Trump Embarrasses America By Throwing Temper Tantrum In Front Of NATO Leaders

[Ragnar]

"Just remember this the next time we need help from our allies and they tell us to go f*ck ourselves

Donald Trump has been on a whirlwind foreign trip in which he has been embarrassing the red, white, and blue in every nation he has visited.

First, he bowed like a princess before the Saudi king and even went full hypocrite by refusing to say “radical Islam” during his speech there.

Then he went to Israel and confirmed that the Israelis were the source of the highly classified intelligence he leaked to the Russians.

On Thursday, Trump delivered a speech in front of NATO leaders and insulted our allies.

The whiny temper tantrum was all about Trump’s complaint that some NATO nations have not paid enough for their own defense.

“I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. But 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States, and many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.”

Trump’s speech may have gone down well with his conservative supporters in Redneckistan USA, but our allies were sure as hell pissed off. The looks on their faces as Trump bitched about them spoke volumes.

This was supposed to be a speech to unite Europe and the United States against terrorism. But what Trump did is divisive and totally counterproductive. It’s also hypocritical considering how much money the United States owes to other nations. And, that’s not how NATO works.

Angering our allies won’t help us win the war against terrorism. If anything, it only lets terrorists know that they are succeeding.

Furthermore, while Trump was busy humiliating himself and our country, he failed to throw his support behind Article 5, a crucial part of the military alliance with the other NATO members that says all members will come to defense of any NATO member that comes under attack. In other words, if Russia attacked France tomorrow every NATO nation would be obligated to come to France’s defense. But apparently, Trump didn’t want to do anything to make Vladimir Putin angry. Trump’s silence on Article 5 suggests that he would not come to the defense of any of our allies if they were to be attacked.

Once again, Trump proves to be an embarrassment who has turned America into a laughingstock around the globe."

http://addictinginfo.com/2017/05/25/watch-trump-embarrasses-america-by-throwing-temper-tantrum-in-front-of-nato-leaders/

[Irie]

Telling the members they should pay as they agreed to.  What is the problem?  

[ROOS55]

It is hard to believe that Trump could ever do a business deal with the way he spews

[Irie]

Yeah, it's always better to ignore the elephant in the room.

[Ragnar]

wee wee is testimony to the hellacious effects of orange smegma on the sub human brain 

[I-think4me]

Telling the members they should pay as they agreed to. What is the problem?

-----------
First off, he keeps demanding payment as if the US are hired protection. Not only is that insulting, it displays his ignorance of how NATO works. Our partners in NATO agree to spend 2% of their GDP on their own military.
Secondly lecturing our allies as if they are somehow subordinate debtors is diplomatic stupidity.

[PirateLT]

Question. Does anyone honestly think that if Europe spent more on defense we would cut our defense budget?

[ROOS55]

Are they going to take over the Middle East/

[Minister Rebel]

We have put a child in the W.H. And his childish friends, DDT, Weary, Dolt, and Grasshopper keep trying to protect him, These are the traitors to the decent Americans.

[plainolamerican]

are you referring to the US?

[Ragnar]

"

President Trump has again accused America's NATO allies of falling behind on their bills.

"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should," Trump told heads of NATO states assembled Thursday in Brussels. "Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."

It's not the first time Trump has suggested other NATO members have a debt to pay.

But NATO does not keep a running tab of what its members spend on defense. Treaty members target spending 2% of economic output on defense -- but that is merely a guideline.

NATO members spend money on their own defense. The funds they send to NATO directly account for less than 1% of overall defense spending by members of the alliance.

Here's how it works:

National budgets

NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or more members is considered an attack against all. So far that has only been invoked once -- in response to the September 11 attacks.

To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.

It is up to each country to decide how much to spend and how to use the money.

Related: Trump criticized NATO spending. Here's what's really going on

Related: Germany's defense minister to Trump: No, we don't owe NATO money

The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth €1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017.

The alliance also has a civilian budget of €234.4 million ($252 million), used mainly to fund the NATO headquarters in Belgium, and its administration.

Spending is rising

Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target.

The rest lag behind. Germany is set to spend 1.2% of GDP on defense this year, France 1.79%. Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.

NATO has long been pushing for higher spending. At a summit in 2014, all members who were falling short promised to move toward the official target within a decade.

That pledge appears to be holding: The alliance as a whole increased defense spending for the first time in two decades in 2015.

And last year, 22 of 28 NATO members increased their defense budgets. If the U.S. is removed from the equation, the group increased its spending by 3.8% in 2016. Including the U.S., overall spending rose by 2.9%.

Fear of Russian aggression is driving some of the recent splurge. Latvia, which shares a border with Russia, increased its defense budget by 42% in 2016. Its neighbor Lithuania boosted its outlays by 34%.

The 2% problem

So why don't more countries spend 2% of GDP? Many experts point out that the target is problematic.

NATO has warned against a rush to spend for the sake of spending, emphasizing that budget decisions must be based on strategic planning. For example, it wants countries to spend 20% of their defense budgets on equipment.

Related: Lockheed Martin CEO promises Trump she'll cut F-35 costs

There's also pressure for more coordination of spending among European countries.

Some member countries simply don't have armies big enough to be able to absorb a huge increase in funding quickly -- that's why the 2014 summit pledge gave laggards until 2024 to do more.

NATO member Iceland, for example, doesn't have its own army and spends just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

And the 2% target doesn't just cover spending on defense to meet NATO commitments. The money can be used to fund other activities such as European peace missions in the Central African Republic and Mali, as well as national missions that are not part of NATO operations, for example the fight against ISIS."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-trump/

[Ragnar]

orange maggot is fucking traitor as well as his adoring dipshit fans......murderer putin conducts cyber war on much of Europe...all orange rat fucker does is suck his dick harder 

[Minister Rebel]

Orange Anus is working for the Russians, He wants to Fuck NATO so his buddy can go in and take over.

[Ragnar]

[Minister Rebel]

LOL.....

[herman]

There's already an agreement in place.

Does trump not know that?  Do his "advisers" not know that?

[herman]

<<< Secondly lecturing our allies as if they are somehow subordinate debtors is diplomatic stupidity. >>>

Doing this publicly?  Embarrassing our allies in front of the entire world?  Who gains by that?

Not NATO, and not the USA.

trump - and those who defend his speech - are in a special class of stupid.

[Irie]

Dunce, I am not protecting anyone.  I just think the Europeans need to pay their own freight.  Don't worry.  I know that'll be over your head, as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:55:27 AM UTC-5, Minister Rebel wrote:

[herman]

There's an agreement in place for that.

As for your bumpkin boy trump's very public temper tantrum aka lecture:  that was uncalled for.  It unnecessarily heightened tensions between this country and Europe, but it sure as hell probably delighted putin.

Perhaps that's why he did it.....

[Irie]

It is easy to spot the non-tax payers, they don't give a shit how our tax dollars are spent.

[herman]

?????

Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote (copied and pasted below).

Why do you think that a public lecture to our longtime allies and friends is either appropriate or productive?

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:41:58 AM UTC-4, Irie wrote:

It is easy to spot the non-tax payers, they don't give a shit how our tax dollars are spent.

[Irie]

[Lobo]

<<It is easy to spot the non-tax payers, they don't give a shit how our tax dollars are spent.>>

You're aware that Trump wants to INCREASE our current 3.8% of GDP by some $50 billion...? Who do you think will pay for that (especially if he succeeds in gutting taxes on people like himself)?

I think all NATO members should spend the agreed 2% of GDP toward the common defense, but that should include us too. And not only lecturing our allies but suggesting that we might not live up to our commitment to come to others' defense is not only stupid and insulting, but dangerous. If the Russians aren't certain of our intentions, they might make a mistake that could result in nuclear war.

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:41:58 AM UTC-4, Irie wrote:

[plainolamerican]

Europeans need to pay their own freight

--
as should a host of nations that extort our government for weapons and cash money.

[Irie]

And I would disagree with that proposal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:28:55 AM UTC-5, Lobo wrote:

<<It is easy to spot the non-tax payers, they don't give a shit how our tax dollars are spent.>>

[Irie]

amen, bradah.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Lobo]

<<And I would disagree with that proposal.>>

Reducing our military spending? Why? I thought you were a fiscal conservative. How much is enough?

I'm all for being even twice as powerful as our most likely foes, but consider:

We currently spend nearly as much as the rest of the world COMBINED.

Of the other near-half, our own allies spend about 3/4 of the total.

We spend nearly four times as much as our next nearest competitor China; at least ten times as much as Russia.

Just consider one measure: aircraft carriers:

http://www.businessinsider.com/magnitude-of-us-naval-dominance-2013-11

One Chart Shows The Magnitude Of US Naval Dominance

• Brian Jones
 
•  

• Nov. 13, 2013, 5:36 PM
• 362,041

• FACEBOOK
• LINKEDIN
• TWITTER

Wikimedia Commons

The single most important factor in U.S. military dominance is the country's powerful navy, which gives the ability to project power anywhere in the world.

Most importantly, it is the Navy's unparalleled fleet of aircraft carriers.

The U.S. has 19 aircraft carriers, compared to the rest of the world's 12 aircraft carriers combined. The U.S. carriers are also larger and more technically advanced than any others.

China's sole carrier, for instance, is a retrofitted Ukrainian carrier from the Soviet Union that was originally supposed to be an off-shore casino. 

Our friends at GlobalSecurity.org created a chart that captures not just the scope, but the size of the U.S. aircraft carriers in comparison to the rest of the world. It's pretty stark:

Courtesy of GlobalSecurity.org

SEE ALSO: USS NORTH DAKOTA: Here's Why This Is The Most Advanced Submarine In The World

More

[Irie]

I don't agree with spending MORE and you don't understand? Am I missing something here?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 9:01:05 PM UTC-5, Lobo wrote:

<<And I would disagree with that proposal.>>

[herman]

Here's the rest of Lobo's post:

<<< You're aware that Trump wants to INCREASE our current 3.8% of GDP by some $50 billion...? Who do you think will pay for that (especially if he succeeds in gutting taxes on people like himself)?

I think all NATO members should spend the agreed 2% of GDP toward the common defense, but that should include us too. >>>

Which proposal you disagreed with wasn't clear:  trump's to increase our already-bloated spending on defense beyond 3.8% of GDP or Lobo's to decrease our defense spending to only 2% of GDP.

[Lobo]

Thanks, Herman.

[Lobo]

I thought you were disagreeing with my proposal to decrease US military spending.

(Well, at least I got my Pentagon rant in...)

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-4, Irie wrote:

[Irie]

I said I didn't agree on spending MORE (not cutting spending).  You do see the difference between cutting spending and "Not spending MORE"?

[herman]

lol....no good deed goes unpunished in goperland.

On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 10:31:20 PM UTC-4, Irie wrote:

I said I didn't agree on spending MORE (not cutting spending).  You do see the difference between cutting spending and "Not spending MORE"?

[Lobo]

In fact, all you said was "And I would disagree with that proposal", without saying which or what proposal. But I don't intend to get caught in a multi-page argument over who said what.

As to: <<I said I didn't agree on spending MORE (not cutting spending).>>

Why not? I know you claim to be a "fiscal conservative" who supports slashing all kinds of domestic spending. You don't think spending as much as the rest of the world combined, with our allies taking up 3/4 of the other half, is a bit... excessive? 

The nation's founding fathers were wary of maintaining a standing federal peacetime army at all (which was the reason for the 2nd Amendment: guaranteeing states the right to maintain their own well-regulated militias), and before WWII we always kept it very small. I don't think we should go back to that, but today's gargantuan Military/Industrial Complex is fiscally insane. And as Republican president Eisenhower -- the former 5-star general Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe in WWII -- noted, a clear danger to our liberty.

[Irie]

If you noticed, in my response, I ONLY cut and pasted your portion of the post that spoke to increasing spending.  I'll own the ambiguity I created, however.

You do NOW understand what I was saying, right?

~~~~~~~~~~~

[Irie]

Oh, and Lobo, if you have read my posts over these last years you might recall that the crux of my posts have not been focused on cutting domestic spending.  I have spoken to the good that we could do domestically if we were to cut defense spending and foreign payola's, but I have never been a big proponent of not spending money (wisely) domestically.

[Lobo]

Like I said before, I'm not going to be lured into an interminable argument over who said what.

Instead, why don't you tell me why you support our current gargantuan Pentagon budget. Do you really think we would be less safe if we cut it by, say, a quarter? The only enemies we really have to worry about aren't hardware-heavy. They're either terrorists like AQ and ISIS, or cyberwarfare experts like Russia.

[Irie]

I have frequently advocated on this very forum for a DOD budget cut....initially I advocated for a 10% cut, if memory serves.  I have also expressed my desire to see our men/women drawn out of the ME and to let the fucking idiots slaughter one another as they see fit; with the caveat that if we even catch a whiff of them trying to carry out their 14th-century jihad bullshit here, then they should plan on their region reduced to a parking lot.  As far as the Russian pukes go, don't we have the wherewithal to tell them they better get the fuck out of our business or suffer the same (x10)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Lobo]

I don't think anyone is a big proponent of UN-wise spending (except those who profit immensely from it, of course, like big defense contractors). I would argue that it's wise to spend not only on obvious public goods, like infrastructure, education and health care, but also on helping those who for whatever reason can't help themselves, and economically on putting money into the hands of those who will spend it at businesses instead of saving it. A certain amount of redistribution from the top to the bottom increases commerce, creates jobs, and generally makes everyone better off.

[Ragnar]

Parsing pussy wee wee.......how surprising. 

Look who the silly fucker votes for and who he defends.......wee wee could care less about defense spending...every fascist scum has wanted more....for decades. 

[Lobo]

<<with the caveat that if we even catch a whiff of them trying to carry out their 14th-century jihad bullshit here, then they should plan on their region reduced to a parking lot.>>

Who exactly constitutes "them" and "they"? And you'd obliterate an entire region over the actions of some people? If a particular national government commits an act of war against us, then we have little choice but to declare war in return. But should we obliterate any country an Islamist terrorist comes from?

<<As far as the Russian pukes go, don't we have the wherewithal to tell them they better get the fuck out of our business or suffer the same (x10)?>>

Since they don't have real democracy to begin with, I'm not sure what we'd do. Putin controls the Russian press. Besides, our current president not only has zero interest in retaliating, but seems a good deal more eager to appease and please them.

[Ragnar]

That is why the State Department needs more than a clown car of rump goons......treat any terrorism like a criminal problem, not a military one...and the results will improve. 

[Irie]

Don't worry, you festering cunt, I didn't expect you to understand the intricacies of my post.  Actually, I do care about defense spending, because, unlike you, I'm actually compelled to pay federal income taxes. 

A good rule of thumb is that when you don't remove the wheels from your "home", you won't have to pay income taxes.  Without a doubt, you don't.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Lobo]

Exactly.

We also need to remember that jihadism is an idea, not a nation or an army. Whether they're good or bad ideas, you just can't beat ideas militarily; and if you try too hard, you just create more than you kill, as the Romans learned with Christianity, and countless other military powers have learned throughout history.

[Ragnar]

The diseased anus ejaculates his usual bilge.....I may pay more taxes than you ignorant louse....you haven't got a fucking clue.