Trump & latest NATO threat 😱

I am not a Trump supporter but do just wonder if the Iranian regime manages to make a nuclear bomb and then uses it, should we and other countries have joined in with the US against this vile regime?

But that is de facto a Trump supporter

becuase

it would have made no difference as to what Trump has done, and what he has done, has been so cack handed, unplanned, infantile and appalling, and we/NATO wanted, quite rightly nothing to do with it - look what has happened/1

and

should Iran have started attacking us directly or Nato then clearly we would have to get involved anyway

and

the threat of nuclear power has been with us for years and we were on the way to negotiating a way through it, and every single country in the world knows the consequences of using it, its a total Zero Sum game, there has been no reason as to "why now"

Meandrogrog

I am not a Trump supporter but do just wonder if the Iranian regime manages to make a nuclear bomb and then uses it, should we and other countries have joined in with the US against this vile regime?

NATO has no remit for attack only defence. So it is a group of countries who are signed up to help defend any member who comes under attack from whoever it might be. Defence only.

The USA attacked Iran without recourse to NATO members.

The USA is not under attack.

What infuriated me was seeing an interview with Mark Rutte, Secretary State of NATO, saying after his 'behind closed doors' meeting with Trump, that he understood where he was coming from!!! .

Doesn't Rutte know that NATO members act to defend a fellow member when they're attacked, not to join in an illegal war started by a member of NATO?

He should have explained to Trump in words of no more than two syllables what being a member of NATO means.

As far as I'm concerned Trump and his cronies can take their threats and put them where the sun doesn't shine.

Rutte is, to put it mildly, a prat.

Am pretty sure someone must have whispered in Trump’s shell-like what NATO is actually there for i.e. defence and not offensive military action against a country that poses no threat to NATO members.
I just think he doesn’t give a monkeys and if NATO doesn’t do what he wants it to do NATO either has to bow to his unreasonable demands or he throws it under the bus.

Yes, and we do know that Trump has never ever liked NATO, so he will get at it any way he can.

Whitewavemark2

Meandrogrog

I am not a Trump supporter but do just wonder if the Iranian regime manages to make a nuclear bomb and then uses it, should we and other countries have joined in with the US against this vile regime?

NATO has no remit for attack only defence. So it is a group of countries who are signed up to help defend any member who comes under attack from whoever it might be. Defence only.

The USA attacked Iran without recourse to NATO members.

The USA is not under attack.

I know NATO is for defence purposes only. My point was more that should the Iranian regime drop the N bomb at some point, how would we all feel then about ours and other countries not backing the US.

The question is academic. But supporting Trump does not seem a sensible strategy to me at any stage.

TBH I’m more concerned about America and / or Israel dropping the N bomb than Iran!

I think we might as well accept that Trump will not support any of the current NATO countries if we are attacked (by Russia). So we should say what we’re thinking out loud. Tell him to take his bases off our land, and we’ll form a new alliance … minus Trump’s America.

And I agree WW Rutte is a prat! He’s supine behaviour is making us all look weak. We need to get rid!

Smileless2012

What infuriated me was seeing an interview with Mark Rutte, Secretary State of NATO, saying after his 'behind closed doors' meeting with Trump, that he understood where he was coming from!!! .

Doesn't Rutte know that NATO members act to defend a fellow member when they're attacked, not to join in an illegal war started by a member of NATO?

He should have explained to Trump in words of no more than two syllables what being a member of NATO means.

As far as I'm concerned Trump and his cronies can take their threats and put them where the sun doesn't shine.

I think that Mark Rutte knows more about NATO than you or anyone else on this forum, and also the art of diplomacy.

Also what goes on in meetings behind closed doors is often quite different to what Trump puts out for supporters.

A very good question Meandrog 😉

No I don't think he does TBH Oreo. What does Trump have to be disappointed about? Nothing.

He's criticised NATO countries for not supporting him in an illegal war and that is not what NATO is for and Rutte, as WW has rightly said is a prat.

Whitewavemark2

Rutte is, to put it mildly, a prat.

Because he has a different viewpoint to your own presumably.
Mark Rutte, in his position doesn’t have the luxury to indulge in hatred of the President of the US.

It was Rutte who said that in his interview Oreo, not something put out by Trump for his supporters.

How would we feel if any country was to drop an N bomb Meandrog? It would be the beginning of the end for us all.

Starmer is placating Trump by promising to help in the case of getting the Strait Of Hormuz opened up again with a coalition of partners.
Iran doesn’t own it, however much they claim they do.

Pointing out the purpose of NATO and the rules and regulations for its members is not indulging in a hatred of the POTUS Oreo. It's Rutte's job and if he really understands where Trump's coming from when he moans about not being supported in this illegal war, he's in the wrong one.

We can all air our views but it’s up to Leaders of countries and people like Rutte and NATO countries to actually do what’s necessary.
Angrily insulting Trump wouldn’t get us far.

Hear, hear Smileless.

Double standards Oreo. So when Rutte is placating Trump and not trying to shut down his incorrect criticism of NATO members it's diplomacy, and when Starmer uses diplomacy, he's placating Trump .

The Strait of Hormuz should have been secured first as anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have known.

My comment about Starmer was a positive one, he’s doing the right thing.

Smileless2012

What infuriated me was seeing an interview with Mark Rutte, Secretary State of NATO, saying after his 'behind closed doors' meeting with Trump, that he understood where he was coming from!!! .

Doesn't Rutte know that NATO members act to defend a fellow member when they're attacked, not to join in an illegal war started by a member of NATO?

He should have explained to Trump in words of no more than two syllables what being a member of NATO means.

As far as I'm concerned Trump and his cronies can take their threats and put them where the sun doesn't shine.

I’m so with you! The man clearly has no backbone and felt threatened by the Trump!

What annoys me the most, is despite having it explained so many times, so many different ways, neither Trump nor his allies abs supporters appear to a) Understand what NATO is and its agreed funding strategy and b) the difference between “attack” and “defence”