It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump rattles NATO with 'obsolete' blast

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Donald Trump's accusation that NATO is "obsolete" has led to "astonishment and agitation" within the alliance, Germany's foreign minister has said.

Speaking in Brussels before a meeting of EU foreign ministers, Frank-Walter Steinmeier suggested the alliance was rattled by the remarks by Trump.

In a joint interview with the Times of London and the German publication Bild, Trump signaled that US foreign policy in a range of areas could be turned on its head. He suggested that sanctions imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea could be eased in return for a deal to reduce nuclear weapons, that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had pursued "catastrophic" policies on refugees, and that his son-in-law Jared Kushner could lead a Middle East peace effort.

SOURCE


What's the difference between a real president and a puppet? It looks to me like that may be the difference between Trump and every POTUS since JFK. I don't see why everyone on a conspiracy forum wouldn't rejoice over the fact that the U.S. finally may not have a puppet as a president.

As to Trump's stance on NATO, it does seem pro-Russian to me. Dismantling NATO would be perfect for Russia, wouldn't it? My wild conspiracist side wonders into the thought that Trump could indeed be some type of Russian Manchurian Candidate.

The article linked above proves once again that we'll never know what to expect from Trump. Does anyone else have the feeling that basically anything could happen here?




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Why even have a Cabinet if you're just going to ignore them? Mattis has made it quite clear that Trump is underestimating Russia. And yet he wants us to back out of the one deterrent standing between Russia and the rest of Europe.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

It's all a game. Every president is "special" until he is in the office. Just remember the hype around Obama when he was first elected. President has limited powers and is always given a choice.


+11 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
But they are obsolete.

NATO isn't even fighting the Islamic State.

NATO & UN = USELESS


edit on 1/16/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Mr. Trump is certainly keeping everyone on their toes, and stirring the pot. I give up trying to figure him out at this point. Like most others on all sides, he has already proven me wrong a few times. Interesting days ahead, hopefully filled with change for the better. I sometimes worry the masses may be too far gone.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Why would NATO fight IS? NATO is a defensive alliance. What member nation has IS attacked? Not only that, but how does Article V work when your aggressor isn't actually a nation?



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
NATO might in fact be obsolete.

Maybe Russia needs to join.




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ColdWisdom

What member nation has IS attacked?


Germany, France, Belgium, UK, Turkey ...
All NATO did was weapons delivery.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: baburak
a reply to: Profusion
It's all a game. Every president is "special" until he is in the office. Just remember the hype around Obama when he was first elected. President has limited powers and is always given a choice.

I can see your point. Reagan was special until he got shot. Man ... he was on point after that, wasn't he?

JFK was a big Democrat ... and so is Trump. Shows you how popular conservative ideology is. That said, Trump may want to measure up to JFK ... but I don't think he's cut from the same bolt of cloth.

I am still so happy Barack is gone, and Hillary didn't get elected, that I don't care what the President's name is going to be.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Why would NATO fight IS? NATO is a defensive alliance. What member nation has IS attacked? Not only that, but how does Article V work when your aggressor isn't actually a nation?


Why ISIS Attacks Turkey




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: baburak
a reply to: Profusion

It's all a game. Every president is "special" until he is in the office. Just remember the hype around Obama when he was first elected. President has limited powers and is always given a choice.


Boom. This.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: baburak
a reply to: Profusion
It's all a game. Every president is "special" until he is in the office. Just remember the hype around Obama when he was first elected. President has limited powers and is always given a choice.

I can see your point. Reagan was special until he got shot. Man ... he was on point after that, wasn't he?

JFK was a big Democrat ... and so is Trump. Shows you how popular conservative ideology is. That said, Trump may want to measure up to JFK ... but I don't think he's cut from the same bolt of cloth.


No, I mean like almost every president that got elected for the first time until now. But when they got in the office, they were just the same as every other. Whas was different was their appearence and speaches. It doesn't make any difference if the POTUS chooses A road or B road if they both meet on C road.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I think Trump is different but he will still lead us into conflict. Trump's emboldening of Putin an Russia will only lead to armed conflict in the M.E. and his angst with China will lead to soured relations and possible conflicts with them. Plus his crude, bold insults toward the UN will only create enemies on the world stage and isolate the US. Trump is intent but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: baburak

If any one of those nations wanted to call for Article V they were more than welcome to. After the precedence set after 9/11 I'm sure most member states would have honored the call. But none of them did claim Article V. So NATO has no reason to get involved.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: baburak
It doesn't make any difference if the POTUS chooses A road or B road if they both meet on C road.

It might make a little difference. One guy drives down Road A and picks up a certain group of hitchhikers. The hitchhikers on Road B aren't getting the same ride. The road 0bama was on was the road outta Islam. LOL And, I think the road Hillary was on was the Road to War with Mother Russia.

I don't think we're going to either one of those places with Trump ... but, yeah ... Road C prolly leads to Hell.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Illumimasontruth

You cannot figure out a sociopath. You just leave them be and let them self-destruct.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Agree

With Hillary it would be war with Russia, with Trump war with China. But cold war, not the nukes one.
But Russia and USA will remain "enemies" because both countries have a lot to gain from it: both are biggest arms dealers with strong lobbies - Russia to Asia and US to Europe. IS will remain Europes problem until IS starts breaking apart from the inside.

The main concern should be who will become president after Putin and what does he know about the game US and Russia are playing. Lets just hope it won't be some psycho like McCain who wants to bomb the whole world. And another reason for concern is Turkey that has conflicts all around its borders, psycho for president and wish for Great Turkey (after they got rejected million times by EU).
edit on 16-1-2017 by baburak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Reading Trump's statements in context is more understandable than the narrative being pushed here from both sides. They are rattled by propaganda, not with what Trump said.

Can you understand why eastern Europeans fear Putin and Russia?

Sure. Oh sure, I know that. I mean, I understand what’s going on, I said a long time ago — that Nato had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was, you know, designed many, many years ago. Number two — the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right — and now — it was on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, they have a whole division devoted now to terror, which is good.
And the other thing is the countries aren’t paying their fair share so we’re supposed to protect countries but a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. With that being said, Nato is very important to me.
edit on 16-1-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
On the surface Trump’s ideas are good. NATO is obsolete, if the cold war against the great “communist” giant Russia suppose to be over, and if Trump really believes this and tries to lessen the possibility of a nuclear war through WMD reductions, how could anyone be against that.

We'll just have to wait and see what he really does once he gets in office.



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
But they are obsolete.

NATO isn't even fighting the Islamic State.

NATO & UN = USELESS


True , so true...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join