Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are saying that we should pull out of NATO I agree 100%!!!!
I'll put my vote in for that also! We can no longer carry the weight of the world on the shoulders of the American taxpayers while we have homeless families that include children on the streets, people going hungry, people that can't keep warm in the winter or summer because they can't afford their utility bills.................
IMO, NATO needs to be disbanded since it's a left over institution from the days of the Soviet Union when the U.S.S.R. was trying to expand westward. It's obsolete.
Now you're talking sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Have you missed the bit about Russia invading and annexing part of Ukraine?
The Ukraine isn't worth the life of an American soldier. Not our problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford
If you are saying that we should pull out of NATO I agree 100%!!!!
Who gives a damn about what they agreed to? They don't! The alliance is for THEIR security, not ours. So why do you want to demand that someone spends more money on their own security, and attempt to shame them into doing so by spending more of MY tax money when I don't need the damn alliance?
That's the height of stupidity. You can't see that?
People here want to gut entitlement spending, but they should be happy to kick in billions for NATO nations that don't wanna pony up? That makes sense to you?
You don't have universal healthcare, and you damn sure don't have six week paid vacations with cradle to grave social benefits....what other nation is subsidizing YOUR nation's defense while you vacation in Ibiza?
Get a clue.
That alliance has kept the Europeans killing each other for the past 70 years and has firmly established American economic and military hegemon on two continents and allows us to project power into the Middle East. We don't do it to protect them so much as we do it to protect our common economic interests.
Shocking as it may sound, it's not our military spending that keeps the US from enjoying paid leave and universal healthcare coverage. The money is there, it's our lack of political will and kowtowing to special interests.
That alliance has kept the Europeans killing each other for the past 70 years and has firmly established American economic and military hegemon on two continents and allows us to project power into the Middle East. We don't do it to protect them so much as we do it to protect our common economic interests.
Shocking as it may sound, it's not our military spending that keeps the US from enjoying paid leave and universal healthcare coverage. The money is there, it's our lack of political will and kowtowing to special interests.
You don't think that it's time for a Bottoms Up review of American foreign policy priorities? Because this is ridiculous. The world has changed, and the United States doesn't need a NATO framework any longer to maintain our position. But ok... I'll concede that this point is arguable.
I agree with your second paragraph, however, I find it highly insulting that Americans can find billions for an alliance that we simply don't need any longer, but bring up money for education, and they scream about how "we can't throw money at the problem."
You don't think that it's time for a Bottoms Up review of American foreign policy priorities? Because this is ridiculous. The world has changed, and the United States doesn't need a NATO framework any longer to maintain our position. But ok... I'll concede that this point is arguable.
I agree with your second paragraph, however, I find it highly insulting that Americans can find billions for an alliance that we simply don't need any longer, but bring up money for education, and they scream about how "we can't throw money at the problem."
Completely agree
NATO may have had it’s time and place following the second world war, but the time is past. Plus, We are not going to nation build Ukraine, or use bases in Poland to assert our power.
You don't think that it's time for a Bottoms Up review of American foreign policy priorities? Because this is ridiculous. The world has changed, and the United States doesn't need a NATO framework any longer to maintain our position. But ok... I'll concede that this point is arguable.
I agree with your second paragraph, however, I find it highly insulting that Americans can find billions for an alliance that we simply don't need any longer, but bring up money for education, and they scream about how "we can't throw money at the problem."
The US has been the only country to invoke Article Five, so it seems like we do need it. And the fact is that regardless of our undeniable military might, the US cannot sustain a long term conflict, much less fight a multi-front war, without allies. And the most effective way to do that is through integrated military operations. No, it's unlikely that we'll have a conventional war with Russia, but we need to be able to answer any aggression against a close ally, fight in proxy conflicts, and step in and stop politically instability or civil wars. NATO's next big tests are what happens if Russia "officially" pushes into central Ukraine; what happens when the Belarusian dictator falls or dies; and instability/civil war within Russia after Putin. Neither the US, nor the European allies can respond to those alone.
And you're right about people screaming about "throwing money at problems," while never questioning military spending. I'm just arguing that NATO isn't at issue.
The US has been the only country to invoke Article Five, so it seems like we do need it. And the fact is that regardless of our undeniable military might, the US cannot sustain a long term conflict, much less fight a multi-front war, without allies. And the most effective way to do that is through integrated military operations. No, it's unlikely that we'll have a conventional war with Russia, but we need to be able to answer any aggression against a close ally, fight in proxy conflicts, and step in and stop politically instability or civil wars. NATO's next big tests are what happens if Russia "officially" pushes into central Ukraine; what happens when the Belarusian dictator falls or dies; and instability/civil war within Russia after Putin. Neither the US, nor the European allies can respond to those alone.
And you're right about people screaming about "throwing money at problems," while never questioning military spending. I'm just arguing that NATO isn't at issue.
Let's say that you're right. Why would the Europeans be so happy to pay billions of Euros into an alliance that's designed (at this point) to maintain American hegemony?
Although Western Europeans may be chagrined at the idea of Russia moving deeper into the Ukraine, I'm absolutely positive that NONE of them would put their chips on a battlefield to save the Ukraine. Frankly, neither would I. A war against Russia on behalf of Ukraine is the height of asinity. Outside of some natural gas (that Europe would get no matter who controls the Ukraine), there are no pressing national issues in Ukraine.
Again, I get why the United wants more European skin in the NATO game, but I don't know why the Europeans should care.
Didn't they all agree to pay a certain amount when they joined NATO? So why is it ok for them to pay less, and we make up the difference? Does that make sense to you or are you just blindly harping on Trump no matter what the issue is? The name calling makes it hard to have a conversation.
Actually they have been paying in more for the last couple of years, trump had ZERO to do with it. At the same time I believe the EU is now considering building their own military might up to a point where they can defend themselves without US assistance, being that we are showing that we no longer consider them worthy of our support. Just remember that without our allies we stand alone and with two other superpowers in the world that are not always trustworthy that puts us in a precarious position. Not good for anyone, wars and rumors of wars, now where did I read that........
What's the point? This is stupid. If NATO member nations see no point in paying more, then why should they pay more?
The United States just keeps trying to shoehorn itself into the affairs of other regions. If the European nations don't value NATO as much as we do, then we're the idiots, not them! Why do Americans care more about Europe's security than the Europeans do? Again, these are our economic competitors, and spending billions of US taxpayer money on their defense while they take six week annual vacations and enjoy universal health coverage is insulting and SHOULD be insulting to the average American.
Agreed. It is time to quit playing world cop. If any foreign nation wants to attack a European one-it isn't our problem, it's not worth the life of an American serviceman and it's not worth the taxpayer's dollars. Same in the Middle East. If Middle Eastern Muslims want to slaughter each other, why should American lives and treasure be spent to stop them?
And for darned sure the same applies to the United Nations. If other countries that benefit so much from the UN likes the UN...they can fund it. We gain nothing...but fund nearly everything.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 07-06-2017 at 08:01 PM..
This in the LA Times today:
What's the point? This is stupid. If NATO member nations see no point in paying more, then why should they pay more?
Nobody twisted their arms to join. They signed up with the stipulation that they would spend 2% on their defense and then left it to us to do it for them.
If the US and UK weren't propping up their defenses NATO would have fallen apart years ago.
It's time for them to pony up. They should see a point in doing so, or Russia will become the fox in the chicken coop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
And for darned sure the same applies to the United Nations. If other countries that benefit so much from the UN likes the UN...they can fund it. We gain nothing...but fund nearly everything.
The UN and NATO countries are two entirely different things. NATO good, UN bad, simple. The entire premise of getting those nations to spend more on their own defense is exactly what will save us billions. Trump is right on this.
South Korea should be made a full member rather than just a partner. This would solve a lot of the NOKO crap as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
