Posted on 02/21/2017 8:02:29 AM PST by GonzoII
Candidate Donald Trump set off a furious controversy when he said NATO countries should pay their "fair share" of mutual defense costs and, later, that the treaty organization was "obsolete" because not enough of its efforts were directed against radical Islamic terrorism.
On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence took the Trump message to NATO headquarters in Brussels. And after all the controversy and complaining, NATO's response could be boiled down to a single sentence: Yes sir, Mr. Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
BIG STICK
IMO, NATO allowed itself to go so far beyond its original charter it seems almost incapable of rehabilitation. Their forays of support for direct violent action in support of the Muslim Obama on continental Africa (Libya) was inexcusable in my opinion.
Personally, I think it is a bloated and ill-used organization that has become steeped in this European Union like mentality that it clearly doesn’t support US interests.
This is its last chance to come to Jesus or be relegated to the same ilk of the League of Nations.
Getting NATO members to pay for participation is symbolic.
The United States is uniquely positioned to run up its debt, with impunity. At least so far.
Other NATO members must balance spending with revenues for the most part or beg other countries (i.e. Germany) for handouts.
We can just keep on spending money we don’t have.
NATO has degenerated into mere muscle for globalism. It has become what it was intended to prevent.
BS, these freeloaders I am sure stipulate it will take 20 years to pay fair share.
USA should close German bases and shift to Poland, Turkey
and include Israel in Nato.
BS, these freeloaders I am sure stipulate it will take 20 years to pay fair share.
USA should close German bases and shift to Poland, Turkey
and include Israel in Nato.
It has been without a mission since 1991. It needs to change or die. Do we need NATO? Is it in the US’s interest to continue this alliance? I think yes but the terms must be changed and updated to a post-Soviet world.
Libya was pushed by France and it was Obama who chose to support them. It wasn’t an operation mandated by the NATO treaty.
It WAS however an operation largely carried out by NATO planes, was it not?
That just meant many of the participants had trained together and had compatible communication equipment. Yet there was non-NATO countries like Sweden, Jordan, Qatar and UAE involved and most NATO countries did not participate.
NATO itself has only a couple of AWACS planes anyway. All the other planes belong to the respective countries militaries.
You are excusing an uncharted action which is responsible for numerous civilian deaths in Libya (you can Google that and get a bunch of links, BTW). To say that “other countries”, non-NATO or not were involved is flatly irrelevant.
You are dissembling the facts AND the outcome of its actions. There have been plenty of instances where war crimes were committed and those “who were only following orders” were punished - rightfully.
The bottom line is that NATO (and this isn’t fiction) participated in military action that result in civilian deaths in an operation completely outside and beyond its charter, period.
I would count it a NATO operation if it came out of NATO treaty. Afghanistan was a NATO operation because countries were treaty bound to go there. That was not the case for Libya. Obama ordered US participation because he wanted to.
Oh come on now. You willing to bend over so far backward you snap in half to excuse NATO’s actions simply because they weren’t acting according the charter? THAT’s what I am saying - AND CONDEMNING - except I’m not willing to chalk it off as “oh, well...nothing to see here.”
Give me a break.
I am not bending over backward and I am not being disrespectful. We just disagree what NATO is. For me it is something that has kept the peace for nearly 70 years and Libya bombing is not NATO in my opinion as Obama could have refused without breaking any treaties. Germany, Spain and Italy (and more) refused for example.
Different from Afghanistan as then all the members were treaty bound.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.