Even if NATO allies don't "pay their fair share"?
Do you think America should leave NATO?
8,867 Views |
175 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by nortex97
Yes
"Yes, 100%" - Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran
We should absolutely use our leverage to get the brokedicks to pay.
It's up to them if they refuse.
It's up to them if they refuse.
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
I think the US should stay in NATO, but give them all a kindly worded letter that we'll be taking the next 10 years off, financially speaking :-), so we can assess things a bit more
Give NATO the Price is Right strategy and bid $1…
Give NATO the Price is Right strategy and bid $1…
...take it easy on me, I'm a normal horn
Before we do that, we should stop all funding to the UN.
CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
They have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world pointed at us.
hoopla said:CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
They have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world pointed at us.
That they won't use.
If you believe they would NATO does not change that fact either way.
And ours is pointed at them. Either side has more than enough firepower to wipe the other out. Add in NATO and other allies and we have more than them. Regardless it's a moot point because neither side is going to use them because of MAD.hoopla said:CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
They have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world pointed at us.
No, but each member needs to pay the same share of national GDP toward the alliance.
We might have to threaten to leave -- or even do it for a while -- to force the Europeans to pony up.
Because we foot so much of the bill, they're spending their money on social and global re-engineering (climate change hoax, command and control economics, etc.). There's nothing like having to face a real wolf at the door that will cause you to reexamine your priorities.
We might have to threaten to leave -- or even do it for a while -- to force the Europeans to pony up.
Because we foot so much of the bill, they're spending their money on social and global re-engineering (climate change hoax, command and control economics, etc.). There's nothing like having to face a real wolf at the door that will cause you to reexamine your priorities.
Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
What value does NATO membership give the US? The best answer I can come up with is that it is a HUGE disincentive for Russia and other non-members to attack another NATO member state. It arguably creates a more stable world. That's about it. The downside is that we can be drug into any conflict involving a member.
America never needed NATO allies to help defend American shores. It was formed to protect American companies' access to European markets. Unfortunately we've run trade deficits with our NATO partners for literally generations rendering the economic rationale moot.
Europe has always been a cauldron of geopolitical risks and the benefits of taking on this risk appear to have left long ago. Can someone explain why we need NATO and not the other way around?
Europe has always been a cauldron of geopolitical risks and the benefits of taking on this risk appear to have left long ago. Can someone explain why we need NATO and not the other way around?
CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.
Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.
Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?
So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?
When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.
No, we should not leave NATO. That's ridiculous. Now if enough countries flat out refuse to do their part, then we can talk about it.
GAC06 said:
No, we should not leave NATO. That's ridiculous. Now if enough countries flat out refuse to do their part, then we can talk about it.
Agreed. One of the good things to come out of Putin's unprovoked war on Ukraine is that NATO members have increased their spending on defense and commitments to NATO.
NATO stay
UN leave
UN leave
Company I-1, Ord-Ords '85 -12thFan and Websider-
This is comical. Ukraine is NOT a NATO member. NATO doesn't "disappear" if the US leaves. Russia is mired in an almost 3 year long stalemate with Uke and you think they have the wherewithal to take over all of Ukraine, Poland, Moldova & Finland? Please.knoxtom said:CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.
Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.
Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?
So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?
When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.
Removing ourselves from NATO membership doesn't mean we don't respond to threats, we're just not legally obligated to. Also, you are making the point that the US should leave NATO if it will collapse when we do. It has become a one-sided deal and the US is on the wrong end. We get all the risks, most of the costs and none of the benefits.
knoxtom said:CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.
Uh, Ukraine is not part of NATO.
Why is it only on the US to stand up to Putin. The EU could easily do it if they were forced to make it a priority. They don't because they know we're a sucker. They know our corrupt pols would love an endless, profitable war for their donors.knoxtom said:CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.
Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.
Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?
So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?
When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.
Yes. The same with the UN. But only if we were to be honest to the commitment.
If there is an option of staying in NATO and not contributing financially in any significant manner (<1% ideally), then that would be my first choice but that is not an honest solution.
America first.
Once we get our own domestic issues taken care of such as debt, incompatible political ideological differences due to the left and enabling RINO's, border security, and welfare state, then and only then would it be worth getting back into a significant world police player.
If there is an option of staying in NATO and not contributing financially in any significant manner (<1% ideally), then that would be my first choice but that is not an honest solution.
America first.
Once we get our own domestic issues taken care of such as debt, incompatible political ideological differences due to the left and enabling RINO's, border security, and welfare state, then and only then would it be worth getting back into a significant world police player.
Learn about the Texas Nationalist Movement
https://tnm.me
https://tnm.me
Logos Stick said:knoxtom said:CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.
Uh, Ukraine is not part of NATO.
Poland would curbstomp Russia in a conventional war.
Company I-1, Ord-Ords '85 -12thFan and Websider-
What is the whole point of NATO? When it was formed, the USSR was absolutely poised to devour europe without American resistance. At the time there was a shared vision and worldview between europeans and americans and it was worth protecting.
Nowadays I don't think any of those presuppositions hold true anymore.
Europe has aped on decades of american military hegemony to just sit around and play protectionist games and have long vacations.
Western Europe should be treated as an open air museum for americans and nothing more. Make them shoulder their military burdens.
Nowadays I don't think any of those presuppositions hold true anymore.
Europe has aped on decades of american military hegemony to just sit around and play protectionist games and have long vacations.
Western Europe should be treated as an open air museum for americans and nothing more. Make them shoulder their military burdens.
NATO is suffering from its victory. When the USSR crumbled it lost its purpose and its way. Our politicians like the influence & collaboration & markets it provides militarily so we keep it alive, but it's vestigial and has devolved into a sort of western world club. It may be better to reform it as a western values alliance where America extends the umbrella to all who uphold equivalent values and all members need to reapply for membership on a yearly basis.
Russia isn't invading Finland or Poland, that would be an epic disaster for them as they have extremely well trained and well equipped militaries that are focused on stopping that exact scenario. Moldova and Ukraine? Maybe.knoxtom said:CrackerJackAg said:
Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint
We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.
That is the only answer
Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.
Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.
Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?
So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?
When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.
You actually highlight the problem here. It's not 1985 anymore. Russia is not peak USSR and hasn't been for a very long time. They don't have the men or capabilities for taking over Eastern Europe much less Western Europe. BTW, we have no real strategic interests in Eastern Europe because of that lack of projection power by Russia that has no chance of changing. Russia simply doesn't have the money or demographics to shift that and won't for at least the next 50 years.
We should have treaties and alliances in Europe but NATO was designed for the Cold War that ended decades ago. We need agreements that serve our interests and don't simply become a "The US subsidizes the military for Europe for free and they still screw us over on trade acting like it's still the Marshall Plan". A lot of people get rich off of that but it mainly screws over American interests. These are wealthy 1st World countries, they can pay their share and learn how to defend themselves else they can give us anything we want in exchange for our protection. That's how we should be playing.
Absolutely Not. Does it need to be re-worked a bit, of course.
But to break up the strongest military alliance in world history plus diminish USA's soft power to control the West is absolutely insane. Yes, its expensive for us. But the level of influence we get from it is very valuable.
A breaking up of NATO (or taking the US out, which, btw, is one of the few, if only one, country to ever enact article 5), would be music to the ears of our enemies. China and Russia would Randy/Southpark all over themselves if this happened.
Yall need to get your head out of your azz.
But to break up the strongest military alliance in world history plus diminish USA's soft power to control the West is absolutely insane. Yes, its expensive for us. But the level of influence we get from it is very valuable.
A breaking up of NATO (or taking the US out, which, btw, is one of the few, if only one, country to ever enact article 5), would be music to the ears of our enemies. China and Russia would Randy/Southpark all over themselves if this happened.
Yall need to get your head out of your azz.
F'em!!! Give them the middle finger salute, pop smoke and get out of there.
Do you honestly think that any of the NATO members would come to our aid if Russia attacked us and only us? I will hang up and listen.
Regardless of what some of you think, we do need allies.
Are we a powerful nation? Absolutely.
But with the BRICS countries (China, Russia, India, Iran, etc) becoming more powerful, it is a silly time to "go it alone".
Are we a powerful nation? Absolutely.
But with the BRICS countries (China, Russia, India, Iran, etc) becoming more powerful, it is a silly time to "go it alone".
The "strongest military alliance" is whichever one we form. Our NATO allies who came to help with the GWOT mostly (not exclusively*) sat on bases and introduced language barriers. Most NATO members are of negligible strategic value.
* (there were a handful of real warriors who rate respect & I'm not including that minority in my depiction)
* (there were a handful of real warriors who rate respect & I'm not including that minority in my depiction)
Start with the UN and sell the building or tear it down and build a Trump hotel.
What do other NATO members provide us? What control do we assert over the EU due to our membership? What is the specific value of this supposed influence? Serious questions.Tex117 said:
Absolutely Not. Does it need to be re-worked a bit, of course.
But to break up the strongest military alliance in world history plus diminish USA's soft power to control the West is absolutely insane. Yes, its expensive for us. But the level of influence we get from it is very valuable.
A breaking up of NATO (or taking the US out, which, btw, is one of the few, if only one, country to ever enact article 5), would be music to the ears of our enemies. China and Russia would Randy/Southpark all over themselves if this happened.
Yall need to get your head out of your azz.
Leaving NATO doesn't mean we won't get involved in a conflict involving former members. It means we save billions and aren't obligated to fight. It would force the EU to commit more resources for their own protection.
No ****ing way.
Teslag said:
"Yes, 100%" - Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran
And Putin sycophants.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Featured Stories
See All
9:36
15h ago
3.2k
Texas A&M adds former Florida DE T.J. Searcy via transfer portal
by Cade Draughon
Texas A&M adds former Georgia DE Sam M'Pemba via transfer portal
by Cade Draughon
BrokeAssAggie
Nuño's Notes: Tidbits from Tinseltown on Lincoln Riley's USC Trojans
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2