"Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies"

[Heyo]

Actually it is far less evil. The countries that don't pay are the ones endangering all the other members of NATO by not doing so.

There are multiple ways to endanger a coalition. E.g. I find it very endangering when one member behaves like a geopolitic bully to most of the world. What if the bullied get together and teach the bully a lesson? Should the better behaved members of the coalition still protect the bully?
The US has no standing to demand a 2% payment when they themselves are far away from those 2%.

 

[Shaul]

There are multiple ways to endanger a coalition. E.g. I find it very endangering when one member behaves like a geopolitic bully to most of the world. What if the bullied get together and teach the bully a lesson? Should the better behaved members of the coalition still protect the bully?
The US has no standing to demand a 2% payment when they themselves are far away from those 2%.

The U.S. has provided far more than its share of NATO finances. NATO members agreed to the spending. It isn't being a bully to ask others to keep their agreements. Those members who don't meet their agreed upon financing aren't "better behaved". It could be argued they are being freeloaders.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not paying the agreed upon price to remain within an organization that provides for their protection is an invitation to being invaded and unprotected. Much like living in a hurricane-prone region and not bothering to get homeowners insurance.

You're not directly answering my question about
Trump's speech. He actually invited Putin to act.
That is different from mere occurrence of
consequences.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not paying their dues will CAUSE the Russian invasion.

The issue is how much of GDP each country spends
on defense. Most are under 2%. A unified NATO,
even with some under-performing members, is far
more capable than Russia, & could readily repel a
Russian invasion.

If we want to avoid such an invasion then having them pay to prevent it is needed. What would be "weird" is expecting you prevent an invasion without paying the cost necessary to do so.

What's weird is that you support inviting Russian
invasion of countries who spend less than 2%.

Trump....an ex-President who not only commits
treason in his own country, but even in NATO
countries. To be a MAGA is to eschew sanity.

 

[Shaul]

The issue is how much of GDP each country spends
on defense. Most are under 2%. A unified NATO,
even with some under-performing members, is far
more capable than Russia, & could readily repel a
Russian invasion.

What's weird is that you support inviting Russian
invasion of countries who spend less than 2%.

Trump....an ex-President who not only commits
treason in his own country, but even in NATO
countries. To be a MAGA is to eschew sanity.

The European countries agreed to spend 2% or their GDP on defense. They haven't. Europeans love to opine how the U.S. is so militaristic but they have no problem asking the U.S. to protect them. Trump called them on it.

 

[Heyo]

The U.S. has provided far more than its share of NATO finances.
NATO members agreed to the spending. It isn't being a bully to ask others to keep their agreements.

That's not what I meant with being a bully. The US has threatened and attacked foreign countries under false pretence (WMD), aided coups through the CIA and otherwise acted like a jerk. That behaviour makes them, and by contract, NATO, a potential target of retribution.

 

[Revoltingest]

The European countries agreed to spend 2% or their GDP on defense. They haven't. Europeans love to opine how the U.S. is so militaristic but they have no problem asking the U.S. to protect them. Trump called them on it.

I don't defend their spending less than agreed.

I take issue with Trump's inviting Putin to invade
them...giving Putin permission & even encouragement
to do what Russia does in Ukraine.
Do you agree with Trump on this?

 

[Heyo]

The European countries agreed to spend 2% or their GDP on defense. They haven't. Europeans love to opine how the U.S. is so militaristic but they have no problem asking the U.S. to protect them. Trump called them on it.

I'm all for pacta sunt servanda. Yes, the European countries should meet their targets - as should the US. Lower your military spending to 2% and the rest of NATO would be more incentivized to raise their contribution.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't defend their spending less than agreed.

I take issue with Trump's inviting Putin to invade
them...giving Putin permission & even encouragement
to do what Russia does in Ukraine.
Do you agree with Trump on this?

Don't worry...that Putin won't ever invade us. Not even if we pay him.
He couldn't care less about European countries.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm all for pacta sunt servanda.

That is something Trump doesn't believe in,
given his welching on agreements & debts
in business.
A man who refuses to pay his contractors
is the lowest of the low.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't worry...

I don't worry.
Especially about Italy.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm all for pacta sunt servanda. Yes, the European countries should meet their targets - as should the US. Lower your military spending to 2% and the rest of NATO would be more incentivized to raise their contribution.

Germany will pay to reciprocate the POTUS's kind words and actions, I bet:

 

[Heyo]

That is something Trump doesn't believe in,
given his welching on agreements & debts
in business.
A many who refuses to pay his contractors
is the lowest of the low.

Not only in his business - which could be seen as his private thing.
He also left the Paris Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal - which doesn't reflect favourable on the US. (But he's in good company, the US administration is known to be among the least trustworthy when it comes to respecting treaties. Ask the Indians.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The European countries agreed to spend 2% or their GDP on defense. They haven't. Europeans love to opine how the U.S. is so militaristic but they have no problem asking the U.S. to protect them. Trump called them on it.

No, here's what's in the actual treaty:

Article 3​

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

This is what the member states have committed to.

In recent years, there's been an idea expressed that 2% of GDP is a useful benchmark for a country to satisfy its obligations under Article 3. It's been also argued just as much that:

• Defense spending relative to GDP is a pretty ridiculous measure for combat readiness. For instance, Greece met its 2% commitment by having its economy tank and its GDP end up in the toilet. Did this make it more ready to resist armed attack? Of course not.
• Just spending money on crap doesn't improve combat readiness. It can take time for a small military to grow and adjust so that it can translate more spending into something useful.

BTW: I just noticed something interesting: Canada is just over a billion short of the 2% target... but in Canada, the Coast Guard isn't considered part of the military. Add in the Coast Guard budget and we're actually over the 2% threshold. Do you think this bookkeeping difference matters to Canada's readiness for self-help and mutual aid?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't worry.
Especially about Italy.

No, he'll walk in there and be greeted by hugs and kisses of course.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, he'll walk in there and be greeted by hugs and kisses of course.

Exactly.
So I wouldn't call it an "invasion".

 

[metis]

The view from the BBC.


Donald Trump's Nato comments labelled ‘appalling and unhinged’
I

And that was a compliment.

 

[metis]

I think Trump knows how to troll his haters.

Stephen Hawking on Trump: “He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I didn't choose to have people I know shot in Jonestown and because of that I find people who unthinkingly use that phrase both offensive and insulting to the memories of those murdered there. And if anyone think that is being too thin skinned that is also on them.

On them? This is entirely a you problem. You're going to encounter the phrase several more times in your life, and it sounds like you've already decided to let it anger you. As I said, that's your choice, but it's unreasonable for you to expect people to accommodate that. For starters, why do you expect them to know that something like that would offend you or anybody else?

All that is nonsense written people that are either ignorant or insensitive. In case you missed it from my previous post, kindly see the articles here if you still need help understanding why this phrase is hurtful, insensitive and shouldn't be used;
Drinking the Kool-Aid: A Collection of Articles – Alternative Considerations of Jonestown & Peoples Temple

All of that nonsense as you called it came from that link, which I stated explicitly going so far as to identify the specific articles I quoted by their place on that list (the first two). If you consider it nonsense, why did you link to it?

I take it that you don't believe that those who don't pay their bills should be held accountable

What I believe is that you are defending the comment because Trump made it. I believe that if Biden had said it that you would be condemning it. And not just you. That's pretty much the case with any MAGA.

 

[Shaul]

I don't defend their spending less than agreed.

I take issue with Trump's inviting Putin to invade
them...giving Putin permission & even encouragement
to do what Russia does in Ukraine.
Do you agree with Trump on this?

You are arguing against a hypothetical. The hypothetical being the Europeans, of their own volition, abandoning NATO.