Trump Is Dangerously Incompetent on National Security

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1: That's not getting out of NATO.
#2: He's correct about making them pay their "fair share"!

You all whine about the U.S. not being the policemen of the world, then you whine when a candidate says ... pay or don't expect help!!!

Which is it?

Now you call him "dangerous" ....

..... we do most of the heavy lifting around the World anyway, with the French doing it in Africa. Who do you think pays for all that shit?

It's not just about money! We want to create a bond of mutual respect with these countries. This alliance has been a long time in the making and we don't want to destroy it. One mistake by this crazy man could set off a nuclear war. Just the fact that Trump makes everything about money is wrong. He's already said he is not hesitant to use nuclear weapons and he's emphatically stated he's not going to discourage other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons. This is not a man who who is setting a stage for world peace. He is setting a stage for World War III!! And possibly the destruction of mankind.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SassySue

It's not just about money! We want to create a bond of mutual respect with these countries. This alliance has been a long time in the making and we don't want to destroy it. One mistake by this crazy man could set off a nuclear war. Just the fact that Trump makes everything about money is wrong. He's already said he is not hesitant to use nuclear weapons and he's emphatically stated he's not going to discourage other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons. This is not a man who who is setting a stage for world peace. He is setting a stage for World War III!! And possibly the destruction of mankind.

So, Silly Suzy Simpleton, you'd be one of those dim-retard hypocrites who let Odumbo skate when he didn't support Mubarak in Egypt or the state of Israel, but expect Trump to honor treaties and responsibilities that Odumbo would commonly ignore.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by SassySue

His promise to abandon NATO allies is a huge gift to Russia and China.


If Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping read the New York Times on Thursday morning, they must be hoping and praying for the election of Donald Trump. And if serious Republicans read the same paper, they must be sickened with fear—if they weren’t nauseated already—that their party’s presidential nominee is a threat to national security.


Full article:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ussia_and.html

He is a threat to the NATO members who like a cushy deal....

[CuteOldGuy]

NATO is outdated and needs to be renegotiated. It addresses Cold War concerns. The threat has changed, so the terms of our alliances need to change. I'm glad someone has the balls to say so.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So, Silly Suzy Simpleton, you'd be one of those dim-retard hypocrites who let Odumbo skate when he didn't support Mubarak in Egypt or the state of Israel, but expect Trump to honor treaties and responsibilities that Odumbo would commonly ignore.

Where is this "mutual defense treaty" signed by the U.S. and Mubarak? And where is the similar treaty signed by the U.S. and Israel? Mubarak was overthrown by his own people with the assistance of his own military, not by an invading foreign power. So what's your argument really, spilling American blood to prop up corrupt dictators everywhere so long as they appear to be our "allies"?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

NATO is outdated and needs to be renegotiated. It addresses Cold War concerns. The threat has changed, so the terms of our alliances need to change. I'm glad someone has the balls to say so.

Actually that's not what he's saying.

Actually, he's doing his best to rekindle Cold War concerns.

Your choice for president, Whiny.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Where is this "mutual defense treaty" signed by the U.S. and Mubarak? And where is the similar treaty signed by the U.S. and Israel? Mubarak was overthrown by his own people with the assistance of his own military, not by an invading foreign power. So what's your argument really, spilling American blood to prop up corrupt dictators everywhere so long as they appear to be our "allies"?

The Muslim Brotherhood is a transnational group, not purely Egyptian, Andy the Little Nazi Boy. And there's some evidence -- via Wikileaks -- Odumbo aided and abetted the rebels against Mubarak, Andy the Little Nazi Boy; hence, being completely disloyal to a regional ally. Furthermore, Andy the Little Nazi Boy, maybe you can cite a treaty that tied the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. as allies during WW II to support your notion that a treaty must exist before there can be an alliance.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually that's not what he's saying.

Actually, he's doing his best to rekindle Cold War concerns.

Your choice for president, Whiny.

Keep Hillary out

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Where is this "mutual defense treaty" signed by the U.S. and Mubarak? And where is the similar treaty signed by the U.S. and Israel? Mubarak was overthrown by his own people with the assistance of his own military, not by an invading foreign power. So what's your argument really, spilling American blood to prop up corrupt dictators everywhere so long as they appear to be our "allies"?

Mubarak was acquitted and released and Morsi of the Brotherhood of Evil is in jail (I think he is supposed to get executed).

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

NATO is outdated and needs to be renegotiated. It addresses Cold War concerns. The threat has changed, so the terms of our alliances need to change. I'm glad someone has the balls to say so.

There are countries from the Axis days who Post WWII were REQUIRED by the ALLIES (U.S.) to write into their new Constitutions that they are prohibited from "projecting" military power outside of their borders. (For instance I think Germany is one.) Until the U.S. (the signatories) agree and those countries revise their Constitutions they are prohibited from contributing militarily to events beyond their borders.

But that does not mean they should not contribute monetarily in exchange for the "mutual" protection of each other in the event they are attacked within their borders or their borders are threatened by a non-NATO country.

That is Trump's beef ... and he is not alone at all.

Listen to Kaine's propaganda about his son. He is being "deployed" to Europe "to defend a NATO country against aggression" .... really?

The Obaminable Administration and his "heir apparent" (with Kaine by her side) should not be wrapping themselves in the military uniforms they have lied about and ignored for going on 15 years ... the Clinton and Obaminable administrations ... soon to be 16 years!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Keep Hillary and Trump out

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Obaminable Administration and his "heir apparent" (with Kaine by her side) should not be wrapping themselves in the military uniforms they have lied about and ignored for going on 15 years ... the Clinton and Obaminable administrations ... soon to be 16 years!

GW Bush gets a pass?

[JD Barleycorn]

Trump is not the one who put tens of thousands of sensitive emails on a non secure server.