This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Trump and his fans have no idea what is going on NATO has had an anti-terror task force for years now.
- This needs to be said.
Well having a task force and using it effectively are not the same. True that, SID. But why didn't we use it in Libya and Syria? Seems like since 9/11 NATO only issues statements condemning terrorist attacks. I went on NATO's web page - big yawn.
There is zero evidence for this claim by Trump. NATO nations coordinate on terrorism regularly and have for some time. It is an important part of its functioning. NATO does lots of counterterrorism, perhaps most importantly in intelligence gathering.
Yes, they do. You should check the facts first. Estonia just ramped their defense spending up by 40%. The nations on the border are quickly running up their expenditures - the Baltics, Poland, Romania for instance IIRC.
I guess Trump looks at it a from a slightly different perspective. He runs fancy clubs where he charges quite a lot for membership. Can you imagine some big names want to use the fantastic facilities (gold and marbles galor) for free?
Did you not see where I said I'd been to that page? And NATO nations is not the same as NATO.
Again, that's a US program. NATO can comment on it, but who is paying for it? I think that is what Trump is talking about.
You must have but your impression of it and mine are completely different. - Do you think Trump realizes that task force exists? Serious question, do you think he is even aware of it?
Yeah?
Operated by NATO, but installed by who? Paid for by who? Is it really a fair share? All I'm saying is that Trump was arguing for NATO nations to pay their fair share. It is likely that he thinks that what they are paying is not their fair share.
Ok, I'm gonna speculate Trump has never heard of the task force.
Trump's not criticized for saying NATO nations should pay their fair share - that's been going on since Eisenhower - it's that he conditioned our meeting our treaty obligations on their doing so.
Definitely more accurate a statement. Now, each contributing nation paid the costs resulting from the use of their capabilities deployed and AWACS were the only NATO-owned capabilities subject to NATO common funding
Why is he still railing against Republicans then?
I honestly don't get this. I'm guessing they were mostly US, UK & French. - There are 28 member nations. Are we supposed to have 8 planes from each nation flying over Libya?
I agree Trump leaves wide open what fair share is, but we do spend a hell of a lot on the military. The other members of NATO have a treaty obligation to pay the 2% GDP requirement and some are not. So not meeting our treaty obligations with those who are not meeting their treaty obligations may be what he is talking about. As usual, he is pretty vague on the point. I suspect he also looks at the 2% minimum of the US being huge compared to the 2% minimum of the rest of NATO. If you look at the graphs in your link, you can see we are paying for substantially more than half of NATO's costs, while as a whole, NATO Europe isn't meeting their 2% minimum. While I have no clue what Trump specifically means, it seems like he has a point about NATO Europe not paying their fair share. It is especially evident in graph 5.
Thanks for looking at the link... Ok I gotta roll and drink some
's, thanks for the foreign policy discussion, don't get to do that much, have a good one or I will try to catch up later.
Donald J. is a cheapskate. He would only spend that kind of money if he thinks they will continue to sabotage.
I'm guessing that most were ours. What I am saying is that each nation paid for the deployment of their own assets rather than NATO dividing the bill according to some standard (GDP)? So the argument that the US paid more than our fair share for NATO operations in Libya is easy to make, particularly when it is Italy that benefits most from a stable Libya (that's where most Libyan oil is shipped).
Always nice to have an intelligent conversation. I have to mow the lawn, then I'll be having a cold one myself - later!Thanks for looking at the link... Ok I gotta roll and drink some
I take it he thinks now that USA!USA!USA! is not the only country hurt by ISIS, there is more leverage to get everyone else to chip in.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Let's be real. Donald has no intention of ever spending that $20 million. He'll encourage other people to fund the Super PAC and then claim that he gave them "$20 million worth of free publicity".
You've been writing the same stuff for months. Personally I suspect it's shtick.
And Trump will continue to call her what she is. What a nice campaign season we are going to have. And if you were supporting the good guys, you wouldn't be supporting either of these clowns.
When I first saw it I thought she was making fun of bobble heads. Now I see that she is one.
Maybe she will not be able to continue and Tim Kaine would have to replace her. I think I could live with that.
Not for long. It will be a purple state very soon, and within 10-15 years firmly in the blue camp.
Well thems the well known well documented facts. Please don't act like I say she murdered Foster. This stuff is public record and widely.available. People don't put the money they have into the Clintons and not expect a payback. You guys know full well the world doesn't work like that. You know it in your heart and yet you refuse to accept the truth.
So that makes it alright. Oh it's OK she is bought and paid for because others have been and we survived. You sound like a battered spouse.
Donald Trump would make for an excellent watchdog actually, that's a role he would have a lot of success. Calling out BS where he sees it. Keeping corruption out of the system. When he loses, he can start Trump News and rag on Hillary for 4 years 24/7. I think the country would be ready for a one term Hillary if there was a moderate republican alternative in 2020.
No he isn't. He knows how to play the rubes. And his rhetoric is dangerous. For instance his stupidity on NATO is essentially telling Putin to take what he wants. Dude is dangerous because his knowledge is so shallow and simplistic.
I almost think you want Trump to win. Its so obvious how to beat him and the democrats refuse to do it!
