Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
timschochet

NATO

259 posts in this topic

It outrages me that this should even be a topic for political discussion, but thanks to Trump it is.

From 1949 to 2018, the North Atlantic Treaty has essentially kept the peace of the world and prevented a third world war, which, given nuclear weapons, would likely mean the end of human civilization as we know it. During almost all of that time, the principles of the NATO alliance were respected by Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative alike in this country almost without exception- every once in a while you might hear extreme isolationist voices, such as from Pat Buchanan on the right or Noam Chomsky on the left, decrying the value of NATO, but these were exceedingly rare.

The principles of NATO go back to Winston Churchill's concept of a post-war alliance of the United States and western Europe. In a famous debate with Eleanor Roosevelt, Churchill argued that such an alliance would secure world peace and prosperity. Eleanor Roosevelt, loyal to her husband and Woodrow Wilson's vision, believed that a strong United Nations and more aid to the third world would be more valuable. Between the two arguments, history clearly shows, IMO, that Churchill was the more correct. But it's important to note that neither of them even considered a return to isolationism or "America First"- they knew that, after World War II, that was impossible forever. It still is.

Donald Trump's viewpoint on this issue is extremist, stupid, and a threat to our national security and to the security of the world. That is not hyperbole. Of all of Trump's moves since taking office, this one is arguably the most profoundly dangerous to our future well-being. (It is also largely to the short term benefit of Vladimir Putin's Russia, though I would argue not long term even for them.)

This shouldn't be a liberals vs. conservatives debate. If you're either of those, you should be agreeing with me. If you don't, then I invite you to come in and defend what Trump is doing. Myself, I find it indefensible.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should pay their fair share, don’t you agree?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

Everyone should pay their fair share, don’t you agree?

Fair share of what? Their own defense spending? Frankly I don't care. It's a stupid issue. It was stupid when Obama brought it up, and it's much stupider now that Trump actually thinks its a big issue (and you agree with him.)

Our own defense spending has much less to do with our defense than it has to do with certain big corporations lobbying the government for handouts. The amount of money we spend on defense is obscene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Fair share of what? Their own defense spending? Frankly I don't care. It's a stupid issue. It was stupid when Obama brought it up, and it's much stupider now that Trump actually thinks its a big issue (and you agree with him.)

Our own defense spending has much less to do with our defense than it has to do with certain big corporations lobbying the government for handouts. The amount of money we spend on defense is obscene.

I’m sure you will agree that the wars waged by Bush & Obama have been very costly. At some point other nations in NATO need to pay more , pay their fair share. We can’t afford to keep subsidizing Europe’s defenses

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Everyone should pay their fair share, don’t you agree?

And everyone should be honest about what is being paid.  Don’t you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

I’m sure you will agree that the wars waged by Bush & Obama have been very costly. At some point other nations in NATO need to pay more , pay their fair share. We can’t afford to keep subsidizing Europe’s defenses

What wars by Bush and Obama involved NATO? I think you're a little confused here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're referring to the War in Afghanistan, HT, (and that must be what you're referring to I guess), WE, the USA, were the ones to invoke Article 5 after 9/11. We were the first ones ever to do so. 42 nations sent troops to our aid. They gave their lives to defend us, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

What wars by Bush and Obama involved NATO? I think you're a little confused here.

We’ve spent way too much on those wars . No confusion on that.. sometimes the atm runs out of cash. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

We’ve spent way too much on those wars . No confusion on that.. sometimes the atm runs out of cash. 

Those wars were not fought to defend NATO. They were fought to defend US. You do understand that, right? The other NATO countries sent troops in to defend the security of the United States. They gave their lives to defend us.

I'm not sure you're getting this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

If you're referring to the War in Afghanistan, HT, (and that must be what you're referring to I guess), WE, the USA, were the ones to invoke Article 5 after 9/11. We were the first ones ever to do so. 42 nations sent troops to our aid. They gave their lives to defend us, not the other way around.

Really , gee wiz where was I. No kidding . My goodness . 

No tim I know this . Cripes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

Really , gee wiz where was I. No kidding . My goodness . 

No tim I know this . Cripes 

Then why would you, or anyone, argue that the other nations should have paid more TO FIGHT OUR WAR??? Isn't it enough that they sent troops and gave up lives? It's embarrassing that we're now asking them to pay more, don't you think? Shame on Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Those wars were not fought to defend NATO. They were fought to defend US. You do understand that, right? The other NATO countries sent troops in to defend the security of the United States. They gave their lives to defend us.

I'm not sure you're getting this...

:lmao:

this is bizarro world today . All these years I thought we were defending France

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Then why would you, or anyone, argue that the other nations should have paid more TO FIGHT OUR WAR??? Isn't it enough that they sent troops and gave up lives? It's embarrassing that we're now asking them to pay more, don't you think? Shame on Trump.

Just the latest hysteria 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And anyhow, this "pay more" stuff is just a sham. From the time Trump started running (actually well before) he was disparaging NATO. His statements and actions have been despicable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Everyone should pay their fair share, don’t you agree?

Did you read the twitter thread that @Maurile Tremblay posted the other day about how the US designed NATO to have the US be the dominant force? Thus the US spending more is a feature of the plan not a failure of it? I'll see if I can find that thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

And anyhow, this "pay more" stuff is just a sham. From the time Trump started running (actually well before) he was disparaging NATO. His statements and actions have been despicable.

Right. Trump's foreign policy makes complete sense if you look at it through the lens of what would benefit Russia the most.

And I'm not writing this to derail the thread. Its a legit point that needs to be addressed when discussing Trump's position with NATO.

Edited by whoknew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s much ado about nothing . Nothing will change . No need to get upset

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Then why would you, or anyone, argue that the other nations should have paid more TO FIGHT OUR WAR??? Isn't it enough that they sent troops and gave up lives? It's embarrassing that we're now asking them to pay more, don't you think? Shame on Trump.

I don't think the Afghan War is the issue.  I do think it's an issue when we are stationing troops in Germany and Korea and other places around the world to help secure the safety of other countries.  There's a cost to that and judging from our past I doubt we are being made whole on the cost.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Everyone should pay their fair share, don’t you agree?

sure.  Let's try the favorite Republican tactic of starving the beast.  Let's cut our military expenditures to 2%  of our GDP (currently 4.81%) ...betcha the rest of NATO steps up.

Do any republicans have the balls to cut defense spending by 41%?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I don't think the Afghan War is the issue.  I do think it's an issue when we are stationing troops in Germany and Korea and other places around the world to help secure the safety of other countries.  There's a cost to that and judging from our past I doubt we are being made whole on the cost.

First off our troops in Korea have nothing to do with NATO.

Second I don't know what you mean by "being made whole on the cost". I would argue that securing world peace, which we have done since 1945, has secured vast economic opportunity and prosperity for us and has more than paid for our costs thousands of times over.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

First off our troops in Korea have nothing to do with NATO.

Second I don't know what you mean by "being made whole on the cost". I would argue that securing world peace, which we have done since 1945, has secured vast economic opportunity and prosperity for us and has more than paid for our costs thousands of times over.

I really think you are jumping the gun with your outrage. I really don’t expect anything will change. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

I don't think the Afghan War is the issue.  I do think it's an issue when we are stationing troops in Germany and Korea and other places around the world to help secure the safety of other countries.  There's a cost to that and judging from our past I doubt we are being made whole on the cost.

point 1: It strikes me as really odd - we have had the worlds #1 economy for the past 70+ years, yet all I hear about is bad deal after bad deal.  I mean, how bad do we have it, really?

point 2: do you think it's a good idea for Germany to have a large standing army?  Not sure I am all that fond of how that turned out the last few times that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Just the latest hysteria 

Like those illegal things in Boston you keep avoiding?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

I really think you are jumping the gun with your outrage. I really don’t expect anything will change. 

Well I hope you're right. But the rhetoric alone justifies my outrage.

Edited by timschochet
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The outrage over everything and anything has become like a car alarm on your street. When they became mainstream if you heard one everyone would check it out. Now if you hear one the 1st thought is what moron hit they fob by accident

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

The outrage over everything and anything has become like a car alarm on your street. When they became mainstream if you heard one everyone would check it out. Now if you hear one the 1st thought is what moron hit they fob by accident

Your argument here is fairly predictable at this point: first you actually tried to argue the issue, somewhat weakly. When you were confronted with facts and arguments you couldn't respond to, you chalked the whole thing up to "hysteria". This has been the Trumper defense in a nutshell no matter what the issue.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

First off our troops in Korea have nothing to do with NATO.

Second I don't know what you mean by "being made whole on the cost". I would argue that securing world peace, which we have done since 1945, has secured vast economic opportunity and prosperity for us and has more than paid for our costs thousands of times over.

My statement wasn't made to be NATO specific so we can discuss Korea separately if need be but it's the same concept.  I agree with you that peace can bring prosperity.  But even moreso for those directly in harm's way.  I don't understand what the issue is in asking for our costs to be reimbursed for our commitments there.  Just as you mentioned the Afghan war, those allies gave their lives to help us, how dare we ask for their money.  I wholeheartedly agree.  Just as Americans have given their lives and sacrificed for other countries as well, and continue to do so today, shouldn't we as a country not be asked to also foot the economic bill as you suggested would be so abhorrent for us to expect of countries who committed troops in the Afghan conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shula-holic said:

My statement wasn't made to be NATO specific so we can discuss Korea separately if need be but it's the same concept.  I agree with you that peace can bring prosperity.  But even moreso for those directly in harm's way.  I don't understand what the issue is in asking for our costs to be reimbursed for our commitments there.  Just as you mentioned the Afghan war, those allies gave their lives to help us, how dare we ask for their money.  I wholeheartedly agree.  Just as Americans have given their lives and sacrificed for other countries as well, and continue to do so today, shouldn't we as a country not be asked to also foot the economic bill as you suggested would be so abhorrent for us to expect of countries who committed troops in the Afghan conflict?

Except that we are in Germany and Korea for our own interests.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this ALL about money. That's it. :lol: 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

I’m sure you will agree that the wars waged by Bush & Obama have been very costly. At some point other nations in NATO need to pay more , pay their fair share. We can’t afford to keep subsidizing Europe’s defenses

What do theu US' Middle Eastern adventures have to do with the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"?

I give you the preambe to the treaty:

Quote

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treat

Now, do tell me where it states that a NATO member  must follow US into war in a completely different theater of the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, moleculo said:

point 1: It strikes me as really odd - we have had the worlds #1 economy for the past 70+ years, yet all I hear about is bad deal after bad deal.  I mean, how bad do we have it, really?

point 2: do you think it's a good idea for Germany to have a large standing army?  Not sure I am all that fond of how that turned out the last few times that happened.

WWII ended 63 years ago.  Are we to believe that the Germans are incapable as an ethnicity of having a force designed to keep the peace or what exactly is your argument?  I'd argue that a conventional army today isn't nearly as risky of an offensive force as it is a deterrent to an attack from another country.  I also never said we had it bad, but by that line of reasoning we should foot the bill for everyone who isn't our equivalent in economic prosperity.  Last I looked, the economies of Germany, South Korea, other places we station troops aren't exactly struggling.  We have enormous debt, it has to end somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Your argument here is fairly predictable at this point: first you actually tried to argue the issue, somewhat weakly. When you were confronted with facts and arguments you couldn't respond to, you chalked the whole thing up to "hysteria". This has been the Trumper defense in a nutshell no matter what the issue.

if you know whats going to happen, why do you keep replying?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

It’s much ado about nothing . Nothing will change . No need to get upset

If you by this means that Trump will have to back down and pretend not to eat crow, then yes. 
But the feeling of unity between the NATO allies with the US is dwindling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joffer said:

if you know whats going to happen, why do you keep replying?

For the sake of others who may read our exchange, and find HellToupee's arguments compelling for some reason.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Except that we are in Germany and Korea for our own interests.

I'd argue the South Koreans have more of an interest in having us there.  Are you suggesting they'd be fine with us leaving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shula-holic said:

I'd argue the South Koreans have more of an interest in having us there.  Are you suggesting they'd be fine with us leaving?

I'm sure some of them would. It's short sided though.

Look, I'm fine with them paying more. I'm fine with us complaining about them paying more. But that's as far as it goes with me. I would never make a huge issue out of it, the way Trump is doing, because in the end I agree with every other President we've had since Truman: we get more out of it than we put in, and that's the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Your argument here is fairly predictable at this point: first you actually tried to argue the issue, somewhat weakly. When you were confronted with facts and arguments you couldn't respond to, you chalked the whole thing up to "hysteria". This has been the Trumper defense in a nutshell no matter what the issue.

Christ almighty I was having a little fun tim. I’m sorry but I’m burnt out with al the fake outrage 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

I'm sure some of them would. It's short sided though.

Look, I'm fine with them paying more. I'm fine with us complaining about them paying more. But that's as far as it goes with me. I would never make a huge issue out of it, the way Trump is doing, because in the end I agree with every other President we've had since Truman: we get more out of it than we put in, and that's the bottom line.

That's fair.  But when it comes to money, you're never going to get what you don't request.  That's true in every facet of life I've ever seen, business, family, friends.  I don't think we are in the wrong for asking an economy who significantly benefits from trade with us, who we also provide their national security and help said economy, to reimburse us for the cost.  Let's not even get into the risk of life our soldiers are taking by being the first in line for harm should a conflict erupt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HellToupee said:

Christ almighty I was having a little fun tim. I’m sorry but I’m burnt out with al the fake outrage 

HellToupee, I am going to be as honest as I can with you: I guarantee you this is not fake outrage.

If you have read my posts since Trump announced his campaign for President around 3 years ago now, you will know that I consider this issue of premium importance. It is inconceivable to me that an American President would attack NATO. It is inconceivable to me that Republicans in Congress would sit by and allow this President to attack NATO without rising to its defense. Eisenhower, Reagan, Goldwater, Buckley, and every great conservative voice we've had since World War II are all spinning in their graves. It's a desecration of their memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It is also largely to the short term benefit of Vladimir Putin's Russia, though I would argue not long term even for them.

I'm not officially diagnosing Putin as a psychopath, but one thing worth keeping in mind about psychopaths is that, for many of them, "long term" considerations mean just up to the end of their own lives. After that, who cares?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.