Is the rest of NATO going to start pulling their weight, or not?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You're turning into Trump's chief ball washer here.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

lol. Screw NATO anyway. The Cold War is over, the alliance is a relic.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Is the rest of NATO going to start pulling their weight, or not?

I don't know but Trump said NATO was obsolete and this morning Pence said the U.S fully supports them and that the U.S support is unwavering.

I'm just not sure what the position is, at least until someone clarifies what either Pence or Trump really meant to say.

I don't know what Trump's position is, either.

But NATO is obsolete.

If everyone wants to keep it around for old time's sake, whatever, but the other member states don't have a right to expect us to hold up to our end of the treaty when they haven't been keeping up their side of the bargain.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

But NATO is obsolete.


If everyone wants to keep it around for old time's sake, whatever, but the other member states don't have a right to expect us to hold up to our end of the treaty when they haven't been keeping up their side of the bargain.


I think NATO is obsolete too, the threats today are not the same as they were 50 years ago. The problem now is that Russia loved Trump's comments about distancing the U.S from the international alliances and he repeatedly said NATO was obsolete and said things were going to change. With Pence saying the complete opposite, it's hard to say what the position is right now.


This morning, Europe is relieved and Russia is angry so it looks to me like nothing has changed bin the world order that both Trump and Bannon were going to change. I'm not sure if Pence is taking a line that differs from Trump/Bannon or if the administration position suddenly changed.

With Pence saying the complete opposite, it's hard to say what the position is right now.

There's a term for that: constructive ambiguity.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Spoken like someone with no experience with NATO in any way.

Stick to what you know.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You give them too much credit. They can't get any of there team on message on simple stuff. You really think they could all get on the same page with "constructive ambiguity?"

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity," Hanlon's Razor.

---

Suffer Well.

It's not like NATO is some obscure organization that only those with direct, inside knowledge of can truly understand, commodore.

It's a structure that served its purpose well during the Cold War. It's been superseded by history.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Like I said, stick to what you know. NATO does quite a bit, for us and for the rest of the member nations. The fact that its original purpose may or may no longer be central doesn't mean it hasn't adapted to new purposes, or that it's obsolete.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I assume you believe the mission of NATO is tone oppose the USSR. That is obsolete.

But do you think the concept of alliance with long time trusted allies is obsolete?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

^^^^^^^ this x100


NATO's purpose is not just to fight enemies, its to prevent potential enemies from becoming powerful enough to be a threat. A weak NATO will mean a weak EUrope will mean Russian Empire resurgance will mean Russian Hegemony will eventually mean American children will be under a real threat.

Trump seems to be playing checkers, looking only one move ahead. He needs to start letting intelligent grownups resume playing chess and thinking 10 moves ahead.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

The checkers vs chess analogy is a good one. I am sure Putin is licking his lips at the prospect of negotiations of any type with his little Orange Bitch. Art of the deal? Ha.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

He'll support NATO but will continue to work on pressuring members to pay their share.


At the same time, he's working on gaining the world's respect.

https://www.youtube.com/...amp;feature=youtu.be

I think the concept of maintaining an expensive, decades long military presence in Europe is obsolete. I think the idea that we should treat any attack on a NATO member as an attack on us is obsolete. I think the idea that there exists a military threat that requires NATO is obsolete. I think the idea that NATO is the best or most effective or most efficient way to deal with the actual threats we face today is obsolete. I think the idea that the United States can or should maintain some kind of quasi-empire in the interest of global peace is obsolete. I think the idea that we need NATO in order to maintain or build alliances with friendly nations is obsolete. I think the idea that America should continue to support nations who don't even pay their share is obsolete.

Etc and so forth. It's not that NATO doesn't do anything. It's that much of what it does doesn't need to be done, and the rest can be done just as or more effectively without NATO.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

In his defense, Trump's game has always been Monopoly. I'd be shocked if he actually knew how to play chess.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Mention of "fair share" gets a little old given the considerable benefit we garner from these treaty organizations, the fact that we went many years without paying our dues to the UN, the fact that most of what we provide might very well be in place regardless of NATO, etc. Especially since most people don't know what countries are supposed to pay to NATO to begin with.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Etc and so forth. It's not that NATO doesn't do anything. It's that much of what it does doesn't need to be done, and the rest can be done just as or more effectively without NATO.

I agree and I agreed with Trump during the election campaign. I also read a lot about Steve Bannon talking about a new world order. I'm not sure what exactly that meant but if they meant closer ties with Russia and leaving organizations like NATO, it would certainly change the existing order. I think the current risks are not being addressed by NATO. For example, maybe I'm wrong but how many terrorist attacks were stopped by NATO?

One of the big problems in U.S intelligence is the tendency for the different agencies to keep information to themselves. It was a problem in the years leading up to 9/11 and I bet it is still one. If one U.S agency can't co-operate with another U.S agency, why would they work with another country? And why would other countries do the same with the U.S? All governments want to take credit for things they do and they certainly don't want to share the credit with others.

That said, the talk by Pence certainly didn't sound like a change in the world order. He is talking about a close alignment with NATO and that isn't going to make the Russians happy at all. Not that it's a problem keeping the Russians on their toes but there are definitely mixed messages.

Does any of that have anything to do with the fact that most of NATO isn't meeting their obligation under the terms of the alliance?

http://money.cnn.com/...-spending-countries/

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well it has somewhat to do with it since what you're referring to is agreement on how much each country should spend out of its own budget on its own national defense. As opposed to, you know, what they're supposed to pay to NATO.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Who said anything about paying NATO?

Are most member states meeting their obligation and pulling their weight, or not?

It's simple, and it's inescapable. They're not. They're relying on us to cover it. Even they acknowledge it. Maybe you want to try a different argument or something.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, you when you said that countries don't "pay their fair share."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

They don't pay their fair share. We're all supposed to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense, right? So we're all capable of contributing to military defense of each other, yeah?

Are they? They are not. We are paying substantially more, they are paying substantially less (as percent of GDP, not simply absolute spending), because they are and have been relying on us to provide an umbrella of safety. That's what's known as "not paying their fair share."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Two different things. There's a NATO budget, and we're all supposed to contribute. We all have a share. Whether or not it's a "fair share" or not is a reasonable question. Whether countries pay their allotted share is also a reasonable question.

Separate from our share of the NATO budget is the agreement to spend 2% of national budgets on defense. That's a part of the agreement, but not related to our "fair share" of NATO budget or spending.

Given how ardently you are holding the press to account in the Benghazi thread, it's interesting that you're willing to be fairly casual with your use of language in this situation. My point is specifically that people don't know what "fair share" means, because they've been duped into thinking the national defense spending target is somehow part of that, when it's really not.


When we talk about American citizens paying their fair share in taxes, we're not talking about how much of their personal budgets they spend of clothes or food or whatever. We're talking about how much they pay into the fund we're all supposed to contribute to. It's funny how people decide to apply an entirely different meaning when it's convenient.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Fair enough. I have no idea what the NATO budget is, or how much we contribute to it, and how much other nations contribute to it.

The discussion for as long as I've known has centered around defense spending, not NATO's actual budget. The argument has been that over-reliance on US defense spending has allowed Europe to essentially get a free ride. And that's largely true. There was a time when that made sense and was more clearly in our national interests. That's not the case today.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Precisely my point. Most Americans don't know how NATO is funded. So it's easy for people to toss out the 2% number and call it "fair share." In truth, we pay a heavy portion of the NATO budget (just under 23% if I remember correctly) because the agreed upon formula for share is based on GDP. Germany pays in the neighborhood of 16%, France and the UK around 12% each, etc. As I said, whether that's fair or not is as reasonable point of discussion.



But when someone claims that a few countries or groups aren't paying their fair share, the implication is that someone else if paying more than their fair share to make up for the deficit, or that the group can't do all the things it needs to do because of lack of funds. It's not like we're spending more of our budget to make up for the part those countries aren't spending. We're spending the amount of our budget that we want to spend on Defense, and how much France or Iceland spend on their own National Defense doesn't really have much to do with that number. Yes, Europe heavily relies on the US. But quite frankly, we've been very happy to spend and station troops and materiel forward in Europe (and around the globe). I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment that suddenly it's not clearly in our national interests to have those forces where they are, or to be participating in the operations or exercises, etc.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 
Precisely my point. Most Americans don't know how NATO is funded.

Maybe not, but that's not really the issue in the first place.


Maybe so, but it's not like we're spending more of our budget to make up for the part those countries aren't spending. We're spending the amount of our budget that we want to spend, and how much France or Iceland spend on their own National Defense doesn't really have much to do with that number.

We're spending that much because we have grown accustomed to the notion that it's our job to protect the world order, and protection of Europe via NATO is the central plank in that program. And the fact that we spend so much and are so willing to extend the benefit of our spending is exactly what has allowed much of Europe to get that free ride. Why spend an adequate amount on their own defense when we're willing to do it for them?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well it was part of the issue I commented on when I objected to the use of the 2% Defense spending number as representative of "fair share."



We're not spending defense dollars in Europe out of altruism. We're doing so because we think it serves our national economic, diplomatic, and security interests. Just like why we're spending defense dollars in the Middle East and in Asia, and not so much in South America or Africa.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

We're doing so because we think it serves our national economic, diplomatic, and security interests.

And I'm saying it doesn't anymore, hence why our commitment is obsolete. It serves Europe's economic, diplomatic, and security interests FAR more than ours, and they can't be bothered to pay for it. Why shouldn't they have to?

Just like why we're spending defense dollars in the Middle East and in Asia,

Just so. Stellar return on investment we're getting, too.

Tell you what: How about we just scale back defense spending to the NATO target of 2% of GDP?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Basically everything we participate in benefits others more than us. That's how it works when you're the richest kid on the block. I think if you dig a bit, it's not hard to find ways in which NATO benefits us and our interests.


Because somehow that extra 1.5% or so is all spent on stuff we don't care about, and all focused in Europe?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 
Basically everything we participate in benefits others more than us.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be held to their obligations. And it begs the question- what's our benefit in participating, and is it worth what it costs us?

And it isn't simply a function of being the rich kid, either. It's a function of Europe having more to gain from the alliance than we do in the first place.


Because somehow that extra 1.5% or so is all spent on stuff we don't care about, and all focused in Europe?

No, like I said, it's largely a function of our desire to protect and maintain some global "order." But yeah, our presence in Europe is a big part of that, as is our continual projection of power in the Middle East.

Let's pull back to 2% of GDP and see what shakes out. Would still meet our NATO commitment, which is more than what most of NATO can say.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Of course not. I'm certainly not arguing against putting pressure on all the countries that aren't meeting their treaty obligations, although I will point out that the 2% Defense spending number is a "goal" not a requirement. Nations are supposed to aim for that number, but of course each country has it's own politics to consider and getting to 2% is simply not realistic for many of them. Iceland for instance, will never get to 2% defense spending.


Directly, certainly. But the consequences of Europe falling into disarray would be pretty steep for us as well.


It would still meet that target number, but it might very well result in us to missing other treaty obligations or expectations. Unless you want to pull the excess defense spending only from other areas of the world.

What you seem to want is an entire new assessment of our national interests, our role in the world, and our strategies for accomplishing a new set of goals, along with an entirely new budgetary approach to our revised view of our global position and responsibilities.

Ok, well that's a pretty major undertaking, but it really has not much to do with NATO's relevance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What you seem to want is an entire new assessment of our national interests, our role in the world, and our strategies for accomplishing a new set of goals, along with an entirely new budgetary approach to our revised view of our global position and responsibilities.

It's long overdue, and it has quite a lot to do with NATO.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

NATO certainly has to figure into the calculus, but our view of our role in the world doesn't figure into whether NATO is obsolete or not. Either the mission (or a mission) for NATO remains, or it doesn't. Whether we want to be part of it is a separate question.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

NATO certainly has to figure into the calculus, but our view of our role in the world doesn't figure into whether NATO is obsolete or not.

Sure it does. Like I said, it's a Cold War relic. It's part of the old order, and a piece of our old strategy for dealing with that order. It served its purpose, and was mutually beneficial to Europe and to us. But that order no longer exists. NATO and the costs associate with it no longer serve our national interests, and certainly not the the degree that we invest in it- and our commitment to NATO is representative of our global strategy and commitments.



Either the mission (or a mission) for NATO remains, or it doesn't.

NATO was a great hammer. There's no nail anymore. And just because we can use the hammer as a paperweight doesn't mean we should.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It certainly adds an ability and structure to fight in a combined (coalition) manner. Also adding some international legitimacy to endeavors--although some may scoff at that. Out here in the Stan one of the big consumers of the "ability" I'm out here providing is NSOCC-A. You can google them. I can't really talk much about it on a open net but our allies are out here kicking some major ass. You just don't hear a lot about it

Almost done Making Afghanistan Great Again this tour. Fly home this coming FRI. God willing and the creek don't rise

Take good care

/r

---

Steve

NATO isn't outdated, your view of NATO's role is outdated. Just as many Canadian idea of what peacekeeping actually entails, they still believe the bullshit that was fed to them back in the 70's & 80's. Problem is, it was exactly that bullshit.

Almost done Making Afghanistan Great Again this tour.


Afghanistan is almost great again?

    To yoos guys that may have an informed opinion; how does the possibility of the EU (if ever) getting together it's military force play relative to NATO?

EU is, at least in its current form, basically an economic union. I don't really foresee there being an EU military force anytime soon.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

To yoos guys that may have an informed opinion; how does the possibility of the EU (if ever) getting together it's military force play relative to NATO?


Not surprisingly, this thread got sidetracked from my original point.


I wasn't asking if NATO was good or not, I was pointing out that Trump said he wants out of NATO and Pence is saying the U.S stands 100% behind NATO.


Those stands are polar opposites and could have a big impact on the relationship with Europe and Russia.

Post #9 and/or post #11.

Really not much else to say about it at this point.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Really not much else to say about it at this point.

You mean we're not going to beat that one issue to death?

I don't even know this place anymore...

-
Not just Pence, Mattis and Tillerson are overseas making nice on NATO...so I think Trump is the only one out of the loop.

lol. I'd be more than happy to flog that horse, but there's really not much to talk about at this point. There's nothing to discuss. White House is sending mixed signals. Which is genuine, which is false? Both? Neither? No way to tell.

I wouldn't sweat it too much. I didn't hear the entire press conference the other day, but one part I did catch was Trump talking about his response to various provocations, and he said, "I don't have to tell you what I'm going to do in North Korea, and I don't have to tell you what I'm going to do in Iran, because they shouldn't know." Or something to that effect.

It sounded idiotic when I heard it, but really, after thinking about it, isn't much different from the boilerplate political/diplomatic answer every politician always gives. "We're going to leave all options on the table." It's just that Trump doesn't come off that polished.

I think that applies to the White House statements about NATO.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Doesn't look like there's really all that much daylight between Trump and Pence on this.

http://time.com/...ding-germany-merkel/

At the head of the U.S. delegation to the conference this year was Vice President Mike Pence, whose speech felt at times like that of a barman politely insisting to a roomful of drinkers that happy hour is over. He reminded the European leaders in the audience that, out of 28 members of the NATO military alliance, only four countries other than the U.S. currently meet their obligation to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. (These are Greece, Estonia, Poland, and the U.K. On its own the U.S. spends around $650 billion per year, or roughly 3.6% of its GDP. That accounts for more than 70% of the total defense spending of all the NATO allies.)
“Let me be clear on this point,” Pence said. “The President of the United States expects our allies to keep their word, to fulfill this commitment. And for most, that means the time has come to do more.”
<>
Instead, Merkel went on to argue that mutual security went beyond military spending — that, for example, some types of development aid should count as defense spending, in effect equating the construction of hospitals in Africa to the stockpiling of ammo in Europe. “When we help people in their home countries to live a better life and thereby prevent crises, this is also a contribution to security,” Merkel said from the stage in Munich on Saturday. “So I will not be drawn into a debate about who is more military-minded and who is less.”


lol at Merkel and her alternative facts.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That is BS, they want the military might, they need to foot the bill. What if we turned around and starting giving foreign aid as a means of contribution instead of guns, ammo, equipment and personnel? What would our share be if we started counting that?

Fuck her, this is exactly why Americans are frustrated with the arrangement.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Didn't you see what she said, though? She isn't going to be drawn into a debate over it.

Basically, she and much of Europe just demands that America provide for their defense, and are outraged at the suggestion that we might not if they don't start making their own contributions to the effort.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

There are a lot of things that get counted into "Defense spending" that might not immediately seem like military might. We count spending on veterans as well as foreign economic aid in our Defense numbers.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't particularly care how it is allocated as long as it is consistent and agreed upon by all parties involved.

I then don't want to see disparity in provisions for equipment and personnel. I don't want any future battlefield fought by mostly Americans or American lid for equipment.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Good luck with that.

These are all sovereign nations with their own budgetary processes. We can try to put some basic guidelines in the rules for what constitutes "Defense spending," but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for everyone to agree to an exact set of rules for that.

And it's even more doubtful that we would see future battles not fought by mostly Americans and American equipment. That's part of what comes from having more money and people than most everyone else in the alliance.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Then you should understand the resentment and it certainly sounds justified. When a deal is negotiated and both sides feel equity, it is a good deal. If in the course of decades and other events, one side no longer feels equity, but the other does, a deal needs to cease or be renegotiated so both sides feel equity. And if the sides that feel equity are all bent out of shape because our lack of equity calls for a renegotiation, it comes down to leverage. And right now, I don't see Europe having any leverage. So fuck em. Every last one of them.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Like I said,...good luck with that.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Wow, petty resentment as the sole rationale for foreign policy. As slowguy said, good luck with that

Well it would seem to me that Trump and team are holding all the cards, and they hold none. We agree to pull back, they have a choice to put real military assets on the table/money or just have a short fall. Sounds fine to me. That's is called risk acceptance. Clearly a sizeable portion of the American electorate are fine with no NATO, I would think more are fine with a pullback to lesser levels.

Only people I hear getting all bent out of shape are the Europeans who have used our cloak of protection to fund social programs, and bureaucrats who say you can't do that. It is the way it is for a reason and you just have to trust us. But sorry, that narrative just isn't working anymore. Maybe it is temporary, and I'm sure you are counting on that. I'm hoping it doesn't. I'm hoping the populism in Britain, US, and spreading across Europe crushes the existing order and all those that have helped sustain or perpetuate it fade away man. I'm not kidding when I think the world needs an enema.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Doesn't look like there's really all that much daylight between Trump and Pence on this.

There isn't a lot of difference on the funding aspect of NAT, both have asked for other countries to do their fair share.

The differences are in NATO itself. Pence said the U.S is 100% in support of NATO but Trump said NATO is obsolete. I see that as a pretty big gap unless I missed where the administration translated his comments into what he really meant.

Come on, man. I'm pretty sure Trump has also said we're committed to NATO, but they have to pay up.

And Pence is saying pretty much exactly that. So is Mattis. You're making something out of nothing. They appear to be on the same page.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, not really. He said he didn't want to pull out, but he also said NATO is obsolete, that we have to reconsider NATO, that NATO has to be changed, that he would look into getting rid of NATO, that we pay more than our fair share, that NATO is supposed to cover terrorism and doesn't have the right countries for that, and that we have to be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. I think anyone can see that his messaging on this subject is a bit mixed at best, and certainly leaves room for NATO countries to be concerned. They certainly aren't lock step with a message of long term commitment to NATO that the VP spoke about.

If people in the LR are making something out of nothing, well then so are the governments of a significant number of NATO countries.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

His message might be mixed, and it might be giving Europe cause for concern, but it's simply not 100% different from Pence's position. Not even close.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't think that claim was made by anyone here, unless I missed it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Wasn't that the OP, or did this thing get so convoluted?

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Yeah, that's the point of the entire thread. That Trump and Pence are giving 100% different signals on NATO, and nobody knows what to do about it, and the Russians love what Trump said, and the Europeans love what Pence said, and what are we to make of all that.

Basically, Trump has given some ambiguous statements which seem designed to pressure Europe into paying their fair share. Pence has explicitly said they need to pay their fair share. There's not really any real conflict between their statements on NATO.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well, I didn't start the thread, but I don't think that's the point. The point seemed to be that there's enough ambiguity between Pres Trump's previous statements and those made by the VP and SecDef so as to cause so questioning about what the administration's policy really will be moving forward, and/or to question whether the Pres and his surrogates are completely on the same page with regard to the administration's foreign policy.

As far as I can tell, you're the first person to say the policies were 100% different.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

As far as I can tell, you're the first person to say the policies were 100% different.

I don't know what to tell you. That was Sanuk's claim.

As for ambiguity, I think it's deliberate- but again, there appears very little conflict between Trump and Pence and Mattis, and the message seems crystal clear: Europe has to start paying its fair share.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, Sanuk has tried to bring the focus back to the original point. With that said, I see how smarter people could easily expand the scope and read to much into it. That what happens when smart people start discussing clear cut or mundane topics. ;)

The communication is consistent, but the message seems to be clear when read on paper. But leaves rational people able to read into it what they want to. Creating confusion.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

http://www.msn.com/...r-AAn8zyf?li=BBnb7Kz


what's with Canada?

He sounds very Hitlerian there.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Canada was a very big supporter of NATO at the time of the Cold War. I spent a significant amount of my school years as a military brat on Canadian bases in Germany and even France ( before they kicked everybody out in 1967). We closed all our bases in Germany after the cold war ended in the 1990's as it was determined by our government that since the cold war was over, they were no longer needed. There are still some CDN troops in Europe associated with other bases, usually American or British AFAIK, but our boots on the ground commitment is now very small compared to what it was in the cold war era. Hence we are now only paying about 1% of GNP towards NATO.

IMHO, NATO is more or less something of the past, but I understand why the USA wants to maintain a continued presence due to the fact that the bases in Europe make hops to troubled areas like the middle east or parts of Africa much more convenient. Also, mayors of towns where bases are located put a considerable amount of pressure on the German government to keep these bases open as there loss would dramatically effect local economies.

As for NATO itself, I agree that it has to be redefined.

Yeah but he didn't get el chapo. Trump got el chapo

Thanks for your insights

I'm confused. I thought the NATO agreement was that you had to spend at least 2% of your GNP on defense not contribute 2 percent of your GDP to NATO. Having said that as a Canadian I am embarrassed that it appears we are spending about 1 percent of our GDP on defense.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I was talking to my dad not long ago about this very topic. At the time when in Germany as a teenager, he was 2nd in command of one of the bases. All I'm really doing is paraphrasing what we recently discussed.

what's with Canada?

Every individual in Canada doesn't necessarily agree with the position of our government.

I happen to think NATO is somewhat obsolete in many ways. Countries act in their own interests and for the most part, won't co-operate with other countries if they can take credit for themselves. Governments want to stay in power, not help other countries. You have agencies in the U.S who won't co-operate amongst themselves, why would they co-operate with a foreign country?

My point was really more of a conflicting message. Through the campaign, Trump and Bannon were talking about a new world order, clearly moving closer to Russia and further from the established alliances. That message was repeated over and over and I kept hearing how voters supported that view, they wanted a change. Then Pence went to Europe and said the U.S is 100% in support of NATO which really wan't want Trump and Bannon have been saying at all.

It sure didn't strike me as a new world order when Pence said everything is the same except we would like the NATO members to contribute their fair share, something the U.S has been saying for years. In fact, I see absolutely nothing different, it's exactly the way it's always been.

I thought things were going to be different, silly me.

I get your point. I don't think their messages conflict but I can see that you do

Not everyone in the us agrees either, in case that hasn't been obvious

I think canada should honor their position or work to have it changed. Not decide that it no longer applies to them

More importantly, whether their messages agree or not, I for one am happy it is a topic of conversation. I don't know how it ends but I hope we are all in agreement when it does. When was the last time NATO was a topic of conversation in the US. There are people in this thread that agree with trump it is obsolete. I don't have a strong opinion. But I don't think we should just blindly continue our financial commitment to it when others are not and we haven't discussed why or whether it is obsolete or what other countries do/say

Oh, and I think merkel's position on it sucks and she won't get dragged into a debate because it's one she will lose. Which I hadn't considered until trump and pence raised this as an issue

 

Trump said he'd 'never' help Europe in case of war, top EU official (msn.com)

"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you... By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO,"



Once again Trump confirms he is a steaming pile of poop.

Yes

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Rueters has a bit more meat to this alleged quote. They are looking for confirmation sources. So far none have stepped up. A google search of this Economic Forum in Davos just before Covid went off does show that TFG was in rare form with his America first and climate denial ranting and boasting. The quote is too true to form not to be believed.

Related to this allegation . On reading of this incident I could not help but think of his one on one with Putin in Helsinki. If ever the time was right to leak for our interpreter to come forward to account.......