Posted on 04/14/2016 5:17:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
Donald Trump recently ignited another controversy when he mused that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was obsolete. He hinted that it might no longer be worth the huge American investment.
In typical Trump style, he hit a nerve, but he then offered few details about the consequences of either staying in or leaving NATO.
NATO is certainly no longer aimed at keeping a huge Soviet land army out of democratic Western Europe, as was envisioned in 1949.
The alliance has been unwisely expanded from its original 12-nation membership to include 28 countries, absorbing many of the old communist Warsaw Pact nations and some former Soviet republics. NATO may have meant well to offer security to these vulnerable new alliance members. Yet it is hard to imagine Belgians and Italians dying on the battlefield to keep Russian President Vladimir Putin's forces out of Lithuania or Estonia.
Today's NATO pledges to many of its newer participants are about as believable as British and French rhetorical guarantees in August 1939 to protect a far-away Poland from its Nazi and Soviet neighbors.
No NATO member during the 40-year Cold War invoked Article 4 of the treaty, requiring consultation of the entire alliance by a supposedly threatened member. Turkey has called for it four times since 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Might as well ask the question - Is UN worth preserving?
H3LL NO!
No.
Because NATO is Turkey, and Turkey is NATO.
Any names come to mind?
So the U.S. will be better off without Europe, without Japan, without Korea?
Will she be if you walk out of NATO?
Quite right!
We can always sign a defense pact specifically with Britain. They have long had a special relationship with the US.
Heck, Britain is even considering an exit from the EU.
Any names come to you?
Great synopsis.
It does, though, need the adult to enforce the NATO rules - 2% GDP military expenditures and no autocracies allowed (Turkey).
In what way does our military relationship with any of those countries benefit us anymore? They're all triggers to involve us in a war with Russia and/or China at some point in the future.
I believe we should should have a level of engagement with them but the entire cost structure needs to be reworked at every level. Money, manpower, materiel. Those countries should all be carrying the bulk of the burden required for their defense, without the presence of huge numbers of US troops who serve as cannon fodder to stir the American people to war in the event of an attack.
NATO has become a cold war relic. It could have survived if it could have changed scope and remained small as in 1970’s type small.
Now it’s just a Bureaucracy of armed politically correct global multiculturalists.
If it’s not reigned in now, the Muslims will eventually co-opt them like they’re doing all of Europe.
If they were truly our allies they’d at least make an attempt to carry their own weight.
Every dollar we spend protecting them is another dollar they spend on welfare.
Why are we subsidizing the world’s welfare programs?
“NATO has become a cold war relic. It could have survived if it could have changed scope and remained small as in 1970’s type small.
Now it’s just a Bureaucracy of armed politically correct global multiculturalists.
If it’s not reigned in now, the Muslims will eventually co-opt them like they’re doing all of Europe.”
I think that is precisely the plan. The misfeasances of the EU and other European elites, including but by no means limited to Merkel, are rank lunacy otherwise. This is all a transnational putsh against traditional cultures and national identities.
There is hope. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqybsUqkOWs
“Because the U.S. without allies is stronger than the U.S. with allies? “
Yes, because we pay for those allies to belong to NATO. NATO is the US and whenever we need their support we get lukewarm responses.
Germany is really the problem with NATO. 1% of GDP and Obama has let them dictate policy. Germany actually deployed broomsticks to a NATO training event a while back because they had no weapons!
I read something and saw their first video a several years back. I tried contacting them several times, but they never responded.
I even wrote them each time in French.
I think they hold their cards close. Remember how Marie Le Pen was defending bogus criminal charges just a few months ago for daring to speak her mind about de facto Moslem occupation. I see similar emerging trends in other European nations too. The post WWII order, including NATO, is crumbling. That is on balance probably a very good thing.
“Any names come to mind?”
As a matter of fact, yes:
Britain.
France
Germany
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
None of which even come close to spending the agreed upon percentage of their GDP on defense.
L
NO!!!!
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.