If Trump is President - is he as bad for the world as Putin?
Discussion
BBC News - Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6826644...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6826644...
The headline really doesn’t portray what he said does it.
I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
milkround said:
The headline really doesn’t portray what he said does it.
I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
"He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.
"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"
Headline seems accurate enough.
How would you phrase it better?
milkround said:
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
Because it's not exactly that simple. Luxumbourg is a "rich" country. GDP per capita is insane. But 2% of its total GDP is not a large amount of money. Which ever way you slice that, they're still utterly reliant on NATO.
There is immense historical significance around Germany militarising. The last couple of times it expanded its military did not end well for it or Europe. Not to mention the Cold War and Germany existing as two states for a while, and the huge amount of investment thats been needed to reintegrate East Germany.
France spends less than the 2% of its GDP on defence, but has the only non-US aircraft carrier compatible with US Navy jets, and has it's own nuclear weapons.
There are other NATO nations that generally remain neutral in wars, but whose membership is from purely from the strategic advantage they provide the U.S. and NATO.
Rivenink said:
milkround said:
The headline really doesn’t portray what he said does it.
I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
"He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.
"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"
Headline seems accurate enough.
How would you phrase it better?
milkround said:
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
Because it's not exactly that simple. Luxumbourg is a "rich" country. GDP per capita is insane. But 2% of its total GDP is not a large amount of money. Which ever way you slice that, they're still utterly reliant on NATO.
There is immense historical significance around Germany militarising. The last couple of times it expanded its military did not end well for it or Europe. Not to mention the Cold War and Germany existing as two states for a while, and the huge amount of investment thats been needed to reintegrate East Germany.
France spends less than the 2% of its GDP on defence, but has the only non-US aircraft carrier compatible with US Navy jets, and has it's own nuclear weapons.
There are other NATO nations that generally remain neutral in wars, but whose membership is from purely from the strategic advantage they provide the U.S. and NATO.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/22/middleeast/us-fight...
Earthdweller said:
Rivenink said:
milkround said:
The headline really doesn’t portray what he said does it.
I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
"He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.
"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"
Headline seems accurate enough.
How would you phrase it better?
milkround said:
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
Because it's not exactly that simple. Luxumbourg is a "rich" country. GDP per capita is insane. But 2% of its total GDP is not a large amount of money. Which ever way you slice that, they're still utterly reliant on NATO.
There is immense historical significance around Germany militarising. The last couple of times it expanded its military did not end well for it or Europe. Not to mention the Cold War and Germany existing as two states for a while, and the huge amount of investment thats been needed to reintegrate East Germany.
France spends less than the 2% of its GDP on defence, but has the only non-US aircraft carrier compatible with US Navy jets, and has it's own nuclear weapons.
There are other NATO nations that generally remain neutral in wars, but whose membership is from purely from the strategic advantage they provide the U.S. and NATO.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/22/middleeast/us-fight...
While technically the USMC reports into the Department of Navy, it is regarded as an independent branch of the US military. When people talk about the US Navy, they're not talking about the USMC.
Rivenink said:
Earthdweller said:
Rivenink said:
milkround said:
The headline really doesn’t portray what he said does it.
I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
"He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.
"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"
Headline seems accurate enough.
How would you phrase it better?
milkround said:
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
Because it's not exactly that simple. Luxumbourg is a "rich" country. GDP per capita is insane. But 2% of its total GDP is not a large amount of money. Which ever way you slice that, they're still utterly reliant on NATO.
There is immense historical significance around Germany militarising. The last couple of times it expanded its military did not end well for it or Europe. Not to mention the Cold War and Germany existing as two states for a while, and the huge amount of investment thats been needed to reintegrate East Germany.
France spends less than the 2% of its GDP on defence, but has the only non-US aircraft carrier compatible with US Navy jets, and has it's own nuclear weapons.
There are other NATO nations that generally remain neutral in wars, but whose membership is from purely from the strategic advantage they provide the U.S. and NATO.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/22/middleeast/us-fight...
While technically the USMC reports into the Department of Navy, it is regarded as an independent branch of the US military. When people talk about the US Navy, they're not talking about the USMC.
Anyway here’s the Royal Navy reporting US Navy F35’s operating from the deck of HMS Prince of Wales
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
Saweep said:
If DT had said "sure, no problem, we got your back despite you not upholding your financial end of the deal", what message would that have sent?
One that it was ok to continue to underfund and let the US pick up the tab.
Seems fair enough to me, even if not phrased like a diplomat.
It might be a fair point but I don't think it's the phrasing that's the issue, it's the fact that he said it at all. Some things simply aren't for public broadcast. I do agree with those that say it sounds made up, but that doesn't actually matter now he's told the world.One that it was ok to continue to underfund and let the US pick up the tab.
Seems fair enough to me, even if not phrased like a diplomat.
His latest outburst serves as a timely reminder of what he would bring to the table. He's completely unfiltered, and obviously has quite a bit in common with Putin - as well as the videos. It's remarkable that given all of the things that the courts in the USA have brought against him, that he's still very much in the running for the presidency. They do love a demagogue over yonder.
Vasco said:
Trump will always ruffle feathers - he's loud, outspoken, arrogant and prone to not always telling the whole truth.
Incredible that a massive % of US voters are likely to vote for him.
.
He is a complete asshat but I read something the other day that made me pause for a moment. Incredible that a massive % of US voters are likely to vote for him.
.
In a time of global insecurity and with wars breaking out that could threaten western countries, could there be any better person to stop despots like Putin or the fanatics on either side of the Israeli/Arab disputes than a leader of the one remaining true superpower that you can’t be sure will keep his finger off the button when provoked………?
It worries me to think that he could be exactly the uncontrollable loony that we need.
milkround said:
The headline really doesn’t portray what he said does it.
I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
A number of American spokespersons have referred to the USA as, "the world's police force". I’d expect that sort of journalism from the sun or the daily mail.
On a side note trump had a point. Why should rich countries go cheap on security and expect the USA to look after them? The USA is not the international military and police force.
Yahonza said:
His latest outburst serves as a timely reminder of what he would bring to the table. He's completely unfiltered, and obviously has quite a bit in common with Putin - as well as the videos. It's remarkable that given all of the things that the courts in the USA have brought against him, that he's still very much in the running for the presidency. They do love a demagogue over yonder.
I expect Trump to cosy up to Putin and they can agree on a whole range of ridiculous ideas, to the detriment of most other people.Earthdweller said:
Seeing as the USN and USMC use the same models of F35b/c from carriers it’s semantics .. France is not the only NATO country that can operate US warplanes from a carrier, nor while we are at it is it the only nuclear armed country
Anyway here’s the Royal Navy reporting US Navy F35’s operating from the deck of HMS Prince of Wales
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
Those were USMC aircraft - note that nowhere in that article does it say that the F-35s were USN aircraft. It says they were from the US Navy's Integrated Test Force (which is responsible for conducting testing and development for the F35 across all the American services). Anyway here’s the Royal Navy reporting US Navy F35’s operating from the deck of HMS Prince of Wales
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
Rivenink is right - the USMC is the only American service to operate the F35B which can fly off the RN's carriers, and the Charles de Gaulle is the only non-US carrier capable of operating (specifically) US Navy cat-and-trap fighters.
Just as the Royal Marines sit with but alongside the Royal Navy as part of His Majesty's Naval Service, the USN and the USMC are sister-services under the Department of the Navy. They are closely linked but (proudly) distinct.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff