| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Trump says US may abandon automatic protections for Nato countries | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 21 2016, 11:21 AM (490 Views) | |
| Cymru | Jul 21 2016, 11:21 AM Post #1 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36852805 Well he would get my vote. It's about time that NATO members stopped leeching off the United States. Edited by Cymru, Jul 21 2016, 11:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jul 21 2016, 11:24 AM Post #2 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, I bet you are loving the idea of that! I'd love us to be a colony of Russia as well. And when did you start feeling sorry for the poor old US?
Edited by Tigger, Jul 21 2016, 11:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Alberich | Jul 21 2016, 12:57 PM Post #3 |
|
Alberich
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Now THIS is worrying. Even allowing for the fact that Trump is probably spouting this nonsense to get the rest of NATO to contribute more to their own defence, once the principle upon which NATO deterrence works (that an attack on one member is an attack on all) is openly being questioned by its biggest player, then that deterrence no longer exists. This will go down a storm in the Baltic nations, I should imagine. Trump is also advocating the closure of many of America's overseas bases, in the belief that in times of crisis they can ship out to where needed. It is comforting that such a military genius stands a good chance of becoming president, is it not? Isolationism has certain superficial attractions for many Americans, but has no place in the modern world; apart from in Trump tower, apparently. Trump, or Clinton! What a choice! |
![]() |
|
| Happy Hornet | Jul 21 2016, 01:07 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh yeah, its brilliant for us if the most powerful military power in the world stops watching our back. We can make up the difference with a huge increase in defence spending because we're so flushed with cash right now. What's not to like? |
![]() |
|
| Dan1989 | Jul 21 2016, 01:49 PM Post #5 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe he's a supporter of the EU after all, because if he does pull out of Nato, might increase the desire to have one. But let's push back all this Russian fear, which I think is getting out of hand, here's some stats. Even without America, Nato's combined budget comes to about 200 billion, that's 140 billion more then Russia, we ourselves are only 10 billion be-hide them, not even taking into account Nato's combined population is larger. Even China does not compare to the budget of Nato without America, though many do claim that they're lying about how much they spend, , so they might. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Okay about this isolationism, it's a natural American position, even before both world wars they didn't want to be involved, they still have similar thoughts today, many in America disagree with the military bases around the world, many agree that they should protect their industries(through protectionism and taxes), I think the time of American imperialism might be coming to an end. Edited by Dan1989, Jul 21 2016, 02:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Alberich | Jul 21 2016, 03:04 PM Post #6 |
|
Alberich
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's not fear of Russian military might, as much as the fact that the best way to defeat a strong opposing military alliance is to divide and conquer; just as it is true that the military strength of NATO is the collective sum of its parts. And that collective strength is based on mutual cooperation and military assistance to any member state when needed. Now I am not saying that Putin will march into Latvia, or Estonia, or Lithuania; or even Georgia and the Ukraine tomorrow, although many Russians still regard these states as being Russian. But IF the day comes when Putin, or his successor, decides to indulge in a little military brinkmanship, he will have less to fear from any western reaction if the Yanks have opted out of the "one for all and all for one" philosophy. If Trump makes it (doubtful) and if his view becomes American foreign policy (also doubtful) then I doubt if the remaining Nato members would collectively decide to confront Russia militarily if (say) Putin decided to make the Ukraine part of Russia again. Hypothetical, I know, but the raison d'etre of NATO is to act collectively if need be, and the fact that a potential US President is prepared to destroy that collectivity is worrying, is it not? |
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Jul 21 2016, 03:08 PM Post #7 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To add to the OP Trump's team also managed to remove a Republican Party pledge that the US would arm Ukraine in the event that a Republican was president.
Edited by Cymru, Jul 21 2016, 03:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jul 21 2016, 06:05 PM Post #8 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So, are we now all agreed that upgrading our Trident programme is a wise move? |
![]() |
|
| Pro Veritas | Jul 21 2016, 06:14 PM Post #9 |
|
Upstanding Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No. M.A.D. is not a sound way to build a defence strategy. All The Best |
![]() |
|
| RoofGardener | Jul 21 2016, 08:46 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Lord of Plantpots
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
there are a lot of valid points raised here. But one rule "Trumps" all. He who pays the piper, calls the tune. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jul 21 2016, 09:32 PM Post #11 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if it were anything remotely like the reality, it might be. truth is the yanks always come a calling when they need cannon fodder to practice firing upon. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jul 21 2016, 10:30 PM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well we will have 215 warheads against Russia's 7300. They can probably afford a few duds.
|
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jul 21 2016, 10:51 PM Post #13 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How many does one need to destroy a country?....I care not, if a few come this way we will still have time to get starshaped and kiss our arses goodbye and Captain Nemo can take sweet revenge on our behalf and you and I can die happy. (providing that the letter of last resort advocates such action.)
|
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jul 21 2016, 10:54 PM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't want to die happy in a nuclear holocaust, keep your grubby wishes to yourself. |
![]() |
|
| Curious Cdn | Jul 21 2016, 11:52 PM Post #15 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You should learn to love the bomb. You are part owner of a couple of hundred of them, after all and if you don't love them, you must be with the enemy sez the PM of the hour. |
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Jul 24 2016, 10:48 AM Post #16 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Donald Trump: EU was formed 'to beat the US at making money' https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/donald-trump-eu-was-formed-to-beat-the-us-at-making-money Trump has defended his controversial NATO remarks and has extended the criticism to include the EU. |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jul 24 2016, 11:16 AM Post #17 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Making money is an anathema to you isn't it? I so enjoyed your comments on abolishing money altogether............ |
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Jul 24 2016, 01:52 PM Post #18 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The enemy of my enemy... |
![]() |
|
| RoofGardener | Jul 24 2016, 05:20 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Lord of Plantpots
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There are many developed nations in the World that are definately not isolationist, but at the same time don't see the need to have large military installations all over the world. Question: by what "right" does the USA have large military bases outside of its own borders ? Why is that deemed "normal" ? |
![]() |
|
| Curious Cdn | Jul 24 2016, 05:38 PM Post #20 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Does Britain ever do that? Do you have overseas bases? Have you ever had any? Are any of those overseas American bases leased from the UK? Edited by Curious Cdn, Jul 24 2016, 05:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jul 24 2016, 05:40 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One can only suppose that some nations cannot afford to raise a military force and are willing for the USA to be the policeman of the globe. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 05:40 PM Post #22 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well Noam Chomsky reckoned that the US had military bases around the world so that it could control the movement of trade and resources ( as well as other reasons) . Trump may have concluded that the cost of the US military was not matched by its effectiveness ie it does not give it appropriate leverage let alone world hegemony. So maybe he has an isolationist US with a limited sphere of interest but strong enough to keep it a world power. Maybe he reckons that anything that can be produced in the US SHOULD be produced in the US and only concern itself with issues within the Americas and Caribbean ..... |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 05:42 PM Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
Strawman ...that wasn't the point he made. |
|
|
| Curious Cdn | Jul 24 2016, 05:51 PM Post #24 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is precisely why Great Britain had bases, colonies at all of the major martime chokepoints on the planet: Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, Aden, South Africa, Ceylon, the Falklands, Esquimalt, Halifax, Scapa Flow, Hong Kong, Singapore, ... |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 05:58 PM Post #25 |
|
Deleted User
|
Once again you ignore the point made for a chance to tell us what we know. If I didnt know better I may think that you are desperate to grab a chance to have a dig at the UK. Now read the post again and try to concentrate on the point made ie Trump may feel that the cost of its armed forces may outweigh its benefits to the US. |
|
|
| RoofGardener | Jul 24 2016, 06:27 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Lord of Plantpots
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I thought that most overseas UK 'bases' where essentially naval facilities, and where a hangover from the days of Empire. I don't believe we have substantial numbers of troops posted overseas ? America never had an 'empire' as such. It stationed large amounts of troops throughout Europe (mostly Germany) as a foil against a mass-attack by the Soviet Onion. However, that threat doesn't really exist anymore. So why the bases ? Heck, I would imagine that a USN Carrier Battle Fleet has more firepower than any UK foreign base. And probaby better amenities as well. Apart from the replenishment fleet at Diego Garcia, does the US really NEED foreign bases when it has seven of those floating Cities ? To be specific: why does the USA need air bases in the UK, and ground troops in Germany ? Who are they defending against ? Poland ? Rumania ? Donald Trump has a very valid point. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 06:38 PM Post #27 |
|
Deleted User
|
I guess it suited the US when it was a pre eminent world power to have its subordinates in NATO to be considerably weaker than itself. It would have no rivals in NATO and could control it. Now NATO has no real purpose and even less purpose for a ( possibly) isolationist US. |
|
|
| RoofGardener | Jul 24 2016, 06:46 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Lord of Plantpots
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't buy that Trump IS an "isolationist".... I would argue that he is just "normalising" the relationships that the USA has with other nations. And that includes the possibility of closing bases and withdrawing troops. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 07:06 PM Post #29 |
|
Deleted User
|
I would not say that he is isolationist on the NATO point alone. He says that he will bring back jobs to the US. He says that the US will manufacture the things that are made outside. The only way that the US can increase domestic manufacturing is to block imports. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform He lambasts free trade treaties like NAFTA http://time.com/4051371/donald-trump-nafta/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-protectionist-views-in-trade-speech-1467145538 He also says that he likes Putin and seems to praise string men like Erdogan. https://www.rt.com/usa/352464-trump-erdogan-turkey-nato/ Also if he effectively abandons NATO ( in its present form) and closes bases there wll be power vacuum that will immediately be filled with US rivals. I say that adds up to an isolationist policy |
|
|
| Curious Cdn | Jul 24 2016, 07:24 PM Post #30 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where is the dig at the UK? You were a world-ranging empire and you controlled the globe's sea lanes. Are you ashamed of your past? Does it bother you that another great sea power has taken your place, policing the oceans in precisely the same manner? ...even using some of your old bases to do so? Are they bad ... but you are good? Are you ashamed at being so comparatively wealthy over countries that are not great maritime powers? Does it bother you, so, that the Americans have also bevome wealthy in a similar manner? Again, you are accusing me of being anti-British. It's okay to diss the Americans at every turn but if, god forbid, anyone points out that you act in the exact same manner, well ... AN INSULT!! Snap the hell out of it snd see the United States for what it is ... an extention of your imperial history, culture, politics, language, intrigues... You're looking in the mirror and loathing what you personally see, Ginzou. I know full well that a large portion of your fellow Britons are a lot smarter than that. By the way the "question" that I was answering, am still answering is this one from Rich: Question: by what "right" does the USA have large military bases outside of its own borders ? Why is that deemed "normal" ? Perhaps, instead of automatically switching into "unpleasant and unfriendly mode" automatically, each time you respond to me, you could read the damned post, once in a while. Edited by Curious Cdn, Jul 24 2016, 07:37 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 07:29 PM Post #31 |
|
Deleted User
|
Oh my. You completely ignore my point in the post and point out something that we all know in the UK....that was after a previous strawman. Now you are using false indignation( and not just a little ad hom) to move even further from the points made. Are you actually going to address the points made or are you intent to make even more fallacy arguments? Just to clarify..the points made were about present US military bases not past UK ones......... I also concede that you may not have been digging at the the UK..you obviously didnt know that the Brits realise that the UK was once a dominant naval power with bases all around the world and wanted to impress us with your knowledge. |
|
|
| RoofGardener | Jul 24 2016, 07:38 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Lord of Plantpots
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, to quote a snippet from that document....
Difficult to argue against that, isn't it ?
Actually, what he said was that he would renegotiate unfair treaties. Well, who wouldn't ?
He congratulated Erdogan for quelling a Coup.... as did all the other nations of the world. And he pointed out that America needed to get its OWN house in order before it lectured other countries on Civil Rights issues. Whats not to like ?
What... if he closes Ramstein, the Chinese will take it over ? And anyway, he is NOT talking about "abandoning NATO", any more than he talked about abandoning NAFTA etcetera. He merely proposes a renegotiation that is more in favour of US interests.
I disagree. I think his words have been twisted to give that impression, but his actual words are not isolationist. Edited by RoofGardener, Jul 24 2016, 07:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Curious Cdn | Jul 24 2016, 07:39 PM Post #33 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
By the way the "question" that I was answering, am still answering is this one from Rich: Question: by what "right" does the USA have large military bases outside of its own borders ? Why is that deemed "normal" ? Perhaps, instead of automatically switching into "unpleasant and unfriendly mode" automatically, each time you respond to me, you could read the damned post, once in a while. PS. I am a veteran of a Commonwealth navy and I have some sense of our shared naval heritage. Edited by Curious Cdn, Jul 24 2016, 07:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 07:53 PM Post #34 |
|
Deleted User
|
1 difficult not to argue against it , no but stern words from Trump will do nothing. What we he do? Send a gunboat like we did in the 19 th century? So apart from tit for tat protectionism what has he got? 2 Actually, what he said was that he would renegotiate unfair treaties. Well, who wouldn't ? ....actually same again. This is a man who says he is GOING to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans...so what is it protectionism or gunboat? 3.He congratulated Erdogan for quelling a Coup........he congratuated a hard line muslim who would not be allowed in his country if he ends up running it.Dont forget Erdogan has accused the US of sheltering the man who started it and could possibly be complicit in it himself. 4 If Ramstein is in the South China sea...yes 5 The cornerstone of NATO is that if one is attacked the rest will defend it...now he says he might not. If you dont think that is abandoning NATO then tbh thats your problem |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 08:10 PM Post #35 |
|
Deleted User
|
Nope. you answered RG post 20 about US bases with leading question about UK bases..it was a strawman. The you answer my post 24 with another strawman that had nothing to do with the point made. So dont use Rich as an excuse. Not only do you seem unable to read posts, you seem to be unaware of the posts you are responding to. PS I have no interest in your naval history and do not consider it an excuse to post fallacies or divert threads. I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to ' unpleasant and unfriendly mode'. Had you actually addressed the points in the posts you answered I would not have questioned them. I have no interest in filling up this thread refuting your nonsense so I suggest you open a thread in the dungeon..and I will ignore it. |
|
|
| Rich | Jul 24 2016, 08:28 PM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here, I must disagree Gansao (I do wish you had picked a better name) I think that the subordinates as you so eloquently put it, took and have since taken advantage of the fact that the USA would protect them in times of conflict and have expected the USA to do so whilst not fully contributing financially to that end. In short, I think that Trump is correct, those in the rest of the world (NATO) that relies on the USA should shoulder their burden of the financial part of the agreement. PS, no offence meant about your avatar but I do not understand what it actually means.
Edited by Rich, Jul 24 2016, 08:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 08:38 PM Post #37 |
|
Deleted User
|
Quite. In the past it was in the US's interest to be able to beat anyone military on its own if necessary in order to maintain world hegemony but it needed allies for trade and its political interests. Westerns newspaper often print the opinion of the West and 'World opinion'. Thats true of course because the West was ( and still is) the pre eminent power. However the world is changing, the West has exported its manufacturing base to Asia, soft power and digital technology is overtaking military influence. The US will become less dominant as time goes on and Trump knows it. So why should the US shoulder the burden of a NATO ? China. No offence taken Rich. It is Chinese and means a lower block( wing chun). |
|
|
| Curious Cdn | Jul 24 2016, 09:03 PM Post #38 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually, Ginzou. You weren't even on when that started and you blundered your way into the middle of it, chip on your shoulder (as usual), ready to condescend (as usual). You sound like a petulent five year old, by the way : "You're not answering ME!! ME!!! ME! ME! It was never about you. Read it all again, for gawd sake or put to bed. No doubt, the Mod will do it for us. Edited by Curious Cdn, Jul 24 2016, 09:03 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jul 24 2016, 09:17 PM Post #39 |
|
Deleted User
|
If you answer a post then your post should address the post you answered. You seem to struggle with the concept of debate old chap. As for mods..you are using a series of fallacies and ad homs as well as a fair amount of petulance ( as well as deliberately misspelling my name.) Not only that but I did offer you the choice of carrying on your silly posts in the dungeon, which you seem to not want to do. You are making it difficult for me to be civil . |
|
|
| Steve K | Jul 24 2016, 09:58 PM Post #40 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And then there's that wall he plans |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · America · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




2:48 PM Jul 11