Donald Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little

Of course this idiot would say something like that, it's like he doesn't want to win or he is extremely stupid...I'm for the latter.

a reply to: Urlying

Gullible : easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say:

Sarcasm : the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way


Urlfunny .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Urlying

Gullible : easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say:

Hey that's our saying when it comes to you guys

originally posted by: Urlying

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Urlying

Gullible : easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say:

Hey that's our saying when it comes to you guys

Hmm... You don't say ?

Daily Mail
1/3 of NATO Countries not paying their minimum 2% bills.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Daily Mail
1/3 of NATO Countries not paying their minimum 2% bills.

It is sad to see the uproar among European politicians regarding Trump's statement. They got fair warning years ago during Trumps first term that they weren't pulling their share of the load. People seem to forget that Trump did not invent this situation-- it was a consequence of the EU countries own policies concerning defense after the last Soviet forces withdrew from Germany and eastern Europe in 1994.

One thing not getting much reporting is that there -are- European politicians who are correctly pointing out that Trump is again engaging in hyperbole to put pressure on the NATO countries that are not meeting the 2% target.

All of the NATO countries formally agreed to meet this spending target. They should fulfill their commitment and there will be no issue for Trump to pick at.

Cheers

The leader of German governing party in the European Parliament the Social Democrats (SPD) Katarina Barley MEP responds to Russian aggression in the east of Europe and clear signals from President Trump that Europe needs to do more to protect itself in line with NATO treaty requirements by suggesting the time may have come for nuclear weapons.

Here

Bet that plan disappears once they realize how very expensive those weapons are. FFS, they don't want to meet their 2% NATO obligation, and yet think they'll have the money for nuclear weapons ? Try again, German politicians. And by the way, there is a HUGE segment of your population that will absolute freak out if this is attempted.

International TDS.

Cheers

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


No. This thread is about Trump promising to encourage Putin to invade, rape and pillage, as he wishes, any NATO country that isn't contributing 2% of their GNP to defense. The topic of Trump "stopping the dying" by negotiating a deal that would give Putin a win, but Trump isn't about "winning", he's about saving lives, was introduced by you, in that precious video you posted.

Again, this is war, not a board game.

You know nothing of war, so stop pretending. No pay no protection...that is the point of it all. You don't like how he said it, OK...don't care... You can go RREEeeee all you want to like normal.

Why do you take things to absurdity every time? The original question was what would Trump do, and I replied he said he wants to stop people from dying... end of story.

Why are you going on for 30 posts because of that statement, just let it go and move on.

My last point on this....

originally posted by: FlyersFan

1/3 of NATO Countries not paying their minimum 2% bills.

It used to be more before Trump...only 5 out of 31.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

One thing not getting much reporting is that there -are- European politicians who are correctly pointing out that Trump is again engaging in hyperbole to put pressure on the NATO countries that are not meeting the 2% target.

All of the NATO countries formally agreed to meet this spending target. They should fulfill their commitment and there will be no issue for Trump to pick at.

Cheers

It's their backyard too. The US still pays 67% of the military budget of about 2.5 billion and dumps an extra 8 billion in the pot to keep our military over there.

What I don't understand is the 2% of GDP. Our GDP is 27 trillion so 2% is 640 billion, but they say we pay 3.6%... Not sure how that all works... It can't be GDP

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2

One thing not getting much reporting is that there -are- European politicians who are correctly pointing out that Trump is again engaging in hyperbole to put pressure on the NATO countries that are not meeting the 2% target.

All of the NATO countries formally agreed to meet this spending target. They should fulfill their commitment and there will be no issue for Trump to pick at.

Cheers

It's their backyard too. The US still pays 67% of the military budget of about 2.5 billion and dumps an extra 8 billion in the pot to keep our military over there.

What I don't understand is the 2% of GDP. Our GDP is 27 trillion so 2% is 640 billion, but they say we pay 3.6%... Not sure how that all works... It can't be GDP

The 2% of GDP is the target for defence spending for member states.

The US chooses to spend considerably more as does poland I believe.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

The 2% of GDP is the target for defence spending for member states.

The US chooses to spend considerably more as does poland I believe.

It doesn't make sense though. The US GDP is 27 trillion, and Germany is 4.5 trillion. 2% of the US would be 640 billion, and Germany would be 90 billion, so GDP isn't correct.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

The 2% of GDP is the target for defence spending for member states.

The US chooses to spend considerably more as does poland I believe.

It doesn't make sense though. The US GDP is 27 trillion, and Germany is 4.5 trillion. 2% of the US would be 640 billion, and Germany would be 90 billion, so GDP isn't correct.

That's about right

US spends 800 billion or so which is way over 2%.

Germany spends about 50 billion, so well under the 2%

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

That's about right

US spends 800 billion or so which is way over 2%.

Germany spends about 50 billion, so well under the 2%

So 2% is the total minimum cost they should spend on their military to be in NATO and that is nothing to do with the annual cost of NATO which is under 5 billion per year. That makes more sense, but they seem to mix in the 3.3 billion NATO cost when also talking about 2% GDP.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

That's about right

US spends 800 billion or so which is way over 2%.

Germany spends about 50 billion, so well under the 2%

So 2% is the total minimum cost they should spend on their military to be in NATO and that is nothing to do with the annual cost of NATO which is under 5 billion per year. That makes more sense, but they seem to mix in the 3.3 billion NATO cost when also talking about 2% GDP.

Exactly.

NATO itself is a tiny % of combined fence budgets.

The 2% relates to overall defence spending and is a commitment not a bill.

The goal 2% GDP is voluntary, and there is no debt or “delinquency” involved.


H ow Trump Urging Russia to Invade 'Delinquent' NATO Members Distorts How the Alliance Works

WHAT DID TRUMP GET WRONG? NATO members don’t pay to belong and don’t owe the organization anything other than contributions to a largely administrative fund. Trump clearly wasn't referring to those administrative payments. His frequent complaint during his presidency, and now, has been how much NATO countries put into their own military budgets. U.S. presidents before him raised that concern. In fact, it was in 2014, during the Barack Obama administration, that NATO members agreed to move “toward” spending 2% of GDP on national defense by 2024. Stoltenberg also has said members needed to invest more in their militaries. At their last summit, in Lithuania in July, NATO leaders adjusted that pledge by agreeing to spend at least 2% of GDP on their military budgets. No target date was set for meeting the goal.

The 2% is a benchmark that each member should spend on its own defense in order to be able to contribute to the joint defense of the alliance. However, the goal is voluntary, and there is no debt or “delinquency” involved. The countries don’t pay the money to NATO but invest it in their own armed forces. Russia's invasion of Ukraine almost two years ago has given them further impetus to beef up their armies.


Trump's Misleading Framing of NATO Defense Funding

WHAT IS NATO? The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded after World War II in an attempt to stop the expansion of Soviet control in Europe as the eastern part of the continent was coming under the Kremlin's firm grip. The alliance's first secretary-general, the British Gen. Hasting Ismay, said the goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." The often repeated comment highlights how a fear of Russia's expansion has been part of the alliance's DNA from the beginning.

'He doesn't understand the treaty': Ex-Trump official reveals his total ignorance of NATO

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Threadbarer

What was actually said compared to the commie's unhinged OP.

“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?’” Trump said, adding “I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’

No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

So why would we be expected to get into a war for some other country over a treaty they weren't meeting their obligation to?

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

Let's say I stop paying my insurance and then get diagnosed with cancer....
My insurance will not pay for treatment because I stopped paying my obligation, so they don't have to pay theirs.

WHY should NATO be any different? You are paying insurance to ensure that you have the needed support. If you DON'T meet your obligations by paying for this insurance, why should NATO be expected to do anything?

originally posted by: Kenzo

The goal 2% GDP is voluntary, and there is no debt or “delinquency” involved.

When we look at what the US pays for everything with the rest of the world riding our coattails including all these trade deals we had made with Mexico, China, EU etc. we see really bad deals always in the favor of the other side, and Trump looked at them and said this isn't fair in any way. Agree or disagree, Trump was right more times than not. So what he did was to push back and say we need better deals, we need "real" jobs to come back to America. We need to protect what is America... And he was right...look at China today, look at the border, look at all these deals that made us the sucker.

Well NATO is in the same area in countries need to put in the effort they agreed on, or they can get out. If not, we can continue to lose our ass in everything we do, whats another 20 trillion...

Even if you disagree with Trump at least he put it the light to really look at it all and no one else is doing that or has done that. They are now pushing a 118 billion dollar border bill and the liberals are slapping each other on the back in success, but 7+ years ago Trump wanted 50 billion to do the same thing and get the border under control, and he was ostracized and flamed for the whole 4 years no matter how hard he pushed. What that caused is we had to live all these years with the border out of control and the left saying nothing to see here until states started to say enough is enough, and ONLY then did the left say...maybe we need to control our border, and now they act like the hero in the story.

As to NATO... We do not need NATO, but NATO needs us...

a reply to: Xtrozero


Well the treaty just doesn't work as Trump seem to think . The 5th article is not bound to how much each country use their money to their own defense . Some countries use less than the 2% of GDP, and some more than 2% .....yet they are in same line when it comes to 5th article .


And i dont like how Trump is acting like mafia boss, asking "pizzo" ...Protection money .

a reply to: Xtrozero

You know nothing of war, so stop pretending. No pay no protection...that is the point of it all. You don't like how he said it, OK...don't care... You can go RREEeeee all you want to like normal.

There you go again with your hyperbole fueled acrobatics. And, the only one RREEeeee-ing is you every time you're cornered by your own words.

Why do you take things to absurdity every time? The original question was what would Trump do, and I replied he said he wants to stop people from dying... end of story.

"No pay, no protection" is what Trump said he "do", and is a stupid gangster thing to say. But it is irrelevant to Ukraine, and Trump's claim that "I just want to stop the dying".

"No pay, no protection" is a threat that the USA, with Trump as POTUS, will let Putin have his way with any Eastern European nation he's got his eye on, like Trump will with Ukraine, if these NATO nations don't buy more US weapons, and house more US Soldiers on their soil.