Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that do

You're not interested in having a conversation. You just want everything your own way: put Trump in jail for winning the '16 election, open the border, defund the cops, ban guns, ban gas stoves, ban air-conditioners, ban gas burning cars, the list goes on.

 

I would ask at what point do y’all start to take issue with anything he does — I guess I should realize that that point is never.

Imagine if Biden was saying he hoped China or Iran attacked our allies

 

I wouldn’t have said it like that, but he got his point across.

 

No, Trump is trying to appeal to his isolationist/anti-European voter base and judging by the comments here he knows his people. The just don't care about NATO or America's alliance committments.

The idea that NOT breakaing up NATO over a few dollars somehow signals weakness is the sort of doublespeak that Trump supporters are forced tgo engage in to deny reality.

What Trump is doing is being seen by every US ally all over the world. They are all looking at this and wondering if they will be next when Trump decides it is in his political interests to attack them. They are all wondering if the US can be trusted.

NATO nations contributed troops & other assets to the invasion & occupation of Afghanistan, even though it had not attacked the US & was well outside the NATO area of operations. Multiple NATO nations also sent troops to Iraq, a much more controversial war that was in no way covered by the NATO charter. NATO nations did not do this during the Falklands War, America included, even though it was a clear cut case of a member state being attacked.

Now MAGA supporters act as if none of that happened & none of it mattered. They will just handwave it away as meaningless because Trump told them money is the ONLY element of NATO that is relevant now. Risking the lieves of your citizens in America's wars is meaningless. My nation has been doing that for decades and now we face the prospect of a President who just doesn't care because he can earn a few votes at home attacking the nations who do that.

If any of you cares about America's alliances you wouuld be outraged. But Trump said it, so its fine.

 

Have I supported those things? By all means show me where I have.

 

There are things he says that would not have. In this case he’s delivering a wake up call, but he could have said it differently.

 

You oppose any, or all of those?

 

We know who you were voting for and we know there is literally nothing he can do that will change that. We also know that the real threat of a civil war comes from Trump supporters if they lose.

 

And Trump thinks he's fit to be President ........... Sadly a lot of Americans do to

 

I would try to explain that it is possible for someone to neither support or oppose a position, but I'd be wasting my time. Instead I'll just insist that you show evidence that I support ALL the positions you just claimed I support. Of course, you won't. Lazy lies are the MAGA way, actual research & evidence is anathema.

 

1) Because the the 2% isn't a legally enforceable under the NATO treaty. Its a 'target' not a mandatory condition that must be met on penalty of expulsion from the alliance.
2) Because the NATO Allies have supported the US in other conflicts up to and including shedding the blood of their soldiers.
3) Because the EU region and its NATO members are democratic and collectively have the the third largest GDP in the world after the US and China. This gives the it's European member states political and financial 'weight' in global politics, weight they use more often than not in tandem with the US to counterbalance Russia and China.
4) Because of shared economies of scale. NATO members are major purchasers of US military equipment & munitions for which they pay cold hard cash. This reduces the per unit of the items is question for the US government and its taxpayers. Example? NATO members are purchasing more than 400 F-35's but they also buying significant numbers of ground and air launched missiles like HIMARS, and the AIM -120 series together with other equipment like Abram tanks.
5) NATO members provide the US with critical intelligence on everything from the military deployments of potentially hostile nations in the region to terrorist threats across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

Is that enough reasons or should I go on?

 

Iran and China helped out in Afghanistan, too. Are they out allies?

 

If you vote Democrat, you're voting for everything I listed and more.

 

You put "encourage" in quotes, because you know that was a lie purported by the media.

Why do you feel the need to push lies for your political agenda.

Trump never encouraged Russia to attack NATO allies.

That's untrue.

 

In that case, The United States can legally pull back most of it's support for NATO.

 

https://images.app.goo.gl/hnmo7MBds2rBRezx8

Much in the way the Democrats view working tax payers as the means to fund their never ending agenda of social justice, most NATO countries view the US only to take advantage of our partnership.

We have all had these kinds of "friends" before. Some have no shame.

 

What's the lie?

"No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills."

That's the quote. You tell me what it means.

 

Trump keeps embarrassing his supporters.

 

"Whatever the hell they want" =/= "I would encourage Russia to attack NATO"

That's absolutley dishonest.

 

I love putting MAGA on the defensive.

Rationalizing Trump's crazy talk is a full-time job.

After NATO's secretary general asked Trump what the US would do if a country that didn't pay its dues was attacked by Russia, Trump replied this:

"I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want"

Go ahead, rationalize it.

 

NATO should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact ended. The U.S. created the crisis in Europe.

 

If there is no tribute ……err…. money in it for him, he couldn’t care less about you.

 

Yeah, not exactly - a little exaggeration to spur action - it worked.

 

No, it can reduce it's defense budget, that's not the same thing. The US wants to spend less than 2% of its GDP that's up to it. The point which (yet again) you've manged to miss so spectacular is that failing to reach the 2% target isn't a breach of the treaty and no one who fails to reach that limit gets kicked out. Those are the facts. As it stands keeping US defense spending the same and just leaving NATO? Doesn't change anything much except where the assets are based.

As for 'support' I've just finished pointing out that the NATO members purchase military equipment from the US, share valuable intelligence with the US and shares basing and logistics etc with the US. Read the list again. They are all benefit the United states and it's people, they all have value, value in terms of dollars, value in terms of political influence and value in terms of intelligence gathering. In return US support is valuable NATO's other NATO Members. At the same time the costs of 'backing out' as you put it to the US is the loss of all the assets I pointed to in my original post. Sans the NATO treaty? There's longer any objective reason for other NATO members to buy US, share with the US or in general help the US out in way shape or form. Unless they're getting something in return.

So the US can take it's ball and go home if that's what it really wants. But what it can't do is make the other kids play with it the next time it wants or needs a game.

 

Irrelevant. The 2% is agreed upon. It's time those countries put up.