Jump to content
jackmormon

Tillerson to blow off first NATO summit...

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

...vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!

19,29784,356
 
DJT_Headshot_V2_reasonably_small.jpg

Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nevertheless, Germany owes.....

Yea Trump is a dumb shit.  Tillerson understand things much better.  I wish trump could have his baby hands amputated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

Why is the president scheduling a meeting with the Chinese that conflicts with a long scheduled NATO summit?

NATO is an obsolete and anachronistic institution that consists of countries that are of no danger to us and who only have influence in the world because of us.  The issues are small and of little importance.

China is our largest trade partner and the 3rd largest military power in the world and someone who's relationship with we have not completely stabilized.  There are dozens of important issues that we would bigly benefit from settling between us.

Seems pretty obvious that if you can do something with China productive you sideline Nato every time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yea Trump is a dumb shit.  Tillerson understand things much better.  I wish trump could have his baby hands amputated.

Does the United States blowing off the NATO summit make Vladimir happy :D or sad :(?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, roswellcoug said:

"Mr Tillerson is set to meet with 26 of the 27 foreign ministers of Nato member countries on 22 March. The meeting will include Secretary of Defence James Mattis and will be focused solely on counterterrorism and the eradication of Isis. 

Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg will also be in attendance at the counterterrorism meeting."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rex-tillerson-russia-trip-secretary-state-to-skip-nato-meeting-a7642351.html

 

1 hour ago, jackmormon said:

It's not a NATO meeting. And NATO issues like keeping Russian in check aren't on the agenda. 

Appearances are important in international diplomacy. And it appears we are snubbing NATO.

Your implication was that the SoS was blowing off his first meeting with NATO. But he is meeting almost all NATO ministers this week.  

Some of them wondered why he just didn't schedule a NATO meeting while they are all in DC.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tillerson-nato-idUSKBN16S18S

Anyway, looks like the schedule is being changed and we have another tempest in a teapot.

http://www.dw.com/en/tillerson-offers-new-dates-for-nato-meeting/a-38059465

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jackmormon said:

Does the United States blowing off the NATO summit make Vladimir happy :D or sad :(?

Geopolitical chess is more complex than I can express with emojis.  Which makes sad.:(

You are assuming the absolute worst of intentions in regards to Russia it seems.  Do you think they desire a war of conquest with Europe?  I think Vladamir has complex opinions in regards to "blowing off NATO"  The USA showing obvious displeasure with NATO nations for not spending enough on their militaristic capabilities certainly does not make him happy though, I can say with certainty.  Idiotic threats that Trump has made to pull out of NATO probably makes would likely having him using a smiling emoji followed by a chin scratching emoji.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, roswellcoug said:

 

Your implication was that the SoS was blowing off his first meeting with NATO. But he is meeting almost all NATO ministers this week.  

Some of them wondered why he just didn't schedule a NATO meeting while they are all in DC.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-tillerson-nato-idUSKBN16S18S

Anyway, looks like the schedule is being changed and we have another tempest in a teapot.

http://www.dw.com/en/tillerson-offers-new-dates-for-nato-meeting/a-38059465

Nice mischaracterization of the articles...

"U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed new dates on Tuesday for a NATO meeting, the State Department said, after he initially decided to skip the talks and rebuffed the alliance's efforts to reschedule them.

Tillerson's decision to miss his first meeting with NATO foreign ministers, set for April 5-6 in Brussels, unsettled European allies who worried it reopened questions about U.S. President Donald Trump's commitment to the alliance.

Reuters exclusively reported on Monday that Tillerson would stay in the United States to attend Trump's expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Florida. U.S. officials also said Tillerson would visit Russia later in April.

The alliance had offered to change the meeting dates so Tillerson could attend both it and the Xi talks but the U.S. State Department rebuffed the idea, a former U.S. official and a former NATO diplomat, both speaking on condition of anonymity, said on Monday."

He is blowing off the NATO meeting. I didn't see anything about the schedule bring changed. I saw an offer to look at additional dates so that the other 27 NATO members can know tow to Trump. It is a sign of deliberate disrespect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Geopolitical chess is more complex than I can express with emojis.  Which makes sad.:(

You are assuming the absolute worst of intentions in regards to Russia it seems.  Do you think they desire a war of conquest with Europe?  I think Vladamir has complex opinions in regards to "blowing off NATO"  The USA showing obvious displeasure with NATO nations for not spending enough on their militaristic capabilities certainly does not make him happy though, I can say with certainty.  Idiotic threats that Trump has made to pull out of NATO probably makes would likely having him using a smiling emoji followed by a chin scratching emoji.

Yeah Trump playing geopolitical chess with Putin. I wonder who has the edge there?

It is obvious that Putin views NATO as a threat. He is pissed that former soviet bloc countries are joining. He also thinks he benefits from a weakened EU.

Who was the last U.S. President to publicaly disparage the NATO alliance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tspoke said:

 

According to the ttreaty countries have until 2024 to get there spending up to 2% 28 of the countries already are there and the others are increasing their spending. Germany's is low right now but have been increasing at a rate that they will be over 2% well before 2024. This is a good thing for everyone involved. If they aren't above 2% by 2024 then I will have a problem with it. This is the treaty we signed. We can't go in now and start dictating that it should be more or should happen sooner just because our president doesn't understand how NATO works.

You have bad information.  Only the us, U.K., Greece, Poland (just this year did they hit 2%) Turkey, and I think now Estonia are at 2%.

and this isn't new, started back in 05 with a "pledge" to get to 2 percent, the recent "treaty" was just basically an extension to get there.

The Poles and v4 are the ones that have been screaming for NATO to do more, which means for the US to do more while they don't spend jack.  The Germans have unilaterally disarmed, they have like 200 tanks in operation.  NATO is a military alliance, and the Germans are the largest euro economy in the center of the continent.  When they have zero military capability it makes the alliance a farce.  

Why are you defending these turkeys?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Germans allow U.S. military bases, tens of thousands of U.S. troops and U.S. nukes in their country. They also allow us to use them as a staging area for attacks all around the world. And have pledged to up their own military spending? I'd say they are pretty decent allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

Yeah Trump playing geopolitical chess with Putin. I wonder who has the edge there?It is obvious that Putin views NATO

as a threat. He is pissed that former soviet bloc countries are joining. He also thinks he benefits from a weakened EU.

Who was the last U.S. President to publicaly disparage the NATO alliance?

NATO needs to be examined and scrutinized.  Accountability is a good thing.  So is tact, which Trump sorely lacks.

When the USSR dissolved it did so with a few assumptions. Assumptions that the west would help them implement democracy and that we would not act aggressively during their rebuild.  The west violated that trust and they have a right to be angry about it.  Poor diplomatic relations lead to poor outcomes and poor decisions on the part of Russia, which they do need to be held accountable for.  The West needs to realize their role in Russian aggression if we are to repair relations.

Just my two cents.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

The Germans allow U.S. military bases, tens of thousands of U.S. troops and U.S. nukes in their country. They also allow us to use them as a staging area for attacks all around the world. And have pledged to up their own military spending? I'd say they are pretty decent allies.

Germany is a critical and key ally.  However family members can criticize each other.  I know I do with my family and it leads to discussion.  German soldiers use brooms in drills .  This is not ok.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/ and does nothing to ensure the prosperity of the human species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

The Germans allow U.S. military bases, tens of thousands of U.S. troops and U.S. nukes in their country. And have pledged to up their own military spending? I'd say they are pretty decent allies.

They are good allies.  We've been awfully good to them though too.

They have said they are going to increase defense spending for decades, and they never did until Ukraine, and even that was miniscual.  Merkels own vice chancellor said that Germany wasn't going to significantly increase spending on military.

And Merkel sucks.  Woman has driven the EU right off the cliff with her progressive pandering.

She took plenty of shots at trump, I'm not going to lose any sleep over trump insulting her.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

They are good allies.  We've been awfully good to them though too.

They have said they are going to increase defense spending for decades, and they never did until Ukraine, and even that was miniscual.  Merkels own vice chancellor said that Germany wasn't going to significantly increase spending on military.

And Merkel sucks.  Woman has driven the EU right off the cliff with her progressive pandering.

She took plenty of shots at trump, I'm not going to lose any sleep over trump insulting her.

The graph I posted earlier showed just how FOS Germany has been with their promises to get defense spending up.  CNN made a wildly laughable report that Germany is on pace to get to 2% by 2024.  Their actions and words are not the same.  They have been steadily decreasing defense spending since 1991. They have not done anything that shows they are on pace to reach 2% by 2024 other than make a speech to NATO not backed up by actions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised to hear so many people beating the war drums in a forum with so many self-proclaimed libertarians. Germany's army - until two decades ago - was a pure self defense army (much like Japan's). The idea after WW2 was that German troops should never again fight a war outside Germany's borders. This approach was amended in the early 2000s, when it became clear that modern war wasn't the kind of war Europe had centuries of experience with (i.e. giant armies rolling over their neighboring countries). Germany has been slow to transition to more mobile armed forces with quick strike capabilities, but given the high standards of its equipment and training, it is still very much able to defend itself against pretty much any conventional threat. I agree that European countries should invest a reasonable amount of money in their military, but let's accept that different countries have different priorities when it comes to spending. Europe isn't going to be overrun by an enemy army any time soon, and most European countries have very little interest in overseas engagements. That's something we need to keep in mind and respect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

I am surprised to hear so many people beating the war drums in a forum with so many self-proclaimed libertarians. Germany's army - until two decades ago - was a pure self defense army (much like Japan's). The idea after WW2 was that German troops should never again fight a war outside Germany's borders. This approach was amended in the early 2000s, when it became clear that modern war wasn't the kind of war Europe had centuries of experience with (i.e. giant armies rolling over their neighboring countries). Germany has been slow to transition to more mobile armed forces with quick strike capabilities, but given the high standards of its equipment and training, it is still very much able to defend itself against pretty much any conventional threat. I agree that European countries should invest a reasonable amount of money in their military, but let's accept that different countries have different priorities when it comes to spending. Europe isn't going to be overrun by an enemy army any time soon, and most European countries have very little interest in overseas engagements. That's something we need to keep in mind and respect. 

 Terrible logic.  They have great interests oversees, they just know we are protecting those interests so they do not need to worry about it, or pay for it.  That is not fair to us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 Terrible logic.  They have great interests oversees, they just know we are protecting those interests so they do not need to worry about it, or pay for it.  That is not fair to us.

 

You realize that the US has way more enemies - real and imagined - than any country in Europe, right? Europeans understand that a couple of terror attacks don't make a world war. Why should they fight America's wars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

I am surprised to hear so many people beating the war drums in a forum with so many self-proclaimed libertarians. Germany's army - until two decades ago - was a pure self defense army (much like Japan's). The idea after WW2 was that German troops should never again fight a war outside Germany's borders. This approach was amended in the early 2000s, when it became clear that modern war wasn't the kind of war Europe had centuries of experience with (i.e. giant armies rolling over their neighboring countries). Germany has been slow to transition to more mobile armed forces with quick strike capabilities, but given the high standards of its equipment and training, it is still very much able to defend itself against pretty much any conventional threat. I agree that European countries should invest a reasonable amount of money in their military, but let's accept that different countries have different priorities when it comes to spending. Europe isn't going to be overrun by an enemy army any time soon, and most European countries have very little interest in overseas engagements. That's something we need to keep in mind and respect. 

 

West Germany had a legit military for one thing.  It's post unification where the Germans disarmed.

In regards to the Japan comparison, you might be correct that we are grading the Germans on a curve.  Say what you want, the Germans did deploy to Afghanistan.  Which is a big reason Trumps tweet was so tasteless.  On the other hand, the post war history with Japan is so different.  And to be fair to them, mcarthur did largely write their constitution.  They also seem to mesh with US foreign policy goals better than the Germans.

i also think your worldview is pre Ukraine.  And the Germans are dirty as hell on that.  Markell and company walked Kiev down the primrose path, then washed their hands of it when it went south.  While calling Uncle Sam for some reassurance.  But not too much of course, because the Germans still need Russian natural gas.  That's where the Germans bug me.  And where trump is on to something with them.  They use NATO  ( which to be honest means us) as leverage for their goals, but their goals don't always align with ours or the broader West. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

You realize that the US has way more enemies - real and imagined - than any country in Europe, right? Europeans understand that a couple of terror attacks don't make a world war. Why should they fight America's wars?

Horseshit.

Libya was the euros deal, and they were far less altruistic on that than we were in Iraq.

Why do democrats wash euro balls so much?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CPslograd said:

Horseshit.

Libya was the euros deal, and they were far less altruistic on that than we were in Iraq.

Why do democrats wash euro balls so much?

I'm not a Democrat, I'm European. And who exactly are the Euros?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...