• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the United States be in NATO

independentusa said:
Yes, and he and Russia are paying a high price, especially if China does not somehow bail him out. Real war is economic in the modern world.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with NATO so you are making my point for me.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
I would argue our presence in NATO is not only unnecessary but detrimental to the organization. NATO should be a European alliance put together to protect itself from outside aggressors.
The super power America should not be automatically drug into these regional conflicts by legal obligations imposed on it by NATO membership. We should independently decide if anything happening in Europe warrants our getting involved.
I would also argue that NATO would be more prone to act if we were not part of it. Right now with Ukraine America can't get militarily involved without risk of triggering an all out nuclear war. These local European countries could send troops to Ukraine and turn the tide in conventional warfare without the same risk. America in NATO is just a Goliath that gets in the way. Our membership has effectively neutered NATO in situations like this.
Click to expand...

This post needs more borscht.
 
JMR said:
NATO. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. An intergovernmental military alliance between European nations and North American nations. We are allies.

The OP is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Maybe he didn't know we have an Atlantic coast?
 
Luce said:
Maybe he didn't know we have an Atlantic coast?
Click to expand...
Why is Poland worth us going to ear over but Ukraine isn't? Nobody seems able to answer that.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
Russia is barely prevailing in Ukraine. NATO military from European nations would turn the tide. No need for the US superpower to get involved and ratchet things up. European history is pretty much constant war and we shouldn’t be legally obligated and get sucked into them. It should be our decision if our interest are threatened by their constant bickering.
Click to expand...
How do you know you're a superpower? Yeah, I know, you were told you are and everyone calls you that but what has happened in your lifetime that tells you your power is, well, super?
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
Article 5 is far enough
Click to expand...
I’ve read article 5 several times. Wherein does it stipulate that member nations are “legally obligated” (your words)?

Cut/paste the portion you think supports your position.
 
Luce said:
I am not sure what you mean by "to ear over".
Click to expand...
If Poland was invaded we would defend it because it's a NATO member but why is it any more important than Ukraine?
See the problem here?
 
Grand Mal said:
Britain, France and Germany don't have effective militaries?
Did they teach you this in school or did you just make it up?
Click to expand...
The United States is the military superpower of NATO.

To pretend that Germany, Britain or France is equivalent is hysterical.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
If Poland was invaded we would defend it because it's a NATO member but why is it any more important than Ukraine?
See the problem here?
Click to expand...

Because Poland is a signatory nation and the Ukraine is not.

Thus, article VI of the constitution requires that we fulfill our treaty obligations if Poland is attacked, but no such compulsion is on us with respect to the Ukraine.

This isn't calculus, dude.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I’ve read article 5 several times. Wherein does it stipulate that member nations are “legally obligated” (your words)?

Cut/paste the portion you think supports your position.
Click to expand...
So you think if a NATO country is next we will do the same as with Ukraine? In case you haven't noticed Biden already sent more troops to Poland.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
If Poland was invaded we would defend it because it's a NATO member but why is it any more important than Ukraine?
See the problem here?
Click to expand...
Because the same alliance agreement that led to Poland sending troops to Afghanistan because the US had been attacked would require the US to respond to Poland being attacked.
That's how alliances work.
 
BirdinHand said:
The United States is the military superpower of NATO.

To pretend that Germany, Britain or France is equivalent is hysterical.
Click to expand...
Do you think the three countries you mention could successfully turn the tide in Ukraine without America? I do.
 
Grand Mal said:
Because the same alliance agreement that led to Poland sending troops to Afghanistan because the US had been attacked would require the US to respond to Poland being attacked.
That's how alliances work.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We would get sucked into war in Poland for no other reason than we are in NATO when Poland is no more important than Ukraine.
 
BirdinHand said:
The United States is the military superpower of NATO.

To pretend that Germany, Britain or France is equivalent is hysterical.
Click to expand...
The point of an alliance is that it wouldn't be Germany, Britain OR France, it would be Germany, Britain AND France. And the three of them aren't all NATO has. And they don't have to be equal to the US, they just have to be equal to Russia. And the USA might have the biggest, shiniest military in the world but it doesn't look all that effective, does it.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
Exactly. We would get sucked into war in Poland for no other reason than we are in NATO when Poland is no more important than Ukraine.
Click to expand...
So you think the fewer allies one has, the better off they are?
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
Exactly. We would get sucked into war in Poland for no other reason than we are in NATO when Poland is no more important than Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the size of your response is up to you. Article 5 doesn't require you to go all-out. And why would you not want to help a smaller, weaker country that showed up when you asked?
 
lwf said:
So you think the fewer allies one has, the better off they are?
Click to expand...
I think we sent troops to Poland as we said **** Ukraine. That makes no sense.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah, but the size of your response is up to you. Article 5 doesn't require you to go all-out. And why would you not want to help a smaller, weaker country that showed up when you asked?
Click to expand...
We didn't need NATO in Afghanistan and they don't need us in Ukraine. They could come to the aid of their neighbor without us.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
Biden used the excuse of Ukraine not being a NATO member as the reason we won't intervene. Strategically speaking why is Poland any more important than Ukraine? If we won't defend Ukraine why should we defend Poland? Because their a NATO member isn't a reason and if we won't defend Ukraine we shouldn't be forced to defend Poland.
Click to expand...
You obviously have difficulty understanding what it means to sign a treaty?
 
lwf said:
Poland is an ally. Ukraine isn't. How much more sense do you need?
Click to expand...
Poland and Ukraine are no different in geo political importance to the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom