Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent alarm rippling through Eastern Europe after he said the U.S. would only defend NATO states attacked by Russia if those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us,” his strongest comments to date on the military alliance’s future if he enters the White House.

In an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday, the billionaire cast doubt on whether he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the assurance that they have U.S. military support in the event of an attack. He specifically referred to the three small Baltic states which share borders with Russia.

Trump’s remarks are “both dangerous and irresponsible,” Ojars Kalnins, who chairs the foreign affairs committee in Latvia’s parliament, said in an interview with Latvian radio Thursday. “This won’t be good for NATO unity or the security situation. In principle, he is saying the U.S. will not fulfil its promises or obligations.”

The candidate’s readiness to reject a decades-long commitment to defend allies deepens his criticism of NATO after he called it “obsolete” in April while campaigning for the nomination. Trump’s comments come less than two weeks after the NATO summit in Warsaw agreed to enhance deployment of forces in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia as a deterrent following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

ASUG8 wrote:

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent alarm rippling through Eastern Europe after he said the U.S. would only defend NATO states attacked by Russia if those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us,” his strongest comments to date on the military alliance’s future if he enters the White House.

In an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday, the billionaire cast doubt on whether he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the assurance that they have U.S. military support in the event of an attack. He specifically referred to the three small Baltic states which share borders with Russia.

Trump’s remarks are “both dangerous and irresponsible,” Ojars Kalnins, who chairs the foreign affairs committee in Latvia’s parliament, said in an interview with Latvian radio Thursday. “This won’t be good for NATO unity or the security situation. In principle, he is saying the U.S. will not fulfil its promises or obligations.”

The candidate’s readiness to reject a decades-long commitment to defend allies deepens his criticism of NATO after he called it “obsolete” in April while campaigning for the nomination. Trump’s comments come less than two weeks after the NATO summit in Warsaw agreed to enhance deployment of forces in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia as a deterrent following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... k-iqvw8gki

Ivytalk wrote:A treaty is a treaty*, and the U.S. should either live up to its obligations or try to renegotiate it. But, then, international relations was never Trump's strong suit. Come to think of it, Trump doesn't have a strong suit.

*except for the "Iran deal"

SDHornet wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:A treaty is a treaty*, and the U.S. should either live up to its obligations or try to renegotiate it. But, then, international relations was never Trump's strong suit. Come to think of it, Trump doesn't have a strong suit.

*except for the "Iran deal"

Normally I agree, but in this case doesn't NATO "recommend" that countries spend X% (heard it was something like 3%) of GDP on defense? Also heard very few actually pony up 2%, and they reluctantly do so. In those such cases, we should give them fair warning that we won't pick up their slack.

Ibanez wrote:Meanwhile...if Clinton were to be interviewed we might have some idea of what she'd say.


But she avoids the press.

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Not surprised that many on here that say that Putin runs circles around Obama, etc. are on here defending Trump on this position. This is Putin's wet dream.

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

Estonia is where the biggest threat from Russia is.

Estonia contributes 2.1%. Estonia sends troops to Afghanistan.

They meet their obligations.

ASUG8 wrote:

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

If we throw out Geneva Convention we can kick ISIS' ass within a month.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Not surprised that many on here that say that Putin runs circles around Obama, etc. are on here defending Trump on this position. This is Putin's wet dream.

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

Estonia is where the biggest threat from Russia is.

Estonia contributes 2.1%. Estonia sends troops to Afghanistan.

They meet their obligations.

andy7171 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Not surprised that many on here that say that Putin runs circles around Obama, etc. are on here defending Trump on this position. This is Putin's wet dream.





Estonia is where the biggest threat from Russia is.

Estonia contributes 2.1%. Estonia sends troops to Afghanistan.

They meet their obligations.

Then, defend the fuck out of them. What's the problem?

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Not surprised that many on here that say that Putin runs circles around Obama, etc. are on here defending Trump on this position. This is Putin's wet dream.





Estonia is where the biggest threat from Russia is.

Estonia contributes 2.1%. Estonia sends troops to Afghanistan.

They meet their obligations.

Obama is a pussy, he looks like one, is built like one and acts like one.

Never has a so called "leader" looked less like a man and just a weak bitch so often.

Its nature so stop the nurture.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Then, defend the fuck out of them. What's the problem?

And, the moment that drops to 1.99%?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Then, defend the fuck out of them. What's the problem?

And, the moment that drops to 1.99%?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Not surprised that many on here that say that Putin runs circles around Obama, etc. are on here defending Trump on this position. This is Putin's wet dream.

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

Estonia is where the biggest threat from Russia is.

Estonia contributes 2.1%. Estonia sends troops to Afghanistan.

They meet their obligations.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Not surprised that many on here that say that Putin runs circles around Obama, etc. are on here defending Trump on this position. This is Putin's wet dream.

andy7171 wrote:If they don't hold up their end of the treaty, why should we?

The time for us to end being the world police is over.

Estonia is where the biggest threat from Russia is.

Estonia contributes 2.1%. Estonia sends troops to Afghanistan.

They meet their obligations.

CID1990 wrote:But by all means let's hyperexamine the latest shiny object from Trump