Allahpundit:
Via the Free Beacon, there are people on social media grumbling about this clip, as though it’s rude or impolitic or whatever for him to do this. Are they kidding? This is practically a campaign commercial for Trump. Even I caught a little MAGA buzz watching Macron and the rest of the gang smirk as he nudged them to take their defense obligations more seriously. In particular, telling the EU’s luminaries in Brussels that forcing America to pick up their slack is “not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States” may be the single finest nationalist moment Trump has had as president. All I could imagine watching it was one of those focus-group graphs that the cable news channels like to use during presidential debates to show how the group is reacting to the candidates moment by moment. Trump would have been off the charts, especially when the camera panned to a stone-faced Angela Merkel.
It seems his colleagues didn’t like the lecture. This is probably also worth a few extra job-approval points:
After "family photo" with all NATO leaders, no one approached Trump –kept distance after he had just hectored them on defense spending. pic.twitter.com/gTyB0Fx4UX
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) May 25, 2017
To be scrupulously fair, the smirking from Macron et al. may have been due mainly to what Trump says about countries “owing” NATO for underpayment in the past. That’s not how it works, as America’s own secretary of defense acknowledges. They’re supposed to spend two percent of GDP on their own defense, not as “dues” to NATO or whatever.
Maybe he should draw a red line, then go put on a dress like the last President.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: Did you see them laughing at him. Like the majority of Americans they think he’s a bombastic buffoon..
Trumpist WWF WANNABEE running for Congress in Montana–polls just closed
Maybe somebody should explain to the President that NATO, unlike the UN, does not assess annual dues from its members to support military operations. Instead, there’s a goal that members should spend 2 percent of their annual GDP on their own military forces. NATO is a essentially a mutual defense pact.
Five of NATO’s 28 members are meeting that goal, but percentages can be misleading. One of the five nations exceeding the goal is Greece, for example—which has an annual GDP that’s less than one-half that of the state of Ohio. Germany, on the other hand, is “only” spending 1.19 percent of it’s GDP on defense—but Germany had a 2015 GDP of 3.356 trillion US dollars.
Here’s who is paying the agreed-upon share to NATO — and who isn’t
What ever happened to Curt to make him forget his service to this country?
It is as though Curt is pissing on the Statue of Liberty or Old Glory.
@Greg: The “T” in NATO stands for “Treaty”, which was signed and ratified by all the members. Part of that treaty is to commit a specific amount of GDP to their national defense and, as such, to the common defense of all the NATO members.
25 out of 28 members shirk their responsibility. And, mind you, this is not an “Obama treaty” which is more a personal agreement between two parties but an officially ratified and approved REAL treaty.
How often do whiny liberals whine about how much the US spends on defense? Part of that is caused by having to carry the lion’s share of NATO for it IS a common defense and if we neglect it and Europe falls, that affects OUR security. However, those enjoying the free ride should be held to account.
It’s not misleading at all. There was a REASON why the treaty was designed as such. Every member contributes their fair share. Again, the US spends 4%… 2% is not unreasonable. Besides, it is a signed treaty.
@Rich Wheeler:
I know how liberals loves them a free ride, especially those repeatedly boarding the gravy train. However, under Trump, the free ride is over and he WILL bring the slackers in line. It is common and usual for immature, weakling parasites to smirk and poke fun at the task-master. However, we will see how they react to the prospect of defending themselves against terrorism or Russian aggression.
Gianforte won HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!! I would encourage EVERY person confronted by a “journalist” that is doing nothing but promoting their OWN candidate to slap them upside the head. Liberals WANT confrontation and violence; let’s give them what they want until they cry “uncle”. No doubt, it will be “discovered” that he colluded with the Russians to win. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!! SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!!
@Bill… Deplorable Me: His prosecutor will be local– charged with assault. Of course he won–it’s solid red Montana–he won by 7–DT by 2O. In Montana he could’ve shot him.
The Donald will be proud.
At least this clown apologized to the guy he body slammed and punched–after he won.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #4:
Other NATO members are not inflating their national defense budgets by pissing away billions per year on unnecessary pork barrel spending. They don’t keep unnecessary military bases open to keep the constituents of powerful elected representatives happy. They don’t drop $6 billion over a decade on a battlefield communication system that doesn’t work, which is hardly a unique case, or squander $125 billion over 5 years on Defense Department inefficiency, and then cover it up.
Maybe they’re spending the amounts they’ve calculated they actually need to spend for their own national defense and NATO’s objectives, and are skeptical about spending more to support someone else’s global superpower status or defense industry investments.
We haven’t racked up a $19.5 trillion national debt entirely as a result of social spending.
The 2 percent is a NATO guideline, not a rule. No spending figure or percentage is specified in the NATO treaty itself.
Trump Says NATO Allies Don’t Pay Their Share. Is That True?
@Rich Wheeler:
Let’s see if we understand you, RW. Because Trump thinks NATO members should pay their shares, that makes the Guy in Montana running for Congress a WANNABEE and so that means you obviously think he’s a joke and the good folks of Montana would hardly vote for a WANNABEE. Well turns out you’re right, they didn’t vote for the WANNABEE, they voted for the Republican. Can’t get them all right, :RW.
@Redteam: WWF Wannabee RT–that’s a joke son.
@PhulofMarllowe:
Hey Phulof, why don’t you tell us all about your military service before you start talking about others that have served.
@Greg:
You’re correct, we racked it up by having a POS Muslim president doing all he could do to sabotage the country.
@Greg: Wow. Guess this is against the narrative so the handler’s let the trolls off the chain…
Easily dismissed lies.
@Rich Wheeler:
Is that a Yogi-ism?
@Greg: 2% Greg. The treaty says each member nation should dedicate 2% of their GDP to defense. It doesn’t say that if you can be prudent and economical, you only have to commit 1.2%; it says 2%. Why do legal commitments mean nothing to liberals?
Sure… as long as the good ol US of A is picking up the slack. We all know Europe is liberal and liberals loves them some free ride, but Trump is proclaiming that free ride over. Maybe if they didn’t squander billions on illegal immigrant Muslim terrorists, they could afford their commitments.
@PhillipMarlowe:
No, Phlippin Moron, that would be what you America-hating liberals do by making excuses for terrorists, leaking classified information, eroding civil liberties and attacking a legally elected President with false charges and accusations; basically supporting anything that is anti-American.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: The picture is becoming clearer that Trump and his team show greater respect for Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia than our traditional (lib as you describe them) allies France, Germany and Great Britain.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #14:
Nope. The NATO Treaty does not say any such thing, and never has. No amounts or percentages are specified anywhere in the treaty.
The 2 percent of GDP figure is a suggested amount that members agreed in 2014 should be set as a goal. That figure has not been incorporated into the treaty itself. Member nations not spending that much of their GDP on defense were supposed to try to reach the 2 percent target within a decade—that is, by 2024.
@Richard Wheeler:
That is your lib-driven imagination working overtime yet again. I expect you didn’t hear Trump’s speech to the Arab leaders about how it is THEIR responsibility to drive terrorism out of their countries, if they want the US to partner with them. But, again, objectivity is not a strong suit among liberals. Partisan hatred overrides rational thought.
@Greg: Here, maybe you will believe CNN.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-funding-explained-trump/index.html
NATO itself (not Trump) decided 2% is the target for each nation to contribute. So, why aren’t they? Maybe instead of pursuing the phony fantasy of controlling the global climate, they should fulfill the commitments they agreed to for their common defense. They certainly were anxious to get protection from the treaty; they should be just as anxious to meet their commitments… which they AGREED to.
And, they didn’t set the goal in 2014; the slacking countries pledged, in 2014, to MEET their requirements by 2024. Meanwhile, they expect someone else to protect them from the Russian bear. 2024 could be too late. Perhaps if they weren’t mostly failing socialist governments, they could meet their obligations far earlier.
Trump is absolutely correct and is doing a GREAT job in telling the entire world that it is about time others contributed a bit more towards their common interests. You whiny, crybaby, sore loser liberals simply cannot STAND the fact that Trump is the leader Obama never was or ever could be.
Read the NATO treaty document as signed and ratified, linked in #16. No required amount or percentage is specified. The percentage is not obligatory. It’s a guideline—an agreed upon target. That’s what the CNN article you linked says.
@Greg: So, then the common defense is simply a suggestion? No, unless you doubt CNN, the NATO members sat down and agreed to the 2%. Of course, many being liberal, I am sure they thought, as liberals seem to always, that making a commitment is NOT a commitment. Following laws is only a “suggestion”.
The NATO members agreed to it. They should own up to it. Trump is being a LEADER to demand the other members commit the same dedication to the common defense.
You and Donald might also want to check your calendars. It isn’t 2024 yet. That’s the year by which NATO members not presently hitting the 2 percent of GDP goal are supposed to attain it.
@Greg: I haven’t been discussing this because I thought ANYONE could understand that an agreement that each nation would put 2% to their defense under NATO meant that they would put 2% to their defense under NATO. Leave it to a liberal to interpret it that it meant that they would try to one day get to 2% but meanwhile the US would just chip in all the extra for all of those liberal run countries.
Just what do you think those liberal leaders would be saying if the US were only chipping in 1/2 %? So Greg, you can persist in showing your liberal stupidity by maintaining a totally indefensible position or you can become an American and believe that all of the countries should meet their obligations. And, quite frankly, I know which of those directions you will head off in.