Trump wants to leave NATO!

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by WillReadmore, Jan 16, 2019.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow was THAT ever an exercise in selective reading.

    You didn't even make it to the second paragraph!!

    Maybe you should pick up your reading at the next paragraph that starts with "Twenty years on, the NATO-Russia Founding Act ought to be considered a dead letter" and then goes on to say why.
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like killing sanctions against Russia?

    Like holdng talks with Russia where no record of what was said is available to ANY American, but Russian top officials have been discussing what was said?

    LIke hiring a campaign manager who is deeply tied to and majorly indebted to Russian oligarchs?
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The content of Obama's meetings with Russia is known to other top officials. There are records of what was said - just not public records.

    Russia has a fundamental believe that parts of Eastern Europe rightfully belong as part of Russia. And, their military moves, such as in Crimea, show a willingness to take action.

    Remember that Russia's military moved with troops and equipment that had Russian identification removed, with those military actions denied by the government.

    This idea that Russia has no expansionist intent is ridiculous.
     
  4. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Killing sanctions at a time he was trying to get Russia to honor sanctions against N. Korea and put pressure on N. Korea to get rid of their nuclear weapons.

    Lets see who has been harder on Russia.

    The Anti-Obama: Trump Selling Missile Defense To Poland ...
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/18299/anti-obama-trump-selling...
    Remember when Barack Obama capitulated to Russia in 2010 by removing missile launchers in Poland that neared the Russian border? There’s a new sheriff in town. On Wednesday, the Polish state news agency PAP reported that Poland’s government will buy the Patriot missile defense system from the U.S.


    1. Trump in Poland: U.S. To Sell Warsaw Arms to Stop 'Hot …
      www.newsweek.com/trump-poland-warsaw-us-arms-russia-missiles...
      In a move set to counter Russia’s reinforcement on NATO's borders, Poland and the U.S. Have agreed that Warsaw will purchase the American-made Patriot air defense missile, the Polish government announced Thursday. Trump delighted many in Poland when he announced he would be visiting the country ...

    2. Trump Sends Tank-Killing Missile To Fight Russia in ...
      www.newsweek.com/trump-tank-killing-missile-fight-russia-ukraine...
      The Trump administration approved the sale of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine on Friday as it continues to fight pro-Russian forces in the eastern part of the country, a move that has angered the Kremlin and signifies the U.S. …
    Did Trump give the order to open fire on Russia mercenaries that were coming up on our base and well over 100 of them were killed?

    It was Obama caught on an open mike telling the Russian delegate to tell Putin he's have a better chance to work with them after the election. So it looks to me like three times Obama backed out with confrontations with Russia and maybe three times Trump went right against them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe you should try to get a better understanding of the context of a post before making silly comments ;)

    The context of the post was "warmongering" .. not whether or not some partisan clown at Carnagie can justify why the spirit and the letter of the agreement made was not valid. The simple point of posting the agreement - was because the poster was inferring that there was no agreement - the point was not to ascertain the validity of said agreement in today's world.

    capesce ?
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And?

    That's just not anywhere CLOSE to the magnitude of deciding to defend Russaia in their attack on western democracy followed by Trump's pressure to leave NATO(!!!)

    And, the idea of Trump having discussions wiith Puting with NO US record of what was said (while Russian politicians DO know what was said) is unprecedented.

    Trump's got nothing on NK. Pretending there is something there is just nonsense.

    It's Russia that has evidence on Trump - on the secret talks, on business plans with Russia, on campaign interactions with Russian oligarchs and officials, on his criminal campaign managerS, on his pattern of lies along with his family concerning the infamous "Trump Tower meeting" - claimed to be about adoption!!!
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That nonbinding agreement established the NATO intent of defending its nations, especially in ways that didn't require significant troop increases.

    The ABM sites were part of the NATO move to defend without increases in troops, etc. It came at a time when Russia's capacity for attack was significant and NATO defenses relied on capacitty for reinforcement after such an attack was in progress.

    I know Russia objected (at least until the ABM defenses were retasked to address other threats). But, that doesn't mean the actions taken by NATO weren't legitimate - including under the nonbinding agreement you cite.
     
  8. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The USA's been in Europe 73 years. It's time to cut them loose to sink or swim on their own.

    Bring all the troops and equipment home.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2019
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The actions were not just illegitimate under the spirit of the agreement previously mentioned. The action was a violation of the ABM treaty.

    Where is this "until the ABM defenses were retasked to address other threats" silliness coming from. The idea that these missiles have been RETASKED is an issue of semantics. The Russians do not view it that way - and it would be stupid and absurd for them to view it that way.

    The Russians still strenuously object to ABM's on their borders. If Russia was to put ABM's on US borders - the childbirth like screams from the Pentagon would be heard round the world.

    Putting ABM's on Russian borders destabilized nuclear detente' - which forced Russia to take counter measures. They even threatened nukes in space - which would have happened were Russia not confident in the counter measures they did take.

    Only a friggen idiot thinks Russia is just going to sit there and allow the US to gain a significant first strike advantage - which was specifically the point of the ABM treaty - which Bush pulled out of in 2002 - Putin commenting "This is a mistake".

    What Russia did was revamp its sub fleet and violate the short and intermediate range treaty - building short range nuclear cruise missiles.

    The ABM's would then be taken out with nuclear cruise missiles - which you do not see coming - prior to launch.

    What Russia also did was develop other technologies such as hypersonic missiles and slow moving drones .. and a number of other technologies.

    Putting ABM's on Russia's border was a direct provocation which has reignited the arms race - which is exactly what was intended.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,473
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn't nearly that simple.

    ABMs in Poland were targeted to missiles that could be fired by Iran.
     
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This claim is laughable BS - consider the source. The ABM's are for Russia - not Iran.

    If you wanted to target Iranian ballistic missiles you would want to hit them in the boost phase = locate the ABM's somewhere near Iran - not on Russia's border.

    Even if you wanted to use the less reliable option a mid-course or terminal phase interception - you would not locate the ABM's in "Poland" .. look at a map. You would put them in Greece or Italy (if defending Germany/France/Britain) or the nations themselves.

    The idea that ABM's in Poland are for defense of Europe from Iran is laughable patent nonsense.

    The idea that Iran is threatening Europe with ballistic missiles is also patent nonsense. If Iran is going to attack someone it is going to be Israel ... If not Israel it is going to be Saudi Arabia.

    How stupid do you think people are ? Yeah - lets shoot a ballistic missile at France for no reason - forcing US/Nato to bomb us into oblivion. That's it .. that's what we will do .. good plan !

    If Iran was this big boogieman (who has never pro-actively attacked any nation in recent history) they would be supplying sophisticated military equipment to Hamas/Hezbollah.

    Oopps - ahhh - eeerrrggg ... well , well "they have been arming those terrorists" Not with anything sophisticated they haven't - and much of the support for Hamas/Hezbollah has come from non-state actors in Iran.

    On the contrary - it has been the US (along with Saud, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and others) who have been arming the terrorists in Syria (including Al Qaeda and ISIS) with sophisticated military technology.

    You have ingested way too much propaganda kool aid which is now infecting your thought processes.
     

Share This Page