• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tillerson Delivers NATO Allies a Familiar Message: Pay Up

Cigar

Cigar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
5,368
Reaction score
2,117
Location
In The Crosshairs
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson joined on Friday a growing list of Trump administration officials to visit the hub of North Atlantic solidarity and scold the United States’ European allies for failing to spend enough on their collective defense.

“Allies must increase defense spending to meet their commitments,” Mr. Tillerson said, again and again, in a speech to NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.

Like Vice President Mike Pence and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis before him, Mr. Tillerson insisted that all 28 members of the alliance spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their military, a level only a handful of members meet.

Along with the familiar rebukes, Mr. Tillerson also sought to reassure Europe that the United States — despite comments from President Trump referring to NATO as “obsolete” — remains committed to an alliance that has kept the peace on most of the Continent for nearly 70 years.


Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/world/europe/rex-tillerson-nato.html


Oddly enough, this is one area I agree with Trump on, except my approach and method would have been delivered in person, not sending via a messenger.
 
Cigar said:
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson joined on Friday a growing list of Trump administration officials to visit the hub of North Atlantic solidarity and scold the United States’ European allies for failing to spend enough on their collective defense.

“Allies must increase defense spending to meet their commitments,” Mr. Tillerson said, again and again, in a speech to NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.

Like Vice President Mike Pence and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis before him, Mr. Tillerson insisted that all 28 members of the alliance spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their military, a level only a handful of members meet.

Along with the familiar rebukes, Mr. Tillerson also sought to reassure Europe that the United States — despite comments from President Trump referring to NATO as “obsolete” — remains committed to an alliance that has kept the peace on most of the Continent for nearly 70 years.


Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/world/europe/rex-tillerson-nato.html


Oddly enough, this is one area I agree with Trump on
Click to expand...

Same here.

except my approach and method would have been delivered in person, not sending via a messenger.
Click to expand...

As Secretary Of State it's Tillerson's job to deal with NATO on Trump's behalf.
 
Last edited:
azgreg said:
Same here.



As Secretary Of State it's Tillerson's job to deal with the UN on Trump's behalf.
Click to expand...

Remember, these people came to the US defense when we're where attacked.
 
It is my understanding that Tillerson intends to skip a NATO meeting later this year and meet with the Kremlin. If this turns out to be true, then I seriously wonder whose side he's on.
 
Phys251 said:
It is my understanding that Tillerson intends to skip a NATO meeting later this year and meet with the Kremlin. If this turns out to be true, then I seriously wonder whose side he's on.
Click to expand...

I heard the meeting was rescheduled.
 
Cigar said:
I'd bet they'd think twice if it happened again ... I know I would.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand what that had anything to do with what I said.
 
Phys251 said:
It is my understanding that Tillerson intends to skip a NATO meeting later this year and meet with the Kremlin. If this turns out to be true, then I seriously wonder whose side he's on.
Click to expand...

The NATO meeting. With that being said, I get the impression that Tillerson really doesn't want this job.
 
Phys251 said:
It is my understanding that Tillerson intends to skip a NATO meeting later this year and meet with the Kremlin. If this turns out to be true, then I seriously wonder whose side he's on.
Click to expand...

Pffffft. Like the truth of it would impact your opinion one bit. :doh
 
Cigar said:
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson joined on Friday a growing list of Trump administration officials to visit the hub of North Atlantic solidarity and scold the United States’ European allies for failing to spend enough on their collective defense.

“Allies must increase defense spending to meet their commitments,” Mr. Tillerson said, again and again, in a speech to NATO foreign ministers in Brussels.

Like Vice President Mike Pence and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis before him, Mr. Tillerson insisted that all 28 members of the alliance spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their military, a level only a handful of members meet.

Along with the familiar rebukes, Mr. Tillerson also sought to reassure Europe that the United States — despite comments from President Trump referring to NATO as “obsolete” — remains committed to an alliance that has kept the peace on most of the Continent for nearly 70 years.


Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/world/europe/rex-tillerson-nato.html


Oddly enough, this is one area I agree with Trump on, except my approach and method would have been delivered in person, not sending via a messenger.
Click to expand...

Yes. On this point he is unquestionably right. A number of economic competitors have been spending massive amounts less and gains large comparative advantages against the USA, while covered by the security net paid for by the US. Some of these countries actually increased the costs of international security for the USA.
 
azgreg said:
The NATO meeting. With that being said, I get the impression that Tillerson really doesn't want this job.
Click to expand...

Well you're right, President Obama would have handled differently, because his ego doesn't need stroking everyday, like Donny.
 
Phys251 said:
It is my understanding that Tillerson intends to skip a NATO meeting later this year and meet with the Kremlin. If this turns out to be true, then I seriously wonder whose side he's on.
Click to expand...

I think the administration wants the EU to fulfill its commitments. It is easier to push this way than the way Obama did. Alternatively the US could take a security tax on consumer goods imported from companies domiciled in countries that do not pay their obligations.
 
Cigar said:
Well you're right, President Obama would have handled differently, because his ego doesn't need stroking everyday, like Donny.
Click to expand...

Yep. Obama handled it by doing nothing.
 
joG said:
Yep. Obama handled it by doing nothing.
Click to expand...

Let's see who pays up ... or pays more.

You can bet your ass if Donny threatened me I'd tell him to go F-himself.
 
joG said:
Yes. On this point he is unquestionably right. A number of economic competitors have been spending massive amounts less and gains large comparative advantages against the USA, while covered by the security net paid for by the US. Some of these countries actually increased the costs of international security for the USA.
Click to expand...

Well USofA defense contractors make good money off of some of the money the NATO countries spend. Weapon systems, training and their maintenance all funnel into defense contractor pockets. We prefer to have as many nations buy and use our equipment than say Russian stuff.

I'd opine the real reason we are now demanding a higher buy in is we have spent ourselves stupid on ignorant over seas adventures. Now our government wants to increase military spending and no doubt wants the NATO nations to increase spending on USofA equipment. Perhaps the Nato nations could spend that money on domestic R&D and keep that money at home...

NATO countries hasn't increased our need to spend, we have by using Europe as a staging area for over seas debacles. fact is we want the NATO countries to depend on us rather than cozy up to Russia, we are protecting our MARKET SHARE. WE increase the need to secure NATO by pushing it up to the borders of Russia. how would we respond if Mexico invited Russia to re-equip the army and base troops, planes, and ships there?

The USofA has repeatedly wanted NATO to spend more, Trump being a tweet bully, calling NATO obsolete is ignorant... :peace
 
joG said:
I think the administration wants the EU to fulfill its commitments. It is easier to push this way than the way Obama did. Alternatively the US could take a security tax on consumer goods imported from companies domiciled in countries that do not pay their obligations.
Click to expand...

The way Donald is going at it is not the right way to do so. There are ways to negotiate a transfer of some military strength from us to our allies in a way that benefits everyone. And shouldn't someone who's supposedly a good negotiator be good at that?

Instead, what he's doing emboldens our enemies and our competitors, such as Russia. Which makes me wonder whether this is a coincidence.
 
Cigar said:
Let's see who pays up ... or pays more.

You can bet your ass if Donny threatened me I'd tell him to go F-himself.
Click to expand...

If you can take the consequences and don't mind doing worse for it....
 
notquiteright said:
Well USofA defense contractors make good money off of some of the money the NATO countries spend. Weapon systems, training and their maintenance all funnel into defense contractor pockets. We prefer to have as many nations buy and use our equipment than say Russian stuff.

I'd opine the real reason we are now demanding a higher buy in is we have spent ourselves stupid on ignorant over seas adventures. Now our government wants to increase military spending and no doubt wants the NATO nations to increase spending on USofA equipment. Perhaps the Nato nations could spend that money on domestic R&D and keep that money at home...

NATO countries hasn't increased our need to spend, we have by using Europe as a staging area for over seas debacles. fact is we want the NATO countries to depend on us rather than cozy up to Russia, we are protecting our MARKET SHARE. WE increase the need to secure NATO by pushing it up to the borders of Russia. how would we respond if Mexico invited Russia to re-equip the army and base troops, planes, and ships there?

The USofA has repeatedly wanted NATO to spend more, Trump being a tweet bully, calling NATO obsolete is ignorant... :peace
Click to expand...

It has certainly been expensive maintaining security. Now that relative wealth has shifted as much as it has, the US will not be able to supply that public good alone any more. It's really pure economic maths.
 
Phys251 said:
The way Donald is going at it is not the right way to do so. There are ways to negotiate a transfer of some military strength from us to our allies in a way that benefits everyone. And shouldn't someone who's supposedly a good negotiator be good at that?

Some politicians are trying to argue for cost for non military development be included. But that is not so good either and only focuses the light on the fact that they had long ago committed to spend 0.8 percent and have not been honoring that pledge either.

Instead, what he's doing emboldens our enemies and our competitors, such as Russia. Which makes me wonder whether this is a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Right or wrong, he has already seeing more agreement that at least the Germans must act. There is resistance and the socialists are trying to use it as a campagne battle cry. But my take is that many more people are actually realizing that they have been free riding.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom