• Monday, July 23, 2018

Trump says NATO allies will 'substantially up' defense spending after tense summit

Discussion in 'World Affairs' started by peacefan, Jul 12, 2018.

  1. peacefan

    peacefan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,013
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 537 / -0
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...to-allies-agreed-to-substantially-up-spending

    I'll believe it when i hear European governments echo these statements.

    but even if they don't, i'm glad Trump seems to be backing down.
     
  2. Dalit

    Dalit BANNED

    Messages:
    7,106
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 9,740 / -17
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Netherlands
    How is Trump backing down? Trump is going to wait and see if NATO allies truly up their spending. If not, expect more Trump music.
     
  3. peacefan

    peacefan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,013
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 537 / -0
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    true. but it'll get ignored like previous rounds of Trumpism. :D

    so far i haven't heard anyone agreeing to Trump's "demand" to double the target defense spending percentage-of-GDP

    to do so would frankly be ludicrous. something has to prevent the US from becoming too arrogant on the international military stage, and continued reluctance by the EU to increase their defense spending will do that trick nicely, spending spent on assets that then have to back the US whenever it chooses to go down the path of war vs any given nation (like Iran, or North-Korea), as we saw in the 2nd Iraq war (the one that toppled Saddam, with all the false WMD claims by the US to get the ball rolling).

    no thanks, USA & Trump. we'd rather prevent ourselves from getting into very costly conflicts by keeping our defense spending low in the first place.

    by the way, same goes for that natural gas argument Trump launched against the EU and Germany in particular. no way we're not going to cozy up to Russia, get our gas much cheaper and more reliably than from the US, and give Russia real reason to have friendly feelings towards us here in Europe. stay out of it, Trump. and please don't mention it again, even your own TV stations won't back you on either of the issues i list in this post.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  4. Hamartia Antidote

    Hamartia Antidote ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    12,802
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Ratings:
    +23 / 9,479 / -3
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Come on...NATO doesn’t have to back anything unless it is a direct attack on a member country. You didn’t see them get involved in the Falklands or Panama.
     
  5. peacefan

    peacefan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,013
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 537 / -0
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    glad you at least agree on that... :)
    but it's clearly not how Trump sees it. take his attitude towards the EU over our stance towards Iran for instance. nothing but attempts to bully us into vassal-states that follow Trump's cues to the letter and without criticism.

    and ever since the 2nd Iraq war with the false WMD claims and more importantly the breeding of extremism that that war is going to do for decades to come,
    i'm *real* hesitant to see the EU support the US blindly.
     
  6. Hamartia Antidote

    Hamartia Antidote ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    12,802
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Ratings:
    +23 / 9,479 / -3
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    They only got involved in the Middle East because of being big oil customers. If everybody was driving electric cars NATO wouldn’t have gotten involved. Remember you guys are the ones with the crazy oil prices per litre.
     
  7. peacefan

    peacefan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,013
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 537 / -0
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    there was and is more to it than stable oil prices. a valid reason for the west to interfere in muslim nations' affairs in my view, by the way.

    it's also about preventing entire countries from becoming terrorism breeding grounds.

    fortunately, we seem to have the backing of that vast majority of moderate Muslims to do what we're doing. they don't have the military muscle to take on extremists themselves, but moderate Muslim(a)s are no doubt happy to see us restrain Muslim terror groups.

    however, i don't agree with the erosion by the US and NATO of Iran's economy, especially not now that Iran seems to be much more peaceful when it comes to their support of groups outside Iran.
    it's that erosion of an economy that paves the way for massive suffering followed by a regime-change you can only hope stabilizes the country like it now appears to do for Iraq. after what, 10, 15 years of massive suffering for the population of Iraq that is among other ugly things : one big recruitment and fundraising poster for Islamic extremist groups world-wide.
     
  8. Solomon2

    Solomon2 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    18,201
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Ratings:
    +11 / 9,330 / -24
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Really? See Top Iranian general: Forces in Syria ‘awaiting orders’ to destroy Israel

    That was three days ago. Do you think Iran "seems to be much more peaceful" since?
     
  9. peacefan

    peacefan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,013
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 537 / -0
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    don't judge a government by what their military leaders say.

    that military leader is supposed to say things like that. things like 'we're always ready to take on our arch enemy'. it's only natural for military people to say stuff like that.

    meanwhile, i've been following the headlines, and guess what? no more rockets from Yemen into Saudi, for instance.

    also no headlines of Iran actually misbehaving in Syria or Lebanon, either.
     
  10. Solomon2

    Solomon2 ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    18,201
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2008
    Ratings:
    +11 / 9,330 / -24
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Did it ever occur to you that just because the headlines you look at don't say so, events that aren't mentioned, or mentioned previously, might still be happening?
     
  11. cloud4000

    cloud4000 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,030
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,973 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    US demands for EU to increase spending on its defense has been longstanding demand for a very long time, starting from the time Bill Clinton was POTUS. EU brushed these demands off, but US has been adamant about this. The only difference with Trump is that he's more blunt about it until they agreed to increase it 2%.

    Truth of the matter is that NATO has outlived its usefulness now that the Soviet Union is gone. A new security arrangement, that makes the EU center of it, should replace the current set-up. Why should the US continue to pay for the privilege of defending Europe?
     
  12. peacefan

    peacefan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,013
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 537 / -0
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    ok i'm quoting an Israeli news-source here, which shows the changed Iranian attitude, and more importantly : mentions nothing about ongoing Iranian military support for the Houtis in Yemen. i do think Haaretz would've mentioned that if it were still happening.

    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...ilitary-approach-in-yemen-will-fail-1.6192151

    then, a google search for 'iran syria' limited to the results for the last month, produces :

    https://www.google.nl/search?q=iran...qF7aDcAhWQZlAKHTNVAU8QpwUIIQ&biw=1375&bih=902

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/world/middleeast/syria-israel-putin-netanyahu.html
    a search for 'iran lebanon', limited to the results for last month, produces :

    https://www.google.nl/search?biw=13....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.502....0.Kgcptw2hRRQ

    https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/vi...iest-strike-in-syrian-civil-war-1230166083612
    which shows that Iranian forces fired at an Israeli base, which was immediately returned by Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in Syria.

    so i have to conclude Iran does not represent an existential threat to Israel at the moment, and that their presence in Syria is under considerable pressure already, both militarily and diplomatically :
    https://www.google.nl/search?biw=13...90...0j0i67k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1.0.vpB4K1yrXUA

    there's also this report to consider :
    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...ancial-war-cant-stop-iran-heres-what-can.ashx
    so all in all, i have to continue to conclude that the war of economic attrition against Iran by the US and Israel is going to backfire against Israeli and US and even EU interests, in particular our interest in restraining the efforts of muslim terror recruiters and fundraisers.
     
  13. Dalit

    Dalit BANNED

    Messages:
    7,106
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Ratings:
    +1 / 9,740 / -17
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Netherlands
  14. peacefan

    peacefan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,013
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 537 / -0
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    and he's going to get largely ignored (aside from the 2% promise the EU countries have made for the near future),
    like all US administrations before him.

    actually the US brings the EU more problems (2nd Iraq war for instance) than assistance or defense at the moment.

    and i already indicated earlier elsewhere on this forum what good i think NATO is to the US..
    https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/what...-other-allies-at-summit.567459/#post-10629387