trump claims he told NATO country he would not protect them if Russia attacked them

[Orangecat]

Why don't you check when and how the US State debt evolved, before making non-relevant statements ???

When the cold war was over in 1991 the US State debt was around US$ 4 trillion - and the USSR was none existent and Russia didn't pose any threat towards NATO at all - until today - aside from waving around it's nuke potential. Highlighted endlessly by the WESTERN press. There was absolutely no threat from Russia for 30 years at all !!! - paying to protect NATO - absolute BULLSHIT.

However the USA spend trillions to pursue US global hegemonic interests Globally from 1990 onward. (Since the USSR was finally out of the equation).

U.S. National Debt by Year

The U.S. national debt is the total of what the federal government owes creditors. The U.S. has always carried debt, but the total has expanded rapidly since 2008.

www.investopedia.com

1989	$2,857	S&L Crisis
1990	$3,233	First Iraq War
1991	$3,665	Recession
1992	$4,065
1993	$4,411	Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
1994	$4,693	Clinton budgets
1995	$4,974
1996	$5,225	Welfare reform
1997	$5,413
1998	$5,526	Long-Term Capital Management crisis; recession
1999	$5,656	Glass-Steagall Act repealed
2000	$5,674	Budget surplus
2001	$5,807	9/11 attacks; Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
2002	$6,228	War on Terror
2003	$6,783	Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act; second Iraq War
2004	$7,379	Second Iraq War
2005	$7,933	Bankruptcy Act; Hurricane Katrina
2006	$8,507	Bernanke chaired Fed
2007	$9,008	Banks crisis
2008	$10,025	Bank bailouts; quantitative easing (QE)
2009	$11,910	Bailout cost $250 billion; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) added $242 billion
2010	$13,562	ARRA added $400B; payroll tax holiday ended; Obama tax cuts; Affordable Care Act; Simpson-Bowles debt reduction plan
2011	$14,790	Debt crisis, recession, and tax cuts reduced revenue
2012	$16,066	Fiscal cliff
2013	$16,738	Sequester; government shutdown
2014	$17,824	QE ended; debt ceiling crisis
2015	$18,151	Oil prices fell
2016	$19,573	Brexit
2017	$20,245	Congress raised the debt ceiling
2018	$21,516	Trump tax cuts
2019	$22,719	Trade wars
2020	$26,945	COVID-19 and recession
2021	$28,428	COVID-19 and American Rescue Plan Act
2022	$30,928	Inflation Reduction Act
2023	$33,167

Name me a single war - where the USA got involved due to a NATO member being attacked. - ZERO. NADA, NEVER.
The USA didn't get militarily involved neither when Turkey attacked Greece, nor when Argentina attacked the Falklands. The same goes for the e.g. Suez-crisis.

And every "wealthy" NATO member has contributed to support those "poor" NATO members, e.g. Portugal, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Romania etc. etc. - and not just the USA. Germany has contributed billions to Greece, Turkey and e.g. Poland - whilst the latter babbles about WW2 compensation.

Even the initial US 2nd hand crap that the Bundeswehr received upon becoming a NATO member in 1955 was ALL paid for by Germany.
And from the 60'ies onward Germany became the largest piggy bank in the European NATO for the US military industry. !!!

All wars since 1945 to which the USA where a part - where initiated and kicked of solely by the USA, to solely pursue US global Hegemonic interests.
And that is exactly as to what the American taxpayer is and has been paying for - since 1898. - US global supremacy.

E.g. Israel nor e.g. Egypt nor Jordan are NATO members, however both receive US$ billions. So why don't you ask these three, to pay by themselves, since the USA is indeed paying for them.

According to the 2021 estimates, U.S. defense spending will be close to $811 billion this year. On the other hand, the defense spending of all other NATO countries combined is projected to be $363 billion, Russia's defense budget will be close to $65 billion.
We (European NATO) need $ from the USA to outspend and or match Russia???? - simply ludicrous.

Just because your Trump talks bull all day long - shouldn't exempt you from trying to think for yourself from time to time.

Tl;dr.
I'm of the opinion that we should stop playing world policeman until we get our own financial house in order. And perhaps not even then. Do you disagree?

 

[Kruska]

Tl;dr.
I'm of the opinion that we should stop playing world policeman until we get our own financial house in order. And perhaps not even then. Do you disagree?

Hmmm.... there is no simple Yes or No to this issue in my opinion - if you press me for an answer I would have to say I disagree.

There is a huge difference between "playing self-appointed world police" and factually protecting vital US economic interests, especially those in regards to countries who's pro USA mindset is endangered "militarily" by other parties. E.g. S-Korea certainly deserves the "attention" and commitment by the USA in regards to N-Korea and it's aspirations. That S-Korea should therefore pay far more then it's 2.5% of GDP is understood. - or finally find a solution, that would allow for US troops to be pulled out.

Whilst e.g Taiwan is none of the USA's business, nor territorial claim-issues between e.g. China and the Philippines.

Fact is that any country - especially one with an economic setup such as the USA - desperately and logically needs a "sphere of influence". A so called "isolationist" policy for the USA would inadvertently result in a total economic breakdown. The USA would become like China before 1980, self-isolated and shit poor.

The question therefore to me is - does the USA need constant military intervention to protect it's economic interests or are they able to conduct it in a peaceful manner - see e.g. China. - not a single military intervention since 44 years. Simply making use of their economic prowess and political cleverness.

China in the meantime relies to more then 40% of it's mineral and agricultural requirements onto Africa. A continent that is still plagued with constant political instability - and yet there isn't a single Chinese soldier inside of Africa - aside from their military and navel base at Djibouti. WTF are those US boys doing in Mali?

China has ONE foreign military base (okay Cambodia can be discussed about) - the USA maintains roughly 750 US foreign military bases, that are spread across 80 nations!!, now you know where your $$ go in regards to "defense" spending's.

Another classic example for US military policy - Syria - WTF are US troops doing in Syria and what international law even allows them to be there?? What or who's economic gains or existing economic interests are they supposedly securing there?

 

[Orangecat]

Hmmm.... there is no simple Yes or No to this issue in my opinion - if you press me for an answer I would have to say I disagree.

There is a huge difference between "playing self-appointed world police" and factually protecting vital US economic interests, especially those in regards to countries who's pro USA mindset is endangered "militarily" by other parties. E.g. S-Korea certainly deserves the "attention" and commitment by the USA in regards to N-Korea and it's aspirations. That S-Korea should therefore pay far more then it's 2.5% of GDP is understood. - or finally find a solution, that would allow for US troops to be pulled out.

Whilst e.g Taiwan is none of the USA's business, nor territorial claim-issues between e.g. China and the Philippines.

Fact is that any country - especially one with an economic setup such as the USA - desperately and logically needs a "sphere of influence". A so called "isolationist" policy for the USA would inadvertently result in a total economic breakdown. The USA would become like China before 1980, self-isolated and shit poor.

The question therefore to me is - does the USA need constant military intervention to protect it's economic interests or are they able to conduct it in a peaceful manner - see e.g. China. - not a single military intervention since 44 years. Simply making use of their economic prowess and political cleverness.

China in the meantime relies to more then 40% of it's mineral and agricultural requirements onto Africa. A continent that is still plagued with constant political instability - and yet there isn't a single Chinese soldier inside of Africa - aside from their military and navel base at Djibouti. WTF are those US boys doing in Mali?

China has ONE foreign military base (okay Cambodia can be discussed about) - the USA maintains roughly 750 US foreign military bases, that are spread across 80 nations!!, now you know where your $$ go in regards to "defense" spending's.

Another classic example for US military policy - Syria - WTF are US troops doing in Syria and what international law even allows them to be there?? What or who's economic gains or existing economic interests are they supposedly securing there?

I disagree. The US would do just fine focusing on our own internal issues and let the rest of the world fend for themselves. We have plenty of resources and could influence most foreign interests via trade policy. The other option is to deficit spend until our currency collapses and the outcome is much worse.

 

[krichton]

That statement is if Russia attacked. Trump did not tell Russia to attack. The traitors are running this country and you are a traitor for supporting an illegitimate government.

Can you not read properly? He literally said, he would encourage Russia, to, "do whatever the hell they want," if NATO countries don't pay their bill. Russia's biggest desire is to attack all their neighbors. Case closed. Trump is a traitor.

 

[j-mac]

Sure, can't we all support a sentiment of "pay your way", "carry your weight"?
However, with that agreement between us can we build on it and support the sentiment of encouraging President Putin.....in Trump's words....'" I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want."

That seems a bridge too far for my sensibilities. Sure, stare hard and talk tough to deadbeats. I get it. I've done it. But to now 'encourage' our own country's adversary, and critically, NATO's bête noire, Bad Vlad Putin to do whatever....is beyond the pale. It is reckless, irresponsible.

It is not American leadership.

IMHO

I understand…I already said I didn’t care for the statement…Part of that I suspect, was trolling in nature…

 

[j-mac]

Nobody appreciates Tump's words, about NATO, more than Putin.
Trump and MAGA are Russia's biggest fans from the USA since the 1950 US communists.

Well, you should have stopped with the first sentence.

 

[j-mac]

Can you not read properly? He literally said, he would encourage Russia, to, "do whatever the hell they want," if NATO countries don't pay their bill. Russia's biggest desire is to attack all their neighbors. Case closed. Trump is a traitor.

You progs always take it too far…

 

[Chillicothe]

Part of that I suspect, was trolling in nature…

Perhaps, but...... but is 'trolling' what we want out of responsible leadership?

Some may revel in a figure who does that. OK. I get it.
However, I judge leaders by their displayed sense of responsibility; my perception of their sincerity; their respect for us, the led; their demonstrated abilities; their display of appropriate decorum in any given situation.

Insincere and provocative trolling on issues that have wide and deep resonance in our world ain't' one of the skill-sets that appeal to my sensibilities.
Your mileage may vary.

You progs always take it too far…

???
Well, I ain't a "prog"....but will respond anyway. The poster j-mac's assertion above seems unfocused. I mean by that, is he referring to the skepticism towards Don Trump publicly encouraging Russia 'to-do-whatever-the-hell-they-want'?

Or is he referring to the stated opinion that Don Trump is a traitor?

Which is it?
Is it both?
Why would either be 'too far'?

 

[krichton]

You just don't get it or you do, and if you do it's because you know about how Trump shocks the world into reality by saying very controversial thing's in order to get ours and the world's attention towards some very important short falls that we've all had concerning such things, but you go on an act dumb about it ok...............................

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. The problem here is, you want to play pretend this game of, I didn't hear him say that while humming loudly to yourself. This is no different than burying your head in the sand in order to ignore reality.

It's only controversial because normal ppl can't believe what an utter fool and moron Trump is for saying the things he does. He only brings attention to his own stupidity, nothing more.

 

[krichton]

You progs always take it too far…

It is what it is, Trump is a traitor, always has been. Just accept it.

 

[j-mac]

Perhaps, but...... but is 'trolling' what we want out of responsible leadership?

Some may revel in a figure who does that. OK. I get it.
However, I judge leaders by their displayed sense of responsibility; my perception of their sincerity; their respect for us, the led; their demonstrated abilities; their display of appropriate decorum in any given situation.

Insincere and provocative trolling on issues that have wide and deep resonance in our world ain't' one of the skill-sets that appeal to my sensibilities.
Your mileage may vary.

Are you aware of where you’re typing this? “Trolling” is nearly everything you do in here, and it’s what your brain dead POTUS has been doing for his entire term…

???
Well, I ain't a "prog"....but will respond anyway. The poster j-mac's assertion above seems unfocused. I mean by that, is he referring to the skepticism towards Don Trump publicly encouraging Russia 'to-do-whatever-the-hell-they-want'?

Or is he referring to the stated opinion that Don Trump is a traitor?

Which is it?
Is it both?
Why would either be 'too far'?

It‘s projection on your part. If anyone is the traitor today, it’s the vegetable in office right now…On multiple fronts.

 

[j-mac]

It is what it is, Trump is a traitor, always has been. Just accept it.

Yeah right, GFY.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Perhaps, but...... but is 'trolling' what we want out of responsible leadership?

Some may revel in a figure who does that. OK. I get it.
However, I judge leaders by their displayed sense of responsibility; my perception of their sincerity; their respect for us, the led; their demonstrated abilities; their display of appropriate decorum in any given situation.

Insincere and provocative trolling on issues that have wide and deep resonance in our world ain't' one of the skill-sets that appeal to my sensibilities.
Your mileage may vary.

OK, sure. In an ideal world, I would prefer a world leader, who made clear distinctions between joking around and seriousness. One who was kind to everyone, even his political opponents.

We once had one like that. He was very proper and never had a mean word to say about anyone. He brought back formality to the White House that the previous president had deliberately slacked off on. He often told corny jokes, but he would all but announce “hey, I’m about to tell a joke” he would not ever leave room to think that he was serious. He was a great president.

You guys hated him at least as bad as you hate Trump. His name was Ronald Reagan.

The problem with Trump and his trolling, is that you pants wetters make it way too easy for him. Anyone else would know that he was joking or being ironic about that part. But you insist on taking every single thing any conservative ever says absolutely literally. If Trump said “maybe those folks so worried about global warming, should spend some time at the north pole“ You guys would be crying that Trump is going to ship you all to the frozen wasteland. Further, you would be demanding that Trump supporters defend the real plan of sending progressives to the north pole.

I work with middle school students with AU. Sorry, students on the autism spectrum. They are frequently bullied.

I teach them that part of the reason they are bullied more often than other students use that they overreact to the slightest provocation. That just gives the bully what they want.

For People on the autism spectrum, such common sense understanding does not come naturally to them. They have to be taught it, and they have to be taught it over and over for it to sink in. Even then they don’t actually understand it, but they follow the training you give them.

That is the main reason I spend so much time on these boards. I perceive that many of you have autism features, and find it very difficult to learn from only one explanation. I am here to help!

 

[Chillicothe]

Trolling” is nearly everything you do in here

Me....and my avatar.... mildly demur.
If you make an allegation....prove it.
Lest the forum think you are frivolous and ineffective.
Don't be that way. It's a bad look for you.
Be responsible.
----------------------------------------------------

It‘s projection on your part.

????
What?

My avatar is projecting about messaging Russia 'to-do-whatever-the-hell-they-want'.....against our fellow alliance members?
Well, I demur on that one too.
If you got some substance to such an allegation, poster J-mac.....right now would be a great time for you to assure the forum you are a serious responsible poster with gravitas.
Show.
Or go.
----------------------------------------------

Yeah right, GFY.

As my avatar has observed before about the 'misogyny'-trait within MAGA-istan, so too their too frequent reach-back to the f-bomb when being articulate is a bridge-too-far for them.

Yup, the worn 'f-bomb'.....even acronymized.

 

[22lcidw]

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. The problem here is, you want to play pretend this game of, I didn't hear him say that while humming loudly to yourself. This is no different than burying your head in the sand in order to ignore reality.

It's only controversial because normal ppl can't believe what an utter fool and moron Trump is for saying the things he does. He only brings attention to his own stupidity, nothing more.

On the issue of NATO, it is time for our friends to grow up. They laughed and snickered as we paid the freight. We keep getting the fear mongering that we keep potential enemies away from our mainland. We have two huge oceans separating us from them. Our economy is in decline and our military is overstretched due to that. We are more and more into ourselves and that is not good for a rising nation. We are a declining one now.

 

[j-mac]

Me....and my avatar.... mildly demur.
If you make an allegation....prove it.
Lest the forum think you are frivolous and ineffective.
Don't be that way. It's a bad look for you.
Be responsible.
----------------------------------------------------

And how long have you believed that YOU are NOT “your avatar”? That style of responding in itself is a troll…Do better.

????
What?

My avatar is projecting about messaging Russia 'to-do-whatever-the-hell-they-want'.....against our fellow alliance members?
Well, I demur on that one too.
If you got some substance to such an allegation, poster J-mac.....right now would be a great time for you to assure the forum you are a serious responsible poster with gravitas.
Show.
Or go.
----------------------------------------------

People are going to think what they want about my posts…And I don’t take orders from the likes of you, or your ilk.

As my avatar has observed before about the 'misogyny'-trait within MAGA-istan, so too their too frequent reach-back to the f-bomb when being articulate is a bridge-too-far for them.

Yup, the worn 'f-bomb'.....even acronymized.

No, I gave that poster the “FU” because he deserved it. I can be a very articulate poster, but the gutter your ilk has drug us down to doesn’t deserve it, when you spew nonsense you’d never say in person.

 

[forkup]

Last I heard Ukraine was not in NATO. This is their back yard. They should be doing the Lions share of it.

Our border needs to be secured. The power of the purse is being used as intended. Pass HR2 and then get the funding

The arrogance of stuff like this is striking. You and most of the MAGA crowd are somehow incapable of fathoming that making everything about domestic politics is neither warranted or smart.

I'll try to explain, knowing full well you'll refuse to engage the premise.

Even IF I assume that HR 2 is the only or even best way to secure the border. ( I don't)

Even of I assume that Trump has a point in saying some countries are not doing their fair share. ( I do) And that the 2 have anything to do with each other. ( I don't)

In my opinion it's still utter lunacy too go an a stage and say in public, that if elected president he won't abide by article 5 of the NATO charter for some countries, and in fact would invite aggressive actions by a country currently invading another country.


This is why.

While I'm sure you will spin it in your head as something benign, or taken out of context, or whatever you have to tell yourself to continue supporting Trump. The fact of the matter is that the NATO countries take it deadly serious.

They can't afford not too. So what you told them is that they are on their own. Again you might think that's a good thing, but let me play this out for you.

They have 3 choices.
- Ignore it. Hope that somehow the status quo survives. Political inertia is a thing, and this is a very old alliance.

-Act on it and increase spending. To the point the US isn't necessary anymore for defense. Creating a third superpower. One with a comparable knowledge and financial base to the US. And therefore a potential enemy. This will take time and effort but is from a European standpoint the best solution. It will
also create a perceived need to increase defense expenditure. Meaning the end result is not savings.

-Ally themselves with China. So Russia is faced with 2 Superpowers on their borders. This would solve the Ukraine issue in short order. Again increasing defense expenditure.

My point is this. When it comes down to it, nations don't have friends they have interests. It's sheer folly to think that you can show yourself to be an unreliable partner and go out of your way to piss people off, without it resulting in adverse consequences.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. The problem here is, you want to play pretend this game of, I didn't hear him say that while humming loudly to yourself. This is no different than burying your head in the sand in order to ignore reality.

It's only controversial because normal ppl can't believe what an utter fool and moron Trump is for saying the things he does. He only brings attention to his own stupidity, nothing more.

You people hear things he didn't say and twist what he says all out of shape and then complain when we don't buy your ignorant comments.

 

[eagle1462010]

The arrogance of stuff like this is striking. You and most of the MAGA crowd are somehow incapable of fathoming that making everything about domestic politics is neither warranted or smart.

I'll try to explain, knowing full well you'll refuse to engage the premise.

Even IF I assume that HR 2 is the only or even best way to secure the border. ( I don't)

Even of I assume that Trump has a point in saying some countries are not doing their fair share. ( I do) And that the 2 have anything to do with each other. ( I don't)

In my opinion it's still utter lunacy too go an a stage and say in public, that if elected president he won't abide by article 5 of the NATO charter for some countries, and in fact would invite aggressive actions by a country currently invading another country.


This is why.

While I'm sure you will spin it in your head as something benign, or taken out of context, or whatever you have to tell yourself to continue supporting Trump. The fact of the matter is that the NATO countries take it deadly serious.

They can't afford not too. So what you told them is that they are on their own. Again you might think that's a good thing, but let me play this out for you.

They have 3 choices.
- Ignore it. Hope that somehow the status quo survives. Political inertia is a thing, and this is a very old alliance.

-Act on it and increase spending. To the point the US isn't necessary anymore for defense. Creating a third superpower. One with a comparable knowledge and financial base to the US. And therefore a potential enemy. This will take time and effort but is from a European standpoint the best solution. It will
also create a perceived need to increase defense expenditure. Meaning the end result is not savings.

-Ally themselves with China. So Russia is faced with 2 Superpowers on their borders. This would solve the Ukraine issue in short order. Again increasing defense expenditure.

My point is this. When it comes down to it, nations don't have friends they have interests. It's sheer folly to think that you can show yourself to be an unreliable partner and go out of your way to piss people off, without it resulting in adverse consequences.

We have stood the line in Europe forever and paid the Lions share of it. Not just NATO but the UN as well.

IDGAF about how you are they take it DEADLY SERIOUS. Spend YOUR SHARE OF THE BURDEN.

They are capable of protecting their own Damn BACK YARD.

 

[Mac-7]

You just can't explain why.

Right?

I keep explaining it but you dont listen

I want zero migrants per day not 5,000

If biden the foreign aid money he wants he will never stop the alien invasion

Now you tell me why not accept the House border bill?