4 ms·

Leaving NATO is not "isolationism". And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that the

Leaving NATO is not "isolationism". And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". NATO countries made a deal, part of that deal was 2% of GDP to defense, there are NATO countries that over and over have refused to keep their part of the deal, they promised to do something and year after year after year, broke their promise. Saying, "OK, we have had enough, deal is off" is not "isolationism", it's a common sense bargaining technique. And "a strong affinity toward foreign autocrats", if it were true, would also not be "isolationism", it would be the opposite of isolationism. An isolationist country does not have a strong affinity for foreign leaders of any type. I'm not quite an isolationist, but I lean that way. I wish Trump was an isolationist. I wish there was any major politician that was. Sadly, no.

chipdart 2y ago
> And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". I agree, it's more than isolationism: it's sheer stupidity and the Hallmark of a compromised government official.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  I disagree that it is stupid to require entities you make a deal with to uphold their side of the deal. It is stupid not to do that.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Not if you’re worse off for it.
  - chipdart 2y ago
    I'm not going to engage with you because you are clearly being disingenuous. The "deal" that NATO represents is not spending, and GDP targets are at best a line in the sand of a proxy variable regarding readiness. It's unbelievably stupid to claim that members of an alliance are protecting their interests by rejecting mutual defense agreements due to flutuations in the order of fractions of a percent in a metric that is by its very nature completely arbitrary.

chipdart 2y ago

> And cutting ties with countries in NATO that repeatedly refuse to make the financial contributions towards defense that they pledged to make is also not "isolationism". I agree, it's more than isolationism: it's sheer stupidity and the Hallmark of a compromised government official.

rufus_foreman 2y ago
I disagree that it is stupid to require entities you make a deal with to uphold their side of the deal. It is stupid not to do that.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Not if you’re worse off for it.
- chipdart 2y ago
  I'm not going to engage with you because you are clearly being disingenuous. The "deal" that NATO represents is not spending, and GDP targets are at best a line in the sand of a proxy variable regarding readiness. It's unbelievably stupid to claim that members of an alliance are protecting their interests by rejecting mutual defense agreements due to flutuations in the order of fractions of a percent in a metric that is by its very nature completely arbitrary.