Posted on 07/11/2018 3:13:57 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
One of the interesting aspects of the hysteria is that NATO’s supporters never seem to think it is necessary to explain why it would be a bad idea to end the alliance.
*snip
NATO’s ineffectiveness ought to be the key issue of discussion when considering its future. But to date, that weakness has been largely overlooked in the rush to blame Trump for allegedly destroying America’s alliances.
*snip*
In an interview with Bloomberg last week, German Defense Minister Ursula Von Der Leyen insisted that the most important goal of Thursday’s summit would be “unity.”
*snip*
Notably, Von Der Leyen failed to mention who NATO’s opponents are. That was no fluke. The one thing that has been lacking in all of NATO’s post-Cold War interventions has been a common sense of strategic purpose.
*snip*
As for radical Islam, due to Turkish membership in NATO, and due to European refusal to take any significant steps to rein in radical Islamic forces in Europe or anywhere else, it is abundantly clear that NATO is not the proper vehicle for U.S.-led collective defense against Iran or other jihadist powers.
*snip*
As for President Trump, despite the bloviations of his critics, he bears no responsibility for NATO’s irrelevance. Trump did not cause NATO to have little role to play in fighting the key threats to American and global security. NATO has had nearly three decades to figure out how to do that. But it failed.
All that Trump has done is point out the reality of NATO’s decline — which his four predecessors refused to acknowledge.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
True. So drop NATO and let them stew in their Small, Small World.
I would have NATO evolve into something that protects those European nations that want to protect themselves from the current mooselimb invasion, and let the others destroy themselves, since it sure looks like that’s what they want....
What about Ramstein?
Wow—check out the comments under this article about Trump and NATO. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such uniform support for the president in response to a MSM article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-slams-captive-germany-nato-summit-081237901.html
Long term, they have to stand on their own. Trump is doing the correct thing and won’t kowtow to the socialists!
Exactly where did I say that NATO was preventing that (i.e. takeover by Islam)?
Why don’t WE give NATO the same importance that Europe shows it? After all Europe isn’t even willing to pay for it.
NATO is the 21st century equivalent of the Maginot Line
The Maginot Line was a failed attempt to protect a border.
NATO refuses to even make the attempt to protect their border.
End it.
AGREED! LOL!
It’s really the Imaginot Line.
Who’s the leader of the club that’s made for you and me .....
D-O-N-A-L-D T-R-U-M-P!
You said, and I quote, "The U.S. still has a role to play in any alliance to the extent that we have an interest in a free Europe (i.e. one not completely taken over by Islam)."
If NATO is not furthering that goal then what role to we play by remaining in it? And if Europe is not interested in avoiding a Muslim takeover then what can we do to prevent it?
Not a Trump fan, but you are 100% correct on Poland. Right now, they are our most important European ally.
Long term, short term, any term you care to mention, they're not going to do that while we're in NATO. And if the President is upset at how much it's costing us then pull out and do away with all the military units that were defending NATO and realize the cost savings.
Fixed.
Why? Just build a wall. Much cheaper and less labor intensive.
Man, they are pouring almost 900 million dollars into that new hospital to replace Landstuhl...won’t be done for two more years. Would be hard to see them give up on the runway, big mega BX, the new hospital, and the various local features.
In your post 6 above to me:
You quoted me as saying: Trump probably won't destroy NATO, but he will surely revise it into something useful.I responded to that question with this comment:Then you asked: Which would be what exactly?
How about a European alliance that, for the most part, pays its own way and clearly identifies the enemy that has already conducted an invasion of almost every nook and cranny of Europe except for Hungary and Austria. After clearly identifying that enemy, how about developing and implementing a plan of action (with the necessary military force) capable achieving victory over (i.e. destroying) that enemy not just on home soil but back to the source. [NOTE added now by me: This is NOT NATO, BUT A REVISED NATO...ONE FOCUSED ON THE ACTUAL GOAL].Then in you last comment to me, you completely ignore my previous comment that NATO must be revised to actually focus on the enemy (Islam) and asked...
You asked: If NATO is not furthering that goal then what role to we play by remaining in it?If you don't mind, I will wait until you and I can have a logical discussion of the issue rather than get involved in circular and obtuse discussion with you.
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.