Trump doesn't know what a treaty is

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

You really can’t even make this stuff up.

Utterly bizarre… this guy acts like he doesn’t know what treaties are. We don’t have mutual defense treaties with our allies because they pay us for it. We have treaties because it’s in ours and their self-interest, and because in the case of defense it’s the morally right thing to do, to defend your friends when they are attacked.

In Trumpland, people only do things for others if they’re paid. Doesn’t matter that were friends, allies, have philosophical and strategic common goals and ideals, nor does it matter if people are dying. Also it doesn’t matter to Trump the kind of message he sends to our allies, and enemies, when he says we might not defend them unless they “pay up”.

This guy is literally, 100%, pure fucking insanity.

2

NATO is a treaty that requires every NATO member to pay 2% of it’s national budget on defence spending. Only UK and Turkey come close consistently. Rest are in treaty violation.

Why? They run illegal socialist programs… illegal because they money France or Denmark wastes on socialism is supposed to be spent on defence, so the US doesn’t have to fit the bill.

End result… European counties begging the US to invade Libya for them, because their militaries aren’t able. Socialists in Spain and Italy turning their backs on the US early in the Iraq war to develop their socialism.

How about instead, the US develops our socialism by not single handily carrying those illegal misfits asses anymore to the finish line? They don’t do what Sweden and Switzerland does… pay for both. They run shitty retarded militaries that fall apart easily, backstab their alliance members, especially the US as much as they can… look at Fixed Cross’s posts as a example, he is Dutch, hates himself, his own country, ran to hide out in Canada and worships Putin for shooting down passenger aircraft full of his countrymen. These are the crazy suicidals we dump billions upon billions each year, defending while they drop billions on socialism, telling the US we are horrible war mongering barbarians, and they are the civilized socialists. Only possibly because we foot the bill like idiots.

I think they gotta pay up… every penny owed, if not to the US directly, then they gotta pay into rebuilding their military proper, from all the years they shammed out if their treaty obligations. Europe has made a absolute mess of NATO. All they care about is socialism and environmentalism, they don’t give a damn about the treaty until they start fucking up and demand America fixes it.

We’ve been talking about what Trump said for decades. US has repeatedly told the deadbeats they gotta pay up, or the next generation is going to turn our backs on Europe.

That time has come. Quite frankly, if Europe is content to let NATO die, that they don’t want to do the right thing, and instead waste their money on socialism, then we aren’t legally obligated to help. A treaty us still a contract, and the greater bulk of NATO has been in violation for years.

Its time for some more Euro-Austerity. We can waste those billions on ourselves if they don’t want to play fair. Peace in Europe isn’t as much a concern to me as a American as getting my belly button hernia fixed. Cant do it under the current medical system. We could if Europeans pulled their own weight though… they have more than double our population, just as educated and mechanically inclined, yet it is mostly the US doing the heavy lifting.

Both Democrats and Republicans have warned NATO for years. Given Obamacare’s massive cost increases coming into being in the next presidential term… I honestly doubt we can fund NATO anymore. We require massive military cuts. You can kiss the EPA and department of interior goodbye, they are a luxury, the Obamacare black hole can’t afford to compete with. We really have no choice anymore. A lot of what we have done in the past, funding, is over… on both sides of the isle. Doesn’t matter if Hillary or Trump. This us a inescapable fact.

NATO became doomed the moment the Europeans convinced the US to be more like them. It is the death of Europe, but the rebirth of America as selfish greedy fucks.

How do we convince China to take over NATO and defend everyone? They like to dump cash on idiotic diplomatic shit… no doubt they will jump at having bases over Europe and America… when something bad happens we can run up to China and demand they fix it, and tell them they are evil shitheads who only fight wars, and aren’t caring enough to pay for their own socialism.

The US can Canuck the whole damn universe.

3

You must be joking right…
China is more backwards than NATO, it’s like a fascist shitland…You must be joking by saying China will save everyone…

4

I am.

5

Yes, that’s what you’ve become under your master Trump… a hitman, an economic hitman. Do you understand the absurdity of Trump’s statements, it’s on two different levels:

Level 1: Trump claims we “pay for” other NATO defense; in reality the US already spends exponentially more on military. We have our bases, troops and weapons all over Europe, and we pay for those because they’re ours. We own them.

Trump actually wants the US to spend MORE on its military, as if we don’t already spend astronomically disproportionate amounts on the military industrial complex and pointless wars. Trump isn’t talking about saving money or having the US spend less on military assets in European countries, that isn’t what he is saying, but it’s what you’re meant to hear. What he is saying in fact is that other states must beef up their own militaries. That doesn’t mean the US military is going to scale back or save bucket loads of cash.

Level 2: this level of the lie is even worse, because even if this was about “saving money”, which it isn’t, that would not be a sufficient reason to abandon our allies in common defense. Period.

Say what you want about percentage of GDP spending by NATO member states, but the treaty isn’t invalid the minute a member state doesn’t hit a magical 2% threshold. We have common interests and our own philosophical, strategic and moral factors for having common defense treaty with allies countries. Yes I am aware that NATO is used offensively against Russia and that NATO is violating long-standing status quo geopolitical norms by pushing into Eastern Europe like it’s been doing, but notice that Trump isn’t talking about that, is he?

Trump isn’t here to educate people on the over-reach of NATO, he’s here to weaken the alliance of allied states and to cast the US in a very, very bad light in the eyes of the rest of the world, friends and foes alike. And guess what, you bought it all, hook line and sinker. You went along with the immoral, insane, irrational, ignorance-inducing, misinformation about his the US is owed “protection fees” like we’re some global backward ass mafia boss; you have now capitulated to the loss of any moral authority that the US might have had.

Congratulation: you sold your soul. What did you get in exchange? A few good feels on your personal hatreds and maybe a little tickle of revenge against some nebulous foe you feel wronged you somehow? Obama maybe? Or just “liberals”?

In any case, we’re done here.

6

One last thing, this is the sort of crap we expect from places like N Korea. Hell, even China wouldn’t stoop to this level.

Trump is on a mission to degrade the US as much as possible. Considering the amount of business trips he makes to Russia, and his chummy comments to and from Putin, it certainty makes you wonder.

7

No, it what I’ve been saying since Bill Clinton was president.

Trump doesn’t come out of a ideological vacuum. It happened to be the Democratic position too till very recently. Both parties wanted Europe it’s fair share, both have increasingly had advocates to back out.

I don’t think either of you know much about NATO, the military, how strategy works, or how alliances or treaties traditionally have worked. It us a bizarre zombie talking point for you.

Do you feel this strongly about every alliance the US is in? Should we resurrect what is left of SEATO and the other NATO sister alliances from around the world, going fucking bancrupt funding them all in a mass, crazed military blitz?

Hell no. I know damn well the Democrats don’t want that. Let’s be honest… we stuck with NATO because they are white skin liberals, like the heads of the Democratic Party. A third of America is black, but we don’t give a fuck about Africa. We sorta do shit in Latin America with out treaty organization there, but it was always lack luster, a languid continuation of the Monroe Doctrine. We are only involved in Europe because we all, no matter our race, religion, or skin tone, think we are Europeans.

Strategically to the US, Europe isn’t worth as much anymore, given the Domino Theory isn’t in effect and Russia can’t possibly gobble up all of Europe no matter how hard it tried… a small cat can’t swallow a large dog. I’m not feeling particularly attached to them. I wasn’t inspired by Obama’s election speeches in Germany. I’m of German descent… I look at Germany, and say “that’s not really Germany”. They don’t act or think like the people who look like me in America thinks… I might feel closer at times to a South African or a Malaysian than a European German on issues and outlook… my cousins have caused my family here in the states nothing but damn problems. First it us Marxism, this it is Prussia, then the Reich, then the Green hysteria phase we have yet to outgrow, fuck em… honestly, fuck em. I don’t care about Germany, and even less for those Cheese Eating Surrender Monkies in France.

I feel bad about abandoning Poland… they’ve done as much right as can be expected within NATO. I get why the Baltic states are freaking out… but NATO is supposed to be bigger that it’s eastern frontier. As far as European behavior goes, NATO is dead. Europe did not cooperate to stop the immigrants. NATO does everything piecemeal, and most states under fund and under man missions.

Sweden pays for both it’s military, and it’s socialism… and sends it’s troops on tough UN peace keeping missions. Italy does not, Spain sure the fuck doesn’t Greece… WTF Greece?

One if our most reliable allies in NATO, second largest army after the US… fucking hates us and is now a fascist state pogromming its citizens.

What the fuck are we suppose to salvage? I’m less concerned about ISIS attacking the US directly, but NATO largely doesn’t care… only sometimes. Hell, Turkey seems pro ISIS. We try to set up Kurdish birder regions in Iraq and Syria, a buffer that can last for centuries… Turkey fight it. We try to expand into the natural limits for NATO… Georgia and Ukraine, Europe welcomes the economic link, but gets frightened at the military pact possibility… Germany is more or less funding Russia’s military occupation by buying Russian gas.

Honestly… if this is how NATO us going to be, why are we trying to save it? If the Frech, Dutch, Germans start warring again, it is their own idiotic faults. They’ve gone several generations without war… Canada and the US don’t fight. I’m not interested in saving a distant population of white people. I say this as a white guy… we got plenty of whites here, fuck, I dont even care much about race. I feel closer to American blacks and hispanics than I ever could to a Frenchman gobbling down frogs and wine.

So why give Europe preferential treatment?

Japan as a ally maintains its military force. Korea is too. Australia is in a large buying blitz. So is India… lets maintain our alliance with them and move closer to India. We can make some awesome alliances with states willing to pay their own way. Who the fuck needs Denmark or Belgium as our closest allies? Is anybidy inspired by Belgium’s military might? Is anyone relieved Belgium will rush to oyr defence if China invades Hawaii, Panama, and Alaska, attacking our shipping lanes? You kniw damn well they aren’t sending anyone farther west than California, and never in direct combat unless against poirly trained insurgents. But the US is expected to go into any hot zone, stare down pissed off Ruskies and Terrists with a smile feet away…

You know what… fuck that. Fuck Europe. Im only willing to back europe if it does it fair share of the workload. Im not looking for a United States of Europe, but I would like to see a similar level of commitment civically (in terms of joinging the military and willingness to deploy as Americans do) and democratically. This includes not suppressing free speech… I want true representative democracy.

Why? I dont want to keep a bunch of fake liberal states alive for centurues, I want real vibrsnt democracies, a example to the world from here on out to model themselves off of.

If Europe cant do this shit, I want nothing to do with them. No compromise, no excuses about socialism and jobs, Europe needs to do the right thing… pay up its NATO dues. That us a full 2% of theur budget. they better be soending that when trump gets into occice, cause I guarantee you there has to be default large cutbacks due to Obamacare. Absolutely no way around that, short of repeal.

Democrats have said what Ive said as much as republicans. Trump didnt originate it… I got plenty of old posts from long before ge ran or mentioned this on this site. That future point gas arrived, Europe needs to fucking pay up. I can care less about the europe project otherwise. European socialism means absolutely nothing to me. I just kniw my paychecks woukd of been larger my adult life eithout those scumbag parasites sucking my blood and sweat from it so they could go lounge in a street cafe. Honestky, Fuck Europe. Why cant we be this tight with Angola? Angola would be far fucking cheaper to defend. They are a Christian country, increasingly western outlook. Lets drop NATO and just be Angola’s best friend forever. We would save a buttload of money in the process, get back stabbed by so called friends far less.

8

I’ve rarely seen someone say nothing quite so well as you do.

No surprise you gravitate to trump. Throw words around, combine them in various ways that seem “meaningful”, without ever saying anything at all, much less anything with substance or significance… so much less anything actually connected to, oh I don’t know, reality?

9

Are you sure Trump is the one who doesn’t know what a treaty is?

You’re not going to make a good argument about Trump wanting to back away from our NATO obligations at the same time as you make excuses for other countries backing away from their NATO obligations. “NATO nations don’t need to have a military because the US is obligated to bail them out of any trouble they may face” is not the purpose of NATO.

10

Clearly you are being deliberately misleading, like your buddy trump. NATO is a mutual defense treaty, and while stipulating member states contribute by spending 2% of GDP in military defense doesn’t simply shut off if they aren’t doing that. We don’t have peace treaties because we get paid for them. We aren’t the fucking mafia.

I’m sick of all you goddamn unthinking idiots. Why do you think we have treaties, or support our allies in common defense? These are much higher values than simply moving from 1% to 2% of GDP spending on military. You are making the biggest issue here a marginal increase in other countries military spending, but that is way way lower on the scale of importance and values.

And trump’s claim that the US spends so much more on NATO is also a myth, and hypocritical: 1) the US military spending is already through the roof due to many factors, only one of which is military spending in Europe, 2) trump wants to massively increase military spending by the US, so his protestations that were spending too much and should save more money on NATO military spending are disingenuous, 3) the reason the US “contributes” more to NATO is because we have all of those military bases, land, weapons and personnel over in European countries; these are our military stuff, we own it, so we pay for it because it’s already ours. So it’s dishonest to claim that because we “contribute more” means the situation is fundamentally unfair. The US does spend far more, and we also own far more of the military shit over there. It’s not “unfair”.

And of course the even more important thing here is that trump is signaling to our allies, and to Russia and China, that NATO can’t be relied upon for defense. Trump is emboldening Russia and China to assert themselves more militarily and he is undercutting European defense.

The real issue as I’ve already said is that NATO is used improperly to aggress against Russia in Eastern Europe, NATO is used for ideological purposes which is an issue that can be reasonably attacked. But trump isn’t doing that, he isn’t up there saying NATO should stop being used as a pawn of ideology and subtle aggressions and return to simple common defense; trump doesn’t care about that, his goal is to turn the US moral authority into a petty mafia dictator level, and undercut US influence.

Considering trump’s close ties to Russia and his many “business” trips over there, and his and Putin’s chummy comments to each other, you should think twice about trump’s motives for saying things like what he said about NATO.

11

You’re not obligated to uphold a treaty if the other side of the treaty breaks terms first. So for example, if your country and my country have a peace treaty, and you start bombing the shit out of me, I am not obligated to stand there with my hands in my pockets and fucking die just because we have a peace treaty. There would be no such things as treaties if it wasn’t understood that they apply to both sides.

If the US gets attacked, the other NATO countries aren’t going to jump to our mutual defense if they aren’t putting anything into their military. What the fuck are they going to do, write a stern letter? Throw rocks? The entire point of requiring member nations to invest in their military is twofold- first, to make it clear that the point here is MUTUAL defense, not one country defends all the others so the others don’t have to spend on a military. Second, you can’t jump to your allies’ military aid if you don’t have a military.

Don’t you feel the least bit self conscious calling NATO a ‘mutual defense’ treaty as you defend the right of member states to not invest in their military? Are you that completely lacking in self awareness?

There is no ‘common defense’ if one side doesn’t have a military to help defend you with. You can’t have a ‘mutual defense treaty’ with a penniless old cripple in a wheelchair. You can have a ‘I defend you, and you sit there drooling on your shirt’ treaty, but there won’t be anything ‘mutual’ or ‘common’ about it. You can make arguments that the U.S. should defend some NATO member state in some given situation, but you can’t make the argument on the basis of the NATO treaty if that member state isn’t upholding their end of the deal.

This is not complicated.

I’m saying that treaties apply to all sides equally. If there is some ‘much higher value’ that motivates the U.S. to defend a NATO state, that’s fine. But if that state isn’t investing at least 2% of their GDP into defense, then “Because the NATO treaty says you have to” is NOT a valid reason for the U.S. to jump to their defense. Their may still be strategic or moral reasons to do so. Or there may not. But it will depend on the particular instance, not on the terms of the NATO treaty, because the state in question already violated that treaty.

If The US does spend more on NATO, then his claim that we spend more on NATO isn’t a myth. It’s just a fact. Nothing you said here denies that fact, you’re just giving explanations for why the fact is true. The US spends more on NATO than these other states. These other states aren’t obligated to spend as much as the US, though, they are only obligated to spend 2% of their GDP, which is a pittance compared to us. If they don’t do that, they are in violation of the treaty, and so the treaty doesn’t compel us to defend them.

Just like the other member nations would own all their military stuff they had if they spent 2% of their GDP on the military, which is all they are obligated to do.

That was already true before Trump brought it up. If the US gets attacked, all those nations that didn’t bother to maintain a military as the treaty required can’t be relied upon for defense. If one of those nations gets attacked, they can’t rely on each other for defense. Shithole nation with no military A is not going to come help shithole nation with no military B. Putin already knows this. If what you mean by ‘NATO can’t be relied upon for defense’ is “The US can’t be relied upon to bankrupt itself fighting proxy wars for nations that can’t be bothered investing in even a basic military to protect themselves,” well, GOOD.

12

Lets say we made some exceptions to the 2% GDP… it would never be to a large, rich country like France, Netherlands, Germany… it be to a little low population state like Luxembourg (encouraging them not to just rent mercenaries) or a broke country like Greece. Turkey isn’t rich, but can field the infantry, and we know simply put, they can.

My concession to Luxembourg would be, your going to develop, within your own population, 3 special forces companues, with the very best of equipment, and two chinooks or equivalents for each company… not only thus, but one company for at least 1/3 rd the year has to be deployed on a NATO mission or with a NATO allied member outside of NATO at any given time.

That would be cheaper for Luxembourg in many ways, but harder to recruit. Yet, it be a state punching far, far above it’s weight. We get they would have to piggyback if going with a country peacekeeping to Africa or Afghanistan logistically.

Greece is broke as fuck. Putting more into coast guard and national guard matters more.

Those are extreme cases. A country wasting billions on socialism isn’t a excuse, defence comes by default before slash and burn style socialism. You might get a few medical bills payed in the short term, but you will lose your place in the alliance.

13

Just as criminal has changed to prioritize human life over things, for instance giving criminals the benefit of doubt in home invasions leading to robbery, when the robber is killed or injured by the homeowner protecting his property, is as well the standard of justice in international cases.

Similarly in international treaties dealing with defensive agreements, where the protection of human life is of issue. Not paying dues becomes a secondary issue, failing to rise to the level where it can endanger the viability of the agreement.

14

Their unwillingness to pay dues has already cost considerably in terms of lives. NATO nations have been very sluggish in responding to threats, and retreat at the first sign of hardship.

This is the breaking point. NATO isn’t viable anymore from a American perspective. Sticking in for hopes that they will pull their act together farther down the road isn’t realistic at this point anymore.

I hope Trump scares the shit out of most of them, and they move towards building a functional alliance. I don’t mean a EU army where everyone contributes even less… I mean a fully functional alliance.

Give me a good reason the US should bother with those scumbags in Europe? Some of those nations have violated the treaty for decades.

I am increasingly seeing less and less point to keeping it around each day. US can’t single handily carry a continent with a population double our own, especially given they have a hand in a lot of the trouble we keep getting ourselves into.

A large part of me has always been willing to say goodbye, but another part held out hope they would become a better people. The collapse of the EU suggests they can’t survive as a united people, with united goals. Too many small minded individuals. We’ve given generations towards keeping them going as forward thinkers, and I really don’t see the positive results. The euro project is looking like it is a failure.

15

What you have been reading about Nato, the issued documents, has little to no bearing on the type of military tactics that the organization is actually known for by experts.

The reason of its existence is more sophisticated than the US army needs to be.

The soldiers that do things in your parasigm dont have contact with relevant Nato structures in Europe. You could seek to be deployed in Lithuania or Estonia to come to listen and satisfy your curiosities.

The subject of this thread is the assumption that Nato has a protective function. Trump understand that is is purely offensive, and understands that as such it does not serve US or European interest and will eventually lead to nuclear war. Nato is merely a setup for war.

All people who cant instinctively relate Nato to Bismarck might as well be looking to Turds… ‘thoughts’… for coherence.

16

I would gamble you guys still know from school who the Brits Russians and North Americans defeated.

Now, Nato, is a partnership with that very country.

Naturally it has lead to war after war after war and has ruined Europe.

Some people appear even to be ignorant of what Clinton tossed in ordinance over the sovereign capital of then Yugoslavia. Most would not have noted how his administration armed muslims to commit terror in that country, which led to the disintegration of old Europe in a German/US ploy to continue Hitlers easyward drifts.

All the idealistic talk about protection is straight from the Nato official manual. In reality, one must take note of the events that transpired under its leadership.

Possibly that is not work that can be done from inside the US. The information may not be available in that part of the world.

17

The above implication is in line with Hitler’s primary concern with the Balkans as early as 1939, it makes sense.

The US form of Manifest Destiny can be seen as very similar. It is really probably a hidden program of agreement somehow related to the scientific exchange which occurred post WW 2, in order to stymie the expansionist ambitions of the ally: the USSR.

18

Note that the US played a side role in WWII (not disregarding sacrifices made) and stepped in only when England and Russia had done the hard work. They stepped in to snatch Germany’s assets, primarily its top scientists and military. I expect this to be known to anyone on this level of discussion.

The US was leaning to allying with Adolfo, but happened in the other direction when it saw the tide turning. The Russians had turned the tide by then. Which is no doubt why the US entered.

Short, Nato supporters are what back in the day were national socialists. People ignorant enough to support genocidal politics while coo cooing about goodness.

19

Genuine fear of USSR expansion may have been initially part of the reason. But looking now, the expansion has come from the other side and is still pushing.

Brainwashed zealots like Turd think that the US won WWII and beat the nazis. The US stepped in when Hitler had already succumbed to emotional breakdowns in the staff room and told his officers that, given their failure to take Russia, the Germans were unworthy and now had to all die. It is likely that this situation was communicated to Washington, prompting that famous wave of attack. Strictly to acquire the German technology.

20

See I am all for the Gringos, in as far as they are Trump like and straightforwardly amoral. Any US official ranting about the nations moral obligations makes me puke. There is nothing moral about the US. Its just a lot of energy and sexual lust that manages to produce cool art. That is all it is.