I feel sorry for Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Are you pro Russia now?

The former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that is paying Russia billions of dollars.

The USA has to "protect" the Germans, who are inviting in millions of terrorists, their leaders and former leaders are getting rich, and Germany is funding Russia and their military.

He is telling the truth that they all hide.

Russia will control Germany, by controlling their energy, and Germany will control Europe and its borders by controlling the EU.

Germany gave up their own coal, and nuke energy- energy essential to sustain their own country, especially in times of war, so the f_ckers could buy Russian gas. Russia! The country that US tax payer money, and soldiers are supposedly needed for, to "protect" against!

Meanwhile, the "enemy" they so deeply fear, (Russia) is making bank from selling them gas, while German politicians are getting paid from the Russian trade deal.

Then, the son's of b!!tches don't pay up for what they owe according to NATO treaty. Then they try to appease their American lap dogs with some BS "promise" to pay up...in 12 years! Then they squak about the USA wanting fair trade tarrifs!

We are the biggest chumps on the planet for playing this game! Burn it all down!

General Kelly seems to be embarrassed of his boss, and Hutchison looks like a deer in headlights...

Johnny Bear said:

---

Trump is the first POTUS we've had in that time period to have the guts to call out these countries that deserve to be called out on this issue.

---

Factually incorrect.

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I feel sorry for Kay Bailey Hutchison.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/08/trump-making-impact-on-nato-as-allies-ramp-up-defense-spending-ambassador-kay-bailey-hutchison.html
She had some great words about Trump the other day.

"I've worked for three presidents, all of whom have said the same thing," Hutchison said. "Now, I think for the first time, we are really seeing the Europeans start going in the same direction. Every ally is now increasing defense spending -- we've had the largest increase in defense spending snce the Cold War."

---

They actually stared 4 years ago increasing their defense spending. Why? Because leaders can get you to what what's right and best AND leave you with dignity and value.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-trump-spending.html

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Trump is the first POTUS we've had in that time period to have the guts to call out these countries that deserve to be called out on this issue.

---

Factually incorrect.

---

He's the first President getting results because he's doing it in public & not behind closed doors.

---

Just fyi, the 2% spending threshold Trump loves to complain about was agreed to in 2014, during the Obama administration. It also was an agreement to build to 2% by 2024, not immediately, so there are no "delinquencies" like Trump keeps saying.

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Trump is the first POTUS we've had in that time period to have the guts to call out these countries that deserve to be called out on this issue.

---

Factually incorrect.

---

He's the first President getting results because he's doing it in public & not behind closed doors.

---

Also factually incorrect.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are you pro Russia now?

The former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that is paying Russia billions of dollars.

The USA has to "protect" the Germans, who are inviting in millions of terrorists, their leaders and former leaders are getting rich, and Germany is funding Russia and their military.

He is telling the truth that they all hide.

Russia will control Germany, by controlling their energy, and Germany will control Europe and its borders by controlling the EU.

Germany gave up their own coal, and nuke energy- energy essential to sustain their own country, especially in times of war, so the f_ckers could buy Russian gas. Russia! The country that US tax payer money, and soldiers are supposedly needed for, to "protect" against!

Meanwhile, the "enemy" they so deeply fear, (Russia) is making bank from selling them gas, while German politicians are getting paid from the Russian trade deal.

Then, the son's of b!!tches don't pay up for what they owe according to NATO treaty. Then they try to appease their American lap dogs with some BS "promise" to pay up...in 12 years! Then they squak about the USA wanting fair trade tarrifs!

We are the biggest chumps on the planet for playing this game! Burn it all down!

---

We have an oversupply in this country of natural gas for years to come. With new LNG platforms coming on line, and if the government would encourage additional construction of LNG platforms, the U.S. could easily supply Germany's and the EU's energy needs. They could close the valves to Russian pipelines. Why are we not moving more quickly in this direction should be the question.

---

Agreed.

ATL Bear said:

---

At an issue level, no one should disagree with the POTUS on this. It's better for the US, it's even better long term for our allies, and it actually strengthens NATO overall. As it seems with everything having to do with this POTUS, it ends up being an argument over style and approach. I'm okay with some public ridicule and pressure as years of the diplomatic slow play hasn't been effective. I'd rather he be direct (even if uncomfortable) in a face to face situation than tweet out a bunch of shots across the bow.

---

And nobody really disagrees at an issue level, as far as I can tell. Trump isn't breaking new ground here; getting NATO allies to pay their share is a continuation of the policy of previous administrations.

Trump's style is loud, bullying diplomacy over quieter diplomacy. Sometimes there is a place for louder diplomacy.

But I think it's a mistake to dismiss this as merely a difference in style. At some point, the line between Trump's style and Trump's policies become very blurred. Here's what I mean. If Trump had simply been cajoling NATO members to increase their contributions, that would be one thing. But he goes way beyond that. He disparages the entire concept of NATO, to the point that the Europeans seriously believed he would not honor America's commitment to defend NATO members. He disparages the European Union, which makes allies nervous because NATO is also a union of mostly European states. He attacks our allies at levels that go beyond their NATO contributions. He says Russia is a competitor, not an adversary, which doesn't give the Baltic states (Estonia in particular) much confidence that the US will look out for them if Putin behaves aggressively (remember that the Russians already have launched a crippling cyber attack on Estonia). Trump may in his own mind view all these statements as nothing more than leverage to get NATO members to ramp up their defense spending, but these are all statements that have a bearing on US policy, or at least reflect the "thinking" of the administration that Trump leads, and that's why his "style" has broader implications.

Besides, as others have pointed out on this thread, the 2% commitment was for 2024 and, thus, none of the nations that aren't there yet are actually out of compliance. So when Trump claims they're deadbeats, he's lying, and our allies naturally resent being lied about in public.

And why would anyone trust Trump's figures anyway? This guy admits he lied about Canadian tariffs when he met Trudeau and just pulled figures out of his ass. Apparently, he doesn't understand or doesn't care that this admission of deliberate lying will affect his relations with every other ally.

Congress (both Dems & GOP) have been fighting this Russia/Germany partnership for this huge pipeline for almost 4 years but most people don't know this. Trump brings it up and somehow gets criticized.

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At an issue level, no one should disagree with the POTUS on this. It's better for the US, it's even better long term for our allies, and it actually strengthens NATO overall. As it seems with everything having to do with this POTUS, it ends up being an argument over style and approach. I'm okay with some public ridicule and pressure as years of the diplomatic slow play hasn't been effective. I'd rather he be direct (even if uncomfortable) in a face to face situation than tweet out a bunch of shots across the bow.

---

and just pulled figures out of his ass.

---

He learned from the best...

---

There is a big difference between citing information that proves to be inaccurate later and deliberately making **** up. You get that, right?

GolemIII said:

---

tommie said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I feel sorry for Kay Bailey Hutchison.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/08/trump-making-impact-on-nato-as-allies-ramp-up-defense-spending-ambassador-kay-bailey-hutchison.html
She had some great words about Trump the other day.

"I've worked for three presidents, all of whom have said the same thing," Hutchison said. "Now, I think for the first time, we are really seeing the Europeans start going in the same direction. Every ally is now increasing defense spending -- we've had the largest increase in defense spending snce the Cold War."

---

They actually stared 4 years ago increasing their defense spending. Why? Because leaders can get you to what what's right and best AND leave you with dignity and value.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/europe/nato-trump-spending.html

---

Based on your own article it was Putin, not Obama that caused them to talk about spending the 2%.

"Only in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and intervened militarily in eastern Ukraine, did NATO leaders meeting in Wales agree to the 2 percent standard, and even then they urged members to "move toward" that goal by 2024, still seven years away."

You should try and be more honest.

---

Go with that. They've started increasing our spending since 2014. They've agreed to raise their spending to 2% by 2024.

How are they delinquent?

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At an issue level, no one should disagree with the POTUS on this. It's better for the US, it's even better long term for our allies, and it actually strengthens NATO overall. As it seems with everything having to do with this POTUS, it ends up being an argument over style and approach. I'm okay with some public ridicule and pressure as years of the diplomatic slow play hasn't been effective. I'd rather he be direct (even if uncomfortable) in a face to face situation than tweet out a bunch of shots across the bow.

---

and just pulled figures out of his ass.

---

He learned from the best...

---

There is a big difference between citing information that proves to be inaccurate later and deliberately making **** up. You get that, right?

---

I do, Obama definitely was making sh** up all the time. Thanks for confirming my point.

---

You may need to consult the definition of "confirming" here.
You assert that Obama deliberately made things up all the time, with no evidence behind that claim and none forthcoming.
While you've got the dictionary out, also explore the meanings of "making **** up" and "all the time." You seem confused on what those involve as well.

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

riflebear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At an issue level, no one should disagree with the POTUS on this. It's better for the US, it's even better long term for our allies, and it actually strengthens NATO overall. As it seems with everything having to do with this POTUS, it ends up being an argument over style and approach. I'm okay with some public ridicule and pressure as years of the diplomatic slow play hasn't been effective. I'd rather he be direct (even if uncomfortable) in a face to face situation than tweet out a bunch of shots across the bow.

---

and just pulled figures out of his ass.

---

He learned from the best...

---

There is a big difference between citing information that proves to be inaccurate later and deliberately making **** up. You get that, right?

---

I do, Obama definitely was making sh** up all the time. Thanks for confirming my point.

---

You can't be against lying and support trump. Trump lies because it's tuesday.

The problem with Europe is my bother and my dad aren't European. They both would have let Trump know that the door that he came through is the one he can leave through.

bubbadog said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

At an issue level, no one should disagree with the POTUS on this. It's better for the US, it's even better long term for our allies, and it actually strengthens NATO overall. As it seems with everything having to do with this POTUS, it ends up being an argument over style and approach. I'm okay with some public ridicule and pressure as years of the diplomatic slow play hasn't been effective. I'd rather he be direct (even if uncomfortable) in a face to face situation than tweet out a bunch of shots across the bow.

---

And nobody really disagrees at an issue level, as far as I can tell. Trump isn't breaking new ground here; getting NATO allies to pay their share is a continuation of the policy of previous administrations.

Trump's style is loud, bullying diplomacy over quieter diplomacy. Sometimes there is a place for louder diplomacy.

But I think it's a mistake to dismiss this as merely a difference in style. At some point, the line between Trump's style and Trump's policies become very blurred. Here's what I mean. If Trump had simply been cajoling NATO members to increase their contributions, that would be one thing. But he goes way beyond that. He disparages the entire concept of NATO, to the point that the Europeans seriously believed he would not honor America's commitment to defend NATO members. He disparages the European Union, which makes allies nervous because NATO is also a union of mostly European states. He attacks our allies at levels that go beyond their NATO contributions. He says Russia is a competitor, not an adversary, which doesn't give the Baltic states (Estonia in particular) much confidence that the US will look out for them if Putin behaves aggressively (remember that the Russians already have launched a crippling cyber attack on Estonia). Trump may in his own mind view all these statements as nothing more than leverage to get NATO members to ramp up their defense spending, but these are all statements that have a bearing on US policy, or at least reflect the "thinking" of the administration that Trump leads, and that's why his "style" has broader implications.

Besides, as others have pointed out on this thread, the 2% commitment was for 2024 and, thus, none of the nations that aren't there yet are actually out of compliance. So when Trump claims they're deadbeats, he's lying, and our allies naturally resent being lied about in public.

And why would anyone trust Trump's figures anyway? This guy admits he lied about Canadian tariffs when he met Trudeau and just pulled figures out of his ass. Apparently, he doesn't understand or doesn't care that this admission of deliberate lying will affect his relations with every other ally.

---

Again, most of what you're citing is style not substance, feelings not actions. That is projecting what we "think" would happen based upon simple framing of sporadic dialogue and snippets. I can tell you most of our NATO allies don't view Russia as much an adversary as we are choosing to do. I also believe, even prior to Trump, that the NATO alliance needed to be rethought. Even Obama agreed with that. Obama also carried the "weak" moniker because NATO allies knew he would press them to take the lead on many NATO operations (Libya being one example). I believe that he didn't deserve that moniker for that particular approach.

The contribution levels have been consistently resisted and pushed back. The costs we bare regarding use of our bases and operations centers, intelligence, equipment, and manpower via NATO which is the reality of the claim of how much people ride our tails for defense. It's a huge percentage, like about 3/4's. But the interesting part is we're talking whether these nations have met minimums, meanwhile the US has been contributing much more than is required under NATO terms, which has allowed other countries to not put forth anything comparable. That should be rectified, and if that's not a deadbeat, it's certainly a leech as they take advantage of the largess of another.