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.
Trump was right in a lot more things. Allied? Name 1 positive thing Trump gave Putin during his 4 years? name 1. There isn't.
Positive things Trump attempted to do for Russia. Get them back in the G7. They were kicked out for what they did in Crimea. And recent events prove that was a really dumb idea. Trump refused to acknowledge in a public statement the 10 year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Georgia. Even though his staff had a public statement that he had agreed to read. He did sign the 2017 sanctions bill passed by congress after fighting to get it watered down and saying it was unconstitutional. The bill was veto proof so he had no choice. Trump countless times attempted to help Putin and Russia but usually failed because of push back from congress, his own party and his own administration. There are lists of everything Trump has tried to do for Putin or refused to do against Putin. Beyond the scope of this thread. But its well documented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
You have to put our foreign policy in perspective. When Trump come came in, We were in endless wars and quagmires and a huge deficit. Trump looked at NATO and the ridiculous amount We pay a year when most of those countries are dead weight and wants American handouts and not only they were required to pay a small amount, they refused to pay for it and let the Americans pay.
No when Trump came in he took over a White House that for 8 years had been winding down the wars GWB started and did not start any major conflicts. It was one of the few bright spots of Obama's time in office in my opinion.
Look Obama won in 2008 and a big part why he won was a shift from Bush and the neocons. He slowly drew down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Took a non interventionist stance in regards to war. One of the few things I agreed with Obama on. Difference was the GOP up until 2016 was still in this GWB mode and never even came to grips with the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump dared to speak the truth on that. Which I respect. So the GOP then changed direction although the direction has actually changed 8 years before.
This huge deficit you speak of when Trump came in? It went away under Trump? I recall even before the pandemic it was zooming up to record levels. Trump tried early in his administration with government shut downs and tried to trim the fat. But the last couple years he gave up on that and let the government get bigger and more out of control. I don't blame him for all the pandemic related spending. I disagree with that spending but Washington was bent on doing that so it is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
Add salt to injury, they ignored Trump and signed a Russian pipeline gas deal with Putin making him richer and bolder and Europe dependent on Russia while the American taxpayers are paying their defense against Russia. Trump had the balls to call that out and look out for the Americans that are paying this huge bill every year and all We are creating is a huge bureaucracy of countries that speak different languages, different cultures and have nothing in common other than most of them want a free ride from the U.S. and We have leaders in our country taking advantage of Americans.
We don't need to pay for 29 countries defense and go to war automatically for any one of them.
Trump was right about the pipeline in Germany. However what on earth are you talking about. I agree that NATO countries need to pay their fare share. Which countries are get a free ride? You are saying they are not paying anything into NATO? I agree they should all be paying the 2% and Trump was right to bring that up. Whole point of NATO is to take countries that have one thing in common. They don't want Russia attacking them. And the events of the past 2 weeks prove NATO has a very important purpose. And the threat of 30 countries banding together if attacked is to prevent war, not start one. Putin knows what will happen if he attacks a NATO country.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 03-06-2022 at 07:50 AM..
but you do? Nobody is asking NATO countries to match the U.S. weapon by weapon. We are talking about a small % of their GDP. The U.S. took most of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was a failure. To say we were in those countries to protect freedom is really a joke.
Iraq was not a NATO operation.
As for Afghanistan it was a UN sanctioned operation, and included a good deal of European NATO forces, with the British and Danish suffering a good deal of casualties down in Helmand Province.
Any failure in Afghanistan was mainly due to US politicians and especially Joe Biden and his withdrawal strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
If NATO countries refuse to meet expectations who fills in the gap if it isn't the U.S. taxpayers? how is it a complete nonsense? The U.S. accounted for 75% of all NATO defense spending, up from 50% only a few years earlier. Trump forced them to add $130 billion to their defense budgets since 2017 with a lot of them against it and fighting like pulling a tooth from them and still many of them are under 2% and is not enough.
NATO mainly relies on spending per nation and is not some kind of collective budget.
The US defence budget that is spent in terms of Europe is around 5%, so 95% of the US Defence budget is not related to Europe.
By contrast many European countries spend the vast majority of their defence budgets in relation to Europe and NATO.
Furthermore many European countries are vastly increasing their defence budgets following events in Ukraine, and this includes Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
Despite endless searches for a new mission to justify its massive burden on U.S. taxpayers, NATO has failed to be of much use since then. As its boosters like to remind us, after 9/11, the alliance invoked its Article 5 mutual-defense provision on our behalf. But action from America’s allies did not follow the grandiose gesture, the NATO mission in Afghanistan relied mostly on U.S. forces and effectively failed. We bailed out after 20 years. A big failure. Thanks NATO.
AWACS aircraft were deployed from Europe following 9/11 and European NATO members offered more hekp should the US have requested it.
As for Afghanistan 951 European NATO Troops gave their lives and many thousand were left with life changing injuries.
US loses were USA: 2,355, however NATO European members still had significant losses and this is especially true in relation to countries such as the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
Today, the alliance’s bureaucrats and some member states spotlight a threat from Russia as a reason for keeping the organization alive, along with a laundry list of “train and equip” missions.
Yet NATO members' defense budgets don't reflect a real sense of danger from Russia or anyone else. Among the twenty-nine members, only the United States is really serious about its Article 3 obligations to defend itself, spending approximately $700 billion or 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense. No other NATO member comes close to this proportion, and the vast majority fail even to meet the modest, self-imposed requirement to devote at least 2 percent of GDP to defense.
Britain and Poland are rare members that meet the 2 percent requirement. One of the worst free-riders is Canada, which spends just 1 percent of its GDP on security, amounting to $20 billion. Furthermore, Germany spends a similarly pathetic 1.2 percent.
Compare that to non-NATO members facing real threats, some of which spend 5-10 percent of their GDPs on defense. These include Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who must contend with Iran and spend nearly a combined $100 billion. Israel, which faces the same enemy, adds $15 billion to the equation.
We don't need a 30 country alliance and add more that most are dead weight for 1 country.
There is nothing stopping the US from leaving NATO, and the French have been pushing for a European Defence pact to operate alongside NATO or even to replace it.
In such circumstances Europe would have to build a significant nuclear weapons force, and further increase and integrate it's military forces, with the US having to ask permission to use air bases or ports in respect of military vessels or submarines.
The US would however be weaker if it left NATO and would find it more difficult to operate on the global stage, at a time when Russia is threatening the globe, and China would like to replace the US in terms of global super-power status.
On top of this, modern warfare is increasingly global and the latest technology including hypersonic missiles coupled with cyber, space, drones, AI etc merely demonstrates this.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-06-2022 at 08:35 AM..
Yes, the US should withdraw from NATO, and to be honest, NATO should be disbanded. It's obvious that they are not useful in protecting the world against Russia. Especially since the US helped bring China and Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE into their current power, and those countries are not supporting Ukraine or backing NATO in any way.......
In fact, I would say that after the dust settles in this Ukraine/Russian conflict we will be in a new era. The rise of Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia as the new supreme rulers of the world.
So, we are obligated under NATO to protect some place like Bulgaria....which in a sane world would mean nothing to the US. But under NATO, hey, lets start WW3 over some country like Albania, LOL!
And the best part is none of the NATO countries have paid their fair share…. Until now. Now they want to increase their defense budgets. Maybe next time they’ll listen to Trump.
I'm glad to see 75% of people support NATO on a CD Poll. I'm also liking the the characteristics of the New NATO alliance Putin has blessed us with. Germany is the big player here, and they have done a complete about face.
Scholz stunned his country, and much of the world, with a riveting speech last Sunday, announcing, “With the invasion of Ukraine, we are in a new era.” That weekend, he swept aside decades of German aversion to hard power to announce not only a huge hike in the country’s defense spending (with an immediate infusion of 100 billion euros) but also plans to provide Ukraine with 1,000 antitank missiles and 500 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, and to lift objections to booting Russia from the SWIFT banking network.
Scholz previously had declared that gas pipeline project Nord Stream 2 would be nixed. On Sunday, he stressed the need to make “progress with the development of renewable energies,” build up new coal and gas reserves, and construct new liquid natural gas terminals to reduce Germany’s reliance on Russian energy.
A strong US and German alliance is very powerful in the face of these rising autocracies. It looks like Germany is taking there gloves off. A strong assertive democratic Germany (without Hitler) is a good thing in Europe.
I'm glad to see 75% of people support NATO on a CD Poll. I'm also liking the the characteristics of the New NATO alliance Putin has blessed us with. Germany is the big player here, and they have done a complete about face.
A strong US and German alliance is very powerful in the face of these rising autocracies. It looks like Germany is taking there gloves off. A strong assertive democratic Germany (without Hitler) is a good thing in Europe.
Britain and France have the strongest alliance in Europe, and both are now looking to further increase defence spending.
They are also the only two countries who have heavy transport capabilities, ships and logistics to rapidly deploy.
Whilst Germany is now increasing it's spending, it's forces have not been funded properly for many years, and it will Germany sometime to rectify this situation even with new investment and increased expenditure.
Britain and France have the strongest alliance in Europe, and both are now looking to further increase defence spending.
All of these things are exact opposite of what Putin wanted....in reality Putin is probably the only person in the world that could have woken up this long established traditional alliance. Also, a strong US / EU alliance is exactly what China does not want to see.
All of these things are exact opposite of what Putin wanted....in reality Putin is probably the only person in the world that could have woken up this long established traditional alliance. Also, a strong US / EU alliance is exactly what China does not want to see.
Agreed - an increased investment in defence, in terms of all NATO European members can only be welcomed.
OUR MONEY IS NATO..OUR MONEY IS THE. THE UNITED NATIONS.
THE ROCKEfELERS gave the land the U.N.building stances on ..The UN pays no taxes on the most expensive land in the world.
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.
