The head of the NATO military alliance warned Sunday that Donald Trump was putting the safety of U.S. troops and their allies at risk after the Republican presidential front-runner said Russia should be able to do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO members who don’t meet their defense spending targets.
“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement.
There should be no dispute about this point: The TOFF is an unpatriotic piece of slime who revels at the idea of joining the Dictator's Club. He would put world stability even further at risk and raise the possibility of a nuclear war.
The TOFF's continued support of Putin over America's security interests makes no sense, other than it's because Putin owns Trump.
As for those who continue to support him, from full-bore jerkoffs like Lindsey Graham to the Trumpanzees, their support calls into question their loyalty to the United States of America. (There really isn't much question of that, they're loyal to Trump Über Alles.)
I also have to wonder how the Christian Taliban can continue to back a man who is the human personification of the AntiChrist.
Update: The TOFF-- "I prefer saviors who haven't been crucified."
18 comments:
Most Nato members have already violated the treaty by not funding, nor keeping, an army for defense. instead hiding behind the US.
They are already in violation and therefore no longer members anyway.
Having said that, those were very stupid words, again, another reason to not want Donnie.
But the choices are shaping up to be (again) Bad and worse. Donne or Joe.
Dear, dear B., there is no binding requirement for defense spending in the NATO Treaty. Therefore, TOFF’s continual pouting about it is, well, irrelevant. Secondly, there is no provision to, as you say, adjudge a member in violation as there is no stipulation on what constitutes maintaining or developing a defense.
B., at one point you were a stable Conservative viewpoint here, something has happened, and I hope you get the help you need. Try READING the documents that are being misrepresented to you by those you are now listening to.
The 2% of GDP for defense spending by NATO members is a guideline. It’s not a treaty obligation.
(And the rampant hypocrisy of a 91-felonies-indicted and adjudicated rapist running as a presidential candidate castigating others for not following the rules is noted and logged.)
Comrade, you forgot to add that the 2% was a guideline only agreed upon in 2006.
And, Comrade, he hasn’t seen a bill that he can’t ignore.
Or screw somebody out of.
Oddly, NATO thinks that that 2% is binding:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
OF course then, there's the question as to "if the European countries aren't gonna bother at all, why should the US??
Previously, I had held that W's "Bring it on" was the single dumbest sentence ever uttered.
Now this takes that position.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Best comment that I’ve seen elsewhere:
“If you ever wondered what you would have done had you been a German during the 1930s, you are doing it now.”
Got this from that website, B, it seems more complicated that you think it is:
The effects of the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the declining share of resources devoted to defence in many Allied countries, up to 2014, have exacerbated this imbalance and also revealed growing asymmetries in capability among European Allies. France, Germany and the United Kingdom together represent approximately 50% of defence spending by the non-US Allies. At the Wales Summit in 2014, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the turmoil in the Middle East, NATO Leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:
Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
While the 2% of GDP guideline alone is no guarantee that money will be spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, it remains an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defence a relatively small but still significant level of resources. In 2014, three Allies spent 2% of GDP or more on defence; this increased to seven Allies in 2022. Moreover, 2022 was the eighth consecutive year of rising defence spending across European Allies and Canada, amounting to a rise of 2.2% in real terms compared to 2021.
Sorry to use your source material against you, I would suggest comfirming stories for yourself, as you either didn’t absorb what was there or were misinformed.
“Reality cannot be ignored except at a price; and the longer the ignorance is persisted in, the higher and more terrible becomes the price that must be paid.”
Aldous Huxley
B, please explain why you think Biden is worse?
Is it because of his age? T**** is only slightly younger.
Is it because he gets confused? Like how Nicki Haley was in charge of security on January 6th, or how T**** prevented WWII?
Is it the fact that Biden did not support the insurrection and his DOJ is still holding ‘hostages’ accountable for their actions on that day?
Or is it because of government documents discovered in a garage at one of his homes which he then cooperated with the government to return, rather than trying to manipulate ways to keep the documents in his possession?
Or could it be the economy, which has posted low unemployment numbers and the stock market is at its highest number in history with inflation being brought under control?
Could it be the border ‘crisis’ which was nearly solved with a bipartisan negotiated agreement until T**** signaled to the Republicans to torpedo so as not to give Biden any credit for the pact?
Perhaps it’s the funding for Ukraine which would provide ammunition for the conflict against the Russian aggression (or would you like to see Putin continue to expand to reclaim the Soviet Union)?
Maybe it’s the Biden crime family you’d like in prison, with Hunter and his infamous laptop included? [He should have taken millions from the Saudis instead?]
Is it your dislike for the female vice president. Or should only strong males be in that position?
Please explain how T**** is a better candidate with 91 state and federal charges being adjudicated currently. And he is a sex offender. And he degrades members of the military, the very group he wants to be commander-in-chief of.
I would really like an explanation of your position as to T**** being a better choice than Biden. Please enlighten us. If your points are valid and within reason, I will give us pause to consider our own positions.
Dale
"it remains an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to devote to defence a relatively small but still significant level of resources"
And Nato wants even those countries that are not yet at 2% to get there, and at the least STOP THE DECLINE.
You proved nothing with what you said, except that you read the article (which is a nice change) that I posted.
Nato wants the 2% and is encouraging those not yet there to get off the dime. They also consider that 2% an "important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies"
Making excuses for them not donating their share due to financial crises is stupid. We in the US also had that same financial crisis.
For nearly 30 years the rest of Nato has been hiding behind the skirts of the US. They need to step up and give (To quote you democrats favorite term when it comes to taxes) Their Fair Share. IF they won't contribute their money, their people and 2% of their GDP, then why should the US bother? We really don't need them all that much as allies. Especially when they can't be allies 'cause they have no military.
Paying the most for NATO could be compared to someone who lives in a condo. It might cost them a few bucks to go to their somewhat more vulnernable neighbor and pay for their smoke detectors and making sure the batteries are always fresh. But if old Mrs. Cravitz's condo goes up it will spread through the walls and burn yours down too.
To excuse the United States expenditures for defense is not a fair comparison.
The U.S. relies on the Petro dollar for expenditures, which other NATO countries cannot do. Unlike the U.S. they can't just print up more. Basically our deficit is really being paid by everyone else when they must buy oil with Dollars.
Kinda , sorta like Trumps business model...create debt without ever intending to pay it back.
Be nice if we had viable candidates, which actually had ideas how to fix our economic woes. Instead we have two old farts with no ideas , just criticism for each other.
They are not loyal to Trump. They see him as -- in, and for, this moment -- the only weapon they can use against their real enemy, which is existence.
So now B. admits it’s it’s NOT a treaty requirement, but a goal…after having his nose rubbed in it repeatedly.
And Nato wants even those countries that are not yet at 2% to get there, and at the least STOP THE DECLINE.
AND THE DECLINE WAS HALTED, AND NOW INCREASING:
In 2014, three Allies spent 2% of GDP or more on defence; this increased to seven Allies in 2022. Moreover, 2022 was the eighth consecutive year of rising defence spending across European Allies and Canada, amounting to a rise of 2.2% in real terms compared to 2021.
Making excuses for them not donating their share due to financial crises is stupid. We in the US also had that same financial crisis.
We‘re the only country that can run the printing presses when it comes to money, unlike some of our allies.
We really don't need them all that much as allies. Especially when they can't be allies 'cause they have no military.
Oh, really?
The biggest army in NATO, by a significant margin, is the United States Army with 485,000 regular personnel, as of 2021. The US army is followed by the Turkish Army with 260,200 personnel. Most European members of NATO have total active personnel for their armies in the tens of thousands. Exceptions are the Greek and French Armies which have 100,000 and 118,000 personnel, respectively. The Italian Army has just under 100,000 and the British Army has 82,040. Others include the Albanian Army with 8,500 personnel, the Slovenian Ground Force with 7,300 personnel, the Army of North Macedonia with 6,100 personnel, the Army of Montenegro with 1,500 personnel, and the Luxembourg Armed Forces with 950 personnel. Iceland does not have a standing army and its only defense force is the Icelandic Coast Guard with 3 ships and 4 aircraft.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_of_NATO#:~:text=air%20defence%20systems-,Armies,regular%20personnel%2C%20as%20of%202021.
2% is a goal in a treaty. Spending that amount doesn't mean much of anything when it comes to NATO military effectiveness.
Democracy looks like a cat herding contest to Russia and China. Carry on.
Post a Comment