Trump Shames NATO Leaders on Defense Spending

Landon Caeli

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident
Site Supporter
Jan 8, 2016
15,536
5,871
46
CA
✟572,339.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
U.S. President Donald Trump hectored NATO leaders to pay their “fair share” on defense to help counter the terrorist threat, in a public shaming that risked souring a ceremony intended to mark the alliance’s unity.

Citing this week’s attack in the English city of Manchester, Trump told fellow alliance leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel that NATO should focus its efforts on combating terrorism. Yet of the 28 member nations, 23 “are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense,” he said.

“That is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States,” Trump said at the event in Brussels on Thursday to mark the opening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s new headquarters. “Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.”

Trump Shames NATO Leaders on Defense Spending
 
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It is diplomatically smart to give NATO members a chance to get their act together before leaving, though. It's clear that the majority of them won't even try to get their act together, but they should have at least have a chance.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
“Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.”

The same could be said of the USA re its UN dues in a great many past years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ximmix
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟284,422.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The message is truth.
Honor your debts and fulfill your obligations.

It is referring to an agreement of NATO members to spend 2% of GDP on their own defense, not some sort of pool that they all pay into.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi all,

I agree with Soyeong. I don't think a lot of you guys really understand how NATO operates. NATO's budget is only just over 1.5 billion dollars/year and the U.S. has in recent years paid less than $500,000.00 dollars of that. No one owes NATO any money.

What President Trump is really talking about are the voluntary contributions that member nations provide towards the NATO mission. They are all voluntary contributions. We don't have to voluntarily donate as much as we do, but because we're the big boy on the block, we do. What President Trump is asking is that other member nations up their voluntary support. That's a fine idea and American presidents have been pushing that agenda for some time. We'll just have to wait and see if President Trump's threat to withdraw from the NATO alliance has any effect. Of course, after the way he pushed off the Montenegro representative today, many of the alliance nations may just as well wish that he would withdraw.

God bless you all,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
It's time for the US to leave NATO. Russia isn't a threat to the US, and the EU is actively collaborating with the problem of terrorism through their immigration policy. Serves no value for us at this point.

We have got to stop thinking in terms of simplistic impulsive terms. NATO is a very complex socio-political entity that impacts that world stage and balance of power. Whatever action is decided, it needs to be considered very carefully along with a host of contingency plans and alternative strategies.

Lastly, we have got to think "deeper" about political actions and "unintended consequences" which is a nuance I feel is beyond the understanding of the current administration

The message is truth.
Honor your debts and fulfill your obligations.

This is the problem of having the political persona of an idiot narcissist. Trump is not respected on the international stage by any politician with an IQ north of 110. Trump has burned a great deal of legitimacy and credibility with his idiotic tweets and public statements and outright easily verifiable lies. Thus, when he does manage to say something that is "True" it lacks any gravitas.

....What President Trump is asking is that other member nations up their voluntary support. That's a fine idea and American presidents have been pushing that agenda for some time. We'll just have to wait and see if President Trump's threat to withdraw from the NATO alliance has any effect. Of course, after the way he pushed off the Montenegro representative today, many of the alliance nations may just as well wish that he would withdraw.

There is a fantasy among "regular folks" of a "regular guy" coming into the office of the presidency and being a bull in a china shop, and just "telling it like it is" etc etc.

The reality is that politics is a very complex affair and international politics are even more so... and I fear we are about to experience the ramifications of having a "regular guy" as President.

Imagine telling your 9 year old about a horrible and oppressive work environment. the 9 year old would think it's an easy problem to solve, "Just quit" or "Tell your boss to XYZ..." however the 9 year old would not understand the complexities, like how your health care with that company is really good or that your position isn't easily transferable, or a hundred other factors.

Well, I feel that many Americans are that 9 year old. Everything on the world stage seems so easy. Why not just do this? Why not just bomb them? Why not just tell country XYZ what to do or else? The hard reality is that geo-politics on the world stage is very complex and the ramifications of every action and decision can impact not only us but the entire world for decades.

And we have Trump as our champion. Willfully ignorant and an ego bigger than the moon... This does not bode well for us :(

What I suspect is that the world leaders will run circles around Trump, they will give him big flashy headlines that make him look good while in the background they get all the concessions or set themselves up to our detriment for decades to come all the while with Trump and his administration being clueless and thinking they got what they wanted...
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi dgiharris,

Well, as far as other nations running circles around us, I'd like to think that there are others who have some input with the president to point out such things as they may arise. For me, my biggest anxiety is that the man just acts like some bull in a china shop in his diplomacy and efforts to get his agenda done. That isn't usually particularly successful in politics and can be quite dangerous in international discourse.

However, I do agree that President Trump, the man himself, doesn't seem to have a clue regarding how to get things done in the arena that he's chosen to insert himself. His administration just seems to constantly be in damage control mode and pretty much everything that he's made an attempt to do has been rebuffed in some way or another. The healthcare issue is likely about dead. Although the Senate says that they are still going to attempt to put together a wholly separate and different healthcare bill than what the House passed, but that's just another indication that the House bill was really, really bad. And all indications are that the Senate, as yet, hasn't really been able or willing to put any real effort into getting a new bill up and running. I was reading yesterday that a lot of the Republican Congressmen involved are flat out saying that this healthcare issue is turning out to be a whole lot tougher than people expected in the beginning of all this and that's pretty much what the president found out also. I honestly think that we're going to find, that as far as achieving the goal of getting most Americans covered for health insurance, the current bill is really pretty good. Yes, it has created some other unintended consequences, but...

I lived in south Florida through hurricane Andrew. A lot of home owner insurance companies left and the state wound up creating a state operated insurance pool. For years, if you lived in many designated coastal regions, the only windstorm insurance you could get was through the state pool. Even today, after 25 years, getting homeowners insurance for windstorm peril is pretty slim and there are only a couple of companies that have stepped in to take these homeowner policies out of the state pool. This issue with the health insurance companies pulling out of a lot of areas may cause us to cover people in those regions under some expanded medicare coverage. The next step would logically be to just go over to a nationalized system nationwide. Do like the Brits and Aussies have done. Provide a basic medicare funded floor of coverage. Charge through the general federal tax process a percentage of income assigned just for the medicare pool. Allow private insurers to offer private policies to those who can willingly afford to pay for some sort of special or better coverage.

In Australia, they found that they actually had to add a surcharge to high income earners in order to encourage them to leave the government paid system. Apparently most high income earners were pretty satisfied with the government provided coverage. So yea, when you're making three hundred thousand dollars a year and your 'medicare fee' is 10 or 12 thousand dollars, you're more likely to be able to find a private insurance policy that is cheaper. However, when you're only making 50 thousand dollars and your 'medicare fee' is only one thousand dollars, you're glad to have the government coverage.

A system similar to this is currently working pretty well in nearly every other developed nation. Here's a blurb from 'The Atlantic' that did an article on the issue:

Nearly the entire developed world is colored,(referring to a map showing all the nations that have universal coverage in green) from Europe to the Asian powerhouses to South America's southern cone to the Anglophone states of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The only developed outliers are a few still-troubled Balkan states, the Soviet-style autocracy of Belarus, and the U.S. of A., the richest nation in the world.

It seems to speak volumes to our wisdom that all these other nations can make this work, and many have for some 50 years or better, but we can't. The supposed smartest and richest nation on the face of the earth can't seem to figure out an affordable and doable way to open our hospitals and doctor's offices to pretty much everyone. I mean it's not like Canada and Great Britain are some backwards podunk countries with millions of poor people that can't take care of themselves any more than we are. It also speaks volumes concerning our allegiance to a capitalistic, for profit insurance system that we will cling to even despite the cost and damage created by such a system for the care of our people.

The wall, so far, is pretty much completely unfunded with a lot of opposition in the legislature to provide funding in the new budget. The travel ban is pretty much a dead issue now. The president and his staff did rewrite and make some adjustments to the ban from what it actually started out to be, but the new and improved ban was just declared illegal by the courts. So, like I say, the Trump presidency, at this point, looks like a lot of people running around in the White House doing damage control and little, if anything, of any substantive government direction or policy issues getting done. It seems to be pretty much like his game show. Pitting everyone against everyone else and watching the turmoil that ensues.

Please forgive me. I digress.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,712
14,596
Here
✟1,206,584.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This is another classic case of what almost every US leader has done to other countries in the first world now for the last 30-40 years. The US dictates 75% of the global military initiatives (when many nations want nothing to do with those initiatives) and then tries to make everyone else feel guilty when we're picking up 75% of the tab. We should pick up the lion's share of the tab as long as we're going to make the lion's share of the decisions. Trump trying to guilt/shame people is just petulant bullying...nothing more.

In terms of global military initiatives, the US is like that one friend in the group you go out to eat with...they dictate what appetizers to order, pick out all the things on the menu they like without any regard for what anyone else at the table wants, and then at the end says "well, the appetizers were for all of us, so let's split the check evenly". And when you try to politely say "sorry, I don't want to pay for artichoke dip, I don't even like it, you ordered that without asking me first", they act as if you're a mooch or unreasonable for not wanting to "pay your fair share of the bill".

And I use this example with a very specific friend in mind that I was at a restaurant with, with a few other friends, last weekend...ordered up 3 appetizers "for the table" (picking out things they specifically liked without asking anyone else), and then expected everyone to split it because it was "for the table" lol.


So, with that said, if you're going to try to dictate the actions of other sovereign nations, you need to make sure they're involved in all parts of the process (from decision making & planning all the way to implementation) and not just include them after the fact when it's time to fork over the cash for the initiative.... or have the decency to pick potato skins as one of the options lol...oh...sorry, we're talking about military initiatives, not my friend Chris ;)


The US has had a bad habit over the past few decades of creating "a coalition of the reluctant" when it comes to our military projects...
 
Upvote 0