I don’t think so at all. Not a single bit of stretching needs to be done to get what he was trying to say there.
The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)
- Thread starter BigBlueFanGA
- Start date
Upholding your word: In 2006, NATO defense ministers agreed that each member country would commit a minimum of 2% of its GDP to defense spending.
Just admit that you’re fine with him telling our biggest enemy to attack our allies so we can both move on
The difference is that when these countries don’t reach 2%, there’s no real harm to their allies. If the US were to “let Russia do whatever the hell they want,” there seems to be a little bit of harm to their allies there.
Wrong. The message sent when our allies break their promise is that Russia can do whatever they want.
I guess it helps that it’s expected this year that every NATO country will reach 2% then.
Also, take Luxembourg for example. They contributed the least amount of their GDP at 0.7% with a GDP of around 80 billion so that’s about $560 million for defense spending. For them to get to 2% they’d need to dedicate just over $1 billion more to defense. Would we as America (with a GDP well into the trillion), allow Russia to do whatever it wanted with Luxembourg over a billion dollars?
If it is possible, forget about Trump for one second and actually respond to MY posts.
You know I am right, even if you feign being afraid of Trump’s rhetoric. NATO countries have broken their promises and that encourages Russia, because they look weak. Russia will spend 6% of its GDP on its military in 2024.
Everyone saying Russia is this great threat better get serious. If Trump’s rhetoric gets them there, YOU should be happy.
Not sure what you read but my response was directly related to what you said.
You were talking about allies upholding their promise and my literal first sentence was about all of the NATO countries expecting to reach the goal set this year.
How exactly would Russia attack Luxembourg, Matteo? Would they stroll though Germany to get there or come around through Belgium?
Let us all live in a world where examples can just be examples. I used Luxembourg because it contributed the least amount of its GDP to defense.
You cannot get past Trump’s rhetoric even to the extent that you become inconsistent. You and I may not like the way he says it, but if you believe about Russia what you believe, he is right.
You stressed that he was suggesting we break an agreement when you were forced to admit others have broken. You say Russia is this great threat, yet the ability to defend is a great deterent. Trump saying NATO countries need to uphold their end of the deal is exactly correct AND supports your desire to keep Russia checked.
You want so desperately to be offended for political reasons. But, he is right.
You sure on a heater this morning, good for you.
Again, NATO countries committed to spending 2% but it was not mandatory. If we want to start sanctioning our allies over non-mandatory commitments then that seems like a pretty stupid idea (to me at least).
YOU want me to be offended by everything Trump says. I guess so you can feel like you can win an argument by thinking I'm an emotional lib or whatever you choose to believe.
Nah, I won this argument, because you lost.
Your argument was premised only upon the emotional response to Trump’s words while denying the very things you believe about Russia. Everything I have said is true.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend. Always right, never wrong, no matter the circumstances. You sure are good at this whole debate thing. Applause to you
I wonder if the warhawks ever read the posts from the other “war at all cost posters” and think, man, I wonder if I sound that stupid.
I suspect they do, because even though the same arguments are being made in favor of war, arguments they’ve all tried to make before, the arguments are being made in an even more incoherent manner than normal yet no one chimes in.
Yes, Russia is going to attack Luxembourg if the US doesn’t pledge full unending support to Ukraine.
I suspect they do, because even though the same arguments are being made in favor of war, arguments they’ve all tried to make before, the arguments are being made in an even more incoherent manner than normal yet no one chimes in.
Yes, Russia is going to attack Luxembourg if the US doesn’t pledge full unending support to Ukraine.
William, I beg of you to understand that examples can just be that and don't have to actually occur in life for you to understand the basic concept of the argument. You're smart enough to do that, I truly believe that in my cold heart.
lol
If your hypothetical to support your argument is something that would never occur in life, your argument is stupid.
We understand the basic concept of your argument. We all think it’s a terrible argument. Your inability to come up with a realistic hypothetical supports our conclusions.
Hypothetically, if you came up with an argument that didn’t suck, maybe you could come up with a hypothetical that was possible.
Matteo, the reason why I asked you about Luxembourg was because it illustrates Trump's point.
- Regardless of whether pitch in more or not, most of NATO is well insulated from a Russian attack.
- Trump is trying to persuade and pressure NATO partners to hold up to their end of the bargain
He started out by not even knowing Trump was telling a story about talking with other NATO leaders in order to get them to honor their commitments.
It doesn't help that Trump outright said that he'd let Putin attack a NATO country if he got back in office.
So he’s trying to commit to an argument based on a misunderstanding of facts from the outset.
But have no fear, he’ll get us a hypothetical about Russia attacking Pluto so we better send unending aid to Ukraine.
Then replace Luxembourg with a former Soviet country that didnt reach 2%, it's still just an example. Putin would absolutely attack a NATO country in the future if the opportunity presented itself, ESPECIALLY if they're apparently using 6% of their GDP on their military and if America outright says that it wouldn't support said country if they didn't reach an arbitrary goal that no one made mandatory.
Trump is right to push these European countries to spend more of their GDP on military. We can’t be their indefinite protector and bodyguard. If the Russian threat is real, act on it by boosting your defense.
Still, “Russia can do whatever they want” was a reckless and very stupid comment. That’s not diplomacy or negotiation, it’s just dumb.
Still, “Russia can do whatever they want” was a reckless and very stupid comment. That’s not diplomacy or negotiation, it’s just dumb.
There is no impact on America and its defense if these other countries don't spend 2%. It's purely an optics issue where Trump was getting mad that America allocated a higher percentage than other countries.
Glad to hear that money doesn't matter when it comes to defense.
Wreckless and stupid, yet sometimes effective, comments are pretty much what Trump is known for.
Could have went with, “if you don’t fund your commitment to NATO, we’ll let Russia overtake you, and I’ll encourage Putin to bang your wife.”
It apparently was an outrageous comment intended to get a reaction from the other NATO leader, and per Trump, it did.
Could have went with, “if you don’t fund your commitment to NATO, we’ll let Russia overtake you, and I’ll encourage Putin to bang your wife.”
It apparently was an outrageous comment intended to get a reaction from the other NATO leader, and per Trump, it did.
Almost like the art of the deal (creating partnerships with the greatest military powers) can sometimes carry more weight than the dollar. Trump should've taught you that.
I can admit when I'm wrong and when I've misread or misunderstood certain topics and have done so in our past encounters. Can you make that same claim cause my memory does not recall a time that that has happened? I'll gladly admit my mistake if you can provide me some recollection. Although, me doing so would poke a hole in the whole hypocrite claim.
Yes, our military sure does look worse because the Czech Republic spends 1.5% instead of 2.
Sure seems like the inevitable is starting to get accepted by the general public: Ukraine isn't winning, never was, and never could. So all the conspiracy theories are yet again proving true.
Wonder if that means this thread will mysteriously disappear like the covid thread?
Wonder if that means this thread will mysteriously disappear like the covid thread?
I understand why you would want to change your point. The first one was just stupid. The second one is a strawman. No one said otherwise. You are having a bad day.
You're right, I am being a hypocrite in this instance. Well, would you look at that, I can admit when I'm in the wrong. Still waiting on you.
