Bill prohibits any president from leaving NATO without Senate consent

originally posted by: EternalShadow
The Military Industrial Complex is just hedging their interests, as usual, through their usual cronies.🙄

Nothing to see here....move along...

Exactly and NATO is part of that Military Industrial Complex.

a reply to: YouSir

I see what you're saying.

I don't know what MSM is peddling, but I'm sure it's sensational.

The reason I said I can see both sides is probably different.

As I said, I wouldn't care if we left NATO. And I haven't see anything that convinces me Trump abuses executive power any more than his predecessors, or even close for that matter.

But if he could nullify a long standing treaty, that would set precident for future presidents who I could say I'd likely distrust more than Trump given trends and who's popular now with many groups.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Scapegrace

What have they ever done for us since France helped us gain our independence?

After 911 NATO came to our aid. It's the only time any country has invoked NATO's Article 5.

Democrats have become the party of foreign intervention and perpetual war it seems.

Have you forgotten Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush?

NATO’s help after 9/11 was so modest I decided not to mention it. Compared with what we’ve contributed to Western Europe’s defense it’s just a blip on the radar. And it’s the only example you could dredge up; I know, because it’s the only one I could think of, too.

And I said the dems have become the party of foreign intervention, etc. Oddly, it has become more pronounced under Trump, as the dems try to maintain our thankless role as world policeman. Seems strange for the party that’s so big on peace, love and understanding. Now it’s a party of neohawks that talks really tough about Russia, yet was too timid to oppose its takeover of Crimea and the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, or supply weapons to Ukraine. And please don’t associate those disgusting neocon RINOs you mentioned with Trump! I hate them for the harm they did us and the world.

a reply to: Scapegrace

No more American blood for Europeans! What have they ever done for us since France helped us gain our independence? We always end up helping them, never the other way around

I have Norwegian countrymen who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq...
Causalities Norway
Why do you think Norway or any other European country would be anywhere near the middle east in the first place?

So F off!

Do something else more worthwhile with your time please! Because this display of narrow mindedness is just embarrassing.

originally posted by: TeeMko
a reply to: Scapegrace

What a bunch of horses##t. You have NO IDEA how much you guys gained from wars in Europe. You guys did not come to Europe toprotect us but to compete with Russia (protecting your interests) , because if you didnt you would not be the ones making the calls today. It would be Russia instead. Also ever heard of Operation Paperclip?
There is so much more to the reasons you guys came here than you know.

But its probably not your fault but your sh##ty education system. And yes I can compare... I lived in the states for several years. In my country I was an average student while in US after half a year 80% of class copied my homeworks... Got into all "special classes" "gifted and talented" etc. When I had my second math class, we took a quiz and I was done in 5 mins. The teacher and all students could not believe...

And dont get me started on how my city was destoryed by you f##kers. From 3400 buildings, 2000 was destroyed... And Germany was not the reason... Officially you guys wanted to destroy the railway but not even 5% of the bombs struck the railway... Thousands died, more than during 9.11. Hope ur proud of protecting us

Sounds like you don’t really need us because you’re all so damn smart.

Our university system is the best in the world, Ubermann; we have the most Nobel Prizes, invented just about everything related to IT, like this new-dangled Internet you’re using, and I believe we recently did a flyby of freakin’ Pluto.

So NATO was good for us because it kept the Russkis out of Western Europe? I guess. Though in hindsight, even if we’d let them conquer you ingrates they likely would have collapsed just as they did in reality.

And you think Operation Paperclip came remotely close to making our entry into WWII in Europe worthwhile? So we could better compete in the space race?

As it turned out, the Soviets weren’t getting to the moon anytime soon, so we could have relied on strictly American talent and reached the moon a little later than we did, but still in plenty of time to be first. Look at the history of the Aerojet M-1 rocket engine if you don’t believe me. We were foolishly desperate to get to the moon before 1970, as JFK ordained, so we went with the Von Braun U.S. Army team because they were the best in the nation then and farthest along with their designs. If you know much about U.S. aerospace history, you’ll know we had multiple options for getting into space and reaching the moon, but we were in a hurry.

And I have no regrets at all about the destruction our bombers wrought on your beautiful cities. You call us f*****s, but your people were responsible for tens of millions of deaths for no good reason. The war was entirely Germany’s fault and your cities reaped the whirlwind as a result. Better be glad we didn’t develop nuclear weapons sooner, or it would have been much worse.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: Scapegrace Truth is the US was created to become the thug of the world from the inset,famines created,wars,orphans placed in foreign countries run by Jesuit catholic criminals,war machine for oil,that is how NWO rolls

And what would the world be like if the USA had never existed? What language would you be speaking now, that is, if you were even alive? What kind of government would you be living under and what kind of standard of living? I suspect that without the evil USA the world would be dominated by one or more of either Germany, Russia, China and/or Japan. What a lovely world that would be. I’m sure you’d be allowed to complain all you want about anything you want.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

They did. Its in the history books now.
The only time the NATO treaty has ever been invoked was after the 911 attacks.
To aid the United States.
Maybe look it up before you say nay?
www.dailykos.com...

The aid provided was minuscule compared to what the USA provided for the defense of Western Europe for 55 years at that point. The Marshall Plan is another story, but you can add its generous achievements to what we’ve done for Europe — and I won’t even go into the lives we lost and treasure spent in three European conflicts. The balance sheet of debt owed is decidedly in our favor.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Scapegrace

Democrats have become the party of foreign intervention and perpetual war it seems. 

One example proves you wrong : Afghanistan.

Every president since g w bush has lied about afghanistan (including trump). Trump still has continued an indefinite stay in iraq.

Trump, bush and obama have all been incredibly dishonest and push secret agendas in the middle east. Not to forget that sp do Republican and Democrat congressmen.

“Have become.” At least in the last three years; often it seems just to oppose anything Trump supports.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Scapegrace

Democrats have become the party of foreign intervention and perpetual war it seems. 

One example proves you wrong : Afghanistan.

Every president since g w bush has lied about afghanistan (including trump). Trump still has continued an indefinite stay in iraq.

Trump, bush and obama have all been incredibly dishonest and push secret agendas in the middle east. Not to forget that sp do Republican and Democrat congressmen.

I think Trump really wants to get out of these empire traps. He sees, as anyone with a smattering of historical and military knowledge sees, that you cannot win in the Middle East or Afghanistan. Not without a no-holds-barred WWII-style campaign that ignores current sensibilities re: non-combatants, human rights, collateral damage, genocide, etc. That ain’t gonna happen unless something really bad goes down, like the use of WMDs against us or perhaps Israel. Bush 41 came as close to winning in the Middle East as anyone could, because he oh so wisely chose not to depose Saddam Hussein. I admit I thought he was a fool at the time, because he could have easily done so, and I, like many others, thought we’d be forced to return someday to finish the job. It was also easy for his stupid son to overthrow Saddam; the hard part came afterward and much of the Arab world was disrupted. Hence the present refugee problem that threatens the very identity of Europe. Law of unintended consequences at work.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

One could argue that the NATO agreement does violate the Constitution. The clause about an attack on one is an attack on all forces Congress to commit to war when the President acts within the confines of the treaty and duties as CIC and orders intervention against the attacking country that committed the act of war.

NATO bypasses Congressional power of discretion with post war ideologies. If those ideologies are still valid then why is there no committees ferreting out socialists and communists holding office in the Federal, State and Local governments?

Good points. And who decides if a NATO member has been attacked or not? The president? Congress? Turkey has been in some scraps with Russia recently. IIRC, Turkey shot down a Russian fighter allegedly in Turkish airspace. Maybe two or three years ago?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vector99

How did NATO come to OUR aid after that invocation?

Here's a list of what each NATO country contributed to America's War on Terror that ensued after the 911 attacks.

NATO: Coalition Contributions to the War on Terrorism 2001-2009.state.gov...

NATO = a bunch of nations relying on the US.

Why do they rely on us? Nukes and military spending.

Without the US funding it, there literally is no NATO.

NATO operates, for the most part, as a European wing promoting and protecting US and western interests. The USA has benefited more from NATO than any other member. NATO has extended the USA's industrial military complex to global proportions. If the USA didn't have a treaty with all those countries, it isn't likely we'd have the flexibility to "rule the free world" by having bases in countries all over the world.

How exactly does having bases all over the world help the USA? And what in the world does NATO have to do with any of our bases outside Europe? The USA has treaties obligating it to come to the defense of more than 50 nations, 28 of them NATO members. I don’t see how having a huge defense budget or enormous armed forces are such great advantages since we’re invulnerable to invasion because of our location. We can be destroyed by four to five nuclear powers, but our nuclear deterrent is relatively cheap and ensures mutual assured destruction. If we were to withdraw from all our defense treaties and give up being world cop, we could easily reduce our defense spending by half, or some $350 billion. That would be a nice start on reducing our budget deficit. Of course, the rest of the world would be trembling with fear as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and the jihadis would feel free to do much as they please. I guess our so-called allies in the First World would have to increase their defense spending enormously and build nuclear arsenals if they don’t have them. I wonder if they’d regret treating us like s**t all these years? Maybe we wouldn’t seem quite so evil. I’d kinda like to see that.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Scapegrace

I think the title is misleading. It should say "Congressional approval" not "Senate approval". The bill came from a Senate committee but grants the House the power to restrain the President's actions. As should be the case under the Constitution.

I think that the submission of this bill perhaps indicates a fear that the President could 'go rogue' and start doing things that the other branches of government don't condone.

Also, what part of Europe is Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait or Iraq? I don't think you can blame NATO for any of the US's recent wars. If anything, the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.

Face it that the US is particularly war mongering and It isn't demarcated upon party lines. Many of the recent conflicts have been under Republican Presidencies, too.

Although I appreciate your anti-war stance, I don't think that allowing the President to usurp the rest of government will actually reduce the number of wars that the US gets into. Leaving NATO will further isolate the US from the rest of the world and the bill will redress a loophole in the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government.

Not that this bill comes from the Republican majority Senate. It looks to me that someone is concerned that the President may have an agenda other than what is best for the country.

I would think further isolating “the US from the rest of the world” would protect the world from our warmongering. Wouldn’t we be less tempted to wage war if we didn’t have more than 50 defense treaties with other nations, or personnel stationed in about 600 foreign bases? You said “the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.” Sounds like another good reason to leave NATO — so we don’t go dragging them into our wars.

originally posted by: Frostmore
a reply to: Scapegrace

No more American blood for Europeans! What have they ever done for us since France helped us gain our independence? We always end up helping them, never the other way around

I have Norwegian countrymen who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq...
Causalities Norway
Why do you think Norway or any other European country would be anywhere near the middle east in the first place?

So F off!

Do something else more worthwhile with your time please! Because this display of narrow mindedness is just embarrassing.

All right, I apologize and thank your countrymen for their help. But it still doesn’t come close to what the USA has done to protect the freedom of Western Europe, including Norway, which would have been conquered rather quickly if the Soviets had invaded and the USA weren’t there to oppose them. So you F off, and maybe show a little appreciation for America. I don’t care what you think of me, though I have a pretty good idea what that is.

originally posted by: Frostmore
a reply to: Scapegrace

No more American blood for Europeans! What have they ever done for us since France helped us gain our independence? We always end up helping them, never the other way around

I have Norwegian countrymen who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq...
Causalities Norway
Why do you think Norway or any other European country would be anywhere near the middle east in the first place?

So F off!

Do something else more worthwhile with your time please! Because this display of narrow mindedness is just embarrassing.

America’s sacrifice in WWII was also rather beneficial for little Norway, yes? You guys were caught between a rock and a hard place in the form of Germany and Russia. What if the USA had chosen to sit out the war in Europe, perfectly secure in our geographical isolation, invulnerable after we had nuclear weapons by August 1945. What would have become of poor Norway?

originally posted by: Scapegrace

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Scapegrace

I think the title is misleading. It should say "Congressional approval" not "Senate approval". The bill came from a Senate committee but grants the House the power to restrain the President's actions. As should be the case under the Constitution.

I think that the submission of this bill perhaps indicates a fear that the President could 'go rogue' and start doing things that the other branches of government don't condone.

Also, what part of Europe is Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait or Iraq? I don't think you can blame NATO for any of the US's recent wars. If anything, the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.

Face it that the US is particularly war mongering and It isn't demarcated upon party lines. Many of the recent conflicts have been under Republican Presidencies, too.

Although I appreciate your anti-war stance, I don't think that allowing the President to usurp the rest of government will actually reduce the number of wars that the US gets into. Leaving NATO will further isolate the US from the rest of the world and the bill will redress a loophole in the Constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government.

Not that this bill comes from the Republican majority Senate. It looks to me that someone is concerned that the President may have an agenda other than what is best for the country.

I would think further isolating “the US from the rest of the world” would protect the world from our warmongering. Wouldn’t we be less tempted to wage war if we didn’t have more than 50 defense treaties with other nations, or personnel stationed in about 600 foreign bases? You said “the US has used NATO to drag other countries into conflicts that they otherwise would not have become involved.” Sounds like another good reason to leave NATO — so we don’t go dragging them into our wars.

The thing is, the opponents of the US are allying in power bloc's against which an isolated US has little defense. North Korea can field a significantly larger soldiery, Russia has nukes to equal if not exceed the US arsenal, China has tech and an economy that approaches and is growing faster than the US. If they get together, a shattered Europe and the Americas aren't going to cut it, in war or simply in economic power.

Not to mention what a united Middle Eastern bloc might add.

Like it or not, the Western nations are either in it together, or they all fall separately.

a reply to: Scapegrace

Thanks for the apology, and sorry for being so aggressive.

True about Americas help during WWII being very beneficial for Norway, but without that sacrifice the world would look very very different today, and I'm not sure it would look very good for America eighter.

Sweden managed very well without NATO, but Norway may or may not have been invaded by Russia. And our oil would then fall in Russian hands.

I think chr0naut above me is quite right too. Without the alliances, Russia and China would consume us all.

Marshal plan

The Marshall Plan, it should be noted, benefited the American economy as well

Aside from helping to put Europe back on its feet, the Marshall Plan led to [...], and at the same time stopped the spread of communism and put the European economy back on its feet.

Finally I don't think the fall of America right now is caused by the weight you pull in NATO. I agree that all members should contribute equally, but the USA was booming at the same time you put so much resources into Europe. It's like we are mutually dependent on each other. Now the US declines, Europe is fragmented again and the main benefactors are China and Russia.

It is not about NATO.
it about taking power from trump!

Also without any US involvement in European wars I don't think we would have this conversation at all. There would be no NATO, Russia or USA. Just the Euroasian-american Reich.

a reply to: Scapegrace

Well, trump may know the truth and sven desire to get put but he's been doing what all other presidents have done regarding Afghanistan: Lie to the American Public.

Trump also declared an indefinite stay in iraq and did not help the Palestinian/israel situation. My point is that he is not too different from obama.

People keep claiming trump is some maverick but i don't see anything but more of the same.