|
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 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US.
...and that would be???
|
On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US.
And that's exactly what donald trump is hinting will happen. Such threats are not empty because the us is coming from the strongest position in this pact.
|
|
|
On July 22 2016 10:59 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US. ...and that would be???
Can't find out unless we go look. Think outside of the box.
|
I just realized, we were talking about a leaked/stolen draft of the speech, right?
If so, I'd like to wait until he actually says the stuff, in case someone corrected it; or was this something he already said?
I'm unclear on the sourcing atm.
|
On July 22 2016 10:59 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US. ...and that would be???
Made of wishes, unicorns, ignorance and bluster.
|
On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US.
I assume the alliance would either deterioate or break apart because Europe isn't going to be held at gunpoint by an orange maniac. The point of NATO is to not have to deal with Putin like thugs to begin with. If we get one across the Atlantic there's really no reason to not just form some kind of European defense pact.
|
On July 22 2016 11:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:59 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US. ...and that would be??? Can't find out unless we go look. Think outside of the box.
NATO works just fine. Breaking it apart to see what happens is not smart. You are pretending NATO has no real value or purpose, but it definitely does. The idea of letting NATO resettle into something else disregards the idea that bad things can happen. In reality, I would say bad things don't happen because we've done well.
|
On July 22 2016 11:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US. I assume the alliance would either deterioate or break apart because Europe isn't going to be held at gunpoint by an orange maniac. The point of NATO is to not have to deal with Putin like thugs to begin with. If we get one across the Atlantic there's really no reason to not just form some kind of European defense pact.
Go ahead. Be our guests. The bottom line is that NATO is antiquated.
|
On July 22 2016 11:00 biology]major wrote:
And that's exactly what donald trump is hinting will happen. Such threats are not empty because the us is coming from the strongest position in this pact.
Trump was fairly explicit about everything taking place in the NATO framework. There was nothing in the interview about intentionally burning NATO to the ground or some new military pact with Europe.
Every leader in the Republican Congress has repudiated Trump's remarks.
|
On July 22 2016 11:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 10:59 Lord Tolkien wrote:On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US. ...and that would be??? Can't find out unless we go look. Think outside of the box.
So in other words, let's scrap a perfectly functional and useful alliance that secures favorable, friendly, and allied nations, peace, and our interests on an entire continent in order to bet on a wishy-washy namby-pamby belief we can get something better, when we both 1) have it pretty good in NATO and 2) can work within the framework of NATO.
Right, sure. I'll get right on informing every foreign policy expert, specialist, and think-tank in DC. I'll just tell my colleagues they're all wrong about everything.
|
On July 22 2016 10:55 CobaltBlu wrote:
Ambiguity over whether or not countries will honor a defense pact greatly increases the chance of conflict. NATO benefits the United States in way more ways than how much some baltic state can add to our military capacity (almost nothing). Just the way Trump is speaking about NATO is dangerous and simply borne of ignorance.
Problem is that most of the threat of an open conflict is pretty much nil. NATO specifically chooses to admit nations to honor security agreements in in nations where the chances of open war in the near future pretty much do not exist. The threat of the Baltics being invaded by Russia, for example, are pretty much zero because there is nothing to be gained from it and any military involvement would be economically suicidal. But it's easy to pretend otherwise and to just posture, "omfg u no atk baltikz" because the threat of actual action is not high. In nations where action is more likely, like Ukraine and Georgia, those nations aren't let into NATO. Yugoslavia would be the same if Russia weren't able to do fuck all at the time when it broke up.
|
On July 22 2016 11:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 11:02 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:On July 22 2016 10:53 xDaunt wrote:On July 22 2016 10:49 biology]major wrote:On July 22 2016 10:48 Plansix wrote:On July 22 2016 10:46 acker wrote: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. The land is more important. Trump ends our agreement with nato, nato countries evict all our military bases and nukes. You think those countries would really let go of our protection? lmao. This. If there is no definite NATO guarantee there is no protection. That's the point of the alliance. The assurance is the protection No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US. I assume the alliance would either deterioate or break apart because Europe isn't going to be held at gunpoint by an orange maniac. The point of NATO is to not have to deal with Putin like thugs to begin with. If we get one across the Atlantic there's really no reason to not just form some kind of European defense pact. Go ahead. Be our guests. The bottom line is that NATO is antiquated.
Yeah, and the last time the EU listen to us, we lied about why we were going to war. And made freedom fries. We are not post WW2 America any more. No one is going to cut a deal with Trump.
|
On July 22 2016 10:59 xDaunt wrote:
No, what would happen is that NATO would be replaced with a new treaty regime that is more favorable to the US.
The disintegration of NATO would weaken the deterrent strength of any future equivalent of Article 5 for this new treaty regime. Article 5 looks far less ironclad when the US shows they'll just back out when they stop feeling like it's in their interest.
|
On July 22 2016 11:06 LegalLord wrote:
Problem is that most of the threat of an open conflict is pretty much nil. NATO specifically chooses to admit nations honor security agreements in in nations where the chances of open war in the near future pretty much do not exist. The threat of the Baltics being invaded by Russia, for example, are pretty much zero because there is nothing to be gained from it and any military involvement would be economically suicidal. But it's easy to pretend otherwise and to just posture, "omfg u no atk baltikz" because the threat of actual action is not high. In nations where action is more likely, like Ukraine and Georgia, those nations aren't let into NATO. Yugoslavia would be the same if Russia weren't able to do fuck all at the time when it broke up.
Why do you think non-NATO countries see Russian action while NATO countries don't? Do you seriously believe it's a coincidence?
|
|
|
Again, every Republican in Congress has denied Trump's remarks on NATO because even the party of Trump knows it's a terrible idea. It might even be "every republican in Congress." Which would be a first.
|
|
|
Canada8989 Posts
Are we suppose to believe that Donald Trump personally recruit his construction worker?
|
On July 22 2016 11:07 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 11:06 LegalLord wrote:
Problem is that most of the threat of an open conflict is pretty much nil. NATO specifically chooses to admit nations honor security agreements in in nations where the chances of open war in the near future pretty much do not exist. The threat of the Baltics being invaded by Russia, for example, are pretty much zero because there is nothing to be gained from it and any military involvement would be economically suicidal. But it's easy to pretend otherwise and to just posture, "omfg u no atk baltikz" because the threat of actual action is not high. In nations where action is more likely, like Ukraine and Georgia, those nations aren't let into NATO. Yugoslavia would be the same if Russia weren't able to do fuck all at the time when it broke up. Why do you think non-NATO countries see Russian action while NATO countries don't? Or do you seriously believe it's a coincidence?
The causality is reversed. Countries that won't see Russian action get admitted into NATO (and they choose to go for the previously outlined reason). Countries that will, don't get admitted into NATO. That's precisely why Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership talks pretty much went nowhere. THAT is why the "no disputed territory" rule in NATO exists.
The biggest exception to that rule is... Turkey. Which is an exception in its own right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
