Trump scolds NATO allies on defense spending

When was the last time that any European country in NATO was threatened by another country. I think that you will find that it was in 1962 when the US decided to place nuclear weapons on the European/Russian border

 

So are you expecting your country to reduce its military expenditure?

 

So what? Seriously, look at the numbers. The militarization of the Europeans up to 2% of GDP will be essentially meaningless.

It's a talking point so Trump can show that he's super-duper tough, it has no real meaning.

If you really don't want to project power throughout Europe, let's just pull out of the region unilaterally. Otherwise, stop whining about it.

 

That only demonstrates the sub-literate speaking skills of those potato noshing pissheads. Could they not find one who was moderately sober to question?.

 

If that's what they said, they're not reliable partners.

 

1983. Argentina invades Falkland islands.

Thanks for all your lack of help NATO. Confidence inspiring.

 

The Falkland Island did not fall under the agreement set by NATO because of their geographical situation (in the Southern hemisphere, south of the Tropic of Cancer). In addition, it seems that Margaret Thatcher refused involvement of other nations, as she took it as a question of "British pride." However, it seems that some NATO members provided technical assistance and one even offered the use of a plane. . .which was refused by Thatcher.

This is just a summary of the information I learned from "HISTORUM.com"

 

9/11 didn't fall under any NATO agreement either. Afghanistan.

And yet we didn't argue the rules. Nor did Libya, and we didn't argue the rules then either.
In fact no NATO deployment ever has fallen under the rules and yet we have shown up every time to our allies wars and they have never once shown up to any of ours.

Confidence inspiring.

 

Wrong. the answer to 9/11 was a legitimate intervention by NATO based on Article 5:

Article 5[edit]
The key section of the treaty is Article 5. Its commitment clause defines the casus foederis. It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all.

It has been invoked only once in NATO history: by the United States after the September 11 attacks in 2001.[11][12] The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001, when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[13] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the 9/11 attacks included Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour, a naval operation in the Mediterranean which was designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction, as well as enhancing the security of shipping in general. Active Endeavour began on 4 October 2001.[14]"

Wikipedia

 

The only "not reliable" partner currently (and on more than just the NATO issue) is Trump. He is creating chaos and doubt around the world, and his bravado and cheap veiled threats are in no way moving the allies toward trying to help him. . .on the contrary!

 

I forgot about that one. US declared themselves neutral (thanks for your support!) and and I think France sold missiles to Argentina during the war.

 

Wrong, as I mentioned earlier. But you may have decided not to read that post, so here it is again:

The Falkland Island did not fall under the agreement set by NATO because of their geographical situation (in the Southern hemisphere, south of the Tropic of Cancer). In addition, it seems that Margaret Thatcher refused involvement of other nations, as she took it as a question of "British pride." However, it seems that some NATO members provided technical assistance and one even offered the use of a plane. . .which was refused by Thatcher.

This is just a summary of the information I learned from "HISTORUM.com"

 

Shall I repost the same reply?

We turn up for your wars, you don't turn up for ours.
We don't make excuses even though the rules allow for them, you do.

Confidence inspiring.

Keep making excuses. And I'll keep remembering that's all you do.

This country needs an unilateral defence force. NATO = suck.
Think I would bet my defence on you and you are wrong.

 

And you will continue to be wrong!

The ONLY time NATO was engaged is after 9/11. . .and the coalition did turn out for your defence (or rather revenge) then. In fact, most of Afghanistan was under the commandment of NATO coalition, with only one part being under US command.

You sound just like your orange leader: A whining, crying baby!

 

You continue to make excuses.

Empty words and no soldiers in battle.
You can cry that that you didn't have to. We could have to.
You did, we didn't.
We show up to your wars, you don't show up to ours.

Confidence inspiring.

I have no reason to believe you ever will. No evidence to support that. You seem quite willing to make excuses. I expect you to continue to. You can call me wrong, I can call you unwanted allies. Bad allies. And I do and will continue to. NATO = suck.
Getting worse every day.

Libya was also a NATO deployment. France called for it. We answered that call. No NATO ally had been attacked. We did not have to. We volunteered/
Afghanistan, another country who did not attack a NATO ally, we volunteered. No one called for it.

We volunteer. Others make excuses not to.
Not interested in any alliance with those who make excuses. Only those who volunteer.






My orange leader? Not following you mate.
My leader is orange?

Orange as in Dutch? William of Orange? Sorry. I don't get it.

Where you see "crying whining baby". I only see little old lady.

 

Why don't you point out which of YOUR WARS that fell under the NATO coalition agreement the coalition didn't respond to by sending men and material. Please provide sources and be precise
And which of OUR WARS did the US get involved in AFTER the creation of NATO in 1949?

By the way. . .If you ask me, for as long as Trump (the orange clown) is in the White House, I would personally be relieved to have him leave NATO! That man is too much of a war monger and I do not think the rest of the world (or even the rest of NATO) wants to follow him in his constant search for more wars to make more money out of more bombs and new equipment!

 

No wars have fallen under the NATO agreement.
Zero.

None of ours and none of anyone else's.

And yet we show up to our NATO allies's wars and they don't show up to ours.


I don't know your nationality I'm afraid, So I can't tell you which of your wars the US turned up to.
The important part is they didn't show up to any of ours. Which gives me strong evidence that they aren't going to in future either.
And that goes for every single other NATO member too.

If you want to cite the rules to me. Go ahead. I will cite them back to you when your country gets invaded. It's only fair.

If you want to fight along side me, I want to reciprocate.

Being in an alliance that relies on honour to enforce, is not good if you are not in it with honourable people. Because nothing can force them to come to war with you. They must volunteer to.
So cite the rules to me. Show me your unwillingness.

Makes me feel oh so confident of you as an ally.

 

The U.S. secretly assisted the British from the beginning of the Falklands War. Back in 1982, it was said the U.S. didn't want to go public because we've got a relationship with Argentina as well, in some Western Hemisphere organizations.

 

Fine. . .good for the US! But IF the US chose to do that, it was OUTSIDE of the NATO coalition agreement, as the Falklands were not part of that agreement and Thatcher didn't want help to "save" this tiny, good for nothing except sheep, island.

Personally I think it is too bad that anyone fought over this sheep island, and that 1000 military (250 British) had to die for NOTHING except . . . .once again. . .silly pride and arrogance!

 

Yes, you sold us weapons. Nice one.

Where was your very public support. Where was your fleet and your air force?
Did you think we only showed you secret support when you got attacked?
Is that all you got in Afghanistan? A backroom handshake and a nod. The offer to sell you weapons.

You can make all the excuses you like. We know where we stand with you.
We know we can't count on you.

You could have saved hundreds of our lives, simply by sailing a fleet there. Wouldn't even had to have fired a shot.

I'm not stupid. I can't trust you to be there.

And as for most of the others. They are pathetic allies. More likely to get us into WW3 than out of it. Unable to defend us in anyway. They are dishonourable even to accept a mutual defence pact they physically cannot honour, let alone have no intention of so doing.

 

Let's clear up something: I was born and raised in Belgium. I married an American and lived in America (California, Colorado, Pennsylvania and South Carolina) for a total of 38 years. The rest of the time (8 years) I lived in England, France, and for a few months in Belgium.

I have dual nationality. I love both America (where I feel I "grew up" since that is where I went to the university), and my children are American. I love Belgium, as my country of birth and because of the social democracy system, which I believe gives the best chances to everyone for a decent life. I also love England, where I first learn to speak English during my 4 years there (in Weybridge first, than Lightwater, both in Surrey). That is also where my children started their own education. . .excellent schools by the way. I love France where I lived near Versailles for 2 years. . .I am not fond of the French people, except, of course, for my friends, whom I still see today.

My daughter was adopted from Korea. . .My son now lives in Australia with his family. In my family, we have one adopted Chinese, a Congolese, and an Algerian.

This kind of diversity in my life has taught me to love diversity and to respect diversity. I do not like arrogance, I do not like "Ugly Americans," but I love the simple, good nature of most Americans (especially in California and in Colorado).

I do not believe in war. I do not believe war resolves anything, and I believe that the only ones who benefit from wars are those getting wealthy from it (i.e., defence industry. . ).

I am not sure which of "YOUR WARS" the NATO didn't answer to. I understand that the Falkland war is a sore point with you, but the fact is that the location of the Falkland didn't fall within the article 5 of the NATO agreement. Any other wars?

 

After 60 days of assisting secretly, our assistance became open. Thatcher didn't want American ships and planes to take out Argentina in a weekend. She knew she could win it essentially on her own (10,000 miles away) and she did it. She was also sensitive to the fact we had a relationship with Argentina. We helped the British win without pissing all over Argentina. If there was ever a doubt about the British victory, the Americans would have been there full force in a second.

 

@Sadanie
I don't really care about your justifications.
You can keep quoting facts all you like. Both America and Belgium were a no show.
Same for every other nationality you have mentioned.

No wars have fallen under NATO article 5. None.
So if you need an excuse, you have one.

Grats.

We also had the exact same excuse, for Afghanistan and Libya.
Only we didn't make it.

You make excuses, we turn up to battle.

Hmm. Crap alliance.

 

I'm not interested in your excuses either. Argentina invaded us. And you were "sensitive to them".
Brilliant.

There was strong doubt of a British victory all through and the US wasn't there. So grats for selling the weapons. Honest thanks for that. And not so bothered about your alliance. You'll probably want to keep on good terms with the people invading us in the future also.

Fair weather allies, not the best kind.
Not smart to commit much to.

NATO is full of suck.
I'm down with Trump. Get me out of it.

 

Statements like this are exactly why Trump won in the first place.

Your team put up a REALLY bad candidate (Clinton) against a political outsider who was a terrible candidate to begin with (Trump) and YOU LOST! lol, yikes!

If you guys hate him that much get your message out and win the next democratic election like an actual American. The hate speech you guys are spewing out around the country right now is incredibly destructive and is hurting racial and political relations negatively, in many situations even violently.

I have a client and friend who is a 31 YO black women named Gladia and we had the following conversation verbatim after Trump won the election (convo still saved in my phone). I voted Johnson as a "protest vote. In California I know my vote doesn't mean much and while I absolutely was not in favor of Trump I flat out hate Hillary. Def the panzy way out of things but I didn't know how else to show my frustration.

Me - "Crazy last night, yeah? You doing ok? "
Gladia - "I don't think they know what they have done, there are honestly going to be so many dead people on their hands."
Me - "Oh come on, that is a tad dramatic don't you think?"
Gladia - "That clown getting elected is an open invitaion to lynch black people all across the nation."
Me - "That's ridiculous Gladia, I know plenty of Trump supporters and none of them are racits people. What gives you the idea this is going to happen"?"
Gladia - "It's all over the news! Are you blind?"

I know this is a single story from a random person on the internet and having no way or desire to prove it will leave it at possible conjecture. But it is a perfect illustration of the actions people on the left have taken since the election. Their hatred is worse than anything that came out on last years' campaign, a tough feat to accomplish I might add, and it is incredibly devastating to the country. The division going on in our country right now is going to come to a head, I advise to arm yourself if you are not already.

I think Hillary could make a come back if she started to try to bring the country together, but alas it is not meant to be. Instead she is trying to put herself at the front of the "Resistance" doing nothing but further dividing the country.

Nobody believes a word she says and your team was certain that the election would be carried by a) hyper partisan Democrats, b) people who hated Trump and c) the incredibly biased media that has recently been proven to provide incredibly biased (Harvard review) reporting in her favor.

The amount of flip flopping going on to cover her tracks is absolutely astounding. You guys absolutely LOVED anything Wiki until their recent statement that Hillary was a bad candidate. Now, of course, they are a partisan resource that is 'obviously' a paid Russian collaborator that helped Trump and Putin "win the White House".

/endrant