Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, NATO was formed for the purpose of protecting Europe and preventing another “catastrophic global war” just like the purpose of forming the European Union.
Now, many Europeans are arguing that, Collectively the European countries of Europe – without the US, without Canada, and even without Turkey – are greatly superior to the Russian forces.
European Nato has over twice as much manpower, twice the fighters, twice the number of tanks as Russia. They out spend Russia considerably, and their economies are much bigger (Russia’s is about the size of Italy).
So, many of these Europeans are arguing that, if you drill down, the only reason to make Europe spend more is so that US defense manufacturers can make more money.
If all the above argument is true, then please answer me, why do they even need NATO? If Russia is not a threat, then what is the purpose of the NATO? Get rid of NATO, and Americans will close the base in Europe, simple like that. But since no European countries have the desire of getting rid of NATO, they do need to pay their share. It is hardly an insult to the allies.
----------------------------------
All these being said, Trump being Trump will mess things up. He should have chosen his words more carefully. First canada, then Germany, then UK, there is really no need to insult the allies. You don't want to send a negative message to the Chinese or the Russians.
First, it was important to see the substance of what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has accomplished as of the summit this week, since the historic NATO summit in Warsaw just two years ago. The achievements include the adaptation of the NATO command structure, which will significantly improve the reinforcement and responsiveness capabilities of the alliance.
Members have also renewed commitment to increased defense expenditures and investment and made progress on improving military mobility, as well as beginning the process toward Macedonia's eventual membership.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has done a superb job of shepherding the members, keeping all on track and building momentum toward real substance. We are lucky to have him.
But second, I was disappointed to see President Trump bring a wrecking ball to Brussels. He publicly HUMILATED our most important allies and then, the following day, said everything was GREAT, that he had a great relationship with the chancellor of Germany and that he was personally responsible for the money that was "pouring into NATO."
Whatever happened to positive, unifying leadership by the president of the United States?
Trump is use to most people holding up their end of the contract. He is dealing with those that don't, the same way he did in his business.... You need me, more than I need you. Sell it and it works after everyone gets some sleep.
It sounds like you're more concerned with being diplomatic than getting our country on track. America was sick of smooth talking politicians who sold us down the river to foreign alliances, globalist interests and multinational corporations, which is why we elected Trump. We're going to try it his way now, so far it's working well.
The fires Trump is lighting under the asses of mooch NATO members are long overdue.
The specific job Trump is doing requires someone that can be blunt.
I think first and foremost is that Trump doesn't understand how it works OR he chooses to purposely mislead Americans on how it works.
When you start with that -- whatever he says after lacks any credibility or integrity.
It is clear after two NATO summits, Trump's style of leadership isn't working.
He hasn't been able to get the allies to come to any major agreement like they did in 2014.
Doesn't matter if his fans think he is being strategic, purposely being nasty, etc......the end result is what counts...and it is failing.
The problem now -- we are becoming comfortably numb with his insults. Nobody even bothers to fight back...they just let him yanner away and they do nothing.
Oh well......maybe he will have better luck making friends with Putin....because we all want to be friends with Putin.
Exactly.
The US may have a large Defence budget, but only a few percent is spent on Europe, and only 5% of active US Military personnel are based in Europe.
The Europeans have been increasing their defence budgets, as per the 2014 guidelines and most are comitted to reaching the 2% figure.
All this insulting people and calling them freeloaders is just pathetic and is not how allies behave.
Trump is use to most people holding up their end of the contract. He is dealing with those that don't, the same way he did in his business.... You need me, more than I need you. Sell it and it works after everyone gets some sleep.
First, it was important to see the substance of what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has accomplished as of the summit this week, since the historic NATO summit in Warsaw just two years ago. The achievements include the adaptation of the NATO command structure, which will significantly improve the reinforcement and responsiveness capabilities of the alliance.
Members have also renewed commitment to increased defense expenditures and investment and made progress on improving military mobility, as well as beginning the process toward Macedonia's eventual membership.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has done a superb job of shepherding the members, keeping all on track and building momentum toward real substance. We are lucky to have him.
But second, I was disappointed to see President Trump bring a wrecking ball to Brussels. He publicly HUMILATED our most important allies and then, the following day, said everything was GREAT, that he had a great relationship with the chancellor of Germany and that he was personally responsible for the money that was "pouring into NATO."
Whatever happened to positive, unifying leadership by the president of the United States?
I think first and foremost is that Trump doesn't understand how it works OR he chooses to purposely mislead Americans on how it works.
When you start with that -- whatever he says after lacks any credibility or integrity.
It is clear after two NATO summits, Trump's style of leadership isn't working.
He hasn't been able to get the allies to come to any major agreement like they did in 2014.
Doesn't matter if his fans think he is being strategic, purposely being nasty, etc......the end result is what counts...and it is failing.
The problem now -- we are becoming comfortably numb with his insults. Nobody even bothers to fight back...they just let him yanner away and they do nothing.
Oh well......maybe he will have better luck making friends with Putin....because we all want to be friends with Putin.
"I think first and foremost is that Trump doesn't understand how it works OR he chooses to purposely mislead Americans on how it works."
Past American presidents HAVE BEEN SAYING THEY WANT THESE COUNTRIES TO START PAYING WHAT THEY AGREED TO.
THESE COUNTRIES HAVE not done it.
"WHEN YOU DO THE same thing OVER AND OVER, DO not EXPECT A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
These PARASITES Need TO BE EMBARRASSED in front of the entire world, then MAYBE they will start fulfilling what the agreed to.
"Sometime you have to hit the jackass upside his head to get his "attention" as they say.
I am just wondering if we had to do another El Dorado operation.............
..................if those allied countries would treat us the same way.
Operation El Dorado was not a NATO operation, however the UK gave the go-ahead for the US to use their bases in Britain in order to attack Libya, in response to the murder of US Service Personnel in Italy and Germany. Gaddafi and his regime were disgusting, and most Britons had no problem with the US raids.
In terms of the French, they left NATO's integrated military command in 1966, and did not return until 4 decades later in 2009, and they clearly didn't want another nations planes using their airspace in relation to something that at the time wasn't even in NATO's remit never mind France's own remit.
Today we are much more attune to the threat of terrorism in a post9/11 world and NATO is far more committed in relation to htting terrorist regimes, so the response would be very different today.
NATO has been establishing more quick reaction units and new capibablities in relation to counter-terrorism and indeed the growing threat posed by cyber attack.
The US may have a large Defence budget, but only a few percent is spent on Europe, and only 5% of active US Military personnel are based in Europe.
The Europeans have been increasing their defence budgets, as per the 2014 guidelines and most are comitted to reaching the 2% figure.
All this insulting people and calling them freeloaders is just pathetic and is not how allies behave.
"most are comitted to reaching the 2% figure."
What, almost 70 YEARS isn't enough time?
I think they should not only pay what they agreed to but ALSO PAST payments they have NOT paid,PLUS INTEREST, for almost 70 YEARS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Russia is not a threat, then what is the purpose of the NATO? Get rid of NATO, and Americans will close the base in Europe, simple like that. But since no European countries have the desire of getting rid of NATO, they do need to pay their share. It is hardly an insult to the allies.
