• Maalus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    So you basically admit “if at any part a country hasn’t reached the obligated 2% they shouldn’t be defended by nato”?

    • Fizz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      It wouldn’t be a problem if it were a few countries but it’s almost all of them.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not what I asked. You agree with Trump, which means you agree with what I asked you. Any nuanced opinion saying “countries might need to contribute more” aren’t what he said.

        • Fizz@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes I agree that countries that don’t meet the 2% shouldn’t be in nato. People could let it slide if it were a few countries but it’s majority of nato and the countries can clearly afford it.

          Tell me why the us should continue to meet its nato obligations when none of the other members do?

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah, so you are just plain wrong and don’t know what you are talking about.