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.
Asked whether von der Leyen's recollection of Trump's remarks matched those of Breton, a spokesperson for the European Commission president declined to comment.
1. Only five nations fulfill their funding requirements for NATO.
6. NATO members have an over-reliance on the United States.
7. Article 5 has only been invoked once in the lifetime of the agreement.
The events of September 11, 2001, are the only time that the critical Article 5 has been invoked for NATO. Some might say that this is indicative of the fact that it is an effective deterrent against aggression, but the fact is that even that tragic day in American history wasn’t an attack by another country. It was from an organized group of terrorists working independently. That’s one of the reasons why there is some talk, especially in conservative circles in the United States, that it might be time to leave NATO.
#1 - We do 3.61% of our GDP when only 2% is required. Why? We have no money and are in deep debt.
#6 is absolutely true.
The last one is interesting because it is a loophole where we can be attacked, but it doesn't really count because it wasn't from another country. So would others really ever come to help us if we are attacked by random groups of people?
This is why our allies are praying Trump lose the elections. He suggested abandoning NATO on multiple occasions, and then there is the comment below AND yesterday said that he'd honor the commitment conditionally based on how Europeans treat us (meaning teat HIM). Who can trust this guy?
Trump told European leaders that US ‘will never come to help you’ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-europe-attack
Then president told European commissioners in 2020 that ‘Nato is dead’ and the US would never defend Europe if it were attacked
Multiple news outlets said the exchange between Trump and Ursula von der Leyen at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2020 was described in Brussels on Tuesday by Thierry Breton, a French European commissioner responsible for the internal market, with responsibilities including defence.
“You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you,” Trump said, according to Breton, who was speaking at the European parliament.
I thought they all hated when Americans acting like the world police. What do you expect Americans to do for them? My goodness.
1. Only five nations fulfill their funding requirements for NATO.
6. NATO members have an over-reliance on the United States.
7. Article 5 has only been invoked once in the lifetime of the agreement.
The events of September 11, 2001, are the only time that the critical Article 5 has been invoked for NATO. Some might say that this is indicative of the fact that it is an effective deterrent against aggression, but the fact is that even that tragic day in American history wasn’t an attack by another country. It was from an organized group of terrorists working independently. That’s one of the reasons why there is some talk, especially in conservative circles in the United States, that it might be time to leave NATO.
#1 - We do 3.61% of our GDP when only 2% is required. Why? We have no money and are in deep debt.
#6 is absolutely true.
The last one is interesting because it is a loophole where we can be attacked, but it doesn't really count because it wasn't from another country. So would others really ever come to help us if we are attacked by random groups of people?
Thanks, because at least this offers some facts and what to consider rather than the moronic "lefty" this and "lefty" that nonsense, but why highlight only the cons? Why not the conclusion of your link? "When we look at the deterrent effect on Russia, the interventions in Kosovo, and the other actions taken to protect the region, NATO has provided many benefits. It can continue to do so if it receives the funding it requires."
It is no mystery the U.S. has been the primary supporter or financier of NATO, because we are the primary beneficiary in many respects including the ROI in terms of international trade and stability that we depend upon. Bottom line: we should not abandon NATO but continue to work toward making it more effective. Contrary to Trump's ideas, though lobbying other countries to contribute more needs to continue as well.
How do you know that? He didn't even try to deny it, and actually doubled down on it by saying the commitment is conditional based on level of "treatment", and of course he is the judge of what's good enough, or not good enough "treatment".
He is a big concern among our allies, and that's a problem no matter how you spin it.
Who could possibly be....? Jerry Seinfeld.....Tua Tagovailoa......Lady Gaga......Dr Fauci?
They made an official pledge to do it in 2014, and were on track. No one gives a rats ass what Trump claims.
They helped us for years in Afghanistan.
they did not help us.... they did the UN MISSSION
and since you say "They helped us for years in Afghanistan"...specify the they and the amount of help...bodies or money....... come on Finn....OFFER PROOF
get your story straight...did you miss the "come to jesus" meeting that Pravda Joe had with the press to tell them what they are getting wrong?
War monger leftists: “Ukraine is kicking Russians ass!”
Also war monger leftists: “EU is too “poor”. We need you Americans to pay for our defense to fight the Russians. We have to save our money to fund our socialized healthcare”
How do you know that? He didn't even try to deny it, and actually doubled down on it by saying the commitment is conditional based on level of "treatment", and of course he is the judge of what's good enough, or not good enough "treatment".
He is a big concern among our allies, and that's a problem no matter how you spin it.
Who could possibly be....? Jerry Seinfeld.....Tua Tagovailoa......Lady Gaga......Dr Fauci?
They made an official pledge to do it in 2014, and were on track. No one gives a rats ass what Trump claims.
They helped us for years in Afghanistan.
No, they made an official pledge in 2006 after decades of nagging by the US. And no, the biggest offenders, again primarily Germany, weren't "on track" to meet their commitments.
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.
