Why is Trump destroying NATO ?

Why is Trump destroying NATO?

  • Total voters
    0
#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
If HRC had won and showed the slightest disregard for NATO, you'd all be screaming that she is betraying our alliances, is ignoring the very real threat from Russia, doesn't know what she's doing, and is soft on the military.



Trump threatens to hand Europe to Putin on a silver platter and you join him in finding creative ways to express your contempt for the NATO members.


You know I am absolutely right.
Click to expand...

The mental gymnastics was funny at first, but now it is just absurd.
 
#54
#54
NorthDallas40 said:
This has been going on for decades I’m sure you know Carlos. The 2% gdp rule is a rather recent arbitrary measuring point I guess but it’s the one we currently have. And former admins have opined about lack of sharing the load many times.

Regardless the US isn’t pulling out of NATO because we are the ones that most want it to exist I believe.
Click to expand...

When you say decades you should mean after 1990. After the cold war ended the 16 Western European NATO countries and the U.S. signed the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which limited the amount of conventional military equipment in Europe. NATO didn't end its involvement in the treaty until 2015 when Russia started moving more troops in the border regions with Ukraine, and Poland.

"The CFE Treaty set equal ceilings for each bloc (NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization), from the Atlantic to the Urals, on key armaments essential for conducting surprise attacks and initiating large-scale offensive operations. Collectively, the treaty participants agreed that neither side could have more than:[6]

20,000 tanks;
20,000 artillery pieces;
30,000 armoured combat vehicles (ACVs);
6,800 combat aircraft; and
2,000 attack helicopters.
To further limit the readiness of armed forces, the treaty set equal ceilings on equipment that could be deployed with active units. Other ground equipment had to be place in designated permanent storage sites. The limits for equipment each side could have in active units were:[6]

16,500 tanks;
17,000 artillery pieces; and
27,300 armored combat vehicles (ACVs);
The treaty further limited the proportion of armaments that could be held by any one country in Europe to about one-third of the total for all countries in Europe - the "sufficiency" rule. These limits were:[6]

13,300 tanks;
13,700 artillery pieces;
20,000 armoured combat vehicles (ACVs);
5,150 combat aircraft; and
1,550 attack helicopters.
All sea-based Naval forces were excluded from CFE Treaty accountability."
 
#55
#55
Grand Vol said:
It's cute you found a friend.

Still didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...




My answer is that Trump has repeatedly said things designed to undermine the alliance. He has personally insulted the individual leaders of various NATO countries. He has in none-too-vague terms threatened to pull out of NATO unless they reconfigure decades-long arrangements. He has only grudgingly reiterated Article 5, and recently hinted that he might withdraw from that.


Meanwhile, he has been inexplicably soft of Russia and Putin. He has assailed Putin's leadership* while at the same time denigrating that of the NATO countries. He is going to meet with Putin privately, which is unexplained and universally regarded as a terrible idea. He has personally thwarted sanctions against Russia and to this day refuses to admit that the interfered in the election and will do so again.


You seem to want to see a picture of the two, smiling for the camera as Trump hands Putin a check and the memo says "For help beating HRC." It isn't ever going to be that clear, but you know that. You also know that his behavior has been way beyond suspicious about this.








* I'll give credit where credit is due. I saw video of Trump at a recent rally. I think it was Minnesota but may be mistaken. It was within the last ten days. At any rate, the crowd was its usual boisterous self, and Trump says something about NATO leaders sucking and Putin maybe not being such a bad guy, and I'm telling you the crowd reaction definitely had a "whoa, WTF" element to it. The rally decibels dropped, you could see a few people behind him exchanging glances with each other.


This is a message board. There is an element of arguing for the sake of arguing going on here. But I am convinced that, even in the die hardest of die hard Trump territory out there, Trump people are beginning to admit they have some misgivings about Trump and his connection/favoritism to Putin and Russia.



Its not going to take a whole lot more for the tide to turn, even in Trump circles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#58
#58
carlos86 said:
When you say decades you should mean after 1990. After the cold war ended the 16 Western European NATO countries and the U.S. signed the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which limited the amount of conventional military equipment in Europe. NATO didn't end its involvement in the treaty until 2015 when Russia started moving more troops in the border regions with Ukraine, and Poland.

"The CFE Treaty set equal ceilings for each bloc (NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization), from the Atlantic to the Urals, on key armaments essential for conducting surprise attacks and initiating large-scale offensive operations. Collectively, the treaty participants agreed that neither side could have more than:[6]

20,000 tanks;
20,000 artillery pieces;
30,000 armoured combat vehicles (ACVs);
6,800 combat aircraft; and
2,000 attack helicopters.
To further limit the readiness of armed forces, the treaty set equal ceilings on equipment that could be deployed with active units. Other ground equipment had to be place in designated permanent storage sites. The limits for equipment each side could have in active units were:[6]

16,500 tanks;
17,000 artillery pieces; and
27,300 armored combat vehicles (ACVs);
The treaty further limited the proportion of armaments that could be held by any one country in Europe to about one-third of the total for all countries in Europe - the "sufficiency" rule. These limits were:[6]

13,300 tanks;
13,700 artillery pieces;
20,000 armoured combat vehicles (ACVs);
5,150 combat aircraft; and
1,550 attack helicopters.
All sea-based Naval forces were excluded from CFE Treaty accountability."
Click to expand...

I actually wasn’t aware of this agreement. Thanks for the heads up.

And while we, the US, may gripe I do not believe for a moment the US will ever withdraw from NATO or fail to meet its obligations. Going back to I think Eisenhower I believe NATO funding has been used as a stump speech topic but I think it’s just that. Campaign rhetoric.
 
#59
#59
Some people just can't understand ole president Cheeto...he is American as apple pie. Died in the will, red white and blue, firecrackers and 4th of July, American. He is not bought and paid for...by party, boosters, lobbyists, or special interests.

He is far from perfect. He runs off at the mouth, tweets dumb stuff from time to time..but he is the real deal
Washington is scared to death. Look at all the crooks that have resigned...they saw the writing on the wall. Quit or be exposed and go to jail. They hate him, cause they ain't him. It's that simple. We will probably never have a loose cannon like him again, that actually cares about our country, our people, our courts and laws, and getting rid of the career criminals in Washington. It is a beautiful thing to watch. That's why so many on here are amazed. We, too, never thought in a million years he would be able to do the things that he actually said he would do before the election...dang IF he hasnt done exactly what he said he was going to do...and the libs can't believe it.

Go TRUMP. More winning than Charlie Sheen can even handle. Keep draining the swamp, and leveling the global playing field. Germany was step 1...
 
#60
#60
Grand Vol said:
I'll address this...

Turkey - Eff 'em. Cold War positioning bought them into the Alliance. Post Cold War Middle East activities kept them relevant. Otherwise, tell them to eat a fat one.

France - Extremely helpful in Afghanistan. Don't buy into the "They didn't go into Iraq with us!" nonsense.

Belgium - Also has helped out in the Stan. Kindly remind you that for every battalion sent by a NATO ally, that's one battalion of US troops that didn't have to go.

Iceland - Cold War throwback. Zero bases in that nation so it's a zero sum investment for us save the few times we go there for exercises.

Canada - Dude, please. You're starting to get ignorant.

Italy - Helped in both Iraq and the Stan.

Netherlands - See Italy

Luxembourg - See Iceland

Greece - See Belgium

Spain - See Italy

Latvia - Small contingents to Iraq and the Stan

Estonia - See Latvia, also Lithuania

Albania - Small contingents to Afghanistan

Croatia - See Albania

Montenegro - Also see Albania

UK, Germany, Norway, Poland= Useful. Well, that's just nice of you to admit. Just for your information, the Norwegian contingent in Iraq was actually less than the Dutch. But they are "useful" in your eyes.

I'm up for round two of your dance around Europe.
Click to expand...

That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy but NATO is a military alliance
 
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
blah, blah, too long to quote without taking up half the page
Click to expand...

This is just far too rich for me to ignore. Very long drawn out...nothing burger. But I'll tell you a little secret about abandoning Europe.

Blame your own party for that. Yep, Democrats are at the root of those problems. We can take a trip back to 2006 when they regained the House and Senate and the Iraq War became real unpopular and a voting tool. Everyone in the world knew Bush 43 was a lame duck at that point. He wasn't going to get anything done in office. Certainly didn't help Congress was divided on Iraq. Even more were your idiots pushing for impeachment of Bush. Putin saw it and also saw the vacuum of power being left behind.

Invade Georgia they did. And did we do anything about it? Nope. Two shooting wars at the time were enough for us. And do you really think Congress would have gone along with getting involved in yet another conflict?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Fast forward to the "Apology Tour" put on after Obama was inaugurated. First, he unilaterally decided to withdraw the ABM sites in Eastern Europe that were a thorn in Putin's side. The Russians hated them. Positively were something that grated at them. And what did we get in return?

Bumpkis.

And then decided to unilaterally reduce our nuclear deterrent. In hopes of making it "a safer world" or some such nonsense. Concurrent reductions by the Russians?

Nope.

Then we have the famous Red Line in Syria. Which was crossed and Obama did absolutely nothing about. You don't think Putin saw this? You don't think he saw what a empty shell of rhetoric Obama was?

You're stupid if you think he didn't see the chessboard evolving to a world where he could take advantage of it.

Continuing to the 2012 debates where Obama downplayed the Russian threat. "The 1980s called..." He might as well have given them carte blanche to do whatever they wanted since he admitted in public they weren't a threat.

Yeah, whoops. They invaded the Crimea and annexed it. And what did we do? We sent sleeping bags. Yep, they're still there.

Now, you say Trump is undermining NATO and Europe. I call that BS. They've wanted to play Big Boy on the world stage for a while. All the while also causing serious problems of their own. You blame Trump for calling a spade a spade? They've ****ed themselves up far more than he has. The UK wanted Brexit, we supported them (Trump did at least) and the rest of Europe wants to complain.

Their ****ing problem, fix it and make it beneficial for them to stay. However, that's not going to happen.

You say he undermines NATO and European leaders? They've undermined themselves far more than he can. You think Trump has sway over Merkel's government collapsing? Or the nationalistic Frenchman getting elected? Or Italy finally realizing how much they effed up by letting so many "refugees" in? Trump's responsible for all that? You give him far more credit than you let on.

He wants NATO to pay their fair share. You want to complain about that? He wants them to stop thinking they are the pitiful 5th grader that doesn't have the Derek Barnett sized big brother down the street. NATO has always been about reliance on each other. Sure, we're that big brother, but little brothers can help fight as well. Or help pay for the brass knuckles to punch someone in the mouth.

You want to know why Putin is out of control? Yeah, thank you Democratic Congress, thanks Obama and thanks Europe for effing it up themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#63
#63
Don't reply LG. You won't be able to add anything significant to this debate except "yeah, GV, you're right, but I'm a partisan mouthbreather that can't realize there are far more variables to this equation except Trump."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#66
#66
Grand Vol said:
There happened to be shooting wars where NATO countries helped out.
Click to expand...

Really??
Vietnam: started by France; US did all the heavy lifting with two non NATO nations also contributing heavily in Australia and South Korea

Persian Gulf War: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO forces totaling about 1/10th of US forces; Non NATO nations like Saudi Arabia played more of a role than any single NATO nation as well as Israel.

Afghanistan: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO primarily taking support roles; China, Pakistan, Russia, India, and even Iran played as much of a part as most NATO members

Iraq: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO playing little to no role with the exception of the U.K.

NATO needs the US; the US does not need NATO and often times formes just as large a coalition without NATO
 
#67
#67
landscapingvol said:
Really??
Vietnam: started by France; US did all the heavy lifting with two non NATO nations also contributing heavily in Australia and South Korea

Persian Gulf War: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO forces totaling about 1/10th of US forces; Non NATO nations like Saudi Arabia played more of a role than any single NATO nation as well as Israel.

Afghanistan: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO primarily taking support roles; China, Pakistan, Russia, India, and even Iran played as much of a part as most NATO members

Iraq: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO playing little to no role with the exception of the U.K.

NATO needs the US; the US does not need NATO and often times formes just as large a coalition without NATO
Click to expand...

Where do you get your "facts?" LG?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
Our Allies have not treated us like allies for a long time. Russia is not on our door step. And if they take more territory, it has little to do with us. It has to do with them controlling natural gas supply to Germany.
 
#70
#70
landscapingvol said:
Really??
Vietnam: started by France; US did all the heavy lifting with two non NATO nations also contributing heavily in Australia and South Korea

Persian Gulf War: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO forces totaling about 1/10th of US forces; Non NATO nations like Saudi Arabia played more of a role than any single NATO nation as well as Israel.

Afghanistan: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO primarily taking support roles; China, Pakistan, Russia, India, and even Iran played as much of a part as most NATO members

Iraq: US did all the heavy lifting with NATO playing little to no role with the exception of the U.K.

NATO needs the US; the US does not need NATO and often times formes just as large a coalition without NATO
Click to expand...

France started Vietnam? Or did Vietnam revolt against French rule in the first Indochina War and we slowly escalated our forces half a decade later?

I really want to see you link to the Afghanistan info.

Desert Storm was not a NATO action. And I really want to see the stats on how much the Saudis pitched in compared to the British and French.

Iraq, again, wasn't a NATO action. But there certainly have been good contributions by NATO members.

You're completely off on your analysis here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#71
#71
I see both POV by GV and LSV. Individually, several NATO members contributed forces that assisted. From an economic view, the EU as a whole has a greater GDP than the USA, but their collective contributions have been paltry by comparison.

And as far as de Germans, they offered forces as part of ISAF, but only about 5K, although numbers are difficult for totality. Whereas the US has committed around 1 million total personnel over the past 15 years. The German personnel effort seems pittance.

Wonder if Carlos could expand his view on German involvement, as they are basically the EU prime. I do know they have 6 subs in totality that are not deployable and was reported that only 6 o 100+ Typhoons were combat ready, the army used broomsticks as weapons in an embarrassment.

German army used broomsticks instead of guns during training - Telegraph

Sounds like us via 1915.

Fact is they are probably still trying to integrate EG, but they have a helluva welfare program.
 
#73
#73
Orangeburst65 said:
I see both POV by GV and LSV. Individually, several NATO members contributed forces that assisted. From an economic view, the EU as a whole has a greater GDP than the USA, but their collective contributions have been paltry by comparison.

And as far as de Germans, they offered forces as part of ISAF, but only about 5K, although numbers are difficult for totality. Whereas the US has committed around 1 million total personnel over the past 15 years. The German personnel effort seems pittance.

Wonder if Carlos could expand his view on German involvement, as they are basically the EU prime. I do know they have 6 subs in totality that are not deployable and was reported that only 6 o 100+ Typhoons were combat ready, the army used broomsticks as weapons in an embarrassment.

German army used broomsticks instead of guns during training - Telegraph

Sounds like us via 1915.

Fact is they are probably still trying to integrate EG, but they have a helluva welfare program.
Click to expand...

The Germans were creating a world war every 20 years until they were stopped, who would think about arming them again? Broomsticks are fine!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top