Donald Trump's NATO comments are the scariest thing he's said

They are scary. They show he doesn't have the most basic idea of how treaties work, how alliances work, and why they important and mutually beneficial.

He isn't prepared in any possible way.

I don't know if it's more scary than he'll be putting our defense forces in the position of disobeying orders because he plans on making war crimes part of his foreign policy.

 

On the face of it, Trump's comments are extremely alarming. I wonder though...

In one of the articles you linked (The Bloomberg one) I copy/pasted the following:

Even Obama has shared his frustration that we are shouldering the vast majority of the economic and military burden for NATO and have for decades. I think Trumps comments were meant to put the members on notice: The free ride is over.

Whether you believe Trump is serious in his statements or not, those "non paying NATO members" have taken money out of our wallets, watched while our American men and women fought and died in the middle east to protect their economies while not living up to THEIR OWN obligations to NATO.

Having said that, using NATO Article 5 commitment as the opening salvo in an obviously vital negotiation is massively destabilizing. I think he better reign back those comments simply to comfort everyone the USA will be there when the chips are down.

Bottom line...this is Trump using "The Art of the Deal" on a GeoPolitical stage. Is he out of his depth? The american voters better get educated quick and make a decision. Political poker with global security stakes is pretty damn serious.

 

I don't think there is any mechanism that allows the Executive to invalidate treaties unilaterally. Just more inflamatory BS to fire up the brainless.

Though in looking it's actually and unresolved issue:

Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

 

This is a good example of why running a government like a business is a bad idea. Using the press to threaten financial conditions on upholding a security framework that the US has championed for decades is crazy dangerous. The strength of NATO deters war. If you have issues with financial commitments, you do them in private with NATO members, not in a sit down with the New York Times.

 

Agreed 100 %.

 

I think putting the transcript of the salient portion of the actual interview is important.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html

 

No, as Ottomaton put in another thread, you want Putin to know EXACTLY what you would do. That's what keeps war from starting. Confusion about that encourages reckless, point-of-no-return acts. "Well, maybe America won't care..."

 

You mean like a Red Line in Syria?

Sorry...I actually agree with you (for the most part) but I couldn't resist.

 

No problem and great point! We are still agreeing.

 

The guy simply is not fit for this office.

 

Just another stupid comment in a long history of stupid comments. How anyone could legitimate support Trump is beyond my comprehension. I don't care what your political ideology, Trump is unacceptable.

 

Can we all agree that Trump is an idiot?

DD

 

I'm scratching my head. Aren't these the same people whose laundry list of policy decisions of the last x number decades have gotten us into the current state of affairs? Why should anyone care what they think? They're responsible for this current mess and subsequently the rise of Trump!

FYI - An excellent summary as to how we've gotten into this mess:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/no-donald-its-not-a-world-war/

 

Putin's candidate.

 

Mess? Compared to World War II, or God forbid, III?

In terms of human history, we are at an apex of unprecedented peace. Yes, what conflicts there are get broadcast 24/7 to our living rooms and computers.

But if you think world war would be preferable to "this current mess," I guess that simplifies our dialogue... a lot.

 

He's not fit for any political office in the United States, let alone the freakin' presidency.

 

I actually don't have any issues with what he said. Since when do allies get a free ride and solidarity a one-way street. Sure I think NATO is important and serves a purpose but why aren't those other members being attacked for not treating NATO serious enough to pay their share? So we have to hold up our end of the agreement to defend others but other NATO members don't hold up their end of the agreement to pay? That doesn't sound like an alliance to me.

 

Also is Germany and Japan not advanced enough now not to want to start another world war? Why are some people acting like those countries will start dropping bombs?