Trump is 100% correct regarding NATO and Europe!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Mar 22, 2016.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    I agree with Trump on this point and unfortunately he is the only person except Rand Paul who has proposed as much. The United States pays for 70% of the NATO budget and what do we get in return? No much. A bunch of whiny European nations that refuse to spend for their own national defense, who are too politically correct to control their own borders, who are so weak and pathetic that ISIS can pull off multiple attacks within a few miles of both the EU and NATO HQs, and who never stop complaining about the United States. Same with the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend defending advanced democracies like Israel, South Korea and Japan.

    Of course, when Trump mentioned that maybe the United States should spend a little less on NATO, the usual neocon chickenhawk voices rose in shrill screeching unison complaining that that was a totally outrageous proposition: Hillary, the National Review, Ted Cruz, Bill Kristol, and all the useless American NATO generals and useless American diplomats who don’t want to give up the cushy Brussels cocktail circuit nor their taxpayer-funded European vacations, not to mention the insatiable military-industrial complex.

    The hell with NATO, NAFTA, TPP, the Middle East, Korea, Japan, and Europe. It is not isolationism to stop spending trillions on policing the world and to start spending American tax dollars on our decaying infrastructure, on Americans jobs, and on Americans. We should engage the rest of the world economically. It will be amazing to see how the rest of the world ceases to hate us as much when we stop sticking our nose in everyone else’s business.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  3. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    That's just my opinion. Feel free to write me in on your ballot in November, though.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    will you make me legal? :D
     
  5. BoxerGT2.5, Mar 22, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2016

    BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #5
    You are clearly displaying cultural racism towards Europeans.
     
  6. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #6
    That maybe just because of the instability caused by the US interfering in other regions affairs?
    US puts in the extra on its own back, they are not asked to "pay" for nato..

    that was around 500M USD btw..

    [​IMG]
     
  7. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #7
    Does this really come as a surprise from any of those opposing voices?

    To me this seems like the most predictable thing in the world. Right up there with water being wet and Sasquatch not wearing underpants. And roughly as interesting.
     
  8. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
  9. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #9
    you could read it two ways...

    UN involved in africa - half full glass.
    uninvolved in africa - half empty glass.

    :)
     
  10. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #10
    I would prefer if we stopped policing the world. That would of course mean that an end to invasions that merely reinforce US hegemony, but it's a small price.
     
  11. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #11
    Well if Rwanda is how the UN gets involved umm I'll go with the latter.
     
  12. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #12
    The problem with Donald Trump (OK, one of the problems with Donald Trump..) is that he is all over the place on what he says he is going to do with the military.

    On the one hand, he claims he's going to cut billions from the military budget. But the next time you hear him speaking, he says:

    Maybe you can explain how Trump will accomplish these two diametrically opposed objectives?

    The simple fact of the matter is this: We don't need to do anything to our military to defeat the Mexican armed forces. We could probably win a war with Mexico with a tenth of our current army, navy, and air force. But getting into a war with Mexico is one of the stupidest ideas anyone could imagine.

    People listen to Donald Trump and hear what they want to hear. Like Alex Chalgren, the gay African-American teenager who became the South Carolina director for Students for Trump. Because why? Because he thought Donald Trump was in favor of gay marriage.

    But then, of course, Donald Trump gets asked a question at a debate:

    Listening to that poor kid rationalize his support for Trump, after hearing that, made me feel very sad. Because there are an awful lot of people like that in this country. People who are damaged, who've been hurt - either through loss of jobs, or through bad luck, or through whatever.

    And Donald Trump is taking advantage of sad, broken, damaged people like that. Lying through his teeth to do so.
     
  13. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #13
    One of the problems with Nato is that the other nations don't need to spend like we spend. They open their borders and now we have to pay the price for it? WTF is that?

    If the agreement that we have to fight when they are attacked, should we have some say over these self-inflicted wounds? Can you imagine a total war breaking out in Europe right now? How would he even begin to fight this?

    ISIS is in Europe to stay, there is NO way to ever get them out. How is that our fault. Oh wait, we kinda started the whole thing with Iraq. Hmmm.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  15. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    Every NATO member is expected to spend 2% of GDP on defense. A few of them actually do; the rest are free riders. I'm tired of supporting these bums.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Ironduke Suspended

    Ironduke

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #16
    Green Bay Packers = commies of the nfl
     
  17. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
    America's noninterventionism changed after sufficient amounts of overtaken foreign land wound up with an emboldened Japan sending attack planes to sleepy Pearl Harbor.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 23, 2016 ---
    Do we finally agree that Obama got elected soley upon his Hope and Change mantra and that nobody in the media ever asked Obama exactly what he meant by that? But Trump? Questions galore, and oh, so micro- analyzed.
     
  18. k995 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    #18

    Then pull back? Those countries for the most never asked for this.

    Besides south korea perhaps none of these countries actually need US "protection".

    And hey it perfectly fits in another trump policy: steal all the Oil in iraq, if its just the US => more revenue.

    You do realise the reason the US spends trillions on defense is to keep the money flowing to the big US defense contractors? They dont care where the US uses whetever junk it manages to push onto the US. As long as is deployed/used.
     
  19. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #19
    How has that worked in terms of allies?

    Russia --> Cold War adversary
    install Shah in Iran --> Iranian Revolution
    Support Taliban against USSR --> Taliban later becomes an enemy
    Support Saddam due to tensions with Iran --> Iraq and Saddam become adversaries in the Gulf War
    Ally with Bin Laden knowing that Saddam isn't a likely friend of Islamic fundamentalists --> Bin Laden becomes an enemy within a decade

    In 2011 the news talked about training Syrians to fight against Assad. How did that work out? Assad now looks like a more likely temporary ally, even though he could become just like the others. He doesn't appear to be approaching retirement. Saddam would have retired before now. He would be in his 80s at this point, although his sons were somewhat of unknowns in terms of US interests.

    There was also US support of Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti.

    Most of this was long before Obama, but all of those situations eventually turned bad in some way. I would prefer that we don't continue to meddle with things that we won't be able to fix.
     
  20. k995 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    #20
    BS, obama had a lot more policy at this time then trump has.

    The "hope and change" simply was the slogan just like trump will be known for "make america great again". He will mainly be elected on that, unfortunatly with the lots of low information voters thats all a lot of people hear .
     
  21. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #21
    And while you are about it can you take back your McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Wendys, Starbucks, and all the other JUNK food crap at the same time.
     
  22. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #22
    We prefer "Democratic Socialists of the NFL."

    I agree with everything you wrote.

    A bit different. Unlike NATO, you are at least paying for the American junk food. Now if we could next get you to pay for your own your self-defense...
     
  23. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #23

    There are bad actors in the world, and little will come out squeaky clean. It's a dirty business. The alternative? Look the other way. The latest instance on nonintervention was ISIS' unchecked ascent care of the present administration being aware of it, but allowing it.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 23, 2016 ---
    They fed hope and change to a media that parroted it. A media with no questions to ask. America knew seriously little about the President beforehand.
     
  24. deany macrumors 68030

    deany

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Location:
    North Wales
    #24
    US spend more money and they are happy to do that as there is an over reliance on them and this gives them more power to do what they so wish.
    The US are more than happy with that setup.
     
  25. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #25
    Even God can't pull that miracle
     

Share This Page