NATO

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1657
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: NATO

#76

Post by neeneko » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:35 am

Volkonski wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:27 am
I'm betting the most people will believe Macron.
Most people yes, but not the people Trump's power depends on.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6376
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: NATO

#77

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:24 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:26 pm
Kendra wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:09 pm

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said John Kelly "was displeased because he was expecting a full breakfast and there were only pastries and cheese."
Nothing had been served yet. All the plates are empty. Kelly had no way of knowing just then there would be no ham and eggs.

Sanders is not only a disgusting, persistent liar, she is a very bad liar.
When I was in the throes of my young, poorly paid salad days, I'd get excited if a morning work meeting was accompanied by a decent breakfast. John Kelly — not so much. The badness of her lie is astounding. Trump can't even get competent liars.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1657
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: NATO

#78

Post by neeneko » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:24 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:24 am
When I was in the throes of my young, poorly paid salad days, I'd get excited if a morning work meeting was accompanied by a decent breakfast. John Kelly — not so much. The badness of her lie is astounding. Trump can't even get competent liars.
She isn't incompetent, she is efficient. Why put time and energy into a good lie when a dump one will still satisfy the people that matter?

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6376
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: NATO

#79

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:50 am

neeneko wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:24 am
pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:24 am
When I was in the throes of my young, poorly paid salad days, I'd get excited if a morning work meeting was accompanied by a decent breakfast. John Kelly — not so much. The badness of her lie is astounding. Trump can't even get competent liars.
She isn't incompetent, she is efficient. Why put time and energy into a good lie when a dump one will still satisfy the people that matter?
I thought of that but I have a hard time understanding constant outright lies.

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: NATO

#80

Post by p0rtia » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:52 am

"Why don't they leave?"
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1657
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: NATO

#81

Post by neeneko » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:52 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:50 am
I thought of that but I have a hard time understanding constant outright lies.
They do not take much effort, you don't have to worry about consistency, and they are enough to keep the base satisfied. Economy of effort.

User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6376
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:26 am

Re: NATO

#82

Post by pipistrelle » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:04 am

neeneko wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:52 am
pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:50 am
I thought of that but I have a hard time understanding constant outright lies.
They do not take much effort, you don't have to worry about consistency, and they are enough to keep the base satisfied. Economy of effort.
I don’t get being that unethical.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1657
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: NATO

#83

Post by neeneko » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:12 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:04 am
I don’t get being that unethical.
Given her religious background and ethics, actions are judged not on the action but the target. Lies are ethical when they are done for the purpose of good and to fight evil, and that is an intimate part of how her family views the accumulation and application of power.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8040
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: NATO

#84

Post by RVInit » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:42 am

pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:04 am
neeneko wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:52 am
pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:50 am
I thought of that but I have a hard time understanding constant outright lies.
They do not take much effort, you don't have to worry about consistency, and they are enough to keep the base satisfied. Economy of effort.
I don’t get being that unethical.
You are clearly a good person. It is difficult to understand how a person can, day after day, stand up there in front of reporters and either make up lies on the fly or repeat the latest EGOTUS spew.

At least she doesn't bother to smile or even pretend that she is there to serve the public interest, that would make it even more insulting.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8040
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: NATO

#85

Post by RVInit » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:43 am

neeneko wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:12 am
pipistrelle wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:04 am
I don’t get being that unethical.
Given her religious background and ethics, actions are judged not on the action but the target. Lies are ethical when they are done for the purpose of good and to fight evil, and that is an intimate part of how her family views the accumulation and application of power.
This.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 22093
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: NATO

#86

Post by Volkonski » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:06 am

Pentagon calls on allies for ‘damage control’ after Trump NATO trip: report

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/39683 ... rip-report
Pentagon officials have spent the hours since President Trump departed NATO headquarters in Brussels reassuring U.S. allies of America's commitment to the NATO alliance after the president suggested that the U.S.'s military commitment was up for discussion.

U.S. officials told NBC News that maintaining "predictability" among alliance members was important and that calls were made with foreign officials centered around "reinforcing alliance commitments" after Trump "made it clear alliance commitments were on the table."

The Pentagon did not respond to NBC's request for comment, but a senior administration official told the news outlet that Trump had echoed his public rhetoric about NATO commitments in private "aggressive" meetings with leaders of NATO member nations.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32544
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: NATO

#87

Post by Addie » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:49 pm

The New York Times
U.S. Officials Scrambled Behind the Scenes to Shield NATO Deal From Trump

WASHINGTON — Senior American national security officials, seeking to prevent President Trump from upending a formal policy agreement at last month’s NATO meeting, pushed the military alliance’s ambassadors to complete it before the forum even began.

The work to preserve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreement, which is usually subject to intense 11th-hour negotiations, came just weeks after Mr. Trump refused to sign off on a communiqué from the June meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada.

The rushed machinations to get the policy done, as demanded by John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, have not been previously reported. Described by European diplomats and American officials, the efforts are a sign of the lengths to which the president’s top advisers will go to protect a key and longstanding international alliance from Mr. Trump’s unpredictable antipathy. Allied ambassadors said the American officials’ plan worked — to a degree.

Mr. Trump did almost blow up the two-day meeting in Brussels that began on July 11. He issued a vague threat that the United States could go its own way if allies resisted his demands for additional military spending. After the gathering, he also questioned a pillar of the alliance: that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all.
Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32544
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: NATO

#88

Post by Addie » Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:48 am

New York Times
Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia

WASHINGTON — There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.

Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.

Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Current and former officials who support the alliance said they feared Mr. Trump could return to his threat as allied military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set.

In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit meeting last summer, they said, Mr. Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States.

At the time, Mr. Trump’s national security team, including Jim Mattis, then the defense secretary, and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, scrambled to keep American strategy on track without mention of a withdrawal that would drastically reduce Washington’s influence in Europe and could embolden Russia for decades.
Adding:
Vox: Trump has reportedly discussed withdrawing from NATO. That would be great for Russia.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32544
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: NATO

#89

Post by Addie » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:31 pm

Reuters
House approves bill warning against U.S. NATO pullout

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a warning to President Donald Trump not to try to withdraw the United States from the NATO military alliance, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved legislation aimed at preventing such a move.

The Democratic-led House approved the measure by a bipartisan 357-22 vote, with the only “no” votes coming from Republicans. It now goes to the Republican-majority Senate, where its future is unclear, although a similar measure has been introduced there.

At a news conference before the vote, Democratic lawmakers said they were alarmed by reports of the Republican president’s low regard for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a 70-year-old military alliance that joins the United States and Canada with allies in Europe. ...

The legislation that passed the House Tuesday reaffirms lawmakers’ support for NATO, and says no U.S. funds will be spent to withdraw the United States from it.

“This bill ... makes it clear that the United States Congress still believes (in) the NATO mission and will prevent any short-sighted efforts to undermine NATO or unilaterally withdraw our country,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, said.

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: NATO

#90

Post by AndyinPA » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:42 am

And in the Senate?

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: NATO

#91

Post by Sam the Centipede » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:05 am

AndyinPA wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:42 am
And in the Senate?
Master Trump's sheep follow their shepherd, faithful old Turtle.

Adrianinflorida
Posts: 3110
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm
Location: South Detroit

Re: NATO

#92

Post by Adrianinflorida » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:11 am

Turtle won't even bring it up for a vote, I'd guess.

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 22093
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: NATO

#93

Post by Volkonski » Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:36 pm

Garry Kasparov

Verified account

@Kasparov63
2h2 hours ago
More Garry Kasparov Retweeted Malcolm Nance
US officials being against NATO is like doctors being against vaccines. It's an either ignorant or malicious position against global stability, prosperity, and the defense of democracy.
Yep.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21038
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: NATO

#94

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:08 am

Why Nato’s 70th birthday is something worth celebrating
The alliance is more than a military pact. Its members should rebuild trust in the face of threats from Russia and China
Peter Ricketts
Tue 2 Apr 2019 09.58 BST Last modified on Tue 2 Apr 2019 14.35 BST

The Nato treaty was signed in Washington 70 years ago this week, but British fingerprints are all over it. Having been instrumental in the creation of the transatlantic alliance, Britain now needs to be producing the ideas and energy to keep it relevant to threats undreamed of by its founding fathers.

Prominent among those founders was Ernest Bevin, foreign secretary in the Attlee government and one of the great strategists of the post-war years. Like Churchill, Bevin was quick to see that the threat to western Europe would not come from a revival of German militarism, but from an expansionist Soviet Union. The main risk in the late 1940s was that Moscow-supporting communists would come to power through the ballot box, at a time when their support was running at 25% in Italy and 20% in France.

In a magisterial cabinet paper in early 1948, Bevin therefore called for “the creation of some form of union in western Europe … backed by the Americans and the dominions. We in Britain can no longer stand outside Europe and insist that our problems and positions are quite separate from those of our European neighbours.” Wise words, which are still apposite today.

Bevin practised what he preached. He led the way in creating a European collective defence organisation in the shape of the Western Union in 1948. With that in his pocket, he went to Washington to persuade the Truman administration and Congress that the best way to protect US national security interests was not to pull back, as they had done after the first world war, but to underwrite European security by establishing Nato.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ssia-china

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 21038
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: NATO

#95

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:09 am

Nato at 70: Europe fears tensions will outlast Trump
As the military alliance celebrates its anniversary, America’s commitment is being questioned

Michael Peel in Brussels and Aime Williams in Washington

When Nato celebrated its 50th anniversary at a 1999 summit in Washington, President Bill Clinton sought to assure America’s allies that the end of the cold war would not reduce its commitment to the region. Citing Theodore Roosevelt, he said there was no doubt that the US would continue to play a “great part in the world . . . The only question is whether we will play it well or ill”.

At the time, European leaders could afford to smile at the reference. But as Nato prepares to celebrate its 70th anniversary in Washington this week, the ambivalence of Mr Clinton’s remark seems charged. The commemoration of the 29-member bloc has turned into a public test of the tensions tearing at the transatlantic relationship since Donald Trump took office.

For some European politicians, the president’s sometimes scathing views of their continent are not a blip, but a reflection of a gradual withering of Washington’s commitment to the alliance.



https://www.ft.com/content/9933782a-546 ... 515a54c5b1

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32544
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: NATO

#96

Post by Addie » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:48 am

Happy Birfday, NATO :lovestruck:

Post Reply

Return to “Military”