╌>

Trump Says He Might 'Encourage' Russia To Attack NATO Allies

  
Via:  Gsquared  •  2 weeks ago  •  170 comments

By:   Yahoo News

Trump Says He Might 'Encourage' Russia To Attack NATO Allies
"You gotta pay your bills," said the former president notorious for not paying his own bills.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former President Donald Trump delivered an alarming message to U.S. allies during a Saturday rally where he outlined a scenario in which he would "encourage" Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" to other NATO members.

Speaking to a crowd in Conway, South Carolina, Trump told a story that cast himself as a tough-talking negotiator.

"NATO was busted until I came along," he began. "I said, 'Everybody's going to pay.' They said, 'Well, if we don't pay are you still going to protect us?' I said, 'Absolutely not.' They couldn't believe the answer."

He rehashed the story a few moments later.

"One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, 'Well sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?' I said, 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?' He said, 'Yes, let's say that happened.' No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want," Trump said.

"You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills," he added.

The audience cheered loudly for the former president, who is notorious for failing to pay bills on the campaign trailand in his past business endeavors.

It is not clear whether the scenario Trump described actually happened. Trump frequently takes credit for supposedly pressuring other NATO members into contributing more funding during the course of his first term.

But it's a flawed claim.


Trump: One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, Well, sir, if we don't pay and were attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said.. No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. twitter.com/2RPVDFZIXy
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 10, 2024

As The Washington Post and other fact-checkers have noted, NATO member nations pledged to boost their funding over a period of 10 years at a 2014 summit held to address Russian aggression. Direct NATO funding has been increasing since then — although not at the pace needed to reach the goal set in 2014.

The alliance, however, is primarily strengthened through indirect funding, which is funding that member nations spend on their own individual militaries that could be called upon to assist the group if needed. NATO's Article 5 states that member nations must treat an attack on one as an attack on all.

As of last year, Trump would not have the power as president to unilaterally withdraw the United States from NATO.

While he has made various comments about potentially doing so in the past, Congress passed legislation in December barring any president from withdrawing the U.S. from the organization without congressional cooperation.

The move came amid ongoing efforts by a far-right faction of Republicans to cut back or stop U.S. funding to Ukraine. The Eastern European nation, which is seeking NATO membership, has been fending off a Russian takeover for nearly two years.

On Saturday, Trump suggested the $95 billion aid package to Ukraine and Israel currently making its way through the Senate should instead take the form of a loan. He successfully pressured Republicans to kill a larger aid package that would also address U.S. immigration earlier this month.


Red Box Rules

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.  Any use of the terms "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.  Right wing trolls can expect to have their trolling comments deleted.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1  seeder  Gsquared    2 weeks ago
Trump: One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, Well, sir, if we don't pay and were attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said.. No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. twitter.com/2RPVDFZIXy
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 10, 2024

Trump would encourage Russia to attack NATO allies.  This is the leader of the republican party.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1    2 weeks ago

trumpsters, thumpers, and russians, all allied on the same side... cool.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @1    2 weeks ago

It sounds like treason

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2    2 weeks ago

That's exactly what it is.

I'm sure this has only increased his poll numbers and support.f

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2    2 weeks ago

it's an american patriotism litmus test. if putin moves on poland in europe, we can move on maga here...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3  CB  replied to  Gsquared @1    2 weeks ago

Donald Trump is shameless. Apparently, the GOP is shameless too.  The time has come NTers. . . the GOP/MAGAs are waging 'scorched earth' politics with and on the Democratic Party and Others whom affiliate themselves with the party! Time to get real about what is happening out in the real world and even right here on NT. 

GOP/MAGAs are not even true to their own talking points. We can test that theory by launching a discussion on communism and its values and watch them whine about it, rage against it, swear to destroy it, and then have their "dear leader" stand at a podium and praise the diminishment of NATO and support for Putin's Russia and Xi's China in the next 'breath.'

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3    2 weeks ago

That might be an interesting discussion to read.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.2  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Communism in the U.S.A would be a good thing for the U.S.A. Forget capitalism as we know it. A 'test run.'   

NOTE: I hope the seeder of this article will allow a brief side-issue (for clarification purposes of Trump supporters' worldview on communism). To those who may comment let's keep it 'tight' and to the point.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

Sure, mass starvation, poverty and the murder of millions will be a good thing for the USA 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3.4  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

that sounds like the remainder of the trump presidency from 11/19 ...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.2    2 weeks ago
Communism in the U.S.A would be a good thing for the U.S.A.

800

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.6  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.5    2 weeks ago

Look at Trump not me. I am just the 'messenger.' ;) 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

I was going to ask for some clarification and parameters as to what could be agreed on as the definition of communism.

The only examples we have are from the 1900s, and using that wouldn't communism be exactly what is said trump will do if elected (again)? And is being opposed?

OR is this test run only going to be good because of who might be in charge?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.3.8  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  CB @1.3.2    2 weeks ago

Communism in the U.S.A. would be a TERRIBLE, HORRIFIC thing for the U.S.A. as it would be anywhere.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.6    2 weeks ago

Well that's the same look he would get so......

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @1.3.8    2 weeks ago

On that , we agree

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.11  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.10    2 weeks ago

Of course I agree with you and Gsquared: The U.S. A. should not be a communist nation.

One has to wonder why the GOP/MAGAs 'party' has not condemned the remarks made by Trump over the weekend about the topic of some NATO countries being left undefended and allowed to become communist bloc countries-under any set of circumstances and losing their democracy.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @1.3.11    2 weeks ago

Russia is not a communist country 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.13  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.12    2 weeks ago

Yet you do not bother to elaborate. So let's leave it at that.  And still no mention of condemnation for Trump's commentary on NATO and Russia this past week from you.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.14  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.11    2 weeks ago

If you go down to 6.3 on this seed , think I explained my position. Or at least what my understanding is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.15  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.14    2 weeks ago

Thank you for the offer and the 'read' -as I did go and read the comment. What I am specifically asking about is Russia's governmental status in the world (socialist, communist, or capitalist, etceteras) with Sean.

As for other considerations you have aptly listed in a comment to SP, not much of that should be available or will be awkwardly kept if Russia overruns a NATO country. As the saying goes: "Possession is nine tenths of the law." Also, there is the unforeseen to take stock of: Should a formerly NATO country become a possession of Russia. . .and decide to CHOOSE to stay its possession. . .its an obvious SETBACK for the United States that will have to 'win' the state back to NATO, and it may not be possible, certainly will be costly in manpower and more!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.15    2 weeks ago

If you asked that while I was serving I would have said commie, today I think because of what has happened since the fall of the Soviet union , is some form of a hybrid authoritarian with a flavor of dictatorship, I say that because the president and premier seem to always swap roles every few years.

What most don't realize about the former Soviet and today's modern Russia is there were republics , with a governmental constitution , just like the USA, but both were vastly different in delegated powers.

So best I can say about Russian government today is a blend of authoritarian dictatorship  while making it look like an elected government of the people with just enough capitalistic enterprise to foster advancement financially but not enough so that everyone is equal and the government still gets the rewards.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.17  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.3    2 weeks ago
Sure, mass starvation, poverty and the murder of millions will be a good thing for the USA 

Where did you get that from? A small rhetorical flourish? I don't think that you would know communism if it bashed you in the forehead. Now, you might know what people who were not concerned with word definitions called "communism" in the hangover from the Great Red Scare, but that is not communism. That is what someone with a personality like Trump called communism. 

It is amazing that people just let these big fucking dicks have power and control over them and most of the time do not even realize it. Actually, I take that back. People know who is a dick. People know who the asshole in charge is, but they are so concerned about living day to day that they have the choice of letting the bastards rule... or living. When it comes down to that level, it is no surprise that many people choose to let the asshole ride, because it is too difficult, too time-consuming, and too dangerous to stand up and be counted as being against totalitarianism. Poo-poo me if you want, but that is what Trump is leading us toward with his love affairs with dictators and his total disregard of the Constitution. The writing has been on the wall for a long time, only stupid people say "Nahhhhh, he wouldn't do that!"

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.18  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.16    2 weeks ago

That is the point I am attempting to make to Sean (who has stepped back or is away). Trump is using a threat of abandonment to unknown forces, i.e. Russia to spur specific NATO countries to action (seeming whether they can actually hit the agreed upon 2 percent military expenditure level or not - as I don't know the NATO 'particulars'). But the problem could be an honest and obvious set of reasons why said countries can not  'perform' as they would like or are expected (I don't know those reasons). . . and timing is everything. But let us not kid ourselves, we value NATO as an organization and our long-term relationship in it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @1.3.17    2 weeks ago

Too many people define communism as that popularized by the former USSR.   It is, IMO, a lost cause encouraging people to do a little research to distinguish the system of the former USSR from the idealized Marxist idea of a stateless, classless, democratic society with an abundance of resources and the opportunity to live and pursue interests without having to labor endlessly to survive.    Idealistic?   Absolutely!   But that is how Marx envisioned communism.

The former USSR was the polar opposite.   A corrupt, brutal, authoritarian, single-party, undemocratic state that worked its people to death and produced a harshly defined class system where the party class exploited the proletariat class.  But because the former USSR called their system communism, that became the popular definition and very few have the intellectual curiosity and objectivity to explore the etymology of the term. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.3.20  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.19    2 weeks ago

The "idealized Marxist idea" you described could never exist.  It does not comport with the realities of human nature.  History teaches us that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.21  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @1.3.20    2 weeks ago
TiG@1.3.19 Idealistic?   Absolutely!

My point was not suggesting this was possible.   It was to contrast the original meaning of the word 'communism' per Marx with the polar opposite meaning based on the former USSR.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.18    2 weeks ago

First off, I think Putin and his generals are scared shitless of NATO,it is the nature of the org structure they want to break down, also understand in the past, conflict to gain territories or allies shall we call them .they forced with violence and outnumbering the opponent.

With NATO they have a problem , they can't over run a smaller country like Estonia or the other Baltic states or bully a neighbor like Finland to grab conditions, not if they belong to a charter that has pledged mutual defense against any aggression, on any single member of the charter.

Now top that off with a fear that someone is going to invade you, history has shown it was done a number of times, from the mongols of ghengis Khan all the way to nazi Germany, and that is not even considering the political turn overs from tribal to czars to monarchy to socialism /communism from Leninism ,stalinism through all the communist leaders right to Putin, they had a pretty shitty road really if you look.

Their answer under Soviet rule was buffer nations, the old iron curtain, Warsaw pact .problem for them , Soviet rule was outspent and it went bankrupt and could no longer support itself.after the fall the buffer nations the milked and ruled with approved leaders didn't stick around with hem , they didn't share in the misery. Those nations sick of rule from Moscow and the tribute required to be paid to same sought out so ething more beneficial to them. that was the west , NATO and the EUe onomic block.

Wars are fought for 2 reasons defense and to gain or take territory for economic gain .no one has attacked Russia, even if that's what they want the rest of the world to think,they want their buffers back that I think I can say don't want to return to a Russian style economic model,or become pawns for super power wannabes. They( rus) want the economic benefits of cheap commodities and the economic influence that comes with all that without having to pay for or work for it.

        To be continued......

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @1.3.17    2 weeks ago
here did you get that from?

Try reading a history book. Or Marx. Or Lenin who made Marx relevant. 

ou would know communism if it bashed you in the forehead

I'm sure I've forgotten more than you'll ever know on the topic. But sure, hit me with the juco dropout rebuttal of "real communism" has just never been tried. It's sure to work next time!

Poo-poo me if you want, but that is what Trump is leading us toward with his love affairs with dictators and his total disregard of the Constitution.

He was President for four years. What Orders of the Supreme Court did he disobey? What political  opponents did he put in jail/execute?  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.21    2 weeks ago
rast the original meaning of the word 'communism' per Marx with the polar opposite meaning based on the former USSR.

Lol. It's amazing how ignorant of history the communism apologists are.  Of course, given the hundred million slaughtered by its adherents, I can see why they are so eager to disassociate from any communist who actually tried to implement Marxist doctrine.  

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.3.25  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.19    2 weeks ago
But because the former USSR called their system communism,that became the popular definition

Perhaps that's because every other country that became communist embraced the Soviet definition?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.26  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.19    2 weeks ago

Well, I think it wise to remember the old adage: "You can fool all of the people some of the time..."

Communist, Marxist, or Socialist just equals "bad" in the standard perception of the average American, because the average American (feels they) have little time to "do a little research to distinguish the system of the former USSR from the idealized Marxist idea". I guess they have to check their tick-talk feed to see what the latest droppings are from Taylor Swift or Beyonce`. I mean, they can take time out of their day to determine who to vote for on America's Got Talent, (oh, sorry, that is just AGT for convenience sake), but they can't read the Constitution or some court ruling or Treaty that can have a profound effect on their lives.

I just don't get it. Must be what Trump is hoping for: America will be off naval gazing when he comes to take over. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.27  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  GregTx @1.3.25    2 weeks ago

Stalin was the one that fucked things up for Marxist communism, because after him all the rest even if they tried to change things found out in order to maybe get it to work you still needed an authoritarian dictator to keep things on path.

True Marxist communism will and never would work, because humans are to corruptable and selfish, along with a lot of other things.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.3.28  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.21    2 weeks ago

I understood that you were not suggesting it is possible.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.29  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.24    2 weeks ago

The ignorance (stubborn ignorance even) are those who refuse to recognize that the brutality of the former USSR was the polar opposite of Marxist doctrine.   

It is truly idiotic for someone to believe that the former USSR was attempting to produce a stateless, classless, democratic society with an abundance of resources and the opportunity to live and pursue interests without having to labor endlessly to survive. 

It was a corrupt, brutal, authoritarian, single-party, undemocratic state that worked its people to death and produced a harshly defined class system where the party class exploited the proletariat class.   

The former USSR (in particular, Stalin) changed the definition of the word 'communism' to that which was the polar opposite of its original meaning.   

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.3.30  GregTx  replied to  Thomas @1.3.26    2 weeks ago
distinguish the system of the former USSR from the idealized Marxist idea

Why would they or should they when that has been the model that has been emulated?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.31  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.3.25    2 weeks ago
Perhaps that's because every other country that became communist embraced the Soviet definition?

Yes, Greg, that is what happened.   The former USSR was the pioneer of the new meaning for 'communism'.   When other nations adopted the former USSRs single-party rule, command-economy, authoritarian state, undemocratic system they took the name as well.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.3.32  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.27    2 weeks ago

Lenin created the totalitarian Soviet state was responsible for mass murder, slave labor and other horrors.  Stalin made things even worse.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.33  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.3.30    2 weeks ago

Why gain a knowledge of history?  Why learn about societal changes, politics, power, ideology, etc. of the past?   Great question.   Why bother learning anything?

So much better to walk around with a superficial understanding of reality.    So much better to hold an understanding based on propaganda and be ignorant of what actually took place.  196

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.3.34  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.31    2 weeks ago

Yes, I'm aware of that.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.3.35  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.33    2 weeks ago

If that's your choice, you be you. No sarcasm....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.36  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.27    2 weeks ago

Lenin originally had the intent of producing a Marxist socialist state.   But he was going to skip the part of having a mature capitalist industrial base and go directly to dictatorship of the proletariat.   He violated the principles of Marx at the onset.  He soon found out that he had to resort to brutality to maintain his base of power and then finally abandoned his attempt altogether and instead focused on building the former USSR into an industrialized society.   He died before he could get started in this endeavor and was succeeded by Stalin who carried forth the industrialized society but did so by brutally exploiting the people, mass murdering political enemies, building an all powerful, authoritarian state which tried to control every aspect of the economy.   All the intentions of Marx were cast aside but all the propaganda remained.

Lenin was a monster;  Stalin took it to the next level.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.37  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.23    2 weeks ago
I'm sure I've forgotten more than you'll ever know on the topic.

I am convinced you have but a superficial understanding of Marxism.   Your words are replete with hyperbole and cold war semantics.

The fact that you refer to those of us who recognize that Marxism is distinct (the polar opposite) from the system of the former USSR as "communism apologists" illustrates your distorted understanding.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.38  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.3.35    2 weeks ago

Given I labeled my comment as sarcasm (clearly) that is obviously not my choice.   

It was obviously a criticism of your choice.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.3.39  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.38    2 weeks ago

How many Marxist socialist states have ever existed?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.40  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.22    2 weeks ago

Ok back to it, I took my trump and made sure my Biden was clean.

Let's get to what trump said .

What I heard both in the past when he was in office and most recently, 

no I won't protect someone who thinks so little of their own security that they put off paying for that to pay for something else and have someone else pick up the slack.

Let people disagree with that as they want.

We have all worked jobs where someone makes it a habit to do the bare mon or less knowing someone else will pick up the slack, governments and organizations have members that do the same thing , but with funding , hello using COVID funds for illegals describes what I mean as an example only. That should not happen.

You also have some of the OG NATO saying hey , we been doing this for 70 Yrs, the front lines have moved further away and we have a lot of new members so the costs should go down. The smart ones know , there are no front lines in a modern war, they are where ever the opponent attacks using whatever means they have. So everyone needs to be up to date and current vigilant and ready. And that is all I gotta say about that to quote gump.

Something else to consider, there are non NATO countries that would benefit from NATO action and protection without having to spend a dime. Who? EU economic block members.they are surrounded by NATO member countries and look to make a windfall as a neutral supplier as long as it is not war material. Following the money racket for a bit.

Europe  in dealing with Putin, is dealing with a very calculating but apparently unstable person who is following in the footsteps of Stalin,and it looks like he wants to accomplish what Stalin did for the soviets for Russia.

That is my take , understanding and explanation of the whole situation, simply my own personal opinion from observation and experience while serving in the area.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.41  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  GregTx @1.3.39    2 weeks ago

I think a couple places tried to use that name in the late 70s early 80s, but ended up going the same route as all the others following the Soviet model with some changes.

Still ended up in the same place and for the same problem , the human elements of corruption and greed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.42  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @1.3.39    2 weeks ago

None

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.43  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.40    2 weeks ago

Mark, we are all aware (or should be) about the cost 'overruns' that are occurring. But, I suggest the political thing to say and do for the U.S. president would be in private negotiations with the nations with a 'shortfall' of whatever sort.  It is not a good political move for a potential presidential candidate to 'swear' that he will give his 'blessing' of sorts to the overrun of NATO countries. BTW, it has not been made explicitly clear if the NATO countries can be 'ousted' from NATO protection over deficiencies in their military stockpiles. Afterall, there is human 'capital' to consider. 

That is, NATO may still have to "one for all" contractually to protect other pact countries from an aggressor. At which point, it will be the United States left out in the cold (and in suspicion possibly of breaking NATO unification against aggression). 

As I mentioned before, once NATO is broken or its growth pointedly reversed by the United States (the lead nation coerciveness) there is no promise that it can be kept intact or not fracture further. 

Trump is a business risk-taker. But NATO is not a business place. It is a permanent fixture for all times in this world and by its wholly existence of 32 nations it is making a substantial impact for peace in the West. 

Break it up and lines will possibly and deliberately be looked for to cross into conflict/s, war/s, and agression/s.


"Got to Pay your bills" - it is being remarked on the daily news about the 'richness' of Trump saying people should pay their [just] bills. Trump of all people.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.44  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.43    2 weeks ago

What you are talking about is tact and deplomacy and statesmanship.

 I do not think anyone , past present or future ,can or ever could apply those terms or attributes to Donald Trump.

 The day that can happen I will be looking for a unicorn out my front window.

I mentioned about personal experience, it fits here with what you said about doing things "in private".

Spring of 85 I was stationed in Belgium, new base for USAFE and the first on the continent to get ground launched cruise missiles, nuclear. That should explain the level of security needed for the base, it didn't get any higher on a priority protection level.

 It was a joint base, us and Belgian troops, entry to the base was to be expected , certain ids and the like.

Here is where that in private didn't work. At the main gate it would be  a single us troop doing an 8 hr shift, and 4 Belgian troops ,working a 24.

Us troop armed with usual M16 and 240 rounds of ammo (8 mags).

Belgian troops , 4 bolt action rifles that looked post WW 2, each Belgian troop had 5 bullets, in a sealed plastic bag in their left hand uniform shirt pocket ( I will wait until you quit laughing) which was sewn shut by their duty officer and the thread could not be broken when inspected otherwise disciplinary action would be taken.

It was mentioned the only real and ready weapon at the main gate on the US side was the M16 to chain of command,  higher authority in private suggested something more suitable for protecting the base and resources. Turns out the Belgians on the gate, trainee conscripts and we're not trusted with live ammo or loaded weapons.

It was suggested through squadron commander, who happened to be the highest ranking full bird on base, that us guards would draw a hand gun as well as their duty rifle, and give summary instruction on its use to the Belgian trainees, and leave it in the guard house when checking us vehicles entering the base. That way if something happened while the us troop was outside , at least one Belgian, usually the highest ranking, would have a weapon ready to as they say rock and roll. And not play Barney Fife trying to get their bullets.

That was something that was not talked about off base or advertised even in house.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.45  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.44    2 weeks ago

Interesting life experience that. :)  Now for a little levity, . . . "But Trump. . . . "  :)

After four years as U.S. president Donald Trump has no more respect for his former job as Commander In Chief than to launch a bit to regain the office. . . and throw NATO countries under his bus! Now all of NATO is "up in arms" and disturbed ceaselessly. . . and may start looking for a way out from under the onslaught of. . .a potential return of President Trump. 

These are matters of concern, national security, and grave consequences if not taken as serious by those who have been warned they will be abandoned to the 'wolves' and arsenals of Russian aggression and worse terror.

Trump crossed the line with this threat. It can not be taken back. The world, our nation, have no choice but to declare a 'no-confidence' attitude where former president Donald J. Trump is concerned. The problem now turns to what to do about his millions of supporters pushing him up to do dastardly evil things in his heart without respect to undue hardship and grave consequences.

The time for laughing at and shining Trump's audacity on has grinded to a proper halt!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.46  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.45    2 weeks ago

So what your saying is NATO members are now thinking about what they are going to have to do in the event of being attacked by Russia.

And they are not too happy about having to do that.

And they might just have to handle thing until other NATO members can mobilize and deploy?

Shitty situation . 

Really sucks.

Our troops have a saying,

Embrace the suck .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.47  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.45    2 weeks ago

Here is something to think about , what happens if the US is in the middle of a military confrontation with..say China, if Russia attacks, the US might be a tad busy right?

So NATO should have contingency plans for just such a situation,one would hope.,

What would be the plan if Russia's first strike knocked out and delays a US response for a time, there is a plan for that I hope.

What would be the plan if both those things happened at the same time, there's a plan for that I hope.

And before you get to the gratuitous inevitable GOP/MAGA/TRUMP rant,,

I'm not sticking around to do that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.48  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.46    2 weeks ago

No, that is not it. What I am saying is international policy-making is not done as a public 'dare.'  Additionally, Trump nor anyone to my knowledge has publicly disclosed to the public what NATO nations deficient in payments are short of (in their 2 percent respectively). Finally, I am saying it is UNPROFESSIONAL  for a U.S. presidential candidate to be publicly stating s/he will be breaking up long-standing alliances over military munitions and feeding nations to the 'beasts waiting with bated breath to take control over the East.' 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.49  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.47    2 weeks ago

Mark, this is not about hypotheticals, sorry. Moreover, if China and the U.S. are in a confrontation. . . and Russia attacks. . . . just think about the scope of what you are stating. . . we will ideally need 32 NATO nations intact and ready to do what they can (because it is all (the best) they can do anyway. It is late . . . 

I am off to bed. Good night. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.50  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.49    2 weeks ago

I can see you don't know much about military planning, that's what a good planner does makes their plan and then run hypotheticals at it to see what would need to be done to attain the stated goal of the original plan, some people would call that war gaming , some compare it to a game of chess.

Sleep well.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.51  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.50    2 weeks ago

Again, my focus is on what Trump said and its possible consequences internationally if he is allowed to be president for a second time—not military planning.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.52  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  CB @1.3.51    2 weeks ago

Well ,that being said, I can't  and won't tell you what you should be focused on. There a multitude of different things that can have an effect on the process on how one thinks, and everyone uses different metrics, meaning things they think are important.

No one has the right to try or make another  change what metrics they have already decided are important to them individually, to make them use or adopt someone else's metrics.

it doesn't mean some won't try though, and most times it fails and ends up in the paying of lip service to simply be done with the disputed issue and move on.

I have no issue or problem with someone telling me what they will do, or even trying to explain to me why they will do things the way they would , or what justifications they use, they are using their own intelligence and metrics they have freely chosen for and by themselves.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3.53  CB  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.52    2 weeks ago

At the end of the day, this article itself is about, "Trump says he might encourage Russia to attack NATO allies" so I feel a 'need' to stay focused near or about the topic for obvious reasons daily expressed by our site managers. It is your choice to talk about. . the topic. . . or not, nevertheless.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    2 weeks ago
They said, 'Well, if we don't pay are you still going to protect us?' I said, 'Absolutely not.' They couldn't believe the answer."

...

"You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills," he added.

The audience cheered loudly for the former president, who is notorious for failing to pay bills on the campaign trail and in his past business endeavors.

We are living in strange times.   

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @2    2 weeks ago

Trump's conversation with "one of the presidents of a big country" is completely made up.  However, his comment to his supporters at his rally is another signal to Putin that he has Trump's full support.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @2    2 weeks ago

shocked again by the incredible amount of willful ignorance of trump sycophants, but not surprised...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.2    2 weeks ago

"Sir, sir!"  I bet he had tears in his eyes as well   ...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3  Mark in Wyoming     2 weeks ago

I remember when trump was in office a big bruhaha about this came up about NATO and statements being made that other countries in the org needed to start paying what was called for in the agreement.

Reading the article , it's implying he said this recently , when it actually appears to be he was relating a story of when he was in office what happened, not what he would do if re elected.

Now is his meeting with other countries leaders , "made up"?  While in office he met with many other countries leaders and government executives. Could the question have been asked and answered as the article states ? I would be inclined to say it did happen,while he was in office.

That's my take, reading the currently dated article, talking about things said while trump was in office and nothing current. Just past events.

I prefer the spin free version.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3    2 weeks ago

1.  Trump told the story today and it most certainly represents his current thinking.

2.  The significant point is that trump said "No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want."

Your spin misses the point entirely.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @3.1    2 weeks ago

I have no doubt he told the story today, I would be surprised if he changed positions that other NATO members need to be abiding by the orgs basic charter.

If they are not then they have no expectation of protection , or any obligation from those org members that have been and stayed current.

NATO could be viewed as a contract deal, if one party fails to live up to what they agreed to then the deal is broken and are owed nothing.

Now the nice thing is since trump left office , Congress passed a law saying the president can't pull out of NATO without congressional consent and approval.

What I can see happening is any incoming president can look at the tally books, see who is up to date and who is behind , and as CiC instruct his heads of the armed forces move troops from a place behind , to a place that isnt. If the troops and equipment are not there ,oh well.

Now can I see trump using the Russian federation as the baba yaga to get those slow or behind in line? Yup I can and it fits his business style.

Problem he has is convincing the non payers that Russia is actually a real threat to them, after the last couple year with the Ukraine, that might be a problem.

I would say your fear mongering spin loses some of it shine to real world facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

What Trump is signaling is fealty to Putin.  Why would Trump siding with Russia against NATO be beneficial to his presidential ambition?            We can see the answer to that question in the responses from conservatives on this News talkers seed.                                   Trump's fan club expects him to take Russia's part in these questions and they agree with him taking Russia's part in these questions.                             What is less understandable is how or why he thinks these sorts of positions will win him any undecided or independent votes.                                               But since he's nuts we really don't have to spend too much time trying to figure out his brain waves.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3.1.3  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Your comment accuses trump of fear mongering.  I'm merely reporting what he said.  He said he would encourage an attack on NATO members.  Your spin doesn't change that. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

I think both trump and you are fear mongering for different reasons.

Trump to get Europe in line and ready , and you to try and make sure trump isn't elected.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
Trump to get Europe in line and ready

Trump doesnt give a shit about Europe. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

And why again isn't Europe paying their fair share on defense?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.10  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Trump repeated the story at a Trump rally today.

He also keeps repeating falsely that NATO owes the USA for past due bills.

As Joe would say that is just malarkey. There are no membership fees.

They have pledged to increase spending to a percentage of GDP voluntarily

due to pressure from past Administrations.

Trump exaggerates the non compliance by other nations

and exaggerates what percent the US was contributing during his Administration.  

FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending : NPR

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @3.1.10    2 weeks ago

I have no doubt things have changed greatly since trump was in office and he started with this line, I also don't doubt Europe has contributed more since trump was in office , many things have changed since then as well not just in this country but on the world stage. So that leads me to things in Europe has changed and they see how they have or also adapt to a changing world.

The situation now is far different than it was even just 3 years ago or 8 yrs ago.

I'm not buying the fear that trumps going to do anything,he said it before, didn't do it. Nor am I buying what he is selling either.

Any person that holds the presidency,has any option they see open to them ,and that's all they are ,options. That's what is called policy, and policies change like administrations change, I do think trump is stupid as hell for being so open about options that are available, it both gives the opposition in a conflict a very false perspective they make judgement calls on , and puts doubt into the mind of potential allies if the countries leadership at the time can be trusted.

I have never voted for trump , always third party, unfortunately the opposition party has not provided a candidate or platform I would support.

So far it's the same situation for me this election cycle as well.

Such is life as they say.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Perfectly said.

The first thing that cams to my mind is I should ask my mortgage company if I didn't pay would they still let me live here.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
Trump doesnt give a shit about Europe. 

It seems that he does care about the US not footing the entire bill for NATO defense though

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Kavika   replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.13    2 weeks ago
It seems that he does care about the US not footing the entire bill for NATO defense though

The US does not pay the entire bill for NATO defense.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  Kavika @3.1.14    2 weeks ago

It does pay a disproportionate amount which was worse when DT was elected.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Kavika   replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.15    2 weeks ago

So you moved the goalpost from the entire defense to a disproportionate amount. The on going BS from Trump is fine because, well just because.

If we pulled out of NATO our security risks would become more dangerous. I would guess that pulling out of NATO would also mean pulling all of our troops and bases from NATO countries as well. Now what would we do with them, bring them back to the US, disband them, send them to Alaska? I ask this since various agencies in the US government have stated it will cost the US close to the same amount as keeping them in place. The host countries pay the US for having our troops in their country. In the past decade, Germany has paid the US over a billion dollars for our troops being there. 

Do you think that the NATO countries would keep buying US arms if we pulled out, they have an arms industry and you can bet they would expand it in a hot minute.

As an example since the war in Ukraine started our arms exports have increased dramatically and supported by this article...

Turkey just purchased $23 billion worth of F-16 and they are only the most recent buyer the list is amazing.

One more thing NATO has invoked Article 5 only one time and that was on 9/12 the day after the attack on the US, NATO countries sent thousands of troops and supplies to Afghanistan to support us and over 1,000 of their troops were KIA and many more wounded, the smallest of country, Albania, North Macedonia and Montenagro sent troops and supplies. That is what NATO is about.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3.1.17  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
try and make sure trump isn't elected

A noble effort, indeed.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.12    2 weeks ago

That's an illegitimate comparison.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.1.19  Split Personality  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.15    2 weeks ago

More trump infused disinformation?

AS the largest country with the largest Military Industrial Complex, we volunteered the numbers!

Cutting back isn't really an option but there has always been pressure to adjust the little countries.

The first flare up started in 2006 under Bush.

2014 Putin provided a wake up call

which every NATO country is grappling with

on top of the daily issues every one on them has to deal with

including Putin blackmailing them with natural gas deliveries,

a "Muslim immigrant" problem now exacerbated by a Ukrainian refugee" problem.

Do we really want Germany to have the largest Army & Air force again?

Does Europe contribute enough to NATO? The truth about defence spending | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.20  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @3.1.17    2 weeks ago

Agreed

 To some

but not all 

And if that is all one has ,oh well

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3.1.21  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.20    2 weeks ago
Agreed

 To some

but not all 

And if that is all one has ,oh well

That's an interesting poem.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.1.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @3.1.21    2 weeks ago

Wasn't ment to be one but I can see now how some can see it as such 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
3.1.23  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.22    2 weeks ago

It should go in an anthology.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
3.1.24  A. Macarthur  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    2 weeks ago

Not the case! NATO NATIONS DON'T PAY "DUES"! Trump, either in ignorance or intentional misinformation, misreporesents te REALITY that NATO NATIONS pay a portion of their GDP TO INVEST IN THEIR DEFENSE PROGRAMS!

They do not owe the U.S. any such money!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
3.1.25  A. Macarthur  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.15    2 weeks ago

As he did in the Feb. 10 rally, Trump has  long  mischaracterized  what he calls “delinquent” payments from alliance members to NATO. Although NATO countries pay direct costs for NATO’s common fund based on a formula, Trump is referring to the indirect costs countries pay toward their own defense in general. Countries don’t owe money to anyone else if they spend less on defense than other member countries.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.26  CB  replied to  A. Macarthur @3.1.25    2 weeks ago

Trump is seemingly saying that some countries that are behind in their payments or some countries that are not keeping up with there payments (to their national defense) are partilal "free-loaders"? That brings a thought and a concern up: Don't all of NATO countries provide "intangibles" to the organization?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3    2 weeks ago

 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4  sandy-2021492    2 weeks ago

Jesus Christ.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4    2 weeks ago

You called?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5  Ronin2    2 weeks ago

Fuck NATO. 

They can't stand on their own militarily WTF good are they?

No more NATO tail wagging the US dog.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Ronin2 @5    2 weeks ago
Fuck NATO.

NATO has been the most significant and successful bulwark against authoritarianism in history.  Only those who support authoritarianism, most particularly Russian, oppose NATO.

They can't stand on their own militarily WTF good are they?

You expect Latvia or Denmark or Greece, as examples, to "stand on their own" against Russian military aggression?  That's a delusional comment.

No more NATO tail wagging the US dog.

Never happened.  In fact, the ONLY time NATO has acted per the principle of collective defense in NATO Article 5 is to come to the aid of and defend the United States following 9/11.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @5.1    2 weeks ago
NATO has been the most significant and successful bulwark against authoritarianism in history.  Only those who support authoritarianism, most particularly Russian, oppose NATO.

Bullshit. The US has been, and where has that gotten US? Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Great successes aren't they?

You expect Latvia or Denmark or Greece, as examples, to "stand on their own" against Russian military aggression?  That's a delusional comment.

You have heard of the EU haven't you? Are those countries all part of the EU?

Never happened.  In fact, the ONLY time NATO has acted per the principle of collective defense in NATO Article 5 is to come to the aid of and defend the United States following 9/11.

Libya. Look it up. WTF do you think Gaddaffi was removed for? Threatening to nationalize Libyan oil fields- which would hurt the British . WTF are we still doing in Iraq- protecting French and British oil fields. BTW do you think the US couldn't have handled Afghanistan by ourselves? NATO helped turn what should have been a simple search and destroy mission into another failed attempt at nation building.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
Bullshit. The US has been, and where has that gotten US? Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Great successes aren't they?

Our lack of successes there isn’t a failure of NATO.  Several NATO allies were strong allies in these nonNATO fights.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.2  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @5    2 weeks ago

As usual, the resident moron cannot see past the end of his nose, if he can see that far. The POS never in his life or any of his family has ever served our country. He knows shit about NATO, its value and as a deterrent to Russia and beyond. NATO has always been an advantage for the US and its forgien policy and we have benefited from its existence for decades.

NATO was started by the US and over the decades has always been a deterrent to Russia, if he cannot see that today then he should move to Russia. 

NATO has only invoked Article 5 once in its history and that was the day after 9/11 in support of the US and all the NATO countries and some Non-NATO sent troops and supplies to Afghanistan and throughout the war lost over 1,000 killed and many more wounded, even the smallest of country Albania, North Macedonia and Montenegro were there for years and his stupid MF is threatening them? 

Who the fuck does dumbass thinks is buying billions of dollars of arms from US, Martians? 

Man, this is the best the US has to offer for a presidential candidate? We should be embarrassed.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.2.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Kavika @5.2    2 weeks ago

The resident moron is pro-Putinite Russia.  Can you imagine the enormity of the damage he will cause if he is ever allowed anywhere near the presidency again?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Kavika   replied to  Gsquared @5.2.1    2 weeks ago
The resident moron is pro-Putinite Russia.  Can you imagine the enormity of the damage he will cause if he is ever allowed anywhere near the presidency again?

I don't know if anyone can contemplate how much damage dumb ass can and will do to this country.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @5.2    2 weeks ago

Is NATO deterring Russia now?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

800

(europe before trumps goading )

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.4    2 weeks ago

😆

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

Russia has yet to attack any NATO countries since Putin took over, just Checnaya twice, Georgia and Ukraine twice. So you could say that NATO is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

I could but then I would be wrong, too.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.7    2 weeks ago
I could but then I would be wrong, too.

Then you would be keeping your uninterrupted string of wrongs alive.

 
 
 
Dig
Professor Participates
5.2.9  Dig  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
Is NATO deterring Russia now?

Absolutely. Just ask Finland and Sweden. Putin knows damn well he can't take on NATO directly. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.10  CB  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

So, the very NEXT TIME a GOPer/MAGAs shouts, "Communism!" about Russia or China we can just tell them about themselves: They are full of Bull! (No offense to actual bulls.)

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
5.2.11  A. Macarthur  replied to  Kavika @5.2    2 weeks ago

IMO, in hopes of being re-elected, TRUMP has made a deal with Putin to send American troops to join Russians in attacking NATO NATIONS, for which PUTIN has agreed to PAY TRUMP PERSONALLY A CASH PREMIUM FOR EACH TROOP MEMBER HE CONSCRIPTS & sends to war! Any one doubt this?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.12  CB  replied to  A. Macarthur @5.2.11    2 weeks ago

Conspiring with foreign enemies against NATO countries: That would be an obvious case of treason, yes? And, bribery would be an additional charge.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @5    2 weeks ago

Ronin2, taking note of a lot of your comments on different topics over the last little while, [deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.3.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.3    2 weeks ago

About 150 miles east of Moscow, and not Moscow, Idaho.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.3.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gsquared @5.3.1    2 weeks ago

Actually I did live in London for almost a year - London, Ontario, and it wasn't too far from Paris, i.e. Paris, Ontario.  Interestingly there was actually a Berlin, Ontario but because of WW2 the city changed its name to Kitchener, Ontario (after Lord Kitchener)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.3    2 weeks ago

This is amusing - 11 good NT members voted up a comment I made that was deleted for contravening the CoC.  Glad to be supported, even if I may have made the mistake of wondering where a person lived. .  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
5.4  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ronin2 @5    2 weeks ago

As he did in the Feb. 10 rally, Trump has  long  mischaracterized  what he calls “delinquent” payments from alliance members to NATO. Although NATO countries pay direct costs for NATO’s common fund based on a formula, Trump is referring to the indirect costs countries pay toward their own defense in general. Countries don’t owe money to anyone else if they spend less on defense than other member countries.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
5.5  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ronin2 @5    2 weeks ago

Your ignorance is astounding! Clearly, you know nothing about NATO nor do you understand that in supplying Ukraine with military weapons, jobs are created in America in order to manufacture weapons that will replace those that went to Ukraine from the US military stockpile.

Remember 911? After America was attacked, under the NATO agreement, NATO countries came to the aid of the United States. 

You have no idea what you’re talking about and your deference to the bullshit from a Great White Hope is sickening and a danger!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.5.1  Ronin2  replied to  A. Macarthur @5.5    2 weeks ago

[Use of the idiotic term "Brandon" is a violation of the Red Box Rules.]

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
5.5.2  A. Macarthur  replied to  Ronin2 @5.5.1    2 weeks ago

US military support for Ukraine was the response of a strong leading nation to Russia’s unprovoked aggression against a neighbor, which threatened the European and global security order. 

This aid has also helped the US economy thrive and has provided jobs for Americans, while undermining Russia’s military readiness. 

Since the start of the large-scale invasion in February 2022, the volume of U.S. military aid to Ukraine over the ensuing one and a half years has exceeded   $44 billion . While the figure looks daunting, it is less than 0.5 percent of the U.S.  defense budget   for 2023. At the same time, the funds provided by the United States and other of Ukraine’s allies have significantly eroded Russia's military potential.

For example, the number of Russian military equipment units destroyed by Ukraine has surpassed  13,000 , at an estimated value of  $34 billion . Russia has lost more than  315,000   personnel in the war, and the number of wounded and missing fighters exceeds half a million, according to various estimates. Russia's total war expenditures have crossed the threshold of  $167 billion .

At the same time, most of the money allocated for military aid to Ukraine stays in the United States, particularly on jobs with American manufacturers. "When we use the money appropriated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stocks, our own supplies of new equipment that protects America and is made in America," President Biden  said  in a televised address from the Oval Office.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Europeans should pay for the security of Europe

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
6.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

The isolationist anti-NATO sentiment contained in your comment posted next to a picture of Ronald Reagan is about as contradictory and absurd as it can get.

Read Reagan's comments carefully:

"...the   United States   remains steadfastly committed to the NATO strategy of flexible response, and we in the   United States   will do our part to ensure that NATO maintains all the modern forces,   both conventional   and nuclear, needed to uphold that strategy. After all, our goal is not a nuclear-free or a tank-free or an army-free   Europe   but a war-free   Europe. A war-free   Europe   is what we have today; a war-free   Europe   is what we want to preserve.

As we look to NATO's next decade, we must make sure that all of our forces for peace, including our nuclear forces, remain modern and effective. This will require constant work, because military machinery wears out or becomes obsolete. And it will require being smart about the weapons and equipment we develop and buy, so we get the best value for our money. I'm pretty tightfisted myself, so I've been glad to see that NATO is taking efficiency seriously."

Reagan's full 1988 Address to the Citizens of Western Europe can be found here: 

   

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @6.1    2 weeks ago

I like reading stuff from that president especially when it was said during my time in service and he was my CIC.

I went and looked at the date, 3 years after I got back from Europe myself. It's bringing back memories of things I saw the host countries troops using for arms.

Hopefully now, almost 40 years later, they still are not counting on the even then obsolete weapons they were training with then.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Gsquared @6.1    2 weeks ago

Ronny Raygun! The impossible dream. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Gsquared @6.1    2 weeks ago

I don't support isolationism at all. As a supposed world leader, the US cannot ignore what is going on in the rest of the world. My comment was meant to mean that the Europeans (NATO) need to step up and pay their fair share for their common defense, which they haven't been doing, and what Trump scolded them about. This is really important right now because Putin seems to want his old Soviet Union back.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.3    2 weeks ago
need to step up and pay their fair share for their common defense, which they haven't been doing, and what Trump scolded them about.

This is an invention and a fairy tale of lies and outright deliberate misinformation.

  It's been explained here ad nauseum and yet you cling to the fantasy

that France or any other NATO member doesn't pay their own defense expenses.

The objective of NATO is to have common communications equipment, common ammo and the ability to work together towards a common goal.

No one country owes another a monetary fee, just a commitment to work together.

The only common expense they have is NATO headquarters. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.4    2 weeks ago
just a commitment to work together.

They committed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. Only 11 countries have lived up to that. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
6.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.4    2 weeks ago

Germany doesn’t come close to paying its share or providing much in the way of real NATO defense.  That said, Trump’s comments on NATO are juvenile and self serving.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

Isn't  Germany still restrained by the Paris Peace Treaty of '47?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.7    2 weeks ago

Why, yes SP, as a matter of fact, Germany's entire military budget was supposed to be restricted to 2% GDP

with no offensive capabilities.  The USA is supposed to be the PPT partner that monitors Germany.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

If anything were to start in Europe with Russia, depending on the size of the front, I'm fairly certain the continental NATO members would be able to handle it in short order.

US involvement would be likely limited in manpower to what's stationed there with minimal re enforcement but more intense in providing arms and material needed .

The big question will be will Putin feel desperate enough to go nuclear?

If so how many NATO members in Europe are nuclear themselves?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2    2 weeks ago

Do you not think it is reckless for a major presidential candidate to say he might encourage Russia to attack NATO countries, for any reason? 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

Personally I think it's stupid as fuck.  But as the late Harry Reid said when asked about a tactic he used to get some legislation passed,    it worked didn't it? Was his reply.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

What is Trump trying to make "work" ? 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

John I will explain my position this way, as stupid and crazy as trump is, and I think he is  more than 8 levels lower than a crazy shithouse rat.

The point is Europe better see and realize, today the US isn't even able to fill the manpower recruitment quota for a peacetime military. 

So they better be prepared to provide their own manpower

Do you think they believe the US government is going to be able to conscript people to fight a war in Europe if one were to break out?

Hell even I don't believe that , you will see people running to both borders looking for an exit,today's service age individuals see no benefit to joining the military,be it volentaryor conscripted. Think they will be willing to fightand die in a war in Europe protecting someone else's country.

I don't think there are as many needed left in this country . More than likely those willing to do that are already serving or have already served.

The one thing this country can do for it's alliances is do what they have done before , be the arsenal and maker of what material they need.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.4    2 weeks ago

Trump is sending a dog whistle to the pro-Putin faction of the American right. He wants to make sure they turn out to vote for him. He needs every single one. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2.7    2 weeks ago

they come a-running and a-humping!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.8    2 weeks ago

if i could have tied in some lambada music i would have . the forbidden dance 

 on second thought , maybe benny hill chase music would have been a better choice ....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.2.11  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.2    2 weeks ago
If anything were to start in Europe with Russia,

Ukraine is in Europe, right next to Poland.

It started in 2014.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2.12  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @6.2.11    2 weeks ago

Maybe I should have been more specific?

If anything were to start in Europe with a NATO member country....that the qualifier that makes my statement clear? Or more precise?

Ukraine is not a NATO member nation,they would like to be,but certain conditions other members have have not been met.

And as I recall, Russia, conciders and claims Ukraine to be a seperatist region in rebellion. Like Georgia and Chechnya. Both once former Soviet satellite states, same as Ukraine. And not much unlike China views Taiwan.

If Russia can make those claims there, what's to stop them from doing so with the Baltic states?  Or any number of former Soviet republic states, Oh that's right they became NATO members , Just like many former com bloc nations  just like Finland and Sweden recently did, much to Russia's consternation and implied threats should it happen.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.3  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

They do.

But for the additional benefit of paying us to keep American bases on their soils

or secret spy electronics eavesdropping stations

we all enjoy the benefit of keeping the next generation of retarded Russians from over running easter Europe or more,

ergo threatening your secure way of life.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @6.3    2 weeks ago

Some of that I agree with , some not so much.

Much of what you mention , has to do with status of force  agreements  between the host country and who ever wants a base there. I will use US as wanting a base so say US.

The two biggest costs to a host nation would be land for the base and a protection force outside the bases perimeter area. So yes they have to pay for a military force capable of protecting their countryside, something they would have to pay for anyway, just not to the extent if the US was present.

Many things are negotiated in those status of force agreements, an example would be does the base pay the going rate of property taxes, are base personnel subject to the host countries tax rates, things like that.

Next would be what weaponry is at the base , that is the host countries right to determine what they will allow, example is some do not want nukes on their soil. Those agreements also will have provisions stating what base personnel can and can't do and to what level.

Next thing to think about , and it usually is , is how much money is brought into a local economy by just the base existing , and the personnel assigned there, how many support jobs are created for locals.

Under such agreements, the host nation gets something, the NATO big wigs get something , and if a US base they get something.

I will tie this into what trump said this way.

If a host nation isn't living up to the status of force agreements in a manner required for the whole agreement, such as being reasonably prepared to defend outside a base perimeter and personnel outlined in the agreement, be they a NATO member or not , then  the base can be downsized or eliminated and moved where such an agreement will be met to satisfaction of all parties.

It's all a racket as a Marine General pointed out in the 30s, some should have read and listened to Smedley Butler.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.1    2 weeks ago

One only has to look at the "marriage and divorce" of our military and the whacky Philippines government

to see how US bases influence the surrounding areas.

They kicked us out and Subic Bay and Clark were stripped and the areas turned into crime ridden ruins.

Ten thousand unemployed and the local economy collapsed.

Fast forward from 11/1992 to 2023 and the Administration has quietly come to an agreement to allow joint access to four bases.

Subic has never recovered but we are slowly returning.

US firm purchases former Navy shipyard in Subic Bay, Philippines | Stars and Stripes

Due to a recent agreement with the Philippines, Clark AFB is now being rehabilitated by the USAF,

  U.S. Begins Air Base Rehab in Philippines as Part of Basing Agreement - USNI News

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @6.3.2    2 weeks ago

Yup ,if  a base opens or closes, it can be an economic boon or disaster for any local community ,it has the same effect on host nations.

Remember back in the late 80s early 90s when DOD was realigning and making lists of bases to close, how hard some states fought to keep bases in their states open?

I went through that and closed an AF base that had existed since the 50s, it took the surrounding communities 10 years to recover economically.  That's even after the base was given back the base and land and increased the size of it's NGAir Guard unit.

As for Subic and Clark, I would caution DOD to go minimalist with those places,just what's needed , not a complete wish list of desires.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.1    2 weeks ago
It's all a racket as a Marine General pointed out in the 30s, some should have read and listened to Smedley Butler.

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
―  Smedley D. Butler,   War is a Racket

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @6.3.4    2 weeks ago

I found that an interesting read about an interesting man when I was younger.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.3.6  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.5    2 weeks ago
I found that an interesting read about an interesting man when I was younger.

I did as well and his book is quite interesting.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
6.4  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

The ignorance expressed here is the manifestation of a Great White Hope spewing endless lies to the willfully gullible. Instead of responses to factual corrections being “I stand corrected,” we see doubling down on the lies.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
6.5  A. Macarthur  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

Learn before making incorrect, ignorant pronouncements.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
"This is the most important (and shamelessly irresponsible, dangerous, and anti-American interests) statement made by a leading candidate for President in the history of our nation," Olson said on his social media account. "Media that covers it any other way is in fact playing into Trump's narrative that it is all fake media."

Tom Malinowski, a former United States Representative, had a similar take on the media's role here.

"Truly unhinged stuff: Presumptive Republican nominee says he’ll encourage Russia to attack our allies triggering a world war if they don’t 'pay' (never mind that Europe is paying more than the US for Ukraine now)," he wrote. "This should be front page, top of broadcast, news."

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago

I agree with one thing there, Europe is paying to help Ukraine, what they are getting in return is mostly information right now, how well certain systems work , what are the oppositions strengths and weaknesses , what are their production capabilities and logistic lines like .

Any number of things , info if needed will help them.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8  cjcold    2 weeks ago

Interesting how all of the far-right wingers here are pro Putin.

Seems real Americans used to be anti-communist.

Putin's propaganda machine rules right wingers these days.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @8    2 weeks ago
Seems real Americans used to be anti-communist.

You are ruling out many Americans in the 30's - 50's and again in the 80's-90's.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1    2 weeks ago

I would say 30s thru the 60s with a brief lull in the 70s, and an increase in the 80s and 90s right up to the fall of the old Soviet Union, even after that there has been a mistrust of communist governments to some extent.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Agree, back in the USSR:

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB    2 weeks ago

So it would seem that the GOP that railed against communism has swallowed the Red sickle and Hammer whole. For shame, that reason alone is actually a good reason to NEVER join MAGA or let Trump get in the White House again. Think about it: Putin's 'winter home' in D.C. bedded down comfortably. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10  CB    2 weeks ago

Trump is directly or indirectly (depending on where one is oriented) calling for the EXPANSION of Russia and the reestablishment of the Soviet Union. Reagan, if he were alive, would be horrified and deeply troubled. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
11  seeder  Gsquared    2 weeks ago

In America in the 1930s the murderous dictator Hitler found support from groups like the German American Bund and individuals such as Charles Lindbergh.

In America in the 2020s the murderous dictator Putin has support from Donald Trump and certain members of the republican party.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
12  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Does anyone understand that the delinquent  2% is non-existent? No law/rule states that any country in NATO has to contribute 2%. The 2% is a voluntary commitment of 2% of their GDP to their OWN MILITARY, it does not go to NATO. How in the hell can they be delinquent on something that doesn't exist?

As for billing other NATO countries for our ''support'' does the dumb fuck even understand that for example Poland had troops in Afghanistan for a decade and didn't bill us for that.

Trump is lying about it as usual or he is too stupid to understand how NATO works.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
12.1  seeder  Gsquared  replied to  Kavika @12    2 weeks ago

Ukraine sent troops to Afghanistan as part of the NATO mission, and as we all know, Ukraine is not a NATO member.  So, Ukraine came to America's defense following 9/11.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12.2  CB  replied to  Kavika @12    2 weeks ago

So. . . what you are stating about the former president of the United States. . . is he is spreading misinformation or disinformation to his cul—or millions of supporters.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
12.2.1  Kavika   replied to  CB @12.2    2 weeks ago

He is one of two things, a liar or very ignorant of how NATO works or he could be both.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @12.2.1    2 weeks ago

he's walking compost...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.2.3  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @12.2.2    2 weeks ago

dog park variety...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
13  Kavika     2 weeks ago
So, Ukraine came to America's defense following 9/11.

Yes, they did a good point, G.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14  CB    2 weeks ago

I want to make a larger, more consuming point: For Trump to use NATO countries as 'bait' for Russian aggression and takeover, that Trump would even vocalize and lace the air with such "sentiment" is UNACCEPTABLE. Our international loss would be Putin's "perfect" dream as he would seek to dismantle the whole damn NATO enterprise and cause its break-up. My wonder is which nation could Russia 'pull' as a string to unravel or make a sizeable dent its potency.

Moreover, does Russia strategists already KNOW which nation to "jenga" and collapse NATO if given the chance. 

 
 

Who is online

Ozzwald
devangelical
Greg Jones
Texan1211
Nerm_L
Thomas
Ed-NavDoc
fineline
Right Down the Center
JohnRussell



GregTx
Kavika
Sean Treacy
Just Jim NC TttH


36 visitors