Jump to content

NATO- who thinks we should get out?


TexasTiger

Recommended Posts





6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Who thinks it has outlived its usefulness?

Nope....but good that DT is pushing Europeans to pay what they agreed to pay....three previous presidents pressured them with little success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Nope....but good that DT is pushing Europeans to pay what they agreed to pay....three previous presidents pressured them with little success.

Seems to have spooked the senate. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396399-senate-overwhelmingly-passes-resolution-supporting-nato-as-trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

That is fine but I get the sense that DT is mostly critical of the freeloaders and pushing them ....if they think NATO is important, then step up to the p!ate financially.    I view his comments as a negotiation tactic with EU....  Everyone is happy with a great benefit that someone else is paying for....time for them to pay what they have pledged.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

That is fine but I get the sense that DT is mostly critical of the freeloaders and pushing them ....if they think NATO is important, then step up to the p!ate financially.    I view his comments as a negotiation tactic with EU....  Everyone is happy with a great benefit that someone else is paying for....time for them to pay what they have pledged.

 

Relevant thread. Dan makes some good points here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does he mean that Europe would be responsible for its own defense. ?   JMO but I doubt they are willing to pay the price....socialists to the core.....fifty years of mostly free military defense paid for by someone else...living the good life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Who thinks it has outlived its usefulness?

It may not have outlived it's usefulness but if some countries aren't going to pay their minimum share the let them defend themselves.

We have saved their butts in two world wars and if  they can't pay 2% then let the ones who won't band together and see how long they last when the going gets tough.

But it looks like they got the message from Trump and know he means business since they signed and agreement to pay at least 2%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2018 at 1:33 PM, TexasTiger said:

Who thinks it has outlived its usefulness?

Well, the original purpose was to provide collective security against the threat of USSR expansion.  In the immediate aftermath of WWII, European countries weren't militarily strong enough to resist any Soviet mischief ... without US help.  But today?  Hordes of Warsaw Pact tanks coming through the Fulda Gap isn't a realistic threat anymore.  Since the USSR collapsed about 27 years ago it would appear that specific threat is no longer relevant.  Yeah, I know -- but Russia, Russia, Russia!   I think it's correct & proper to reassess NATO today and modernize the alliance to identify & counter realistic threats to member countries.  We don't have to get rid of NATO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

Does he mean that Europe would be responsible for its own defense. ?   JMO but I doubt they are willing to pay the price....socialists to the core.....fifty years of mostly free military defense paid for by someone else...living the good life.

You nailed it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

Well, the original purpose was to provide collective security against the threat of USSR expansion.  In the immediate aftermath of WWII, European countries weren't militarily strong enough to resist any Soviet mischief ... without US help.  But today?  Hordes of Warsaw Pact tanks coming through the Fulda Gap isn't a realistic threat anymore.  Since the USSR collapsed about 27 years ago it would appear that specific threat is no longer relevant.  Yeah, I know -- but Russia, Russia, Russia!   I think it's correct & proper to reassess NATO today and modernize the alliance to identify & counter realistic threats to member countries.  We don't have to get rid of NATO. 

The Germans seem to have forgotten how much Russia hates them. I wonder if they even teach WW1 and WW2  history in schools. I wonder if we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

The Germans seem to have forgotten how much Russia hates them. I wonder if they even teach WW1 and WW2  history in schools. I wonder if we do.

Russia pretty much owns Germany.....in winter they can close a few valves and freeze a good many of them.   Merkel has voluntarily allowed Putin to get control of their energy supply.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Russia pretty much owns Germany.....in winter they can close a few valves and freeze a good many of them.   Merkel has voluntarily allowed Putin to get control of their energy supply.?

They will pay in due time. The socialist Germans won't even know they are in trouble until they see Russian tanks rolling down the streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, AU64 said:

That is fine but I get the sense that DT is mostly critical of the freeloaders and pushing them ....if they think NATO is important, then step up to the p!ate financially.    I view his comments as a negotiation tactic with EU....  Everyone is happy with a great benefit that someone else is paying for....time for them to pay what they have pledged.

 

Looks like Trump is doing a great job of making that point....and he should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

Well, the original purpose was to provide collective security against the threat of USSR expansion.  In the immediate aftermath of WWII, European countries weren't militarily strong enough to resist any Soviet mischief ... without US help.  But today?  Hordes of Warsaw Pact tanks coming through the Fulda Gap isn't a realistic threat anymore.  Since the USSR collapsed about 27 years ago it would appear that specific threat is no longer relevant.  Yeah, I know -- but Russia, Russia, Russia!   I think it's correct & proper to reassess NATO today and modernize the alliance to identify & counter realistic threats to member countries.  We don't have to get rid of NATO. 

So how would you reform it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

So how would you reform it?

Per Article 12:  Link

 

Quote

 

Article 12

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

 

Google 'Reform NATO' and there are all kinds of articles with specific details.  It's now going on 70 years since the inception of the treaty and as I've already pointed out, the main threat evaporated nearly 3 decades ago.  The European countries are definitely more prosperous than they were in 1949 so, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to either:  pay their fair share according to the treaty or decide if belonging to the treaty is actually worth it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the western European countries fight to defend a Poland from Russia?   I get that we don't want them fighting each other but the sweetheart energy deals with Russia guarantee that Putin pretty much can do what he wants...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO is a great org. But, grudgingly obvious point Trump is making, they do need to step up.

There, now got to brush my teeth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...