The man with "bone spurs" attacks other NATO countries for staying "a little off the front lines" in Afghanistan

[frigidweirdo]

Calling out NATO's weakness is NOT attacking any person who serves in the military. Next.

Is he calling out NATO's weakness?

He said something that ISN'Tt TRUE.

How is that calling out a weakness? If I say NATO is made up of China and Russia, is that calling out a weakness?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Probably for being a coward and traitor .
Just the usual.

Ah yes, the man who flew over Vietnam in a plane while people were trying to kill him and endured tough POW camps is a "coward" while the heroic Trump who got out of all that because daddy was rich and because he lied about "bone spurs" is not a "coward"

**** me, you people are ridiculous.

 

[Lockback]

Is he calling out NATO's weakness?

Yes.

He said something that ISN'Tt TRUE.

No.

How is that calling out a weakness? If I say NATO is made up of China and Russia, is that calling out a weakness?

Completely irrational statement.

 

[Lockback]

Ah yes, the man who flew over Vietnam in a plane while people were trying to kill him and endured tough POW camps is a "coward" while the heroic Trump who got out of all that because daddy was rich and because he lied about "bone spurs" is not a "coward"

**** me, you people are ridiculous.

Nobody would **** a loser like you.

 

[TNHarley]

Who was the last president that criticized allies?

"Allies" lol

 

[Lockback]

"Allies" lol

Yeah.
"Allies".

 

[drudge X]

Is he calling out NATO's weakness?

He said something that ISN'Tt TRUE.

How is that calling out a weakness? If I say NATO is made up of China and Russia, is that calling out a weakness?

NATO is weak without the US. NATO with the US leading was the reason Russia couldn’t get any of the former Soviet satellites that are still closely aligned with Russia to form a quick reactionary force to challenge NATO.

A CSTO Rapid-Reaction Force Created as a NATO Counterweight - Jamestown

jamestown.org

 

[22lcidw]

And yet neither of them went around insulting those who did.

Which is the point here.

I'm not attacking people who didn't serve. Just those who didn't serve and then attack those who did.

Progs decades ago, were smearing anyone who did not serve until their own didn't. Today, it was reported that we pay 60% of NATO. Trump did not cut the defense budgets like Clinton and Obama. The cost of hardware is growing fast as we screwed with the fiat currency.

 

[frigidweirdo]

NATO is weak without the US. NATO with the US leading was the reason Russia couldn’t get any of the former Soviet satellites that are still closely aligned with Russia to form a quick reactionary force to challenge NATO.

A CSTO Rapid-Reaction Force Created as a NATO Counterweight - Jamestown

jamestown.org

The whole point of NATO is to make weak individual parts stronger.

The US is only strong because of NATO.

The US wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq or Afghanistan without allies, it wouldn't be able to impose itself on China without allies.

 

[drudge X]

The whole point of NATO is to make weak individual parts stronger.

The US is only strong because of NATO.

The US wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq or Afghanistan without allies, it wouldn't be able to impose itself on China without allies.

Get real. NATO would dissolve without US leading. The second most powerful is UK and UK alone cannot carry the load.
The bombing of former Yugoslavia, US carried just about all the load with UK second.
The Iraq invasion, US and UK carried majority of the load.
The same goes for Afghanistan.

As for China, there is no NATO involvement. The closest involvement was a UK aircraft carrier docked at Yokosuka, Japan last year. I believe it was the first since WWII ended. The alliance is tightly held together by US, Japan, and S. Korea. For the Philippines, it's just Philippines and US. Australia, not completely trustworthy as Aussies tend to stand in the corner when China barks at them. Taiwan, that's mostly between US and Taiwan although it would be interesting what Japan and S. Korea would do if China launches an invasion. Regardless, if there is an invasion, S. Korea and Japan would most likely get involved. US needs an excuse to eliminate Kim Jong's regime. India will take advantage and move in the disputed territory with China.

You see the common denominator if a conflict breaks out? All these counties talking about moving on without the US or shun the US will do nothing more than their usual rigmarole.

 

[Papageorgio]

Trump 'wrong' to claim Nato troops avoided Afghanistan front line, Downing Street says

The US president says Nato troops stayed "a little off the front lines" - despite 457 UK military deaths in the conflict.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yep, the dude who has never been to war, the dude who got out of going to war by using his rich privilege card, is attack NATO countries for not doing enough in Afghanistan.

"Trump sparks anger over claim Nato troops avoided Afghanistan front line"

"Donald Trump has sparked fresh outrage in the UK after saying Nato troops stayed "a little off the front lines" during the war in Afghanistan.

Labour MP Emily Thornberry, the chair of the foreign affairs committee, called it an "absolute insult" to the 457 British service personnel killed in the conflict, while Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "How dare he question their sacrifice?""

The US lost 2,420 troops
The UK lost 457 (seeing as the UK has 1/5th the population of the US, that's about the same number of deaths per population)
Canada lost 159
France 90
Germany 62
Italy 53
Others 338

Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, he keeps saying that NATO does nothing for the US, because he has NO CLUE WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

The US has used German and British (among others) military bases in order to wage war around the world. The Chagos deal the UK has, Trump doesn't like because it might impact the US's ability to wage war around the world in 100 years time.

Trump, who hasn't been to war, attack those who have AGAIN, like he did with John McCain.

He might have bone spurs but he is still correct.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Get real. NATO would dissolve without US leading. The second most powerful is UK and UK alone cannot carry the load.
The bombing of former Yugoslavia, US carried just about all the load with UK second.
The Iraq invasion, US and UK carried majority of the load.
The same goes for Afghanistan.

As for China, there is no NATO involvement. The closest involvement was a UK aircraft carrier docked at Yokosuka, Japan last year. I believe it was the first since WWII ended. The alliance is tightly held together by US, Japan, and S. Korea. For the Philippines, it's just Philippines and US. Australia, not completely trustworthy as Aussies tend to stand in the corner when China barks at them. Taiwan, that's mostly between US and Taiwan although it would be interesting what Japan and S. Korea would do if China launches an invasion. Regardless, if there is an invasion, S. Korea and Japan would most likely get involved. US needs an excuse to eliminate Kim Jong's regime. India will take advantage and move in the disputed territory with China.

You see the common denominator if a conflict breaks out? All these counties talking about moving on without the US or shun the US will do nothing more than their usual rigmarole.

NATO was always, and always has been a US led thing.

NATO was The US v. the USSR.

The USSR led other countries, most notably the Warsaw Pact and the US led NATO.

It was designed to empower the US. The Warsaw Pact was designed to empower the USSR.

The problem with Bosnia was, it had nothing to do with NATO, nobody attacked a NATO member, so it wasn't about NATO.

The same with Iraq, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Afghanistan was about getting ibn Laden. Because he orchestrated 9/11. I don't agree that NATO should have gone to Afghanistan, however it happened and I see the difference between that and all the others.

China isn't about NATO. China hasn't attacked a NATO country, not even close. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan are the main US allies in the region, the Philippines depends on the leader, right now they're against China, before they were friendlier.

NATO wouldn't get involved unless China attacked the US. Right now China is only thinking about attacking Taiwan. So... it's not going to happen and isn't an issue.

NATO is a DEFENSIVE PACT.

Go check who's in NATO, it's many European countries, Canada and the US and Turkey.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He might have bone spurs but he is still correct.

No, he's not.

He's wrong. And what he's wrong about can easily be proven.

 

[drudge X]

NATO was always, and always has been a US led thing.

NATO was The US v. the USSR.

The USSR led other countries, most notably the Warsaw Pact and the US led NATO.

It was designed to empower the US. The Warsaw Pact was designed to empower the USSR.

The problem with Bosnia was, it had nothing to do with NATO, nobody attacked a NATO member, so it wasn't about NATO.

The same with Iraq, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Afghanistan was about getting ibn Laden. Because he orchestrated 9/11. I don't agree that NATO should have gone to Afghanistan, however it happened and I see the difference between that and all the others.

China isn't about NATO. China hasn't attacked a NATO country, not even close. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan are the main US allies in the region, the Philippines depends on the leader, right now they're against China, before they were friendlier.

NATO wouldn't get involved unless China attacked the US. Right now China is only thinking about attacking Taiwan. So... it's not going to happen and isn't an issue.

NATO is a DEFENSIVE PACT.

Go check who's in NATO, it's many European countries, Canada and the US and Turkey.

So why did NATO attack Yugoslavia when Milosevic didn't attack a NATO member? Aside from that, it goes to show that if there is a conflict involving a NATO member, US and UK will again carry the load.

NATO is still around because the US permits the organization to remain active. The same goes for the UN. Those are facts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Progs decades ago, were smearing anyone who did not serve until their own didn't. Today, it was reported that we pay 60% of NATO. Trump did not cut the defense budgets like Clinton and Obama. The cost of hardware is growing fast as we screwed with the fiat currency.

You don't "pay 60% of NATO".

There's NATO spending, which isn't much. That's for the organizational aspects of NATO and their headquarters and paying for people to be shipped around.

I'm struggling to find those figures. Germany was paying about the same as the US, which means per capita it was paying 4 times more.

Then there's defense spending by country, which is all that's being talked about now, which is probably why searching for actual NATO spending doesn't come up.

The difference between the US and all the other countries, is the US spends WAY MORE on non-NATO things.

Iraq 2003, the US spent billions. But none of it was NATO. So, it wasn't NATO spending. Even now, when the military spends money on soldiers who lost limbs or who have mental issues, this money goes towards "defense spending" which goes towards their "NATO spending". But has NOTHING to do with NATO.

The US spend billions of designing new planes. This spending gets put down as "defense spending". They then sell this military equipment to NATO members and does not reduce their "NATO spending".

Italy decided to build a bridge and put it under "defense spending" just so they looked like they were meeting targets.

What the US spends on NATO is very vague at best. Most other countries their militaries are mostly able to join NATO if needed. The US wouldn't be able to put half its military towards an attack from Russia on Europe because of troops in Japan, South Korea and elsewhere.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So why did NATO attack Yugoslavia when Milosevic didn't attack a NATO member? Aside from that, it goes to show that if there is a conflict involving a NATO member, US and UK will again carry the load.

NATO is still around because the US permits the organization to remain active. The same goes for the UN. Those are facts.

Why? I can't really answer why.

The reality was it was the US and European allies fighting Milosevic and they used NATO organization to do that.

Maybe they found better justification. Maybe they did it for strength, maybe they did it to show former Warsaw Pact countries they could benefit from this.

NATO is still around because the US finds it very convenient to have. Trump just doesn't understand why.

Yes, the US could get rid of NATO, it would probably survive because the EU would pick up the mantle and use it as their "European army".

But the US hasn't got rid of it for a reason. Maybe Trump should look into those reasons.

 

[Papageorgio]

Progs decades ago, were smearing anyone who did not serve until their own didn't. Today, it was reported that we pay 60% of NATO. Trump did not cut the defense budgets like Clinton and Obama. The cost of hardware is growing fast as we screwed with the fiat currency.

Here is the link:

https://www.voronoiapp.com/geopolitics/Charted-Why-NATO-Still-Depends-on-the-US-7534

• The United States is NATO’s single largest contributor, spending an estimated $845 billion, or 60.2% of the alliance’s total defence budget.
• European NATO members and Canada together account for $559 billion, representing 39.8% of total spending.
• Without US defence spending, NATO’s overall military budget would shrink by more than half, significantly reducing the alliance’s collective capacity.
• Despite recent increases in defence outlays by European countries, the spending gap with the US remains substantial.
• The figures underline ongoing burden-sharing debates within NATO, reinforcing the central role of the US as the alliance’s financial backbone.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is the link:

https://www.voronoiapp.com/geopolitics/Charted-Why-NATO-Still-Depends-on-the-US-7534

• The United States is NATO’s single largest contributor, spending an estimated $845 billion, or 60.2% of the alliance’s total defence budget.
• European NATO members and Canada together account for $559 billion, representing 39.8% of total spending.
• Without US defence spending, NATO’s overall military budget would shrink by more than half, significantly reducing the alliance’s collective capacity.
• Despite recent increases in defence outlays by European countries, the spending gap with the US remains substantial.
• The figures underline ongoing burden-sharing debates within NATO, reinforcing the central role of the US as the alliance’s financial backbone.

Does all this "defense spending" go to NATO?

Did the Iraq War contribute to the defense of NATO? Does the current spending on healthcare for Iraq War veterans help NATO?

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

Really? The US wanted to get an oil tanker, the UK helped.

The US wanted to project itself around the world, it used bases in the UK and Germany.

It went to Afghanistan, NATO countries went too.

Trump didn't do any of this.

And yet, you criticize the ones who did do something, and not the one who did nothing.

When did you serve again?

 

[struth]

The whole point of NATO is to make weak individual parts stronger.

The US is only strong because of NATO.

The US wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq or Afghanistan without allies, it wouldn't be able to impose itself on China without allies.

The US was a super power that saved the world prior to creating NATO

The entire point of NATO was so that we could put military bases in Europe and make it easier to defend Europe due to the fact they were so weak compared to Russia and to keep weapons out of the hands of the Germans since they are evil

Europe was suppose to pay their fair share


Over the years they failed to pay their fair share and the main threat the UsSR doesn’t exist