|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:
you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
Almost everyone versed in foreign affairs is reacting the same way we are. Just ask the Republican Senate Majority Leader.
This isn't a game, and "it's just a prank bro" is not for the presidential election cycle. Every foreign leader pays attention to US politics, including the ones that don't like the United States.
|
whats really ironic is that thiel is a libertarian but hes chairman of palantir, which is pretty much a branch of the CIA
|
On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
You missed the point, NATO isn't so much about what you may or may not do as it is about what you SAY you will do. And this applies to diplomacy in general, this is an incredible blunder regardless of intentions.
|
On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
Dan HH just explained to you why "'approach[ing] every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal" simply doesn't make sense when dealing with adherence to a deterrent-oriented treaty that has played a centerpiece role in the balance of power throughout the world. The guarantee is precisely the mechanism through which the treaty takes effect and Trump's signaling of a US reluctance to honor said guarantee jeopardizes peace, particularly with regards to Russia's behavior (though Turkey may be a player soon enough as well in this area, if Erdogan keeps it up). Needless to say, this talk of NATO from Trump is merely one among many examples of why the dude would be a shit president.
|
On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. take his words with a grain of salt...He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
Got to be kidding me with this reasoning. Can't you support your candidate based on what he says, not what you decide him to mean?
|
On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
I have had to take so many of Trump's clearly-the-result-of-being-completely-uninformed-about-basic-policy comments with a grain of salt my serum sodium is dangerously high. If he approaches all his deals from a perspective of complete ignorance I have no idea how he functions.
|
Laura Ingraham makes the Nazi salute...of course no one makes that motion randomly. Is she purposely baiting the media? Tells how something about how much people hate the media if they are willing to believe she would actually extend her hand like that normally.
|
Imagine if every country in NATO acted in the same manner Trump wants the USA to act. Imagine if every NATO member declared that they could unilaterally withhold military support if they believed that an invaded member "did not contribute enough".
NATO would cease to exist overnight. And his supporters think this is a good idea for some godforsaken reason.
|
Tom Barrack is giving a remarkably effective speech.
|
He balded gracefully and seems like a nice dude, the Republicans should nominate him over Trump.
|
On July 22 2016 10:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked. Dan HH just explained to you why "'approach[ing] every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal" simply doesn't make sense when dealing with adherence to a deterrent-oriented treaty that has played a centerpiece role in the balance of power throughout the world. The guarantee is precisely the mechanism through which the treaty takes effect and Trump's signaling of a US reluctance to honor said guarantee jeopardizes peace, particularly with regards to Russia's behavior (though Turkey may be a player soon enough as well in this area, if Erdogan keeps it up). Needless to say, this talk of NATO from Trump is merely one among many examples of why the dude would be a shit president.
I disagree, he's employing a bluff or a threat to create a change in the defense spending of countries in NATO who don't put any money towards military and just rely on the USA to protect them. We have all of the control in this pact because we have by far the largest military, so we should negotiate with that in mind and get the rest to step up. By always having leaders of US say they will stand with NATO no matter what, some of the countries have been taking the protection the USA has to offer for granted. I could be wrong but that's how I see it, NATO is a combined effort, but it is basically like 4 countries that even have the capacity to do anything.
|
On July 22 2016 10:35 acker wrote:
Imagine if every country in NATO acted in the same manner Trump wants the USA to act. Imagine if every NATO member declared that they could unilaterally withhold military support if they believed that an invaded member "did not contribute enough".
NATO would cease to exist overnight. And his supporters think this is a good idea for some godforsaken reason.
They can't act in that manner because they don't have the military to back those kinds of statements up.
|
On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:
you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
The entire purpose of NATO is precisely as a deterrent based on the belief that the US and its allies will act. Even *if* Trump actually has the intent to act if push came to shove, the entire point of NATO is that the threat of unified action deters foreign powers from acting against individual NATO states. In this case it actually *is* about what you say and not what you do--because by the time there actually *is* something for you to do, it's too late.
Saying things that might make foreign governments believe that you wouldn't uphold Article 5 (even if you do intend to) undermines the entire agreement. That Trump doesn't understand this *should* be alarming.
|
On July 22 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:31 farvacola wrote:On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked. Dan HH just explained to you why "'approach[ing] every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal" simply doesn't make sense when dealing with adherence to a deterrent-oriented treaty that has played a centerpiece role in the balance of power throughout the world. The guarantee is precisely the mechanism through which the treaty takes effect and Trump's signaling of a US reluctance to honor said guarantee jeopardizes peace, particularly with regards to Russia's behavior (though Turkey may be a player soon enough as well in this area, if Erdogan keeps it up). Needless to say, this talk of NATO from Trump is merely one among many examples of why the dude would be a shit president. I disagree, he's employing a bluff or a threat to create a change in the defense spending of countries in NATO who don't put any money towards military and just rely on the USA to protect them. We have all of the control in this pact because we have by far the largest military, so we should negotiate with that in mind and get the rest to step up. By always having leaders of US say they will stand with NATO no matter what, some of the countries have been taking the protection the USA has to offer for granted. I could be wrong but that's how I see it, NATO is a combined effort, but it is basically like 4 countries that even have the capacity to do anything.
Don't worry everyone - when Trump says something, you can claim it's a bluff and then make up the real explanation.
|
On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked.
You literally just said "take the United States of America's president nominee's words with a grain of salt" as if it's a complement and don't see anything wrong with it?
|
Haha, did this band write this song just for Trump?
|
|
|
On July 22 2016 10:34 Doodsmack wrote:
Laura Ingraham makes the Nazi salute...of course no one makes that motion randomly. Is she purposely baiting the media? Tells how something about how much people hate the media if they are willing to believe she would actually extend her hand like that normally.
Seriously? Do I need to post the pic of Hillary doing it like 4 times for you to drop that dumb point?
|
On July 22 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:31 farvacola wrote:On July 22 2016 10:25 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:19 Dan HH wrote:On July 22 2016 09:56 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 09:51 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I'm just sitting here with my eyelids twitching uncontrollably after reading Trump's latest round of comments regarding NATO.
No, just NO. why is what he said so radical? Seemed pretty common sense to me, unless of course he is wrong and they are holding up their end of the deal edit: just looked it up, only 5 countries are meeting their requirements to put 2% of their gdp towards military expenditures. So seems like there is a bit of freeloading going on by the rest no? 2% is not a requirement, it's a recommendation. NATO is first and foremost a deterrent, the main requirement is literally to say that you will defend fellow NATO memebers. Saying that you may or may not do that is about the most idiotic thing a western diplomat can say, and pretty much the only way to not 'hold up your end of the deal' in peacetime. Saying you will defend fellow NATO members if the need arises even if you do not plan to do so, costs literally nothing. There are plenty of ways to complain about military spending, this one is about the worst possible ways to go about scoring populist points on the topic. you guys are over reacting imo, take his words with a grain of salt. If push comes to shove the US will always be the first to act, as it always has in the past. He approaches every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal so it is natural for him to say things like that. Doesn't mean he won't actually employ military force if one of our allies gets attacked. Dan HH just explained to you why "'approach[ing] every single decision with the perspective of forming a deal" simply doesn't make sense when dealing with adherence to a deterrent-oriented treaty that has played a centerpiece role in the balance of power throughout the world. The guarantee is precisely the mechanism through which the treaty takes effect and Trump's signaling of a US reluctance to honor said guarantee jeopardizes peace, particularly with regards to Russia's behavior (though Turkey may be a player soon enough as well in this area, if Erdogan keeps it up). Needless to say, this talk of NATO from Trump is merely one among many examples of why the dude would be a shit president. I disagree, he's employing a bluff or a threat to create a change in the defense spending of countries in NATO who don't put any money towards military and just rely on the USA to protect them. We have all of the control in this pact because we have by far the largest military, so we should negotiate with that in mind and get the rest to step up. By always having leaders of US say they will stand with NATO no matter what, some of the countries have been taking the protection the USA has to offer for granted. I could be wrong but that's how I see it, NATO is a combined effort, but it is basically like 4 countries that even have the capacity to do anything.
Yes, but the Head of the GOP in the senate, US government and NATO itself said he was wrong today. That isn't how international relations work. At all. The treaty says we will come to their defense no matter what. We either keep our word or be called liars.
|
On July 22 2016 10:41 biology]major wrote:
I disagree, he's employing a bluff or a threat to create a change in the defense spending of countries in NATO who don't put any money towards military and just rely on the USA to protect them. We have all of the control in this pact because we have by far the largest military, so we should negotiate with that in mind and get the rest to step up. By always having leaders of US say they will stand with NATO no matter what, some of the countries have been taking the protection the USA has to offer for granted. I could be wrong but that's how I see it, NATO is a combined effort, but it is basically like 4 countries that even have the capacity to do anything.
If it's a bluff, it's a really stupid one.
NATO consists of a few countries rich enough to afford first-rate armies and a lot of poor countries geographically situated to serve as ballistic missile platforms, docks, and air bases. Nobody cares if some Eastern European country doesn't give NATO a handful of old MiGs every year; America (and the core European nations) are strong enough to tear any enemy apart from the right location. The land is more important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.12075870.1469142933!/httpImage/image.png_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.png)
