HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Trump says NATO nations m...

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:28 AM

Trump says NATO nations make major new defense spending commitments after he upends summit

Last edited Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: Washington Post

BRUSSELS — President Trump upended the NATO summit here Thursday by calling an emergency meeting of leaders and threatening that if all member countries do not immediately increase their defense spending commitments, the United States would go it alone, according to diplomats with knowledge of the private discussions.

It was not clear whether Trump was threatening a U.S. withdrawal from NATO, but some diplomats perceived his comments that way.

Trump told NATO leaders that if they did not meet their defense spending targets of 2 percent of gross domestic product by January, the United States would go it alone, according to two officials briefed on the meeting. The officials said Trump threatened to “do his own thing.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/trump-upends-nato-summit-demanding-immediate-spending-increases-or-he-willdo-his-own-thing/2018/07/12/a3818cc6-7f0a-11e8-a63f-7b5d2aba7ac5_story.html?utm_term=.4f7d6fb85aa3



Can Trump really pull us out of NATO on his own or does he need Congressional approval?

25 replies, 1922 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump says NATO nations make major new defense spending commitments after he upends summit (Original post)
Arkansas Granny Thursday OP
George II Thursday #1
Fullduplexxx Thursday #2
Mc Mike Thursday #3
BumRushDaShow Thursday #7
Mc Mike Thursday #8
BumRushDaShow Thursday #12
Mc Mike Thursday #19
BumRushDaShow Thursday #20
Mc Mike Thursday #21
BumRushDaShow Thursday #22
Mc Mike Thursday #24
BumRushDaShow Thursday #25
bucolic_frolic Thursday #4
PatSeg Thursday #16
bucolic_frolic Thursday #17
PatSeg Thursday #23
Maxheader Thursday #5
watoos Thursday #6
keithbvadu2 Thursday #9
Mc Mike Thursday #11
Vinca Thursday #10
YessirAtsaFact Thursday #13
FakeNoose Thursday #14
duforsure Thursday #15
sinkingfeeling Thursday #18

Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:30 AM

1. The idiot probably wants to withdraw and join the Warsaw Pact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:30 AM

2. Breaking up nato is putin's dream so of course trump will do it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:37 AM

3. I wondered the same thing. Don't we have a treaty,

which has the force of law, which twitler swore to uphold? He can't abrogate a treaty unilaterally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:32 AM

7. NATO "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67656.htm

APR 04
1949
NATO pact signed


The United States and 11 other nations establish the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a mutual defense pact aimed at containing possible Soviet aggression against Western Europe. NATO stood as the main U.S.-led military alliance against the Soviet Union throughout the duration of the Cold War.

Relations between the United States and the Soviet Union began to deteriorate rapidly in 1948. There were heated disagreements over the postwar status of Germany, with the Americans insisting on German recovery and eventual rearmament and the Soviets steadfastly opposing such actions. In June 1948, the Soviets blocked all ground travel to the American occupation zone in West Berlin, and only a massive U.S. airlift of food and other necessities sustained the population of the zone until the Soviets relented and lifted the blockade in May 1949. In January 1949, President Harry S. Truman warned in his State of the Union Address that the forces of democracy and communism were locked in a dangerous struggle, and he called for a defensive alliance of nations in the North Atlantic—U.S military in Korea.NATO was the result. In April 1949, representatives from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal joined the United States in signing the NATO agreement. The signatories agreed, “An armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all.” President Truman welcomed the organization as “a shield against aggression.”

Not all Americans embraced NATO. Isolationists such as Senator Robert A. Taft declared that NATO was “not a peace program; it is a war program.” Most, however, saw the organization as a necessary response to the communist threat. The U. S. Senate ratified the treaty by a wide margin in June 1949. During the next few years, Greece, Turkey, and West Germany also joined. The Soviet Union condemned NATO as a warmongering alliance and responded by setting up the Warsaw Pact (a military alliance between the Soviet Union and its Eastern Europe satellites) in 1955.

NATO lasted throughout the course of the Cold War, and continues to play an important role in post-Cold War Europe. In recent years, for example, NATO forces were active in trying to bring an end to the civil war in Bosnia.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nato-pact-signed


Next year will mark 70 years of NATO existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:47 AM

8. Good info, thanks BR.

I remember when li'l bush unsigned the Rome Treaty. He should have been impeached, immediately. Same with McConnell, who said 'we're just not going to do the job we swore we'd do'.

Now their current fuhrer is again violating his sworn oath of office. That foresworn oath is either a felony or a high crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:00 AM

12. And note this -

The Senate's Role in Treaties

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.

<...>

Terminating Treaties

The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.


https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:13 AM

19. So treaties are constitutional law. Enforceable.

McConnell must have a 'Gingrich appointed House Historian Christina Jeffrey' type, writing in the history section of senate . gov.

The constitution doesn't mention how to terminate treaties, because that undercuts the 'our word is our bond' nature of treaties, can't 'question or cast doubt on the full faith and credit of the United States.' Nobody would engage in a treaty with us, if 'how to get out of treaties' was written down like that.

Because obviously treaties' power rests in the idea that our word is our bond, not 'we're agreeing to do this, until we stab you in the back'. Nobody would ever agree to sign a treaty with someone who shows, a second after signing, that their word can't be trusted.

So Senate history page comes up with 3 examples of treaty abrogation: one example, where a 'congress declaring an act of war' type action occurred, all the ceremony debate and resolution announcement stuff, way back when our treaties with France's Monarch and Republic governments were dropped when the French Directorate was in charge, on the way to Napoleon. A bunch of unstable governments, we cut deals with them vs England, and paid for the Louisiana Purchase, didn't go to war.

The other 2 feature Jimmy Carter, that's the repugs in 'senate historian staff' sticking it to us, saying 'stick it in your a**, whatabout Jimmy Carter'. They are interesting, because Nixon recognized China, so he could keep protecting the world from the dangerous spread of Vietnamese Communism. Carter went unopposed in his treaty abrogation with Taiwan. Carter gets to carry the can for nixon repugs.

The other one, Repug Raygun kept beating Carter over the head with the Panama Canal treaty, pushing to abrogate any treaty that gave back the Canal. Even rightwing John Wayne assailed Raygun's demagoguery on this issue, publicly. (He was probably getting paid by Panama lobbying interests, but all he said was 'read the treaty, ronny.') Raygun's repug vp Poppy bush later invaded Panama. But we get to read that Jimmy abrogated the treaty, in accordance with terms set by Congress.

But 'the breaking of 2 treaties during the Jimmy Carter Admin stirred controversy', right, Mitch the bitch?

Good info link and excerpt citation, I do appreciate them, BRDS. They do have good info and ideas in them, and I don't question that you are anything but a good strong Dem, I always like your stuff, we only ever had one minor quibble, re Allegheny county vs Philly population / Dem registration.

But it really is a slanted, weaselly worded historical attempt by the repugs to tell us 'treaties mean nothing'. 'Your side violated treaties. Our word means nothing. The US's word means nothing. These things get broken, sometimes, mostly and most controversially, by the Dems.'

They're saying this while they keep trying to violate every constitutional law enforceable treaty that gets in their way, NATO, UN, Geneva Convention, trade, bilateral western alliance, you name it. So hard to build and enact, so easy to dissolve with the snap of their fingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:38 AM

20. Another treaty to look out for is this

New START (which was the follow-on to SORT, which was the follow-on to START II - all coming as a result of the various SALT agreements going back to the '60s), because of this idiocy a year and a half ago - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5



Thanks for the more detailed info!!!

And.... Heh heh -->


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 11:06 AM

21. I've been watching Philly hang tough, rooting for you. We're trying to help out over here.

It was enchanting to see Vlad's 'Vote dRumpf, or ve wyill Nyuke you' pronouncements, during the '16 campaign.

I love how the Tangelo Taint Tumor smashed up a verifiable anti nuke treaty with Iran, then gave us a non verifiable non treaty with N Korea and declared victory in getting it, right afterward. Projecting their lousy failure N. Korea treaty's failings on the successful Iranian one they destroyed.

I see that shitler didn't even know the START treaty's name, during the debate, though he knew he was against it.

They were photo op posturing with their N Korea treaty making prowess, bragging all over media and the world stage, while abrogating the Iran treaty simultaneously. Like N Korea would watch what we were doing with the Iran anti nuke treaty we'd signed, and then agree to sign an anti nuke treaty with us. The repugs are the reason both countries are able to keep progressing with nukes. Not just currently, they always have been the reason historically, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 11:12 AM

22. It's all just sad.



And for the Phillies, we have a long rest of the season to go but glad to have the support for a fledgling team...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #22)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:19 PM

24. Those high crimes-committing felons have got to go down.

I'm never in the sports section, can't get behind your hometown's teams any more than mine. One of my nephews was in town, seeing some games recently, with Phillies gear on. He's living in Washington state. He's always liked them, but I never followed it enough to find out who won. (Guess it was your side.) Saw him getting ready to go to the game, with the Philly stuff on, thought 'huh. that's right, he likes the other guys.'

The stadium's about 2 miles north of me, but sectarian smacktalk is wasted on me. I'm way out of the loop. I haven't been emotionally invested in any of it since we stomped the Cowboys, way back in the day. I worked in that stadium a few times, very poorly built, though expensive.

I know you enjoy Philly's Dem wins, like me. No harm in you enjoying your teams' sports wins, too. More power to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 12:24 PM

25. 😀

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:42 AM

4. Right wing hatred of the UN has been floated for decades

They threw out their venom as a matter of sovereignty. Then a matter of budget. Then the policies we had to agree with, or face tough choices about. Then reproductive rights. It never stops.

Trump tinkers with NATO for some reason. Someone is pushing him. I doubt it's just Putin, since these ideas have been around awhile, pre-Putin's Russia for instance.

NATO is a Treaty to which the US is part, which we signed in 1949 as a founding member.

Trump is spending more and more on defense, but reducing support for NATO? What's he going to to with all this money spent on defense? More tax cuts for himself, probably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:43 AM

16. And the right wing unreasonable fear

of One World Government. They tend to be hardcore nationalists at heart and the United Nations and NATO are anathema to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 09:46 AM

17. Which jives with

their isolationist nationalism pre-WWII, and add in FDR's major role in founding of the United Nations

There's a lot for them them to hate there, and they love targets for their hatred

They are consistent if you can tease out the shifts in their thinking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 11:35 AM

23. This is true, very consistent

on certain core issues. It is the "me" versus "us" mentality that I've found in so many conservatives over my lifetime. It is like their brains have some built-in blinders that does not allow them to see the big picture. They tend to separate and divide people, while more liberal people are more inclined to be inclusive and expansive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:03 AM

5. They'll gettr done chump

Just about as fast as the americun pharmy nazis decrease the
price of medicine..substantially...

That you bragged about, what? Months ago?

And all the smiles and handshakes with the n.korean leader?
To eliminate the nuke threat? Hows that work for ya cheetoz?

Asked at a news conference whether he could withdraw the United States from NATO without congressional approval, Trump replied, “I think I probably can, but that’s unnecessary.” He added: “The people have stepped up today” as they never have before. “Everyone in the room thanked me. There was a great collegial spirit in that room. . . . Very unified, very strong. No problem.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maxheader (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:26 AM

6. Maybe someone

brought in a glowing orb for our baby president to play with to placate him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:49 AM

9. 'Do his own thing' according to his master's bidding, Putin.

'Do his own thing' according to his master's bidding, Putin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to keithbvadu2 (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:53 AM

11. I thought 'do his own thing' meant 'eat, golf, sexually assault, steal, and bloviate'. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 07:51 AM

10. Macron has already come out and said he's full of shit.

Don will be hate tweeting France the second Air Force One is in the air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:22 AM

13. I think this would require approval from the Senate

It’s a regular treaty.

It’s unlike the Iran deal that required the president to sign a periodic waver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:27 AM

14. He needs to send an invoice to Russia, they're the reason for NATO

Well actually it was the USSR, but you get my meaning. The international threat was always from Soviet Russia, the communist regime that regularly used takeover methods to increase its sphere of influence.

The USA and the western European Allies freely joined in the NATO alliance in order to defend ourselves from the threat of Russia. That threat is still real enough and they should pay us for the cost of defending ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 08:37 AM

15. What our allies really need to do now,

Contact republican leaders in Congress and tell them they either stop trump from continuing his shake down and working with putin to undermine Democracies around the world , or they'll stop being our allies, because trump will demand more from them , then leave them holding the bag if anything happens, and he can't ever be trusted. The more he demands , the more he gets , the longer this will continue, and not help our allies. trumps a taker for putin, and should be dealt with , or he'll continue to destroy our Democracy , but help destroy there's also. trump and putin are terrorists, and corrupt criminals, and our allies need desperately to align themselves and refuse this country, until he's out of office. He lied about most everything he claimed this meeting, and is promoting pure putin propaganda to divide them now, if they let him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 10:06 AM

18. Liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread