OK? how did this statement change anything I posted?

I guess you didn’t know this, the idea is strength in numbers. If you can’t provide for personal and collective defense, gtfo.

Doesn't strength in numbers contradict your idea of kicking out the weak?

When I hear phrases like strength in numbers, I think of elephants. When a herd of elephants watches lions circle their community, the strong ones stand around their young to protect them.

That's analogous to "strong" countries subsidizing ones who can't provide for themselves, because having an allied presence is helpful.

Sure, but if they’re not pulling their weight then they’re a detriment. Have you served next to a foreign NATO soldier? I have. I wasn’t impressed. Step up your spending or gtfo.

It’s not that they can’t protect themselves, it’s that they would rather spend the money on their own social programs.

Your wording, both the use of "paying their fair share" and "get them to spend more on NATO"-part made it sounds like countries actually pay money into NATO. Trump also makes it sound like that, and he certainly gave the impression that if other NATO countries started "paying more" (aka spending more) that would mean more money for the US. The fact is that as long as the USA wants to be able to win two world wars at once, they still need their astronomic millitary budget, and what tiny European countries spend makes no difference. My comment was not about "changing your post", it was to make sure nobody else is confused about this after reading your post.

When that is said, its good that most NATO countries are hitting and exceeding 2%. It's clear that Europe can not rely on USA to be the "world police", we need to be be able to defend ourself.

Also, friendly reminder that article 5 has been used exactly once, and that was to defend USA. Soldiers of my country has died defending USA.

you either want the US to protect you, or not. we are the absolute military power on the planet by a long shot. you want to be a part of it or not?

> In practice this benefits USA as a major weapon producer, at least it has until now.

This feels like a club you pay 2% for protection…

so stop, protect yourself. how far do you think you’ll get?

Considering that the biggest threat to independence is probably the USA themselves… I'm guessing not very far. You'll probably be okay if you cater to businesses and foreign investments, but if you stray too far from the USA's preferred economic model you may suddenly find yourself subject to astroturfed protests, coup attempts, or even straight up military intervention.

Chile's attempt at lukewarm socialism didn't fail from internal causes. Cuba didn't brought embargo on themselves. To name but two. Considering the USA has been at war for almost the entirety of it's history, there must be a couple more.

"Club" was a tame euphemism I only took from the comment I was replying to. I think "Mafia" would be more appropriate.

I disagree with the guy you are responding to as well. But I don’t think he’s saying that Trump wants people to pay the 2% like it is a subscription fee. I think he’s just saying that Trump is using the possibility of leaving as a threat in the hopes that countries will meet their 2% obligation.

As to what Trump actually is saying, I have no idea, he’s hard to parse.

he’s really not that hard to parse, you just have to stop jumping to conclusions.

pay up or gtfo.