Armchair_Politician wrote Yesterday at 10:06am:



Invoked, perhaps, but not acted on:

NATO hoped that by invoking Article 5 the United States would invite NATO states to participate in its planned military response against Al Qaeda, though no such invitation ultimately materialized and "NATO did not contribute any of its collective assets to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan".[3][a] American reticence to involve NATO states was due to its perception that NATO's previous intervention in the Kosovo War was an inefficient example of "war by committee".[3] For their part, European states felt U.S. standoffishness in accepting multilateral support was emblematic of American "arrogance".[3]

In response to a request by the United Nations, NATO later raised and deployed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with the objective of stabilizing Afghanistan following the United States invasion of that country.[13] ISAF operated under a NATO flag but was composed primarily of U.S. forces and was at all times under operational command of American officers.[14] It continued operations in Afghanistan until 2014, withdrawing seven years prior to the United States' 2021 retreat and the ensuing Taliban victory.[15][13][14]

The 2001 Article 5 contingency is the only time in NATO's history its collective defense provisions have been invoked.



Yes, there were Danissh, British,  Australian, NZ, French troops in Afghaistan performig honourably and heroically but they were there NOT because America asked them but because the UN did.
It was overwhelmingly an American war and an American cock-up in the end.



So what other use has NATO been?

ProudKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 12:02pm:


"What a giant man baby..." is not a substantive argument that can be engaged with, teapot.

It's your projection. Of your particular psycho drama.

Be seated.

Frank wrote Yesterday at 12:52pm:


He is being a giant man baby.

You might not like hearing it, but that doesn’t make it untrue, and it certainly isn’t my fault for pointing it out.

Just look at the pattern of behaviour.

Flipping off an autoworker and shouting “bugger you” inside a Ford plant.

Threatening tariffs against countries that refuse to support his fantasy of annexing Greenland.

Relentlessly pushing to seize control of Greenland despite firm opposition from Denmark, NATO allies, and Greenland’s own leadership, like a toddler being told “no” and responding with a full-blown tantrum.

Using sweeping tariff threats against allies such as Canada and Mexico to coerce political outcomes unrelated to trade.

Engaging in petty name-calling and personal abuse aimed at protesters and journalists.

Posting and amplifying deliberately provocative AI-generated content to mock opponents rather than engage them.

Publicly sneering at the deaths or misfortunes of critics and public figures.

Brandishing punitive economic measures as a form of emotional blackmail in disputes where they plainly do not belong.

These are not the actions of a calm, disciplined statesman, like Obama or Biden. They are the emotional outbursts of someone who cannot tolerate resistance, who mistakes authority for entitlement, and who responds to frustration by stamping his feet and yelling “I am the President”.

It’s not just childish behaviour, it’s naked weakness.

Quote:


Indeed.

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 1:50pm:


Booby ran away.

Same reaction, every time I ask that question.

Nobody can explain what Trump thinks percentage means.

“You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300 and 1,400, 1,500%,” he told reporters on Sunday, noting the reductions will start over the next two to three months. “I don’t mean 50%. I mean 14- 1,500%.”

Bobby. wrote Yesterday at 3:58pm:


That's obvious, but what do you think he thinks it means?

He has to have some sort of idea in his head as to what the word percentage means.

What is it?

Does he think it's a synonym for dollars?

freediver wrote Yesterday at 4:05pm:



Trump was never very good at arithmetic but he does have economists
on his staff who can work something out to please him.

The point is that Trump is a bully and you have to stand up to bullies no matter what. Denmark needs to tell Trump that if he doesn’t drop his desire for annexing Greenland, US forces will be ejected from Greenland and Denmark until a new administration is sworn in.

freediver wrote Yesterday at 4:05pm:


So, if a drug used to cost $50 it now only costs $4.17

50 divided by 12 = 4.1666

You could be onto something.  It's the one and only explanation I've ever heard.

But how could an 80-year-old man be so wrong about percentages, and why aren't his advisors correcting him?

And what does that mean when it comes to how he applies tariffs?

How the hell can an innumerate person be POTUS?