[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Baloney
NATO’s Article V, which states: “an armed attack against one or more [member countries] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
Article V has been invoked only one time in the 70-year history of NATO: on September 12, 2001 by the non-American allies after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.
In Afghanistan alone, NATO allies have lost around 1,000 service members in support of coalition operations. U.S. allies also form the backbone of support for the global coalition to counter the Islamic State, which consisted of 81 partner

This was supposedly a reply to my post that showed you did not include Trump's saying that the military alliance with NATO was very important to him when he said it was obsolete.
By leaving that part of the statement out you give the impression that he is against NATO, that it would be anything but important to him.
Even that he wanted no part of it and would pull out of it.

More of your Baloney
We do not deploy our forces as mercenaries for hire, simply to defend the territory of U.S. allies. America’s global defense network allows it to more quickly and effectively address a range of global requirements, including protecting American citizens, preventing piracy, deterring violent extremism, and preventing countries like North Korea and Iran from trafficking illicit weapons. U.S. allies work alongside the U.S. in all of these efforts.

America’s allies also defray significant portions of the cost of its overseas military facilities, spending billions of dollars to offset costs the U.S. would otherwise bear alone. Allies contribute to the cost of U.S. facilities both directly and indirectly, through cash payments; in-kind payments such as tax and fee waivers; covering construction costs for U.S. housing and training facilities; and the rent-free provision of valuable real estate to U.S. forces

This was in response to Trump saying many NATO members were not paying their share (agreed upon 2% of GDP). You did not deny that what he said is true, instead you try to point out other costs they pay as if that makes up for their shorting the agreed on share. That does not cut it, nor does it make Trump's remark "baloney." The U.S. also incurs other costs besides the agreed on share. And both the U.S. and the other NATO countries would also pay those other costs if they paid their agreed on share.

And, BTW, they quickly more than coughed up the money when Putin started the war with Ukraine. Trump was right.


He said that the EU was a foe the week before he met with Putin in Helsinki where Trump standing by Mr. Putin’s side, dismissed the conclusions by U.S. intelligence agencies about Russian meddling.
“They said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.” For good measure, he said, “President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

This was your response to when I pointed out that Trump said that the EU was a foe, he specifically said they were a foe on trade. And many Americans thought that was true well before Trump said it. And many, including me, think he is right. In trade they have been a foe for a long time. That does not make them an enemy. It makes them economic competitors. When you left out what kind of foe, quoting Trump as unqualifiedly saying that the EU is a foe, that gave the kind of impression you like to make of Trump being against European allies and absolutely pro-Putin. It's a propaganda trick. It's lie by omission and by implication or insinuation. It's what you do.

Trump as president:
Illegally withheld weapons from Ukraine

The weapons were delivered on time, barely.

Wanted to let Russia back in the G8

Trump said: "It has come up, should we put Russia back in? We spend a lot of time talking about Russia at those meetings and they're not there. I think it would be a good thing if Russia were there so we can speak directly, not have to speak by telephone and other things.

So, here is the thing: It is a vote of what is now the G-7. They were taken out because Putin outsmarted on Crimea, on the red line, on other things. Totally outsmarted Obama. Obama was upset. They took 'em out. I think Russia should be a part of it because we're looking for world peace. And other things. Trade and other things. And it would be a lot easier to have Russia in where they have always been."

Of course you will disagree with his reasons, that they are stupid, etc., and will probably say or think that he lied and was just doing Putin's bidding. You only seem to believe Trump when he says something outrageously wrong. If he says good things, you believe he is lying.


Wanted US to leave NATO


He didn't say that he wanted the US to leave NATO:

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/wh...ition-on-nato/

Clinton again claimed that Trump, whom she referred to as a “loose cannon,” wants out of NATO.


While Trump has gone so far as saying that, as president, he would consider pulling the U.S. out of NATO if it is not restructured, we’ve found no instance of him saying he wants to do so at this point. And the Clinton campaign hasn’t been able to point to an example of Trump saying that either.

In fact, it was during the interview with the Post, which initially brought attention to Trump’s feelings about NATO, that Trump said that he doesn’t want the U.S. to leave the alliance.

Trump: No, I don’t want to pull it out. NATO was set up at a different time. NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country anymore. We’re borrowing, we’re borrowing all of this money. We’re borrowing money from China, which is sort of an amazing situation. But it was a much different thing. NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO but we’re spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved.

Blitzer: Do you think the United States needs to rethink U.S. involvement in NATO?

Trump: Yes, because it’s costing us too much money. And frankly they have to put up more money. They’re going to have to put some up also. We’re paying disproportionately. It’s too much. And frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea. And everybody got together.

Blitzer: So you’re really suggesting the United States should decrease its role in NATO?

Trump: Not decrease its role but certainly decrease the kind of spending. We are spending a tremendous amount in NATO and other people proportionately less. No good.

Then, on March 25, in an interview with the New York Times editorial board, Trump again said that NATO needed to be “changed” to deal with costs and other issues, such as terrorism.

It was on March 23, during an interview with Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, that Trump, when asked, said he would “certainly look at” getting rid of NATO because it “may be obsolete” (16:12 in the video).

Halperin, March 23: Should America be the leader of NATO or not necessarily?

Trump: I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was set up a long time ago — many, many years ago when things were different. Things are different now. We were a rich nation then. We had nothing but money. We had nothing but power. And you know, far more than we have today, in a true sense. And I think NATO — you have to really examine NATO. And it doesn’t really help us, it’s helping other countries. And I don’t think those other countries appreciate what we’re doing.

Heilemann: So, just to be clear, you made two slightly different arguments there and I just want to clarify. One of them is that you might want to see the U.S. pay less money into NATO because …

Trump: That one definitely. That one definitely.

Heilemann: But it’s possible that NATO is obsolete and should be gotten rid of?

Trump: It’s possible. It’s possible. I would certainly look at it. And I’d want more help from other people. The one thing definitely — we’re paying too much. As to whether or not it’s obsolete, I’ll make that determination.

Then, at a campaign rally in Milwaukee on April 4, Trump said that he wasn’t saying that NATO should disband during his interview with CNN’s Blitzer. Instead, he said he meant that if countries “can’t pay their bills … they’ve got to go.”

Trump, April 4: And Wolf Blitzer asked me a question on television. He said, let me just ask you about NATO. And he asked me about it. Now, I haven’t been asked about NATO a lot, but I understand NATO and I understand common sense and I’m, like, a smart person, like many of the people in this room, hopefully all of the people in this room.

But he asked me about NATO. I said it’s obsolete. This is my first thing. And you know what? I’m the first one. Guys that study NATO and good people, but they study NATO and they say, I don’t believe it, what he just said, I never thought of that. They study it because they’re so into it that they don’t realize.

Because it was really put there — you had the Soviet Union and now you have Russia, which is different, but Russia is very powerful, so we can sort of say that’s a balance, so we’ll leave it. But it doesn’t really cover terrorism like it’s supposed to. It doesn’t have the right countries. I mean, many of the countries in there aren’t, you know, that you associate with terrorism.

And so I said, number one, it’s obsolete. I said, number two, to the best of my knowledge, the United States pays far too much proportionately, and why are we always paying the bills to protect other people?

And the press, which is so totally dishonest, the press goes headlines the next day “Trump doesn’t want NATO, wants to disband.” That’s not what I said. I said you’ve got to pay your bills. And you know what? If they can’t pay their bills, honestly there should be — they’ve got to go. Because we can’t do this.

And most recently, in his April 27 foreign policy speech, Trump said that “the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves” if they are unwilling to pay more.

Trump, April 27: They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us. In NATO, for instance, only four of 28 other member countries besides America, are spending the minimum required 2 percent of GDP on defense. We have spent trillions of dollars over time on planes, missiles, ships, equipment, building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.

So, Trump has clearly outlined changes he would like to see made to NATO. And he has said that, under a Trump administration, the U.S. might no longer be a part of the alliance if it isn’t restructured and other nations don’t start to pick up more of the costs. But even that isn’t the same thing as saying that “we should pull out of NATO,” as Clinton claims Trump said.


Reduced sanctions to let Russian GDP grow again

From a July 25, 2020 article: What has President Trump done in relation to Russia during his time in office? Here are only a handful of examples:

* Imposed sanctions on Russian companies and Russian entities, blocking at least $3 billion worth of deals from going into Russian coffers.

* Placed harsh economic restrictions on a group of Russian oligarchs which effectively puts more pressure on Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader has illegally amassed enormous wealth – exceeding $25 billion – in the last two decades, but he can't hold all that wealth in his own name, so he appointed oligarch cronies to be his trustees. Putting his oligarchs on sanctions hurts Putin big tim

* Levied considerable financial sanctions and travel restrictions on 50-plus individuals who have been accused of human-rights abuses and corruption under both the Magnitsky Act and the Global Magnitsky Act.

* Criticized NATO allies for not spending enough on defense (and was accused by the lamestream media of encouraging Russia to test alliance resolve). NATO allies, however, have taken steps to pay more, and NATO appears stronger than before, which is decidedly not the outcome Putin wanted.

* Authorized the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from the U.S. in the wake of nerve agent attack on British soil, allegedly at the hands of the Kremlin.

* Approved the export of lethal weapons, including American-made Javelin antitank missiles, to help Ukraine shore up its eastern defenses against separatists backed by Moscow. More defense cooperation with Ukraine, as well as weapons sales are on the near horizon.

* Killed more than 200 Russian soldiers in Syria – U.S. troops are present as in Syria as much to limit Russian and Iranian influence on the country’s future as to fight the remnants of the Islamic State.

* Facilitated U.S. sales of more coal to energy-strapped Ukraine, while weakening Russia's hold on oil exports.

* Ramped up militarily to pressure the Russian Federation as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Defense Secretary work to strengthen alliances and military cooperation with Baltic states that share borders with Russia.

* Offered a proposal to Poland to host a permanent contingent of U.S. troops, in the way that Germany and Italy have done since World War II, to help secure Poland’s 180-mile long border with Russia.

* Discussed with Ukraine’s president the enhancement of cooperation in security and defense sectors, and the importance of keeping tight sanctions on Russia – to Putin a most unwelcome development.

* Pressured Germany over its status as the largest buyer of Russian natural gas, and as a huge buyer of Russia coal and mineral oil.

* Sanctioned four Russian entities and seven individuals in response to a 2018 attempt to interfere in U.S. midterm elections, including Russian financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a wealthy loyalist nicknamed "Putin's chef" who has his mitts in many pies.

* Suspended its obligations under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty because Russia was not complying with it.

In all, as a Brookings Institute analysis revealed, the Trump administration has enacted more than 50 sanctions or policy actions on Russia, many being severe, from May 15, 2017 – four months after Trump took office – to the present day. But the Left would much prefer that you remain ignorant about these.


So from Paul Manafort in 2016 to Tucker Carlson in 2022, with Trump as a constant throughout, and for reasons both financial and ideological, important parts of the Republican Party and the conservative movement have been pro-Putin. and you don't think this emboldened Putin to act?

I'll also point out that Trump was spouting anti-NATO bile since a Moscow trip in 1987. He also formed an exploratory committee for president at that time.
You should wonder what happened on that trip.

You've been spouting anti-Trump, anti-Republican bile for five or six years. A whole lot of the spouts have been lies and propaganda.