Trump May Want To Pull The U.S. Out Of NATO

a reply to: Peeple

Your defense is the handout. As agreed upon, all NATO countries are required to contribute 2% of their GDP. Germany doesn't hold up their end of the deal, yet is still defended by NATO, which in turn is a handout. Sad I have to point this out, but hey maybe you're the only one misinformed.

Personally, I can't understand why America and Russia are still enemies anyway. At this point American and Russian values are probably closer to each other than some of the other countries America seems to consider allies....like Saudi Arabia....

And what with the whole China, india, Pakistan, Iran and those other nuclear powers that are starting to get heavy economic power that don't much like america or Europe...Russia seems like it would actually be a pretty good ally to have....just saying.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Well it seems that Trump has voiced that he would like to take the USA out of NATO.
I think that he wants Europe to tow their own line or take care of themselves.

That's fair enough. In a way it's reasonable for him to let go of Europe. But in the long run America will need Europe to resist ascending Chinese power. And Russia, too. We need to get over this bull# and start working together, because the Chinese are certainly working together. But I admit that Trump is not solely guilty of this.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Peeple

Your defense is the handout. As agreed upon, all NATO countries are required to contribute 2% of their GDP. Germany doesn't hold up their end of the deal, yet is still defended by NATO, which in turn is a handout. Sad I have to point this out, but hey maybe you're the only one misinformed.

Quit spewing that trumpist nonsense. The 2% spending is an agreed upon goal, not a requirement.

There is a direct NATO budget of about 1.5 billion $, shared by all member countries. But besides that the US pays nothing. So stop with the BS already.

With NATO or without you would still be spending your 4% to keep your military industry going. Don't blame NATO for that.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: Peeple

Your defense is the handout. As agreed upon, all NATO countries are required to contribute 2% of their GDP. Germany doesn't hold up their end of the deal, yet is still defended by NATO, which in turn is a handout. Sad I have to point this out, but hey maybe you're the only one misinformed.

Quit spewing that trumpist nonsense. The 2% spending is an agreed upon goal, not a requirement.

There is a direct NATO budget of about 1.5 billion $, shared by all member countries. But besides that the US pays nothing. So stop with the BS already.

With NATO or without you would still be spending your 4% to keep your military industry going. Don't blame NATO for that.

Straight from the NATO website. You have any sources to back up your claim? I'll admit I'm wrong if so.

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts. Some Allies may need to spend more than this to develop the capabilities that the Alliance asks of them. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.

www.nato.int

a reply to: FormOfTheLord



I think it would be a terrible idea for security in the region and our clout in a geopolitical way. Also, I think legally speaking if we did leave NATO we would have to vacate all of our military bases in Europe which is quite a number.
I have been on posts in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, and even Romania and Poland, Thinking of all the servicemen and women coming home and the host countries occupying the bases seems strange to me, as strange as that sounds.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

How am I misinformed? I outright told you Germay has no interest in spending more on wars and that you should kick us out of that cold war relict nobody needs or wants anymore,
What was the last thing that came from NATO? Saber rattling as close to Russia as they could get. No thanks we don't need that. At least the public doesn't.
Russia is your imaginary enemy not ours. There has been nothing of value coming from NATO for years on a diplomatic level and it was from the beginning a tool of the US to widen their sphere of influence. End it that's fine.
The Ukraine incident has shown what complete miserable empty failure it is anyways.

a reply to: Peeple

I agreed with you right up until....

The Ukraine incident has shown what complete miserable empty failure it is anyways.

A, they were in the process of trying to apply to NATO, which is arguably the tipping point of that war to begin with.

B, the US just reneged on a treaty we had with them post Soviet Union that if they relinquished their nukes, we would protect their sovereignty.

C, had we held true to the agreement, it would have benefited no one. Russia called our bluff and rightfully so, Ukraine would be more war torn than they already had if we had held to the treaty.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

How am I misinformed? I outright told you Germay has no interest in spending more on wars and that you should kick us out of that cold war relict nobody needs or wants anymore,
What was the last thing that came from NATO? Saber rattling as close to Russia as they could get. No thanks we don't need that. At least the public doesn't.
Russia is your imaginary enemy not ours. There has been nothing of value coming from NATO for years on a diplomatic level and it was from the beginning a tool of the US to widen their sphere of influence. End it that's fine.
The Ukraine incident has shown what complete miserable empty failure it is anyways.

You're the one who got butthurt from me using Germany as an example of one of the countries not upholding their part of the agreement. All I said is we should kick out the countries that don't meet the set agreement, so you should've agreed with me right? Plus all I've done is post facts. NATO could end tomorrow and I wouldn't care so I agree with you that it's not needed as well.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Please read my comment below yours.

Also, keep in mind that Russia has a GDP less than Texas.

They are the patsy that can enable the world to overlook the threat of China until it is too late.

That is the most intelligent thing that has been posted here in quite some time. China is the real danger. They make "1984" look like it already happened decades ago. We actually need Russia to contain China. That is hard to do when we refuse to work with the Russians and accuse them of everything except diddling grandma. Peeps need to wake up to the "Everything Under Heaven" mentality of the Chinese. This will not end well.

a reply to: MisterMcKill

That is the most intelligent thing that has been posted here in quite some time.

Thank you sir, you're too kind! I promise I'll post something soon enough to negate any positive sentiment anyone may hold from that post haha.

They make "1984" look like it already happened decades ago.

And they're trending worse, especially with the advent (or rather flagrant approach to something many have been doing) with their social credit score.

We actually need Russia to contain China.

I'm sure Russia is just as worried if not more given their proximity. Many are under the impression they are natural allies, but they are far from. They could hypothetically align against a common enemy given a perfect storm type scenario, but that would likely be followed with a Cold War type follout like we had with the USSR after we aligned in WWII.

I think dug88 had a great comment on how Russia and the US have more likeness than many of our close "allies".

We actually need Russia to contain China.

As it stands I have little faith we'll be proactive. Americans have a problem with honest accountability. So rather than a certain faction in the US admit that they made errors in their ways, they're blaming Russia for their woes on actions the US and Russia have been both engaging in for a hundred years.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Russia is our last hope against the Chinese. Without them, I fear the West will fall. I know that it seems early to be sounding this alarm bell, but China is not being subtle at this point, and Taiwan may be a critical flashpoint. I feel like the winner in a Sino-American war, assuming conventional weapons, would be whomever the Russians sided with. We would do well to make sure that is us.

a reply to: MisterMcKill

Unfortunately I see it being a war they will win over our greed.

We've outsourced so much work to the Chinese, and as we all know they copy much of what foreigners contract them to make.

It's likely by the time conflict manifests, however it is done they'll send a huge blow to much of our electronics and communication (civilian).

I think our infrastructure will take a heavy hit as many bad actors have been probing the weaknesses.

That will give them a big upper hand.

*shrugs* I have been told here on this site a number of times that the EU has a more powerful military than the US, so let them handle their own issues.

Also other than deterrence during the cold war what has nato accomplished? Wrecked Libya and brought back slave auctions...and?

Euros complain and complain about americans, our military, our tourists our lack of manners our lack of culture insert favored anti US joke here, they should be cheering this move.

Also Russia still doesn't have the force projection capabilities to go much further than Poland, so spare me the But Russia argument.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I think NATO has outlived its usefulness by about 20 years. If it was intended to turn back the tide of socialism/communism and prevent Western governments from falling to coded socialism it has failed miserably. Sure, the former Soviet Union never invaded Europe but many NATO governments have been infiltrated or outright subverted by subversive interests and fanatics (much like our government here)

In one country alone, it seems the word "social" and "democratic" appears in nearly every political party

Just my 2c, but I say save the money and keep putting America first. The money saved from that alone could fund a border wall, border patrol agents and ICE agents to enforce removal of those overstaying visas and those committing various types of fraud against the United States

a reply to: dug88

Don't let the Russo-phobes hear you say that

You can usually tell them apart by their use of the word "Soviets" or compulsive references to "collusion" and "meddling" or the tying of colorful characters into bizarre but complex conspiracy theories that are always wrapped up with the neat bow of Trump's impeachment/arrest/[insert delusional scenario here]

Heck I have been called a Russian bot simply for suggesting that Russia would make a better ally than an enemy. Of course that doesn't serve the interests of the M.I.C. so there are big money interests working overtime to hype a Russia threat out of thin air.

The left should face the fact that it does not like Russia because of its State recognized Christian religion or its general right-leaning politics. I often wonder if we have more in common with Russians than we do the left in America, something that even 5 years ago would have never crossed my mind. Funny times we live in

originally posted by: Peeple
How am I misinformed? I outright told you Germay has no interest in spending more on wars and that you should kick us out of that cold war relict nobody needs or wants anymore,

To be honest - I think you some people misunderstanding what NATO is. It's an alliance whose primary role is collective defence. If Germany has no interest in paying the 2% of GDP as a assertion of their willingness to maintain this collective defence capability, then it is them who should leave NATO.

Good luck Germany.

Essentially Trump is asking NATO nations to pay what they have committed themselves to. The UK and the US both pay their share, and history shows that both these countries end up saving Europe from violent destruction. A couple of other European countries also contribute to their commitment e.g. Poland. Germany is the glaring piss-taker. They expect people to defend them, but they won't pay for defence themselves. They are like someone who never pays for a round of drinks, but joins in the fun. It's unfortunate because Germany is a rich country. They can afford it.

Yes. Germany needs to leave NATO, not the US.

Well I think NATO or no NATO a war with Russia is not a winnable war. In such a war I believe nuclear weapons wouldbe used.

Some believe that a missle defence system could shoot don nukes before they got off the ground, however that does not account for the various other ways nuclear weapons may be deployed.

The minaturization of technology makes such weapons almost immpossible to stop.

Better idea is this:

Kick out all the nations that don't pay the 2%.