Jump to content

Has Trump made it necessary to disband NATO?


Recommended Posts

While watching CNN last night and listening to a segment on Trump's antics at the NATO summit, the redoubtable Christiane Amanpour noted that following the collapse of the Soviet bloc there was a movement to form a European security force to replace NATO although the ideas was apparently opposed by the Americans who wanted to maintain the alliance. I've read elsewhere that the U.K., which often seems to view its "special relationship" with the U.S. as equally or perhaps more important than its European connections, has also opposed a solely European security system. But, given Trump's harrumphing and bullying, is it time for the Europeans to go it alone, and perhaps time for Canada, too, to cut the apron strings? We recently found out that the Americans have no intention of defending us from a missile attack, despite our NATO and NORAD connections. So, is it worthwhile to grant Trump any further leverage or should we all call his bluff and tell him to stuff it and wave goodbye (maybe with a specific finger held high)?

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The work he has done is going to make NATO stronger, not weaker. Allies have agreed to meet the commitments they signed onto. Don't forget 2% of the GDP can be either a small amount or a large amount depending on the GDP, and the USA has the largest GDP of the group AND contributes the highest percentage. I heard some of the points Donald Trump made to the NATO allies, he exposed the hypocrisy of an alliance that is outwardly highly critical of Russia, yet at the same time is making them rich. The most serious problem is they are compromising their energy security, and there is a lot more focus on energy security these days. The criticism that Germany has foolishly and rapidly shut down its thermal and nuclear power generators in lieu of buying Russian gas is bang-on. Russia has used their gas pipelines in the past as a weapon, shut down the lines feeding European countries in a form of punishment a number of times already. These Europeans leaders are either extremely naive, or liars. I'll go with the latter.

Russia Cuts Gas, and Europe Shivers
Russia–Ukraine gas disputes
Britain ‘four meals from anarchy’ if Russia cuts off fuel and power over spy poisoning row, experts warn

The point is, now that he has a renewed commitment he can meet with Putin on stronger ground. This news is a message to the Russians. It would have been better to get an even greater commitment up to 4%, that would then present a threat to Putin/ Russia, and we need to do this. Russia has to be kept under pressure economically and militarily as much as possible, which appears to be what Trump wants to do here. Next he's going to Russia to have a meeting with his "friend" Putin. Keep friends close, keep enemies closer...

Edited by OftenWrong
added links
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, turningrite said:

While watching CNN last night and listening to a segment on Trump's antics at the NATO summit, the redoubtable Christiane Amanpour noted that following the collapse of the Soviet bloc there was a movement to form a European security force to replace NATO although the ideas was apparently opposed by the Americans who wanted to maintain the alliance. I've read elsewhere that the U.K., which often seems to view its "special relationship" with the U.S. as equally or perhaps more important than its European connections, has also opposed a solely European security system. But, given Trump's harrumphing and bullying, is it time for the Europeans to go it alone, and perhaps time for Canada, too, to cut the apron strings? We recently found out that the Americans have no intention of defending us from a missile attack, despite our NATO and NORAD connections. So, is it worthwhile to grant Trump any further leverage or should we all call his bluff and tell him to stuff it and wave goodbye (maybe with a specific finger held high)?

Nope what Trump did to Nato is whipped them into shape like a good drill instructor. They needed to be chewed out for their hypocrisy and short comings. But as long as they get the message and make concession to improve then its all for the better. There's really nobody in the world that can do this except for the US. Sometimes you just got to give them some tough love. The problem with the EU is that they're too busy bickering amongst themselves to resolve real conflict. They need US  parental guidance i er mean leadership. 

 

 

Edited by paxrom
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

While watching CNN last night and listening to a segment on Trump's antics at the NATO summit, the redoubtable Christiane Amanpour noted that following the collapse of the Soviet bloc there was a movement to form a European security force to replace NATO although the ideas was apparently opposed by the Americans who wanted to maintain the alliance. I've read elsewhere that the U.K., which often seems to view its "special relationship" with the U.S. as equally or perhaps more important than its European connections, has also opposed a solely European security system. But, given Trump's harrumphing and bullying, is it time for the Europeans to go it alone, and perhaps time for Canada, too, to cut the apron strings? We recently found out that the Americans have no intention of defending us from a missile attack, despite our NATO and NORAD connections. So, is it worthwhile to grant Trump any further leverage or should we all call his bluff and tell him to stuff it and wave goodbye (maybe with a specific finger held high)?

After the collapse in east Germany, everyone was cashing in on the peace bonds, including the US with cuts to troop levels. there was a lot of talk about WHY the US would cut it's numbers...euro's were pissed because now they had to shell out more on defense....hence all this preparation for a Euro force....by the way where is this massive EURO force...it's a paper tiger, it has a rapid reaction force now, consisting of a couple of brigade size units....a spec on the ass of what is call Europe...

Cut the apron strings....I wonder how much that will cost , I think that is one of the chief reasons we stay with all those big bad defensive alliances. but it is the Canadian thing to do, save a buck every buck on defense.....until we have none...

I wish you would research this missile defense thing your going on about, and find out the truth for yourself.....maybe it is time the US started to tell NATO countries , we want to stay 2 % is the deal, don't like it there is the door....force the issue, turn it into a election platform....we have no leverage, and if you have not been able to figure it out yet , he is not bluffing.....

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we be part of an alliance where we have to defend Erdogan when Erdogan shoots down Russian planes as Russia tries to fight ISIS?

 

Whole thing is a damn waste of money.

 

Canada should cut military expenditure, not increase it. Who's going to invade Canada? The polar bears? The military's loyalty is to the Queen and her successors (that is who they pledge allegiance to), not to Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Why should we be part of an alliance where we have to defend Erdogan when Erdogan shoots down Russian planes as Russia tries to fight ISIS?

 

Whole thing is a damn waste of money.

 

Canada should cut military expenditure, not increase it. Who's going to invade Canada? The polar bears? The military's loyalty is to the Queen and her successors (that is who they pledge allegiance to), not to Canada.

Actually, there are two competitor seeking to enter your backyard. China and Russia. I wouldn't leave NATO just yet. Got to wait for big bro to scare them away first!

Canada sits on some major strategic resources, it's not strategically feasible to leave NATO for a reason, you think you're the first to think of leaving nato? There's a reason why no previous or current and future PM would consider doing such things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paxrom said:

Actually, there are two competitor seeking to enter your backyard. China and Russia.

 

How? Are you referring to the Arctic? There is very little overlap in the territorial claims between Canada and Russia, and I would argue that the territorial overlap that does exist can be resolved peacefully. Russia mostly has territorial conflict with Greenland. Also, a lot of the overlap is due to Canada overclaiming land by the nationalist Harper government. The North pole is not Canadian territory, it is Danish territory.

 

China... I'm not really sure what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Why should we be part of an alliance where we have to defend Erdogan when Erdogan shoots down Russian planes as Russia tries to fight ISIS?

 

Whole thing is a damn waste of money.

 

Canada should cut military expenditure, not increase it. Who's going to invade Canada? The polar bears? The military's loyalty is to the Queen and her successors (that is who they pledge allegiance to), not to Canada.

WOW, that's right our military has a long history of enslaving it's people and over throwing the government ….the queen is the bad guy now....give me a break....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

How? Are you referring to the Arctic? There is very little overlap in the territorial claims between Canada and Russia, and I would argue that the territorial overlap that does exist can be resolved peacefully. Russia mostly has territorial conflict with Greenland. Also, a lot of the overlap is due to Canada overclaiming land by the nationalist Harper government. The North pole is not Canadian territory, it is Danish territory.

 

China... I'm not really sure what you mean.

Currently, under international law, no country owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it. The five surrounding Arctic countries, Russian Federation, Canada, Norway, Denmark (via Greenland), and the United States, are limited to a 200-nautical-mile (370 km; 230 mi) exclusive economic zone off their coasts, and the area beyond that is administered by the International Seabed Authority.

Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country has 10 years to make claims to an extended continental shelf beyond its 200-mile exclusive economic zone. If validated, such a claim gives the claimant state rights to what may be on or beneath the sea bottom within the claimed zone.[73] Norway (ratified the convention in 1996[74]), Russia (ratified in 1997[74]), Canada (ratified in 2003[74]) and Denmark (ratified in 2004[74]) have all launched projects to base claims that certain areas of Arctic continental shelves should be subject to their sole sovereign exploitation.[75][76]

In 1907 Canada invoked a "sector principle" to claim sovereignty over a sector stretching from its coasts to the North Pole. This claim has not been relinquished, but was not consistently pressed until 2013.[77][78]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole#Territorial_claims_to_the_North_Pole_and_Arctic_regions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Currently, under international law, no country owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it.

Given the geography of the region, it's pretty obvious that Denmark/Greenland will own it.

 

Russia and Canada just claim it due to moronic chest-thumping nationalism.

 

But here is a picture of the North Pole and the Lomonosov Ridge. Canada is on the wrong side of the ridge to claim the North Pole.

F2.large.jpg

Now, please cry me the sweet sweet maple tears of Canadian patriotism.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The queen must have a few screws lose if she thinks that a society based on birth right is preferable to a merit-based society.

you been taking those pills again haven't you....

As far as I can tell our whole existence is based on that percept of royalty, I mean our government, our laws, our history, basically everything Canadian has come from that concept....so it does not matter what you think is preferable….

Edited by Army Guy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

In case you can't read English, the quote I provided say NO ONE CURRENTLY owns the north pole ..that includes Canada or Denmark...no tears here

It's danish territory, the UN just hasn't declared it as such.

 

But I guess by this logic, if a genocide is occurring, and the UN hasn't declared it as such, then the genocide isn't actually occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

you been taking those pills again haven't you....

 

The problem is that I need maple tears in order to take my pills.

 

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

As far as I can tell our whole existence is based on that percept of royalty

 

Yes, and we should change that.

 

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

so it does not matter what you think is preferable….

 

Yes, some monarchists aren't the biggest fans of democracy. I understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

Change the system, now that is funny . Oh you can try, today we can not even get a pipeline built, or a trade deal done 

And maybe the system contributes to not getting a pipeline built or trade deal done.

 

The monarchists gave us the first past the post system, which allows for extremists (like Harper and Trudeau) to form government. It also makes it so that we have a very narrow set of political positions represented in parliament. Currently, all the parties are in favour of the awful dairy cartel, which makes poor people suffer with extra high food prices and is a barrier to trade with the US. Free Trade but with 300% tariffs, what a joke.

 

The monarchists also gave us the unelected senate, which will be a giant barrier to pro-development policies long after the Trudeau government is out of power.

 

The monarchists gave us the inferior common law legal system, which gives unelected activist judges too much power to reinterpret laws. Have you followed the "free the beer" case recently? The activist judges managed to reinterpret section 121 of the Constitution Act, which states that goods "shall ... be admitted free into each of the other provinces". They somehow managed to reinterpret that to mean that provinces are allowed mass interprovincial trade barriers. It also means that activist judges appointed by the current government will be blocking economic development for decades, due to some frog or caribou being harmed.

 

Finally, having a monarchy not only violates the moral principle of equality under the law, but it helps to support the narrative of the far left that we live in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. This allows the social justice people to more easily achieve power. They then use that power to block economic development and trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

And maybe the system contributes to not getting a pipeline built or trade deal done.

 

The monarchists gave us the first past the post system, which allows for extremists (like Harper and Trudeau) to form government. It also makes it so that we have a very narrow set of political positions represented in parliament. Currently, all the parties are in favour of the awful dairy cartel, which makes poor people suffer with extra high food prices and is a barrier to trade with the US. Free Trade but with 300% tariffs, what a joke.

 

The monarchists also gave us the unelected senate, which will be a giant barrier to pro-development policies long after the Trudeau government is out of power.

 

The monarchists gave us the inferior common law legal system, which gives unelected activist judges too much power to reinterpret laws. Have you followed the "free the beer" case recently? The activist judges managed to reinterpret section 121 of the Constitution Act, which states that goods "shall ... be admitted free into each of the other provinces". They somehow managed to reinterpret that to mean that provinces are allowed mass interprovincial trade barriers. It also means that activist judges appointed by the current government will be blocking economic development for decades, due to some frog or caribou being harmed.

 

Finally, having a monarchy not only violates the moral principle of equality under the law, but it helps to support the narrative of the far left that we live in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. This allows the social justice people to more easily achieve power. They then use that power to block economic development and trade.

You really think our system gives way to all you have suggested here, do we have the same problems as the UK, Australia, and all the other common wealth countries....maybe it's those that carry out liberal ideals, such as paying students to protest a project the government wants to push through, maybe it is the government playing both sides of the fence….Maybe they want to get reelected and fuck the consequences , and all the values we attach to that....I think your going to get this regardless of what form of democracy we practice..... do you think those things are not happening in a republic form of government, or any European government ….do you think trump is going to answer is sexual assault charges...no more than Justin is....As for a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy BS.....I'm  white and it has not given me a jet at the airport , or a shot at being the PM....money in my bank, a car in every garage, a women in every city...everything I got I earned by working for it. 

I'm also sure that there is a list of good things that the monarchy has given us.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

don't get me wrong I do like the US, but I do love Canada. despite all of its warts.

Assuming we can get past the political differences if North America becomes one huge country then it'll probably have a huge hegemonic presence in the world. We're talking about world super power status x2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You really think our system gives way to all you have suggested here

 

I said contributes. That's not the same thing as implies. There are other factors involved, but the monarchy certainly doesn't help.

 

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

maybe it's those that carry out liberal ideals, such as paying students to protest a project the government wants to push through, maybe it is the government playing both sides of the fence

 

And if we had a proportional representation system, maybe we would have more competition of ideas in the political marketplace. People would have more options to choose from and ideas would less frequently go unchallenged. Perhaps we would have the libertarian party or another free trade party in the house of commons advocating for free trade, rather than having 0 parties advocating for free trade and instead having all the parties advocate for 300% tariffs. Perhaps having more parties represented and avoiding the us vs them narrative would allow the Canadian public to feel that they have more options than Trudeau vs the anti-abortion gay-hating climate-change denying dinosaur-conservative party.

 

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

As for a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy BS.....

 

Please reread what I said. I said that it contributes to the narrative of the far left. Not that the narrative of the far left is true. It just makes it more believable to the public, which allows the far left to more easily acheive power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Only if we can send our liberals, NDPers, Green party pukes to some where in the middle east for conversion training for a couple years, MAYBE....it will work....

Conservatives would fit in much better with the hate-filled racist, discrimnatory and oppressive regimes in those places.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...