NATO commander agrees with Trump - members should pay up.....

[WAC]

Amid the controversy over Donald Trump's demand that NATO nations meet their financial obligations before they expect the United States to defend them, NATO's top commander says he agrees it's important for alliance members to pay their bills.

What I tell them typically is that look, we have a people and a Congress with a tough budget as well," Scaparrotti said Thursday night. "So as a leader of another country you have to put your share into this, you have to do that because when I go back to testify to Congress I get asked these questions."

Pressuring NATO members to meet their commitments is a position Trump has not backed off of, despite criticism from Democrats.....

Link to article
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nato-commander-agrees-members-should-pay-up/article/2598183?custom_click=rss

[WAC]

Scaparrotti, NATO's supreme commander, says as of now:

.... only five of the 28 NATO nations are meeting their pledge to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense.

.....They also are supposed to spend 20 percent of that on major weapons systems and equipment.

.....Only three countries have met that goal:
U.S.
United Kingdom
 Poland

( Two more, Greece and Estonia, spend 2 percent on defense, but not 20 percent on major systems.)

[truth_seeker]

How is it unreasonable for Trump to call attention to this?

The nations certainly do not miss the spending threshold, for lack of prosperity since many of "standards of living" at or near the USA.

[Oceander]

How is it unreasonable for Trump to call attention to this?

The nations certainly do not miss the spending threshold, for lack of prosperity since many of "standards of living" at or near the USA.

It's not ok for Trump to threaten to not defend the other NATO members unless they pay up what Trump thinks they should pay.  If you cannot see the difference, then you're truly drunk on the alcohol of Trump.

[sinkspur]

So how come this hotshot's not collecting? 

[NavyCanDo]

You need to look at everything the commander said then compare it with what Trump said

The commander
"It's very important," he said of the need for members to provide adequate funding for the alliance. "Without it we're not going to outpace Russia's modernization. We've got to have that in order to provide a credible force."
 
But Scaparrotti stopped short of saying the commitment to defend any NATO nation should be used as leverage to induce payments.
 
He called says the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the NATO charter, which specifies an attack on one member is an attack on all, must be "ironclad" and that member countries should not be in doubt about that.


Now Trump Wonder how the commander would fill about Trump calling NATO obsolete.

“It was really designed for the Soviet Union, which doesn’t exist anymore,”  “It wasn’t designed for terrorism.”

Later, at an event in Wausau, Wis., Mr. Trump seemed to acknowledge the controversy his initial remarks about NATO had prompted.

“I said here’s the problem with NATO: it’s obsolete,” Mr. Trump said

Either they have to pay up for past deficiencies or they have to get out.”

“And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO,” he concluded.

[HonestJohn]

It's not ok for Trump to threaten to not defend the other NATO members unless they pay up what Trump thinks they should pay.  If you cannot see the difference, then you're truly drunk on the alcohol of Trump.

This.

There is a difference.

A difference that Trump neither understands nor cares about.