Trump’s Loose NATO Talk Already Has Endangered Us

[PIPEWRENCH]

I hope the world was listening. The use of the American people to pay for EU security needs to end. Time for the people of these countries to stand on their own 2 feet. They claim to be doing so much better than us how about spending your own money for defense for a while. It is nice to have a candidate that puts the American people first unlike Hillary.

 

[AlbqOwl]

If it was up to me NATO and the UN would have been disbanded a long time ago. Regardless, getting everyone to pay their part is one thing I agree with Trump on. If we are going to have NATO then every member has to pay up. If you feel your country is too good to pay their fair share then maybe your country should be booted from NATO.

Absolutely. And of course the other NATO nations resent being told they need to pay more. Nobody getting a mostly free ride wants to lose those benefits. People become dependent so quickly. That's why most of the roughly 50% of Americans who receive some sort of government benefit don't want to give up even a meager benefit they receive in return for a promise of higher wages, better jobs, and more opportunity in the private sector.

But is this compromising our national security? I just don't think it is because they need us a whole bunch more than we need them. And that doesn't mean I do not value friendship and good relationships with people in other nations. I do. But Trump is right that a good deal must be mutually beneficial to both--a win-win proposition.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm sure Trump's buddy, Putin, will be happy to see the US pull out of NATO. No wonder Russia, alone among the major nations of the world, like Trump.

 

[Aberration]

War is a racket by Smedly Butler is a good read. Written after WW1, before WW2 by a highest ranking general and the most decorated soldier at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I'm sure Trump's buddy, Putin, will be happy to see the US pull out of NATO. No wonder Russia, alone among the major nations of the world, like Trump.

We do not need to pull out of NATO and we can still come to EU aid if Russia launches an attack. It is way past time EU starts spending their money for their national defense and we stop. We can use that extra money to fix social security, the health care of our people, our infrastructure and so on. I know it sounds crazy to democrats to spend our tax dollars on the people of this country. Only an crazy idiot like Trump put the American people first unlike Hillary.

 

[Socrates1]

Trump’s Loose NATO Talk Already Has Endangered Us


Collective security only works when everyone is committed to the common defense....

Evelyn N. Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia from 2012 to 2015.
She is the author of Fractured States and U.S. Foreign Policy

Not to worry Lurch( Kerry)told us we should be afraid of our air conditioner and refrigerators ! :lamo

 

[Dittohead not!]

We do not need to pull out of NATO and we can still come to EU aid if Russia launches an attack. It is way past time EU starts spending their money for their national defense and we stop. We can use that extra money to fix social security, the health care of our people, our infrastructure and so on. I know it sounds crazy to democrats to spend our tax dollars on the people of this country. Only an crazy idiot like Trump put the American people first unlike Hillary.

Yes, Democrats always have been big on increasing military spending.

 

[Tigerace117]

Hurts the US how? Economically?

Hurts it economically, and can lead to nativist backlash if enough immigrants enter.

 

[Tigerace117]

That doesn't answer the question. Why is it our responsibility to take care of it and not their neighbors?

It's not the US' sole responsibility, but we can often times offer much more aid then their neighbors can.

 

[Tigerace117]

Who cares if we can afford aid? Just because you can afford something doesn't make it your responsibility to do.

Ever hear of morality?

 

[reinoe]

Ever hear of morality?

1. The U.S. lost it's moral leadership role with Abu-GRAIB. Or maybe it was when we turned a blind eye to the massacres in Rwanda? Perhaps when we armed Saddam in the 80's with weapons of mass destruction? No, let's go further back and say it was when we overthrew the rightful leader of Iran and installed a puppet government who oppressed the people. Or maybe, maybe it's self righteously presumptuous to claim we have the divine moral right to impose our will on other nations at all? If it doesn't have anything to do with our national security then we should just stay out of it.

2. The rest of the world needs to start taking care of it's own problems.
During WW2 we had "Meatless Mondays" and "Fuelless Fridays". Since many European countries have higher standards of living than we do I'm sure they can make some financial sacrifices.

 

[Tigerace117]

1. The U.S. lost it's moral leadership role with Abu-GRAIB.

2. The rest of the world needs to start taking care of it's own problems.
During WW2 we had "Meatless Mondays" and "Fuelless Fridays". Since many European countries have higher standards of living than we do I'm sure they can make some financial sacrifices.

I'm sure the starving kids in Africa can just "take care of their own problems" :roll:

And no, many European counties don't have a better standard of living.

 

[Henrin]

Hurts it economically, and can lead to nativist backlash if enough immigrants enter.

So basically we should engage in wars if the alternative will hurt us economically and if immigrants from that region could be a problem in the future? Did I get it right?

 

[Henrin]

Ever hear of morality?

I'm not a big believer in using taxes to help people from other lands. If you want to help people from some other land then maybe should open your pocketbook.

 

[Tigerace117]

So basically we should engage in wars if the alternative will hurt us economically and if immigrants from that region could be a problem in the future? Did I get it right?

We should engage in wars if the opposing country poses a clear and present danger to the United States; if the country is committing genocide against its populace or that of other countries; if it's actions are destabilizing the region; or if if attacks US bases and citizens.

Any or all of those four criteria.

 

[Tigerace117]

I'm not a big believer in using taxes to help people from other lands. If you want to help people from some other land then maybe should open your pocketbook.

I don't own a pocket book, but my parents donate to charities helping those people.

 

[ocean515]

Because NATO is a important alliance system which helps protect against the aggression of states such as Russia. Might makes right is supposed to have gone out of date a long time ago, yet it hasn't, and NATO is a good way to deter people from trying ****.

The UN is important for the obvious reason--- it's good for countries to be able to meet and express grievances diplomatically.

NATO sure worked well in Crimea.

As to the UN, other than pushing Western Nations to hand over mountains of cash in it's thinly disguised global economic justice agenda via it's "climate change" effort, what has it done to quell aggression, and keep the peace? Have UN resolutions stopped North Korea? How about China in the China Sea? Syria, Iran? Libya?

 

[Tigerace117]

NATO sure worked well in Crimea.

As to the UN, other than pushing Western Nations to hand over mountains of cash in it's thinly disguised global economic justice agenda via it's "climate change" effort, what has it done to quell aggression, and keep the peace? Have UN resolutions stopped North Korea? How about China in the China Sea? Syria, Iran? Libya?

Actually, yeah, the UN did stop North Korea once before. Did you happen to remember what happened last time the Norks came over the 39th Parallel?

Ukraine is a NATO member now?

 

[ocean515]

Actually, yeah, the UN did stop North Korea once before. Did you happen to remember what happened last time the Norks came over the 39th Parallel?

Ukraine is a NATO member now?

I was thinking NATO in the 21st century was more relative to the conversation.

Ukraine?

I was responding to your reference regarding NATO being a deterrent to Russian aggression. Obviously, not so much. Or is it only NATO members who get protection, and any other Russian aggression is ok?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Screw NATO...............let the Euro's deal with their own big red scare.

 

[Tigerace117]

I was thinking NATO in the 21st century was more relative to the conversation.

Ukraine?

I was responding to your reference regarding NATO being a deterrent to Russian aggression. Obviously, not so much. Or is it only NATO members who get protection, and any other Russian aggression is ok?

Yeah, that's kinda the basis of the NATO agreement is to protect the members of said treaty.

 

[ocean515]

Yeah, that's kinda the basis of the NATO agreement is to protect the members of said treaty.

I was referring to your statement:

Because NATO is a important alliance system which helps protect against the aggression of states such as Russia. Might makes right is supposed to have gone out of date a long time ago, yet it hasn't, and NATO is a good way to deter people from trying ****.​

So how did the alliance system stop Russia from trying ****? Or, as I already asked, does the alliance system only apply to members, and Russia is free to try **** on any non-members?

 

[Tigerace117]

I was referring to your statement:

Because NATO is a important alliance system which helps protect against the aggression of states such as Russia. Might makes right is supposed to have gone out of date a long time ago, yet it hasn't, and NATO is a good way to deter people from trying ****.​

So how did the alliance system stop Russia from trying ****? Or, as I already asked, does the alliance system only apply to members, and Russia is free to try **** on any non-members?

Well yeah, of course Russia is free to try **** on non members. If they weren't, you'd have people like Henrin bitching about it even more then they already do so.

But Russia went after the Ukraine, not NATO members such as the Baltic States.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I was referring to your statement:

Because NATO is a important alliance system which helps protect against the aggression of states such as Russia. Might makes right is supposed to have gone out of date a long time ago, yet it hasn't, and NATO is a good way to deter people from trying ****.​

So how did the alliance system stop Russia from trying ****? Or, as I already asked, does the alliance system only apply to members, and Russia is free to try **** on any non-members?

Of course it only applies to members.

 

[ocean515]

Of course it only applies to members.

I was responding to a statement about NATO, not about specific NATO responsibilities and obligations. I asked for clarification as far as the poster was concerned.

While unnecessary, thanks for your two cents.