609

Trump Is Losing It: It is unclear whether Donald Trump has forgotten the precise nature of NATO or whether he ever fully grasped it in the first place. (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What is clear, however, is that Trump — who ostensibly spent four years as president of the United States — has little clue about what NATO is or what NATO does. And when he spoke on the subject at a rally in South Carolina over the weekend, what he said was less a cogent discussion of foreign policy than it was gibberish — the kind of outrageous nonsense that flows without interruption from an empty and unreflective mind.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said, recalling an implausible conversation with an unnamed, presumably European head of state. “‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted responding. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”

The former president’s message was clear: If NATO members do not pay up, then he will leave them to the mercy of a continental aggressor who has already plunged one European country into death, destruction and devastation.

Except NATO isn’t a mafia protection racket. NATO, in case anyone needs to be reminded, is a mutual defense organization, formed by treaty in 1949 as tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union hardened into conflict. “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” states Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My implication is that if we really wanted to get Bin Laden / Al-Qaeda, the more sensible targets were Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Which of course we didn't go after. We had a goal of spilling some Arab blood, but wanted a target that would be a cooperative punching bag.

And even then, we still fucking failed. Al-Qaeda still exists. Or it was consumed by/transformed into/always secretly was just a branch of Daesh who are still going strong. Or maybe they weren't really a coherent organization in the first place and were always more grassroots/franchised. Not to mention the Taliban are right back in power and doing their same shit. We accomplished nothing more than running the best possible recruitment campaign for the next generation of west-hating religious extremist warriors.

[-] cooljacob204@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

I wouldn't call it completely pointless. But I also wouldn't call it a success. Taliban are in power but they don't have interest in terrorizing the west (for now at least...) which at least is some sort of win. Other organizations with aspiration to attack the west were severely degraded in the war like al qaeda.

this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024

609 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19246 readers

2782 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News