Shock, condemnation after Trump questions NATO commitments

[Tchooptip]

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I don’t believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I don’t think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

Your correct Cory---those countries you mentioned are paying the full amount----the countries that are not are Britain---France etc, In fact Britain was down to paying under 1% last time.

It says in the article that the UK is one of those paying their way. I'd be chasing Germany, France, Spain, Italy for more contributions.

But mind you Germany, France,Spain, Italy, will not give a #&*~ for a Thai Visa member chasing them

[ClutchClark]

It happened on Clinton's Watch and Clinton grabbed the credit at the time...but I figured you would be the one to call me on it.

It did not "happen on Clinton's Watch".

The Bush administration negotiated it and Bush signed it.

This is unambiguous.

Please try and be clear and unequivocal in your remarks, then you won't need to be corrected.

Chicog,

I know you are seldom wrong but are you absolutely certsin Bush #41 signed it?

Here is a video of Slick Willy signing NAFTA:

http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/bill-clinton/videos/clinton-signs-nafta

Or perhaps you prefer this one:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nafta-signed-into-law

I certainly hope you are correct since I have no desire to embarrass you after your above lecture to me.

Perhaps you meant to say Bush initialed the Draft but were ambiguous in your post?

Edited July 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ilostmypassword]

It happened on Clinton's Watch and Clinton grabbed the credit at the time...but I figured you would be the one to call me on it.

It did not "happen on Clinton's Watch".

The Bush administration negotiated it and Bush signed it.

This is unambiguous.

Please try and be clear and unequivocal in your remarks, then you won't need to be corrected.

Chicog,

I know you are seldom wrong but are you absolutely certsin Bush #41 signed it?

Here is a video of Slick Willy signing NAFTA:

http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/bill-clinton/videos/clinton-signs-nafta

I certainly hope you are correct since I fear I would be the focus of your wrath for months to come.

Clinton signed it but Bush 41 negotiated it. Also, House Democrats voted against it by 156 to 102. If it weren't for overwhelming Republican support in the House, Nafta would have died.

Edited July 22, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Skywalker69]

What's the fuss?

Y'all want the USA to pull your chestnuts out of the fire again?

Well you "pull your chestnuts out" of Vietnamn, didn´t you?

[ClutchClark]

Clinton was in office from January 20, 1993 -- January 20, 2001.

NAFTA signed December 08, 1993. (This appears to be 322 days into the Clinton Presidency).

i better review my checklist:

No Ambiguity? Check.

Unequivocal? Check.

Clear? Check.

[ClutchClark]

It happened on Clinton's Watch and Clinton grabbed the credit at the time...but I figured you would be the one to call me on it.

It did not "happen on Clinton's Watch".

The Bush administration negotiated it and Bush signed it.

This is unambiguous.

Please try and be clear and unequivocal in your remarks, then you won't need to be corrected.

Chicog,

I know you are seldom wrong but are you absolutely certsin Bush #41 signed it?

Here is a video of Slick Willy signing NAFTA:

http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/bill-clinton/videos/clinton-signs-nafta

I certainly hope you are correct since I fear I would be the focus of your wrath for months to come.

Clinton signed it but Bush 41 negotiated it. Also, House Democrats voted against it by 156 to 102. If it weren't for overwhelming Republican support in the House, Nafta would have died.

Yeah, I remember it well, although I didn't recall the vote tally.

I was just asking this rhetorically since Chicog had lectured me in the very post that he made the error in.

Its all in good fun...Chicog is not only sexy as all hell in those curlers but smart as a tack to boot.

Edited July 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Chicog]

Yeah, I remember it well, although I didn't recall the vote tally.

I was just asking this rhetorically since Chicog had lectured me in the very post that he made the error in.

Its all in good fun...Chicog is not only sexy as all hell in those curlers but smart as a button to boot.

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-17-1992-pres-bush-signs-nafta-15205420

[ClutchClark]

Yeah, I remember it well, although I didn't recall the vote tally.

I was just asking this rhetorically since Chicog had lectured me in the very post that he made the error in.

Its all in good fun...Chicog is not only sexy as all hell in those curlers but smart as a button to boot.

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-17-1992-pres-bush-signs-nafta-15205420

This explains the process in better detail.

Clinton certainly had opportunity to change the Bill prior to it being ratified but he chose to "fast track" it instead.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clinton

It is clear that he fully supported NAFTA and this is how I recalled it at the time.

It was obvious it would hurt American Labor and Industry but like many Americans, I did see my net worth go up substantially during those Clinton years.

[RabC]

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I dont believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I dont think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

Your correct Cory---those countries you mentioned are paying the full amount----the countries that are not are Britain---France etc, In fact Britain was down to paying under 1% last time.

You really do make this up as you go along don't you?

[Caps]

After 67 years of America defending Europe its time Europe defended Europe.We are broke. Time to pack and go home.

Bye...close the door on the way out

Lets not forget why you are in Europe.....its got nothing to do with you defending Europe, thats second....its to do with you having early warning from the Russians so as to give the US more of a chance. You forget one thing, America doesn't do anything unless its in their interest.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Caps

[Caps]

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I don’t believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I don’t think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

Your correct Cory---those countries you mentioned are paying the full amount----the countries that are not are Britain---France etc, In fact Britain was down to paying under 1% last time.

Ummmm really, drivel!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/23/corker-blasts-germany-laggards-nato-spending/86302256/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/07/nato-defense-spending-gdp-2-percent-fair-share/86791080/

Edited July 22, 2016 by Caps

[Johnpound46]

Hang on, the Senate Republican leader says it's just a "rookie mistake"? Oh, Ok! That's great. The potential next president of the USA makes rookie mistakes. What other ones with potentially grave consequences will he make?

It's like someone on this forum mentioned a while ago: a president with training wheels, that's exactly what the country (and the world) will get with Trump.

[adhd]

a very good idea of the future president !

would it not be nice to see on the USA loving countryboys & supporting the army, how much of one's paycheck is actually going to make war in a foreign country that had nothing to do with anything in the first place ...

US countrymen are so proud of the soldiers & support them for protecting america, FROM WHAT ?

when was america attacked the last time ? (please don't quote the false flag of pearl harbour)

soldiers going to other countries to kill other people because it is their job or ordered to ?

[mesterm]

All the elites are disgusted by Trump but the common people seem to support his sentiment. Maybe because they are the ones actually living in reality and not some liberal wet dream.

No they are the same kind of people who you can see on old newsreels of the Nuremberg rallies and look how that ended up

So Trump is Hitler because he does NOT want to go to war with Russia and continue to expand nato's lebensraum in eastern Europe.

I personally don't think Trump is a good presidential candidate, but if so many people can look past his buffoonery and still support him then you'd have to admit that the real concerns of Americans are not being properly addressed.

[Chicog]

Yeah, I remember it well, although I didn't recall the vote tally.

I was just asking this rhetorically since Chicog had lectured me in the very post that he made the error in.

Its all in good fun...Chicog is not only sexy as all hell in those curlers but smart as a button to boot.

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-17-1992-pres-bush-signs-nafta-15205420

This explains the process in better detail.

Thank ---- for that.

[Cory1848]

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I don’t believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I don’t think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

Your correct Cory---those countries you mentioned are paying the full amount----the countries that are not are Britain---France etc, In fact Britain was down to paying under 1% last time.

Ummmm really, drivel!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/23/corker-blasts-germany-laggards-nato-spending/86302256/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/07/nato-defense-spending-gdp-2-percent-fair-share/86791080/

Where's the "drivel" (??) -- The UK is indeed paying its full share, and otherwise the three articles you cite say the same thing the original post did regarding spending by Poland and Estonia. The articles don't mention Latvian and Lithuanian spending specifically, but more recent ones do. (My comment that Trump couldn't find the Baltic states on a map is speculation on my part.)

[RabC]

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I dont believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I dont think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

Your correct Cory---those countries you mentioned are paying the full amount----the countries that are not are Britain---France etc, In fact Britain was down to paying under 1% last time.

Ummmm really, drivel!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/23/corker-blasts-germany-laggards-nato-spending/86302256/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/07/nato-defense-spending-gdp-2-percent-fair-share/86791080/

Where's the "drivel" (??) -- The UK is indeed paying its full share, and otherwise the three articles you cite say the same thing the original post did regarding spending by Poland and Estonia. The articles don't mention Latvian and Lithuanian spending specifically, but more recent ones do. (My comment that Trump couldn't find the Baltic states on a map is speculation on my part.)

I believe like me he was saying OXOs post was drivel.

[dunroaming]

IF Trump did win and follows through on his insane threats then I can see no problem with the US pulling out of NATO. After all they will never be on-board with any of Trumps lunacy so better to just stand back and let him crash and burn. Trump wants his country back and is not interested in alliances with the outside world. Let's see how he gets on with that. Don't know why we are bothering with this debate though, the American people are not stupid enough to really elect him.

[simple1]

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I don’t believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I don’t think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

Your correct Cory---those countries you mentioned are paying the full amount----the countries that are not are Britain---France etc, In fact Britain was down to paying under 1% last time.

Deleted

Edited July 22, 2016 by simple1

[Rancid]

The US has the largest military budget in the world by strides. Would seem like common sense if wanting to return some sanity to the increasing budget deficit to save at least some money.

EU seems all gung ho at the moment for a clash with Russia, makes sense to me then that they should carry more financial load. It's no secret that without the US that NATO is a toothless tiger, the EU should contribute more.

[Caps]

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I don’t believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I don’t think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

Your correct Cory---those countries you mentioned are paying the full amount----the countries that are not are Britain---France etc, In fact Britain was down to paying under 1% last time.

Ummmm really, drivel!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/15/news/nato-spending-countries/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/06/23/corker-blasts-germany-laggards-nato-spending/86302256/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/07/nato-defense-spending-gdp-2-percent-fair-share/86791080/

Where's the "drivel" (??) -- The UK is indeed paying its full share, and otherwise the three articles you cite say the same thing the original post did regarding spending by Poland and Estonia. The articles don't mention Latvian and Lithuanian spending specifically, but more recent ones do. (My comment that Trump couldn't find the Baltic states on a map is speculation on my part.)

Read what it says under your post, I didn't quote you

[Caps]

The US has the largest military budget in the world by strides. Would seem like common sense if wanting to return some sanity to the increasing budget deficit to save at least some money.

EU seems all gung ho at the moment for a clash with Russia, makes sense to me then that they should carry more financial load. It's no secret that without the US that NATO is a toothless tiger, the EU should contribute more.

So its got nothing at all to do with the US setting up another missile defence system on European soil?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/nato-missile-defense-romania-poland/

Yes of course you have a large military budget, you are a large country and if you keep picking on other countries then you are going to have to spend more. It must be such hard work being the worlds bullies

If you want to leave NATO shut the door on the way out,,,,but that won't happen due to what I have said in previous posts on thus thread

[dunroaming]

Rancid

If you actually think that the EU is "gung ho" for a clash with Russia then you really have no grasp on reality concernig what happens in Europe. There was a time whenthe USA were seen as the world's policemen but those days are long gone. You're role is to support (as we all do) the fight against injustice and threats, no more than that.

[RabC]

The US has the largest military budget in the world by strides. Would seem like common sense if wanting to return some sanity to the increasing budget deficit to save at least some money.

EU seems all gung ho at the moment for a clash with Russia, makes sense to me then that they should carry more financial load. It's no secret that without the US that NATO is a toothless tiger, the EU should contribute more.

I guess someone believes his own propaganda

[ilostmypassword]

If Trump is elected it will give good benchmark date for some not so distant future Chinese historian writing "Decline and Fall of the American Empire"

That timeline already started under Clinton's NAFTA and was accelerated under GWB and then most recently by Obama.

Trump is far from Number One on that list.

Nafta was negotiated by George H.W. Bush. The Democrats in the House voted against it. If it weren't for the overwhelming support of Republicans there would be no Nafta.

[bassman]

Isn't Trump saying that if other countries, named specifically as Latvia, Estonia & Lithuania, don't pay the bill they agreed to then we may no linger provide services?

What part of that is unreasonable?

The article also states this non-payment of membership dues to NATO has been a long-standing issue.

Russia is the neighbor of Eastern European countries who rely on NATO for protection. When the monthly bill arrives in the mail I would think it is the one to be paid first.

1. A treaty is not a matter of providing services for payment. If a treaty ally is threatened, demanding payment before acting to counter that threat is essentially blackmail. A treaty is an obligation, pure and simple.

2. Estonia and Poland both meet their NATO obligations in full by spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Latvia is ramping up defense spending and is committed to reaching 2 percent by 2018. Lithuania, while also ramping up defense spending, is admittedly behind and has committed to reaching 1.5 percent of GDP by 2018.

3. I don’t believe that Trump is aware of these facts; for Trump, even these simple statements are already TMI. In fact, I don’t think that Trump could point out the Baltic states on a map.

A treaty is an obligation by all parties. As so many rich European countries fail to meet their 2% contribution, I would consider terms of the treaty already breached. An insurance company has a commitment to provide care, see how much they pay on your next visit if your policy is not paid up.

[ilostmypassword]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is Trump's connections to Russian businessmen. By his own admission he does a lot of business with Russia. Maybe the reason he's being so positive about Putin is that it would bad for his business to do otherwise.

[ozyjon]

Military waste is a big issue for a country that's broke,

the US is and will start to cut back its military spending,

this has been talked about for years but nothing has been

done about it, NATO also will eventually end, the goal for

the new world order will (not end) only to be replaced by

a new EU army also been on the discussion table for

years, so Trump gets on the podium and states what has

been discussed before and suddenly its SHOCK, HORROR

i don't get it, the negative propaganda being pushed around,

i can't wait to see what rubbish CNN and the likes have to

say on the matter, the problem with Trump is that he's not

a politician, he doesn't know how to lie, and hes telling the

truth, and some people can't stand the truth.

[ilostmypassword]

Military waste is a big issue for a country that's broke,

the US is and will start to cut back its military spending,

this has been talked about for years but nothing has been

done about it, NATO also will eventually end, the goal for

the new world order will (not end) only to be replaced by

a new EU army also been on the discussion table for

years, so Trump gets on the podium and states what has

been discussed before and suddenly its SHOCK, HORROR

i don't get it, the negative propaganda being pushed around,

i can't wait to see what rubbish CNN and the likes have to

say on the matter, the problem with Trump is that he's not

a politician, he doesn't know how to lie, and hes telling the

truth, and some people can't stand the truth.

Trump doesn't know how to lie?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Junkyarddog]

This and that and that and this. Whatever. Its time We Americans rounded up our horses and put them back in our own barn. We don't want to pay for Europe's defense anymore and we don't want to send our children to die. Its time every country took care of their own affairs and leave America to try and figure out how to pay back twenty trillion dollars. Besides that is the best defense and best thing for Europe. If America goes under we are looking at mucho problemo.