Trump says NATO is obsolete but still "very important to me"

[webfact]

Trump says NATO is obsolete but still "very important to me"

REUTERS

 

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a press conference in Trump Tower, Manhattan, New York, U.S., January 11, 2017. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

 

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said NATO was obsolete because it had not defended against terror attacks, but that the military alliance was still very important to him, The Times of London reported.

 

“I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete," Trump told the newspaper in an interview. "It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right."

 

Trump added that many NATO members were not paying their fair share for U.S. protection.

 

“A lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States," Trump said. "With that being said, NATO is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much."

 

(Reporting by William James, editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-16

[DM07]

I can not even begin to understand what this brain dead manbaby is babbeling! NATO is obsolete, but important? Pick one, you monkey!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, DM07 said:

I can not even begin to understand what this brain dead manbaby is babbeling! NATO is obsolete, but important? Pick one, you monkey!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

To be fair, I think he does have a point. I think he tried to say that NATO is not suitable for the modern warfare against terrorism, but still is important regarding classic war actions and scaring other countries.

[simple1]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

To be fair, I think he does have a point. I think he tried to say that NATO is not suitable for the modern warfare against terrorism, but still is important regarding classic war actions and scaring other countries.

 

Really begs the question if Trump comprehends the current contributions of NATO in counter terrorism development as surely it is also 'owned' by the US. Accordingly, IMO, he is again directly criticising US security and military policy, without I assume current full knowledge of the issues and strategy development. To put it simply - a bigmouth.

 

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77646.htm

[rockingrobin]

Does he want to run it like a  protection racket, if you cant pay we will not defend you

[DM07]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Does he want to run it like a  protection racket, if you cant pay we will not defend you

Mafia-style!

"wouldn't it be too bad, if Russia came knocking on your door and you would have no protection, because you don't pay, what I ask of you?!"

[the guest]

The US is probably right, can't expect them to keep wiping the <deleted> of non-paying members. Perhaps trump will pull-out of NATO, then the other members will start coughing up !

[douglasspade]

I think NATO is mismanaged. One of the last "oopsies" that were made was with Boko Haram...

 

NATO gave the entire armory of an advanced industrial state to the region’s most sectarian militias,  LIFG, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram, in 2012 - Libia. Nigeria is a UN member but not NATO affiliated, whiles terrorism in their country - (with NATO supply weapons) spiraled out of control. Where were their help when their people were abducted and slaughtered? 

 

In 2015 Boko Haram resulting deaths were up to odd 6,600 compared to ISIS's odd 6100, making them the top rated terrorist group in 2015.

 

These situations should be avoided by the hand of doom, and NATO should be managed with more forethought. I am slightly worried with Trump on the reins all of a sudden ...

Edited January 16, 2017 by douglasspade

[kamahele]

Perhaps the most inarticulate human being on the planet.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, kamahele said:

Perhaps the most inarticulate human being on the planet.

Not on the planet, and inarticulate is way too polite a word to describe what comes out of the man baby PEOTUS's mouth. 

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, DM07 said:

I can not even begin to understand what this brain dead manbaby is babbeling! NATO is obsolete, but important? Pick one, you monkey!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Perhaps what he is saying is NATO needs substantial reform, that it was set up when its members thought the next war would be against the no longer existing Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries in a formal war. Not against terrorists and their guerrilla and clandestine covert war and attacks.

And he makes the very valid point - NATO members should not expect a free ride courtesy of American Taxpayers. Those who haven't been paying should be named and shamed - and given the choice to pay up what they owe or piss off.

[Slickrick]

Think about it. He's right.

[wwest5829]

My apologies to all. As an American, I will suffer with you until the end of The Donald's Administration. The elected leader of one of the US's staunchest allies in Western Europe being equaled as equal to the Russian leader who unilaterally seized sovereign territory in the Ukraine. Right!!!

 

For the record I voted for neither US major political party candidate. I did not believe that either deserved my vote. Yep, another unhappy Sanders supporter. Read the historical background of The Donald and Hillary, then Sanders. The US and the world could have been better served.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Perhaps what he is saying is NATO needs substantial reform, that it was set up when its members thought the next war would be against the no longer existing Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries in a formal war. Not against terrorists and their guerrilla and clandestine covert war and attacks.

And he makes the very valid point - NATO members should not expect a free ride courtesy of American Taxpayers. Those who haven't been paying should be named and shamed - and given the choice to pay up what they owe or piss off.

 

Perhaps the PEOTUS ought to be clearer with his statements, or at the very least, consistent. Think it would work out better if people wouldn't have to guess, second-guess or try finding hidden meanings in his words.

 

 

[Morch]

Quote

“I took such heat, when I said NATO was obsolete," Trump told the newspaper in an interview. "It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right."

 

And then they started saying Trump is right.

 

I don't recall him actually bringing up the counter-terrorism angle back when he made these comments, but could be wrong. In the same way, not everyone "started saying Trump is right". Far from it. At least not wholesale agreement.

[Jingthing]

His reference to himself in the third person is so very bizarre.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Jingthing

[White Christmas13]

[Andaman Al]

It won't be too long before NATO leaders can say Trump is obsolete.

[retarius]

Sometimes Trump is a duffer and sometimes he is onto something. It is time NATO was consigned to the dustbin of history instead of being a fig leaf for American aggression. NATO did a good job of costing loads of tax revenue and feeding the US's military industrial complex when talking to the Soviets would have been cheaper and more effective. When the wall came down, so should have NATO.

[optad]

Seems more like, the United States wants to maintain a large military, which is a big political plus in certain US domestic quarters, but needs to share the impossibility of the bill. 

 

Reminder. Reagan won the cold war after Carter's detente by just outspending and broke the soviets, as it were then. Russian ICBMs just became negligible as a result. I know little of US treasury sureties but the massive military budgets it must face and an 18 trillion dollar debt palls GM's manufacturing problems and China's single aircraft carrier division. THe world has changed but the US model seems to have remained the same.

 

A lot of holes here I know but sayin', something has to give if Trump is redefining most everything else.

 

Russia wins either way. A weakened NATO is not positive given Europe other issues atm.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

"It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror.

Taking care of terrorism within a sovereign NATO nation is the duty of that nation's government.

NATO can provide additional military capacity to undertake crisis-management operations" if requested and approved unaimously by NATO members. NATO does not have the unilateral perogative to mobilize military operations within a member nation

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html#basic

The "taking care of terror" goes beyond physical security. But Trump tends to react to what he sees ( or preceives to see in some cases) and not to what he should know. Hopefully his Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security and State can bring Trump from catch-phrases to strategic understanding of terror threats.

[Becker]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

Sometimes Trump is a duffer and sometimes he is onto something. It is time NATO was consigned to the dustbin of history instead of being a fig leaf for American aggression. NATO did a good job of costing loads of tax revenue and feeding the US's military industrial complex when talking to the Soviets would have been cheaper and more effective. When the wall came down, so should have NATO.

As long as there are Putins and Xis there's a need for NATO. That should be bloody obvious. The man-child is correct in one thing though; the NATO members must pay their agreed upon share of the costs.

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

To be fair, I think he does have a point. I think he tried to say that NATO is not suitable for the modern warfare against terrorism, but still is important regarding classic war actions and scaring other countries.

Boy this guy has a great way to make friends. 

[elliss]

9 hours ago, DM07 said:

I can not even begin to understand what this brain dead manbaby is babbeling! NATO is obsolete, but important? Pick one, you monkey!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

          May I humbly suggest ,  you ask the  American electorate ,  aka Democracy .

[DM07]

11 hours ago, elliss said:

 

          May I humbly suggest ,  you ask the  American electorate ,  aka Democracy .

Ask them about what?

Nato?

The monkey?

[stevenl]

14 hours ago, optad said:

Seems more like, the United States wants to maintain a large military, which is a big political plus in certain US domestic quarters, but needs to share the impossibility of the bill. 

 

Reminder. Reagan won the cold war after Carter's detente by just outspending and broke the soviets, as it were then. Russian ICBMs just became negligible as a result. I know little of US treasury sureties but the massive military budgets it must face and an 18 trillion dollar debt palls GM's manufacturing problems and China's single aircraft carrier division. THe world has changed but the US model seems to have remained the same.

 

A lot of holes here I know but sayin', something has to give if Trump is redefining most everything else.

 

Russia wins either way. A weakened NATO is not positive given Europe other issues atm.

Agree with you to a large extend, except I think you're giving Reagan too much credit here.

 

But yes, US claims it wants to reduce the deficit, one way would be to get other countries to spend more on NATO so the US can spend less on it, but on the other hand the US really does not want to spend less. It wants to remain the global power with the biggest military, and the military complex is pushing that. And that costs money.