.

But if that trust is gone, so too is the essence of the alliance." (bolding & underlining mine)

 

 

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?

Edited February 13 by nauseus

[candide]

So Putin gets a major propaganda interview, and then shortly after that, Trump wakes up and evokes the possibility of not helping NATO countries if Russia attacks them! What a coincidence 😀

[nauseus]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you accept Trump’s statement undermines NATO unity and hence increases the risks to all NATO members?

 

You can see what I've said already today.  

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

So Putin gets a major propaganda interview, and then shortly after that, Trump wakes up and evokes the possibility of not helping NATO countries if Russia attacks them! What a coincidence 😀

 

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

 

 

[nauseus]

22 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Right, such a laughing stock that the world is shaken at the thought of losing its NATO partner.

 

Biden is not a so-called leader. Biden is the President of the United States of America currently listed by Sienna College Research as the 19th best president the US has ever had. Trump is listed as the 2nd worst. See the difference?

 

https://scri.siena.edu/2022/06/22/american-presidents-greatest-and-worst/

Siena’s 7th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2022

Top Five, Rushmore Plus 1 Remain Unchanged; FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt & Jefferson

Worst Five Again – Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Trump, Harding & Pierce

Biden Enters Ranking 19th, LBJ Moves into Top Ten, Obama 11th, Ike firmly 6th, Ronald Reagan rated 18th Best President (bolding mine)

 

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

Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) is an affiliate of Siena College, located originally in Friars Hall and now in Hines Hall on the college's campus, in Loudonville, New York, in suburban Albany.[1][2][3] It was founded in 1980.[4]

It conducts both expert and public opinion polls...

 

starting in 1982 SCRI has polled presidential scholars in an effort to rate both the United States presidents[10][11] and U.S. First Ladies

 

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

Siena College is a private Franciscan college in Loudonville, New York.[6][7] Siena was founded by the Order of Friars Minor in 1937. The college was named after Bernardino of Siena, a 15th-century Italian Franciscan friar and preacher

 

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

The Franciscans are a group of related mendicant Christian religious orders within the Catholic Church. Founded in 1209 by the Italian saint Francis of Assisi

 

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

[thaicurious]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

do you have a point at all?

Special rules wouldn't be needed. According to the Axios, by the language of the treaty itself any member could make their membership ineffective while still maintaining membership. Please try reading the Axios article that makes your point moot before declaring that no point has been made. If you have trouble understanding the article, feel free to simply google other sources which have determined similarly to what Axios has found to be the case.

54 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history

"How can Trump affect the U.S.' role in NATO if elected?

If elected, Trump is institutionally limited from unilaterally pulling the U.S. from NATO because of legislation passed by the Senate last year.

 

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to adopt international treaties like NATO, but it doesn't clarify if the chamber needs to approve withdrawals from treaties.

Recognizing that limitation, the Senate passed legislation that prohibits presidents from drawing the U.S. from NATO without two-thirds Senate approval or an act of Congress.

However, Trump as president could still significantly damage the treaty by attempting to remove the U.S. and sending the matter to the courts.

He could also continue to undermine the U.S.' commitment to other NATO countries.

He could slash U.S. contributions to NATO's collective budget, as his administration sought to do in 2019, retract U.S. troops based in Europe or prevent the admission of new members, which requires unanimous approval.

If a NATO member were attacked, Trump also isn't legally required to send armed forces or respond in a defined manner and could limit U.S. assistance or potentially withhold it entirely.

This is because of the language of the treaty itself, which leaves the onus on members up to interpretation and discretion.

The treaty does not require a specific response from members because it's founded on the trust that all members will collectively safeguard shared values, like individual liberty, democracy and human rights.

But if that trust is gone, so too is the essence of the alliance." 

 

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Special rules wouldn't be needed. According to the Axios, by the language of the treaty itself any member could make their membership ineffective while still maintaining membership. Please try reading the Axios article that makes your point moot before declaring that no point has been made. If you have trouble understanding the article, feel free to simply google other sources which have determined similarly to what Axios has found to be the case.

 

 

Just read the NATO treaty. Much better.

[thaicurious]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

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

 

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study/about-the-presidents-study/

The study calls upon historians, political scientists and presidential scholars to rate the presidents in twenty areas:

Background

Imagination

Integrity

Intelligence

Luck

Willing to take risks

Avoid crucial mistakes

Court appointments

Domestic Accomplishments

Executive Appointments

Foreign Policy accomplishments

Handling of U.S. Economy

Party leadership

Relationship with Congress

Ability to compromise

Communication ability

Executive ability

Leadership ability

Overall ability

 

So they survey historians, political scientists and presidential scholars. And your qualifications are???

 

see also https://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-worst-presidents/slideshows/the-10-worst-presidents?slide=10

The 10 Worst U.S. Presidents

Not all U.S. presidents are missed once they leave the White House.

2 (tie). Donald Trump

Born: June 14, 1946

Presidential Term: Jan. 20, 2017 - Jan 20, 2021

Vice President: Mike Pence

The only living president among the 10 worst presidents in history, Trump is also the only president to be impeached twice. Despite the swirling legal troubles around him – including criminal charges surrounding his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results – Trump is running again in the 2024 presidential election... (bolding mine)

 

[Nick Carter icp]

43 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Right, such a laughing stock that the world is shaken at the thought of losing its NATO partner.

 

Biden is not a so-called leader. Biden is the President of the United States of America currently listed by Sienna College Research as the 19th best president the US has ever had. Trump is listed as the 2nd worst. See the difference?

 

https://scri.siena.edu/2022/06/22/american-presidents-greatest-and-worst/

Siena’s 7th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2022

Top Five, Rushmore Plus 1 Remain Unchanged; FDR, Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt & Jefferson

Worst Five Again – Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Trump, Harding & Pierce

Biden Enters Ranking 19th, LBJ Moves into Top Ten, Obama 11th, Ike firmly 6th, Ronald Reagan rated 18th Best President (bolding mine)

 

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

Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) is an affiliate of Siena College, located originally in Friars Hall and now in Hines Hall on the college's campus, in Loudonville, New York, in suburban Albany.[1][2][3] It was founded in 1980.[4]

It conducts both expert and public opinion polls...

 

starting in 1982 SCRI has polled presidential scholars in an effort to rate both the United States presidents[10][11] and U.S. First Ladies

 

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

Siena College is a private Franciscan college in Loudonville, New York.[6][7] Siena was founded by the Order of Friars Minor in 1937. The college was named after Bernardino of Siena, a 15th-century Italian Franciscan friar and preacher

 

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

The Franciscans are a group of related mendicant Christian religious orders within the Catholic Church. Founded in 1209 by the Italian saint Francis of Assisi

 

 

   Those are polls conducted from 141 people, who were all invited to participate in the pool 

[thaicurious]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Just read the NATO treaty. Much better.

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

Article 5[edit]

The key section of the treaty is Article 5. Its commitment clause defines the casus foederis. It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in the areas defined by Article 6, to be an armed attack against them all. Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as [the member state] deems necessary

 

So all he'd have to do is "joke" "I don't deem it necessary" and he wouldn't have to send US forces. You'd either have to be an idiot to not understand this or purposely deceptive.

[thaicurious]

19 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Those are polls conducted from 141 people

historians, political scientists and presidential scholars

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

historians, political scientists and presidential scholars

 

   141 people 

[Tug]

56 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   141 people 

Your boy trump is a New York City trust fund baby POW insulting draft dodging Putin fan boy twice impeached convicted sex offending convicted finance fraudster chairty fraudster on record as the lying ist politician in recorded history this is blatant inyour face on record on video in the news every day FACTS I as a lay person can see it and obviously it’s alarming on the nato issue I would take trump at his word he’s a danger and an American disgrace 

[Jingthing]

Trump speaks and the champagne corks pop in the Kremlin.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, thaicurious said:

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

Article 5[edit]

The key section of the treaty is Article 5. Its commitment clause defines the casus foederis. It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in the areas defined by Article 6, to be an armed attack against them all. Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as [the member state] deems necessary

 

So all he'd have to do is "joke" "I don't deem it necessary" and he wouldn't have to send US forces. You'd either have to be an idiot to not understand this or purposely deceptive.

 

Is your name Biden?

[Skipalongcassidy]

7 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

Your point is moot because even if the USA remained listed as a NATO member, as president, an impeached, indicted, arrested, civil court of justice determined sex abuser who only looks a tad younger because he paints his face orange can decide to not send military aid, effectively negating that membership...

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history

"How can Trump affect the U.S.' role in NATO if elected?

If elected, Trump is institutionally limited from unilaterally pulling the U.S. from NATO because of legislation passed by the Senate last year.

 

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to adopt international treaties like NATO, but it doesn't clarify if the chamber needs to approve withdrawals from treaties.

Recognizing that limitation, the Senate passed legislation that prohibits presidents from drawing the U.S. from NATO without two-thirds Senate approval or an act of Congress.

However, Trump as president could still significantly damage the treaty by attempting to remove the U.S. and sending the matter to the courts.

He could also continue to undermine the U.S.' commitment to other NATO countries.

He could slash U.S. contributions to NATO's collective budget, as his administration sought to do in 2019, retract U.S. troops based in Europe or prevent the admission of new members, which requires unanimous approval.

If a NATO member were attacked, Trump also isn't legally required to send armed forces or respond in a defined manner and could limit U.S. assistance or potentially withhold it entirely.

This is because of the language of the treaty itself, which leaves the onus on members up to interpretation and discretion.

The treaty does not require a specific response from members because it's founded on the trust that all members will collectively safeguard shared values, like individual liberty, democracy and human rights.

But if that trust is gone, so too is the essence of the alliance." (bolding & underlining mine)

You left out the part of the NATO agreement that states that if you do not pay your dues you are not a full fledged member... that is what this is about.

[candide]

14 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

You left out the part of the NATO agreement that states that if you do not pay your dues you are not a full fledged member... that is what this is about.

And of course, you have a quote and a source confirming that countries which don't meet the 2% pledge are not full fledged members?

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

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. 

What human on the planet has never said something that was "poorly worded, foolish and unnecessary"?

Like the Billy tapes this will IMO make no difference on the vote, which is many months away.