Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[GMDino]

(07-11-2018, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because folks criticize the shit out of the USA under the Trump administration. And they are not doing the same thing we are doing. 

Let us make an economical deal with Russia and watch what happens.

Trump Delusional Syndrome...defending Trump no matter what.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 10:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

Oh, my bad I thought you said they were the second largest source

Quote:Our second largest source of imported oil is the country whose boys took down the Twin Towers.  What is Trump doing about that?

Hey....wait a minute....

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do we have the right to demand they meet the agreement of 2% and to fulfill Article 3 of NATO? We have every right to tell them what they should do when they want to give us the stink eye for choosing not to support them in the manner we have anymore. 

No we don't have the right to tell them anything about how to run their country.  

All we have the right to do is withhold military defense spending for them, but they know that is a joke.  They know we will never do that because we are doing it for our own best interest not theirs.

And Trump is not demanding 2% per the agreement.  Instead he is demanding 4%.  He doesn't even care anymore.  He is just trying to put on a show.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 10:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No we don't have the right to tell them anything about how to run their country.  

All we have the right to do is withhold military defense spending for them, but they know that is a joke.  They know we will never do that because we are doing it for our own best interest not theirs.

And Trump is not demanding 2% per the agreement.  Instead he is demanding 4%.  He doesn't even care anymore.  He is just trying to put on a show.

Your assertion that a country should not be told by another member to uphold a pledge to an alliance has been noted. 

As to the rest: It's silly. I am glad that we have reached common ground on if the US strikes a deal with Russia that will benefit the US then no one can argue with it. 

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the rest: It's silly. I am glad that we have reached common ground on if the US strikes a deal with Russia that will benefit the US then no one can argue with it. 

What are you talking about?  One second you are defending Trump for bitching about this Germany Russia Deal and the next you are saying that if Trump does the exact same thing you will defend him for that also.

Thank you for admitting that you will defend Trump no matter what he does.  Even if he contradicts himself you will support both of his positions.

I believe supporting two contradictory positions in order to Defend Trump is a sign of some sort of condition.  What is it called again?

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your assertion that a country should not be told by another member to uphold a pledge to an alliance has been noted. 

When did they pledge not to buy oil and gas from Russia?

And I have never made a general statement about refusing to uphold a pledge.  All I have discussed is asking the NATO countries to do something that we don't ask other countries all over the world.  It is a specific statement not a general one.

[GMDino]

(07-11-2018, 10:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When did they pledge not to buy oil and gas from Russia?

And I have never made a general statement about refusing to uphold a pledge.  All I have discussed is asking the NATO countries to do something that we don't ask other countries all over the world.  It is a specific statement not a general one.

I wouldn't take that too seriously.  Based a quick read of the forum he has a lot of "notes".  

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 10:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What are you talking about?  One second you are defending Trump for bitching about this Germany Russia Deal and the next you are saying that if Trump does the exact same thing you will defend him for that also.

Thank you for admitting that you will defend Trump no matter what he does.  Even if he contradicts himself you will support both of his positions.

I believe supporting two contradictory positions in order to Defend Trump is a sign of some sort of condition.  What is it called again?

I simply asked people's thoughts on the matter and they said they were good with it. I have not spoken on my thoughts of Germany doing so; but, if asked, I would say their elected official should do what he/she thinks is best for his/her country. 

But as I said we have found common ground on applauding Trump if he reaches any agreement with Russia that benefits the USA. Not sure how that's defending him regardless of position. 

I absolutely support Trump telling Germany to piss or get off the pot. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wouldn't take that too seriously.  Based a quick read of the forum he has a lot of "notes".  

Your constant personal slurs have been noted by me if not by anyone else.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 10:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When did they pledge not to buy oil and gas from Russia?

And I have never made a general statement about refusing to uphold a pledge.  All I have discussed is asking the NATO countries to do something that we don't ask other countries all over the world.  It is a specific statement not a general one.

I think (hope) we both know what pledge I was was referring to and your second "point" seems to support that.

Are you really asking again: Why we don't ask countries outside of NATO to uphold a pledge made by NATO? 

[GMDino]

One more attempt to educate.

http://time.com/5335111/donald-trump-nato-spending-facts/

Quote:President Trump Says NATO Allies Owe the U.S. Money. He's Wrong


Not long after President Donald Trump woke up Wednesday morning in Brussels, he arrived at a public breakfast and took aim at his latest favorite target for ridicule, NATO allies, for not boosting their defense spending.

“Many countries are not paying what they should,” he said. “And, frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you’ll just add it all up. It’s massive amounts of money is owed.”

The president’s message was obviously intended jolt the other 28 NATO members and put them on-notice that the White House will not back down from demands to pay more for the military alliance.

But it was jarring for another reason: NATO doesn’t work this way.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has been a keystone of global security since its formation in 1949, does not involve a membership that collects dues. There is no annual subscription.

“President Trump does not appear to understand that the 2% of GDP spending by the allies is a guideline, not a mandate,” said James Stavridis, retired U.S. Navy admiral who commanded all NATO forces and is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “He tends to liken the situation to a need to hound golfers for not paying their dues at the local country club. While it makes sense to pressure the Europeans to hit the 2% goal, we must avoid splitting the alliance over the issue.”


Daniel Fried, a former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and Ambassador to Poland, said Trump appears intent on rattling NATO members. Before Trump embarked for Brussels, he criticized the allies on Twitter at dawn, and then reemphasized the point again about an hour later. He delivered a similar message in front of television cameras on the White House lawn, before pecking out another rough tweet while aboard Air Force One as it soared eastward above the Atlantic Ocean.

Quote:
[/url]Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump





Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?
1:01 PM - Jul 10, 2018

• 
  72.6K
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1016729137409486853]35.2K people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy

“The question is whether the president is doing this to make NATO better, or if he doing it because he doesn’t like NATO and wants to see its demise?” Fried said. “The latter is a depressing question to ponder when it involves a sitting commander-in-chief.”

NATO’s defining Article 5 principle for collective defense states that an attack on one nation is an attack on them all and was invoked only once, by North American and European allies after the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Article 5’s mutual defense is why it’s important that NATO nations spend money on weapons and soldiers to ensure they’re prepared to defend themselves – particularly in the face of Russian aggression.

Although Trump treats the 2% spending mark as if it were an international mandate, it is not.

The figure was established in 2002 when members agreed upon a non-binding target to contribute 2% of Gross Domestic Product to collectively share the burden of defense costs. It was further ensconced in 2014 at a summit in Wales when all the nations that were not meeting the 2% target made a pledged to reach the mark within a decade.

Jorge Benitez, NATO expert at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, said Trump has made it clear that he misunderstands two key facts about NATO.

“Trump does not understand that each ally spending 2% of GDP on defense is a goal, not a debt,” he said. “It is a pledge for common action, not a loan from the United States. Trump also does not understand that the 2% target is for national defense spending, not money owed to the U.S.”

The president has repeated his inaccurate view that NATO allies owe money and that they owe it to the U.S. whenever he discusses the topic. However inaccurately worded, Trump’s tough talk may have resulted in the desired effect: Inspiring allies to pay more.

Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO since 2014, has said the allies have achieved a record increase in defense spending. By the end of the year, he expects eight members — the U.S., Britain, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Romania — will reach the 2% mark. That’s compared to just three allies in 2014.

Still, the U.S. accounts for 22% of the NATO alliance’s common funding, which is spent on projects like military readiness, joint exercises, and initiatives to counter cyber-warfare. And there has long been widespread recognition among both Republicans and Democrats that NATO members should step up their spending. The criticism can be traced as far back as 1953, when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles notoriously threatened that the U.S. would embark on “an agonizing reappraisal” of U.S. military support if European nations didn’t show a willingness to defend themselves against the then-Soviet Union.

The driving need for robust defense spending waned a bit in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. But returned in 2014 after Russia seized Crimea and backed armed separatists in eastern Ukraine, causing President Barack Obama to also pressure NATO allies to increase their defense spending.

U.S. NATO Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison told “Fox News Sunday” that she believes Russia is “trying to flip many of our allies. They want to destabilize the strongest defense alliance in the history of the world, and that’s NATO.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to pour money and manpower into Europe with the aim of strengthening allies against Russian aggression and re-building the American footprint that withered after the Cold War ended.

The Pentagon’s European Deterrence Initiative, or EDI, will spend $4.8 billion this fiscal year — and is set to grow to $6.5 billion in 2019. The Pentagon is refurbishing facilities, airfields and training ranges in across eastern Europe Last year, the Army sent 87 tanks, 144 armored vehicles and 3,500 troops to Poland in the biggest U.S. military deployment on the continent in decades.

European Council President Donald Tusk said Tuesday that it was critical that Europeans continue to increase spending. But as a Polish national who grew up behind the Iron Curtain, he attempted to relay the importance of allies to Trump by stressing that the U.S. “does not have, and will not have, a better ally than Europe.”

“Dear America,” he said, “appreciate your allies, after all you don’t have all that many.”

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 11:19 PM)bfine Wrote: Are you really asking again: Why we don't ask countries outside of NATO to uphold a pledge made by NATO? 

Yes that is exactly what I am asking.

Do you have an answer as to why we don't ask the same of all other countries that we do of NATO?

[Bengalzona]

(07-11-2018, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is and we've made huge gains in shipping liquefied Natural Gas. We exported to 28 countries in 2017. 

I don't think it's very economical of us to continue to protect Germany while they do nothing in return. 

So, we have enough liquefied natural gas and sufficient capacity to economically and safely ship it to Germany in sufficient capacity to meet the Germans needs and, thus, make the pipeline the Germans and Russians invested billions into not worthwhile?

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes that is exactly what I am asking.

Do you have an answer as to why we don't ask the same of all other countries that we do of NATO?

B
e
c
a
u
s
e 

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

n
o
t

i
n

N
A
T
O

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 11:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I simply asked people's thoughts on the matter and they said they were good with it. I have not spoken on my thoughts of Germany doing so; but, if asked, I would say their elected official should do what he/she thinks is best for his/her country. 

But as I said we have found common ground on applauding Trump if he reaches any agreement with Russia that benefits the USA. Not sure how that's defending him regardless of position. 

I absolutely support Trump telling Germany to piss or get off the pot. 

First you claim Trump is justified to complain about Germany making a deal with Russia.

Then you say that no one could complain if Trump made a deal with Russia.

You are saying that Trump is justified in taking contradictory positions.

And you and I have not reached any common ground at all.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: So, we have enough liquefied natural gas and sufficient capacity to economically and safely ship it to Germany in sufficient capacity to meet the Germans needs and, thus, make the pipeline the Germans and Russians invested billions into not worthwhile?

Don't know, do you? Seems earlier you were unaware it could be liquefied. I'd assume we have safety measures in place if we shipped to 28 countries last year without incident.

As to "worthwhile". That's debatable. I've already said Germany's elected official should do what she thinks is best for her country. 

[hollodero]

(07-11-2018, 09:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What do we think about the Pipeline that Trump is pissed about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/07/11/the-russian-pipeline-to-germany-that-trump-is-so-mad-about-explained/?utm_term=.ddde7c2877be

I don't like that at all. Looking for alternatives should be a major goal - but sadly, it is not.

Europe, and Germany especially, are fostering Russian oligarchs way too much.

We do need oil and gas though, cheap if possible, or our economies have a severe problem. I don't really prefer the middle east alternative, and I don't know if Canada or Latin America could fill the void so easily.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First you claim Trump is justified to complain about Germany making a deal with Russia.

Then you say that no one could complain if Trump made a deal with Russia.

You are saying that Trump is justified in taking contradictory positions.

And you and I have not reached any common ground at all.  

Why so divisive? I thought we agreed entering into a deal with Russia is a good thing if it is best for your country. What did I miss? 

[fredtoast]

(07-11-2018, 11:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: B
e
c
a
u
s
e 

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

n
o
t

i
n

N
A
T
O

I know they are not in NATO.  My question is why do we treat countries in NATO differently than other countries?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "begging the question"?  There is no logic to the argument "We treat NATO countries differently because they are NATO countries".

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2018, 11:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't like that at all. Looking for alternatives should be a major goal - but sadly, it is not.

Europe, and Germany especially, are fostering Russian oligarchs way too much.

We do need oil and gas though, cheap if possible, or our economies have a severe problem. I don't really prefer the middle east alternative, and I don't know if Canada or Latin America could fill the void so easily.

Now that's an answer. 

Aren't there some European countries looking at nuclear? I thought I read that somewhere. Putting mini-reactors buried in backyards.