PDA

View Full Version : Trump moving in direction for Ron Paul and Robert Taft, backing away from NATO




Galileo Galilei
05-26-2017, 09:15 AM
Trump moving in direction for Ron Paul and Robert Taft, backing away from NATO


The 45th president had been expected to promise that America would defend its NATO allies if they ever came under attack. That principle of collective defense is, in theory, cemented by Article 5 of the alliance's charter, NATO's core tenet. It means that "an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all."

No other president since NATO was founded in 1949 has questioned that principle — until Trump.

He's called the alliance "obsolete" and has repeatedly urged its members to pay more toward bolstering their own militaries. Many of these nations do not currently meet NATO's recommended spending targets, and Trump has threatened that, unless they up their game, the U.S. might not back them up in a fight.

......


NATO recommends that each nation spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Only five of the 28 members currently do so — the U.S., Greece, Estonia, the U.K. and Poland.

What better way to draw an outsider president into a war? Yep, have the deep state start something in Europe and then force Trump in.

But now Trump has a pretext to not jump in, NATO has not been paying their 2% fee. The way I see it, if you do not pay your premiums, your coverage lapses.

This is a proud moment for Robert Taft, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul. It is a proud moment for America.

CPUd
05-26-2017, 09:16 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

enhanced_deficit
05-26-2017, 09:22 AM
NATO is an important alliance body and without it none of the major freedom wars of last couple of decade would have been waged the same way. If Trump weakened NATO, freedom based wars would be difficult to wage in future.

Related

NATO was the only international body that stood with America during Iraqi Freedom war (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510989-NATO-was-the-only-international-body-that-stood-with-America-during-Iraqi-Freedom-war&)

dannno
05-26-2017, 09:46 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

If you put that video up every time Donald Trump does something good, that song might start to get kind of irritating.

CPUd
05-26-2017, 09:47 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L0k2-kO_yc

FSP-Rebel
05-26-2017, 11:36 AM
OP just posted a macroaggression.

PierzStyx
05-26-2017, 12:11 PM
Trump isn't backing away from NATO. He is just playing hardball. Its a basic business tactic.

And he is nothing like Ron Paul here. Trump has no problem with the wars and military aggression NATO starts or America's role in them. He just wants NATO members to pay more money. Ron Paul has a deeply moral objection to NATO and would leave it on principle.

CPUd
05-26-2017, 12:23 PM
Trump isn't backing away from NATO. He is just playing hardball. Its a basic business tactic.

And he is nothing like Ron Paul here. Trump has no problem with the wars and military aggression NATO starts or America's role in them. He just wants NATO members to pay more money. Ron Paul has a deeply moral objection to NATO and would leave it on principle.

If he truly had a problem with "the deal", he could have vetoed the whole thing instead of letting Montenegro join.

Swordsmyth
05-26-2017, 02:55 PM
NATO is an important alliance body and without it none of the major freedom wars of last couple of decade would have been waged the same way. If Trump weakened NATO, freedom based wars would be difficult to wage in future.

Related

NATO was the only international body that stood with America during Iraqi Freedom war (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510989-NATO-was-the-only-international-body-that-stood-with-America-during-Iraqi-Freedom-war&)

Which is one of the best reasons to end it.

Galileo Galilei
05-26-2017, 03:00 PM
If he truly had a problem with "the deal", he could have vetoed the whole thing instead of letting Montenegro join.

The veto would have been overridden. Only 2 senators voted against it.

CPUd
05-26-2017, 03:44 PM
The veto would have been overridden. Only 2 senators voted against it.

President Paul would have vetoed it.

Galileo Galilei
05-26-2017, 04:05 PM
President Paul would have vetoed it.

OK, how would that benefit me or anyone?

CPUd
05-26-2017, 04:21 PM
OK, how would that benefit me or anyone?

How would Rand speaking out and voting against it benefit anyone?

EBounding
05-26-2017, 04:54 PM
I hear Trump is Ron Paul on steroids.

Swordsmyth
05-26-2017, 04:55 PM
I hear Trump is Ron Paul on steroids.

On Something anyway.

otherone
05-26-2017, 05:56 PM
MIC:

https://media.giphy.com/media/o6x9tX1Csr7gs/giphy.gif

Galileo Galilei
05-26-2017, 07:06 PM
How would Rand speaking out and voting against it benefit anyone?

It was good that Rand spoke out against it.

Galileo Galilei
05-26-2017, 07:07 PM
I hear Trump is Ron Paul on steroids.

There is some truth to that.