Trump directly scolds NATO allies, says they owe "massive" sums

[puck2]

Referring to Trump's election campaign I saw this Brussels photo

 

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by puck2

[Thakkar]

5 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Someone needs to explain to Donald that NATO members don't each get a definitive bill. None of them "owe" anything.

With an agreement that members will spend 2% of GDP by 2024 in place, that is the start and finish to it.

Talking like this is only going to piss your allies off and prove once again that the wrong man is in the job.

Expectations were low for the European leg of President Trump’s first trip abroad, but it turns out they weren’t low enough.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/05/trump_creates_another_unnecessary_crisis_on_his_visit_to_nato.html 

[Jingthing]

The republicans referred to Obama's trips as apology tours.

I think I'll call this trump trip an Ugly American tour.

 

[muffy]

The Nato losers should pay up , NOW !

[maewang99]

and over the same decades the global elite have been supporting this same thing, by private investment flows that allow for the Exorbitant Privilege... pretty much... and based on confidence in the USA....

and Steve Bannon and Trump want to change this?





 

Edited May 26, 2017 by maewang99

[Thakkar]

4 hours ago, alanrchase said:

 

If all other NATO members raised their spending to 2% do you really believe that the USA would then cut its defence spending? As for fair is fair, it always seems to be the US that drags other NATO countries into their conflicts.

 

True. Article 5 has only been invoked once—by the US, under GW Bush when asking NATO to help the US in the invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11

[Jingthing]

A shockingly clumsy, extremely undiplomatic, so called speech. trump is an embarrassment and a disgrace. 

[JHolmesJr]

4 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

 

I was hoping when he said in his speech that 'America spends more on defence than all the other NATO countries put together" some aspiring global leader would have said 'Yes Mr President but you also have more of your own citizens dying each year because they cannot get medical treatment than all the other NATO countries put together'.

 

you seem to be ready to make the leap and finally run a country.

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                       If some of the money for soldiers & weapons were channeled instead toward teaching people to be more self-reliant, healthier, learn martial arts, develop alternative energy   ......then that is not strictly 'defense spending'  (according to Pentagon and weapons manufacturers' definition) .....but it does contribute to the strength of a country, and its ability to protect itself against outside threats.

 

                                     Just the word 'Defense' (American spelling) is off-putting.   Most 'defense' spending is on weapons and resources used for offense.   It would be more accurate to call it 'Offense Spending.'   More reasonable, would be to call it 'Military Spending.'

 

                         Even with trillions of dollars of 'defense spending', the most mighty military (and most bloated intelligence services) in world history couldn't keep 19 guys with 45 cent cutter knives from bombing the Trade Towers and the Pentagon.  Then, 16 years later, the American president picks Saudi Arabia as his first overseas destination, and curtsies to the Saudi King.  The same Saudi Arabia which provided all but one of the Twin Tower bombers (the exception was Lebanese). 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, sanukjim said:

Well if the slackers in NATO don't start paying more to their own defense where will they be if The US pulls out ? NATO was a good idea to keep The  Americans loosing their lives by going to Europe every twenty years or so ,pulling some of the nations out of the crap because they couldn't defend their self s.

 

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Like, Trump, You have little idea what you are talking about.

 

NATO is designed such that an attack on one is considered an attack on all. So regardless of the size of your nations defence you contribute to the effort of bringing down your allies foe. This CANNOT apply to terrorist attacks when there is no formal declaration of war by the ally against another sovereign nation. "war on terror" does not legally qualify.

 

Since WW2, the USA has had a global policy of finding as many countries as it can that will permit it to have strategic military bases so that it can project military power in close proximity to its main adversaries. The US military presence in the vast majority of other countries is one of choice by the US and NOT to be there for the defence of that nation, but to allow a rapid American military response against countries that could threaten American interests if conflict broke out. These bases which are used as forward deployment and logistics hubs are vital for US force projection. The USA does NOT pay anywhere near as much 'rent' as it should for the use of these bases and the land they are on, and when it rightfully does pay rent, Trump sees that as a contribution of payments to NATO - which it is NOT. The US military strategy could not work if they were to move out of all their foreign military bases. For example, the anti ballistic missile defence shield being set up in Eastern Europe is not for the protection of Eastern Europe but for the protection of the USA but Trump thinks NATO or the country it is based in should pay more to have it there!!. Trump and his mass-hypnotised supporters are WRONG, and the heads of state knew it when they were all smirking and thinking <deleted> at the NATO meeting.

Whilst I don't agree with everything stated in the posts above - they all raise good points.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

I'd add that the vast majority of posts are pure anti-trump rhetoric.  If anyone else had said this, a large number of posters would have likely agreed....

[mtls2005]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A shockingly clumsy, extremely undiplomatic, so called speech. trump is an embarrassment and a disgrace. 

 

He's been off Twitter for the duration (yes, professionals have been managing his Twitter feed during the trip) so is getting a bit pent-up. 

 

I suspect this weekend's Twitter barrage will be epic.

 

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, mtls2005 said:

 

He's been off Twitter for the duration (yes, professionals have been managing his Twitter feed during the trip) so is getting a bit pent-up. 

 

I suspect this weekend's Twitter barrage will be epic.

 

 

 

 

And yet another anti-trump post - as opposed to addressing the topic....

[Caps]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

Like, Trump, You have little idea what you are talking about.

 

NATO is designed such that an attack on one is considered an attack on all. So regardless of the size of your nations defence you contribute to the effort of bringing down your allies foe. This CANNOT apply to terrorist attacks when there is no formal declaration of war by the ally against another sovereign nation. "war on terror" does not legally qualify.

 

Since WW2, the USA has had a global policy of finding as many countries as it can that will permit it to have strategic military bases so that it can project military power in close proximity to its main adversaries. The US military presence in the vast majority of other countries is one of choice by the US and NOT to be there for the defence of that nation, but to allow a rapid American military response against countries that could threaten American interests if conflict broke out. These bases which are used as forward deployment and logistics hubs are vital for US force projection. The USA does NOT pay anywhere near as much 'rent' as it should for the use of these bases and the land they are on, and when it rightfully does pay rent, Trump sees that as a contribution of payments to NATO - which it is NOT. The US military strategy could not work if they were to move out of all their foreign military bases. For example, the anti ballistic missile defence shield being set up in Eastern Europe is not for the protection of Eastern Europe but for the protection of the USA but Trump thinks NATO or the country it is based in should pay more to have it there!!. Trump and his mass-hypnotised supporters are WRONG, and the heads of state knew it when they were all smirking and thinking <deleted> at the NATO meeting.

Yes, agreed.  I wonder what reaction they would get if the rest of NATO said' if you don't like it f off and take everything with you"?  

[champers]

Good to see TV footage of Theresa May putting DT back in his box after the US Secret (?) Service leaked confidential evidence from the Manchester bombing to the press. The hand holding days are over.

[Baerboxer]

Some countries consider lying, cheating and getting what you can for nothing out of any alliance as nothing wrong. 

 

Ignoring the lack of agreed spending on defense, which was freely signed up to, would anyone really want those countries as an ally?

 

If push came to shove, would they honor their mutual defense pact? Or do they expect it only benefits them if they're attacked?

[mtls2005]

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And yet another anti-trump post - as opposed to addressing the topic....

 

His pent-up "emotions" resulting from being unable to express himself via Twitter, along with being "exhausted" after such a long trip, certainly contributed to his less than stellar speech. This totally addresses the topic.

 

 

 

 

[pegman]

6 hours ago, habanero said:

Good!  I hope he sticks to it. After all,  fair is fair...........

The politicians of the other NATO countries are not owned by the munitions industry. In most of those other countries the health of their citizens are a priority, not paying back on campaign donations. 

[Caps]

Just now, Baerboxer said:

Some countries consider lying, cheating and getting what you can for nothing out of any alliance as nothing wrong. 

 

Ignoring the lack of agreed spending on defense, which was freely signed up to, would anyone really want those countries as an ally?

 

If push came to shove, would they honor their mutual defense pact? Or do they expect it only benefits them if they're attacked?

The jury is out for me in honouring the mutual defence pact...I could be wrong but i was under the understanding that NATO had an agreement with Ukraine not to have Nukes and NATO would look after it....that worked really well!?

[champers]

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Outta my way, punk!

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

Some countries consider lying, cheating and getting what you can for nothing out of any alliance as nothing wrong. 

 

Ignoring the lack of agreed spending on defense, which was freely signed up to, would anyone really want those countries as an ally?

 

If push came to shove, would they honor their mutual defense pact? Or do they expect it only benefits them if they're attacked?

Line 1 - you describe Trumps attitude.

 

Line 2 - Can you let us know what the agreed spending on defence was and which countries are not paying it?

 

Line 3 - That is for Russia to test. Russia believes that the pact would hold, that is why we didn't have to queue up for cabbages for 50 years in London. HOWEVER, Trumps destabilising influence on NATO is the biggest threat we have faced since WW2. If Trump successfully fractures NATO then Russia achieves the first goal it needs prior to any conflict. Get the traitor out of the White House.

[Baerboxer]

Just now, Andaman Al said:

Line 1 - you describe Trumps attitude.

 

Line 2 - Can you let us know what the agreed spending on defence was and which countries are not paying it?

 

Line 3 - That is for Russia to test. Russia believes that the pact would hold, that is why we didn't have to queue up for cabbages for 50 years in London. HOWEVER, Trumps destabilising influence on NATO is the biggest threat we have faced since WW2. If Trump successfully fractures NATO then Russia achieves the first goal it needs prior to any conflict. Get the traitor out of the White House.

 

Line 1 - yep, He lied as a businessman and will fit right in with all the politicians who constantly lie. He still not as polished a liar as them, but then he hasn't had their years of experience in lying politely.

 

Line 2 - look it up yourself! Google is your friend and easy to use. 

 

Line 3 - Putin certainly seems, for whatever reasons you wish to speculate, have a friend in Trump, intentional or otherwise. NATO still relies on the "Allies" not only being the protectors but in paying for it too. That's wrong. Not all countries shirk their responsibility but the ones who have been doing did so deliberately hoping the others would carry them. The cracks were there. Others turned a blind eye to it. How ever much you dislike Trump he's actually right to point this one out. 

[Baerboxer]

10 minutes ago, Caps said:

The jury is out for me in honouring the mutual defence pact...I could be wrong but i was under the understanding that NATO had an agreement with Ukraine not to have Nukes and NATO would look after it....that worked really well!?

 

Me too these days. 

[onthesoi]

3 hours ago, sanukjim said:

Well if the slackers in NATO don't start paying more to their own defense where will they be if The US pulls out ? NATO was a good idea to keep The  Americans loosing their lives by going to Europe every twenty years or so ,pulling some of the nations out of the crap because they couldn't defend their self s.

Wrong thread buddy...

 

[YetAnother]

this guy sure doesnt make friends easily

[alanrchase]

Some countries consider lying, cheating and getting what you can for nothing out of any alliance as nothing wrong. 
 
Ignoring the lack of agreed spending on defense, which was freely signed up to, would anyone really want those countries as an ally?
 
If push came to shove, would they honor their mutual defense pact? Or do they expect it only benefits them if they're attacked?

The agreed spending of 2% GDP is a "guidline" and not enforceable. The latest agreement gives member countries untill 2024 to increase their spending. Trump, yet again, is ignoring an agreement.

[elgordo38]

I recommended he buy the book "How To Make Friends And Influence People" and he decided to pass on the idea. There was a clip of him barging through a group of NATO well dignitaries for lack of a better word. Just watching him do this and the look on his face after he barged through was priceless in showing the inner workings of this "man"

[elgordo38]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump was "100 percent" committed to collective defence. "We are not playing cutesie with this. He is fully committed," Spicer said.

Way to go Sean another typical response in true Trump fashion. Geeeeeze

[maximillian]

Funneling more money towards the US Military Industrial Complex who are the real profiteers of any confict on this planet. More selfmade terrorists, more enemies, more wars, more sales of arms, more profit. And the profits are billions and billions of $. And they don't care about the victims wether the victims are US citizen, US soldiers, NATO soldiers or "just" Arabs, Russians, Pakistanies, Afghans, Libyens, Syriens, Iranians, Iraqis, Vietnamese, Koreans, Jemenites, Somalies or whoever.

It's them who are telling Trump what to do just like they told other presidents before. If one doesn't do what they are asking for... see JFK.

 

[anon4546543]

4 hours ago, sanukjim said:

Well if the slackers in NATO don't start paying more to their own defense where will they be if The US pulls out ? NATO was a good idea to keep The  Americans loosing their lives by going to Europe every twenty years or so ,pulling some of the nations out of the crap because they couldn't defend their self s.

I hope the US does pull out of NATO. 

And take all their military bases with them.

I wish they would pull out of ANZUS and take their military bases with them.

Is not going to happen. So sad.

[Thaidream]

Just to set the record straight- Article 5 was invoked when Al Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 and killed almost 3,000 people. 'An attack on one is considered an attack on all'.  I know that British and Dutch Air Forces headed for the US and helped protect American airspace against any further attacks.  Americans should be grateful for this assistance and I believe Trump indicated that.

 

However, his admonishment about individual countries not doing their part regarding budget is hollow. American bases all over the World are there mainly to either stop a war; or contain it in the theatre in which is occurring. In other words- the Americans would rather fight the Russians in Europe than America or the Chinese in Asia rather than America. The Europeans and Asians are also getting coverage from American forward deployments but they are also contributing troops and equipment and hosting Us Forces which puts them directly in the path of any war. Mr. Trump does not truly understand the US doctrine or in the way Europeans; the Japanese and S. Koreans are contributing to Us defense. He is showing his ignorance and complete lack of diplomacy and decorum in bringing this subject up in a public forum.

 

As an American- I am appalled that the 'defense budget' as it is called is now at $632 Billion with a request from the Trump Administration for another $54 Billion  and to what end. It is already the largest military budget in the World. At the same time- Trump wants to spend $20 Billion on a border wall which is worthless; more billions on intelligence agencies (America only has 17 such agencies) and increase the US Border patrol and judges so as to be able to deport millions of aliens, who may be illegal' but are essential for American agriculture and industry,

While all of the above is increased- Americans have no universal healthcare and the costliest (not necessarily the best)  while Europe; Japan and many other Nations (even Thailand) are able to provide healthcare for its citizens. In addition- Mr Trump and his minions want to cut programs for the poor and elderly and give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.There is already a complete imbalance in wealth distribution in America with the 1% of the wealthiest Americans controlling 90% of the countries total wealth.

America needs to scale back its military budget- not increase it: America needs to scale back its Intelligence agencies- not increase it; America needs a real universal healthcare program not the nonsensical plan being touted by Trump and his minions; and America needs universal free university tuition so students do not become indentured servants to the Government for 20-30 years after graduation. In addition, America needs to get out of Afghanistan and Syria and let the Russians spend their money and blood.

When Europe: Japan and other countries look at the above imbalances in American life and standards of living- why would anyone in their right mind follow the American line of reasoning and increase their military budgets to 2% of their Gdp.