wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html hint: He wants out of NATO. He lies about funding constantly. See what I mean? Facts staring you dead in the face and you close your eyes. Unbelievable. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nato/index.html hint: He wants out of NATO. He lies about funding constantly. Lying? We don't put up Morey than a whole slew of countries combined? Give it a rest, might need to take a break for a bit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, wnyguy said: See what I mean? Facts staring you dead in the face and you close your eyes. Unbelievable. Trump wants out of NATO - none of this is new 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I see your guys game, lol. You guys do this all the time. Endorse each others lies just to get a reaction from people. You got me this time, good on ya. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 7 minutes ago, wnyguy said: I see your guys game, lol. You guys do this all the time. Endorse each others lies just to get a reaction from people. You got me this time, good on ya. ya it's a big conspiracy. like dna insertion thru vaccines. Hint: you're not worth that much trouble. 10 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Lying? We don't put up Morey than a whole slew of countries combined? Give it a rest, might need to take a break for a bit. 2% gdp is a guideline. not contractual. 18 countries are putting up 2%. What we are buying with our 2% is continued world economic domination (China has fallen back, Russia isn't close to us economically) and military domination, which are tightly linked. But you are either too ignorant or too partisan to understand that... Edited February 14 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: ya it's a big conspiracy. like dna insertion thru vaccines. Hint: you're not worth that much trouble. I said you got me, I'll know better next time you clowns push a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 8 minutes ago, wnyguy said: I see your guys game, lol. You guys do this all the time. Endorse each others lies just to get a reaction from people. You got me this time, good on ya. Lies? Can you substantiate your POV that Trump doesn’t want to abandon NATO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, wnyguy said: I said you got me, I'll know better next time you clowns push a lie. what lie? be specific. If you accuse someone of lying, it's only decent to be specific in naming the lie. Oh wait, decent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 3 minutes ago, sherpa said: I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises they aren't "promises". 2% GDP is a guideline. more at the CNN link above t: All of these Trump claims are false. While a majority of NATO members do not meet the alliance’s target of each member spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, the 2% target is a “guideline” that does not create bills, debts or legal obligations if it is not met. In fact, the guideline doesn’t require payments to NATO or the US at all. Rather, it simply requires each country to spend on their own defense programs. When Trump was president, the guideline was written in forgiving language that made clear that it was not a firm commitment. That version of the guideline, created at a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, said members that had yet to reach 2% would “aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.” In other words, the members that were below 2% in 2014 didn’t even have to promise to hit the target by 2024 – simply to make an effort to do so by then. NATO does require members to make direct contributions to fund the organization’s own operations. But there is no sign that members have failed to make those contributions, which constitute a tiny fraction of the allies’ defense spending, and Trump has made clear that his talk of debts is about the 2% guideline. Stephen Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University in Canada, said in a Monday email that the word “inaccurate really does not cover Trump’s protection racket/country club perception of dues owed to the US.” Edited February 14 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: what lie? be specific. If you accuse someone of lying, it's only decent to be specific in naming the lie. Oh wait, decent.... n the words of George Bush “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, sherpa said: I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet. Thanks Trump - lmao Meanwhile - your biching is really much ado about nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: they aren't "promises". 2% GDP is a guideline. This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 11 minutes ago, sherpa said: I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet. You are twisting this. Obvioulsy Trump doesn't know or care what Europe is doing. You are making it sound like Trump has a point and he is attempting to solve a problem. He isn't. He's trying to destroy the alliance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. How about this for anyone cool with the current NATO funding arrangement? We organize a 2 week cruise with you and your spouse and 5 other couples where you agree to pay 80% of the total cost of the 12 vacationers. Sound fair? That's pretty much NATO budgeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 4 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. So the “natural” reaction is - hey Russia - go destroy one of our allies and do whatever the f you want… You freaks are losing this battle - just stop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. They know this already, it's a trap. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 8 minutes ago, wnyguy said: They know this already, it's a trap. Trap? Hardly. I see you couldn’t back up your claim that Trump doesn’t want to destroy NATO. Let’s try this one: why do you want Russia to succeed so badly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 31 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: ya it's a big conspiracy. like dna insertion thru vaccines. Hint: you're not worth that much trouble. 2% gdp is a guideline. not contractual. 18 countries are putting up 2%. What we are buying with our 2% is continued world economic domination (China has fallen back, Russia isn't close to us economically) and military domination, which are tightly linked. But you are either too ignorant or too partisan to understand that... China has fallen back due to covid. Has nothing to do with nato, foh. You are the Partisan hack 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 19 minutes ago, sherpa said: This is the kind of disgusting response that people who don't live up their obligations opine. There is no treaty/formal codification of NATO obligations. There was definitely an understanding of an agreed to %of GDP expenditures. It could be more accurately stated: "We in NATO never signed a formal commitment regarding GDP % directed to maintain our military capability. We are quite happy to task the US taxpayer to uphold our deterrent threat," and we have done exactly that for a very long time. I'm beginning to believe Billsy. You are really a stealth trumper. you support virtually all of his policies and act as apologist for his lies... 2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: China has fallen back due to covid. Has nothing to do with nato, foh. You are the Partisan hack Military dominance and economic dominance are joined at the hip. If you don't understand that, then there is no hope for you. not that there was ever much.... Edited February 14 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I'm beginning to believe Billsy. You are really a stealth trumper. you support virtually all of his policies and act as apologist for his lies... Military dominance and economic dominance are joined at the hip. If you don't understand that, then there is no hope for you. not that there was ever much.... Sure bud, I'm done here. I'll let everyone else take you to the woodshed. Hope I'm able to think outside the box when I get old. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I'm beginning to believe Billsy. You are really a stealth trumper. you support virtually all of his policies and act as apologist for his lies... Just for awareness, I have zero interest or concern regarding what you believe about me. Absolutely no interest or concern. Haley is infinitely better at expressing the issues re NATO/UN etc. I can't stand the guy, and that goes back to 1989. I think there are far more diplomatic methods with far more efficacy than what Trump is doing, but it plays to his base, so he does it. I find it revolting, but his view on NATO is not lost on people who know a bit about the nuts and bolts of military capability with likely scenarios. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 8 minutes ago, sherpa said: I find it revolting, but his view on NATO is not lost on people who know a bit about the nuts and bolts of military capability with likely scenarios. His views are lost on you if you buy his gaslighting act. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 22 minutes ago, sherpa said: Just for awareness, I have zero interest or concern regarding what you believe about me. Absolutely no interest or concern. Haley is infinitely better at expressing the issues re NATO/UN etc. I can't stand the guy, and that goes back to 1989. I think there are far more diplomatic methods with far more efficacy than what Trump is doing, but it plays to his base, so he does it. I find it revolting, but his view on NATO is not lost on people who know a bit about the nuts and bolts of military capability with likely scenarios. rest assured, the feelings are mutual. His views on NATO compliment his views on the military...that service and especially imprisonment and death for the sake of the country is for idiots. Given that belief, it's hardly surprising that he thinks spending US money on NATO is a waste. btw, if NATO is so unsuccessful as currently run, why is Putin so against it? Why all the fighting to stop more nations from joining? The answer is that it is and will continue to be an effective alliance that worries Russia greatly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 38 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: China has fallen back due to covid. Has nothing to do with nato, foh. You are the Partisan hack Trumpy says what? lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, BillStime said: Trumpy says what? lolz pretty sure he was one of the posters saying covid was a big hoax and that our inflation is due to an over reaction to it. yet now, the world's second largest economy fell prey to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: pretty sure he was one of the posters saying covid was a big hoax and that our inflation is due to an over reaction to it. yet now, the world's second largest economy fell prey to it. 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 1 minute ago, BillStime said: 100% can't decide if they're shameless, clueless or both. shameless for sure.... Edited February 14 by Joe Ferguson forever 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Manipulating NATO members to fund more into NATO actually strengthens NATO. 1 hour ago, wnyguy said: I see your guys game, lol. You guys do this all the time. Endorse each others lies just to get a reaction from people. You got me this time, good on ya. They cycle is not kind to their narrative so they hyperventilate on the only false trump narrative left in the script. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 19 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: pretty sure he was one of the posters saying covid was a big hoax and that our inflation is due to an over reaction to it. yet now, the world's second largest economy fell prey to it. You and billsy enjoy your talking points! Two pees in a pod. Grown men broken because of Trump, its sad really. Covid a hoax, no, did we overreact? Absolutely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 17 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Manipulating NATO members to fund more into NATO actually strengthens NATO. They cycle is not kind to their narrative so they hyperventilate on the only false trump narrative left in the script. false trump narrative? Nikki Haley thinks the NATO comment was pretty real and worrisome. She's condemned it, no doubt to Sherpa's disgust. Oh and there are plenty of other "narratives": rape, tax fraud, illegal documents, hush money, witness tampering and, oh yeah, Jan 6... 2 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: You and billsy enjoy your talking points! Two pees in a pod. Grown men broken because of Trump, its sad really. Covid a hoax, no, did we overreact? Absolutely. so I guess China under reacted since it broke their economy.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 23 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Manipulating NATO members to fund more into NATO actually strengthens NATO. Will you just admit that was Conald’s second choice so he smeared our allies instead? You guys are disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Germany now spends 2 percent of gdp. Just as many NATO nations are working towards. A 180 from the lefts narrative when the orange dude was in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 16 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Germany now spends 2 percent of gdp. Just as many NATO nations are working towards. A 180 from the lefts narrative when the orange dude was in office. no, previous presidents, both D and R have pushed for higher European funding from some NATO nations. No one else ever said they'd let Russia do what it wants to a NATO member not meeting the threshold. That undermines the entire meaning of an alliance not to mention the specific details of the NATO alliance.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Given that belief, it's hardly surprising that he thinks spending US money on NATO is a waste. btw, if NATO is so unsuccessful as currently run, why is Putin so against it? I don't answer for Trump or Putin. What I am familiar with, and from open source material, is the state of NATO at the date of Russia's invasion. Specifically, the gross disregard of NATO military agreements from Germany, Canada and a few others. All that aside, the funny thing about this site is that the reality of the issue is never discussed. Instead, people seem to think it's US politics that are the cornerstone. If you hate Trump, forget about NATO parties not living up to responsibilities, and the resultant commitment of disproportionate US money and potentially, lives. It's the way Trump packages it, and if anyone points those issues out, they must support Trump. Not true at all. The issue is not addressed. The political figures are. The sickening repetition never ends. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: But now Putin has Trump. Very different Then why invade under Barry and Joke when he could have taken Ukraine without a fight under Trump? Besides the stupid NATO talking point, that is. 31 minutes ago, sherpa said: I don't answer for Trump or Putin. What I am familiar with, and from open source material, is the state of NATO at the date of Russia's invasion. Specifically, the gross disregard of NATO military agreements from Germany, Canada and a few others. All that aside, the funny thing about this site is that the reality of the issue is never discussed. Instead, people seem to think it's US politics that are the cornerstone. If you hate Trump, forget about NATO parties not living up to responsibilities, and the resultant commitment of disproportionate US money and potentially, lives. It's the way Trump packages it, and if anyone points those issues out, they must support Trump. Not true at all. The issue is not addressed. The political figures are. The sickening repetition never ends. They have no rebuttal for the "Trump is telling them to pony-up their fair share" now that they've seen a clip of Barry saying the same thing. So now it's "he's lying about them not paying enough." Clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 29 minutes ago, sherpa said: I don't answer for Trump or Putin. What I am familiar with, and from open source material, is the state of NATO at the date of Russia's invasion. Specifically, the gross disregard of NATO military agreements from Germany, Canada and a few others. All that aside, the funny thing about this site is that the reality of the issue is never discussed. Instead, people seem to think it's US politics that are the cornerstone. If you hate Trump, forget about NATO parties not living up to responsibilities, and the resultant commitment of disproportionate US money and potentially, lives. It's the way Trump packages it, and if anyone points those issues out, they must support Trump. Not true at all. The issue is not addressed. The political figures are. The sickening repetition never ends. Who is forgetting that some countries aren't meeting the 2% guideline? The biggest jump in NATO funding came after Russia invaded Crimea. It's been increasing ever since. Sure, we would like the Europeans and Canada to pay more. Threatening countries with a Russian invasion isn't the way to achieve this and plays right into Putins hand. NATO is a threat to him. A fact that trump either doesn't understand or does comprehend and sides with Putin. It IS about US politics. Staffers in trump's last administration reported he wanted out of NATO. He is the R party now, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 9 minutes ago, Doc said: Then why invade under Barry and Joke when he could have taken Ukraine without a fight under Trump? Besides the stupid NATO talking point, that is. He's probably wishing he had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: He's probably wishing he had Sure. You install a man/men on the inside and then don't take advantage of it. Makes perfect sense. Then again, maybe he did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts