Rubio: ‘NATO Is Still a Good Idea — It Has to Be Modernized’

brietbart ^ | 06/12/2018 | Pam Key

[ChicagoConservative27]

Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Daily Briefing,” Sen Marco Rubio (R-FL) said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was “still a good idea,” but it has to be “modernized.”

When asked about President Donald Trump’s criticism of the alliance, Rubio said, “First of all, NATO is still a good idea. It has to be modernized, so it has a new purpose and a new meaning in the 21st century. I continue to believe and support NATO.”

[Zhang Fei]

[But now I see the bulk of defense spending as the means by which politicians get and stay elected (among many such means).]

---

Defense spending is a lot like insurance. It will seem like a waste until a time that you need it. Then you won’t have time to ramp up spending quickly enough to meet the threat. We’re fortunate to have oceans on either side. Even so, after decades of spending 1% of GDP on defense per year, we spent 2 years of economic output (200% of GDP) fighting WWII. Because of decades of starvation budgets that short-changed both training and equipment, we also lost 400K men, despite getting into the war only after the Axis powers had already taken significant losses (Japan from fighting China, and Germany from fighting Russia), and fighting a smaller fraction of Axis forces than other Allies that were literally involved in life-and-death struggles.

Note that the defense budget is only 10% of total government spending. And it’s the one item that government has always spent money on, because it’s necessary for the protection of the nation. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

[Zhang Fei]

[They can increase their spending whether or not NATO exists.]

---

The lesson of the past few centuries is that no European country can defeat Russia whether in offense or defense, alone or in coalition. And Russia’s default mode is offense. That’s why NATO exists - to hold back the Russian leviathan.

The alliance exists so we have a logistical footprint in Europe, so American troops are familiar with the terrain and can operate well with local troops. It also provides a reason to prevent the Democrats from cutting our defense spending to Canadian levels, and spending it on priority items on the liberal wish list.

If we had Canadian levels of defense spending, our response to 9/11 would have involved a diplomatic protest at the UN. 1% of GDP defense spending in the run-up to WWII turned out to be horrendously expensive, as we spent 200% of GDP and 400K dead fighting WWII.

[ASA Vet]

The main reason Russia has not stepped did not step into western Europe is NATO was two US Corps in Germany.

[RinaseaofDs]

Rubio . . .

8 year olds.

Europe’s okay getting 70% of their power from Russia. NATO was designed to protect Europe from Russia. The US pays for most of it. Other than continuing to subsidize European countries who erect barriers to US products, what purpose does NATO serve?

[Candor7]

‘NATO Is Still a Good Idea — It Has to Be Modernized’>>>>>>>>>>

The weapons have to be modernized.

But NATO now has a genuine leader in Donald Trump.His meeting with NATO leaders was historic.
He reminds me in some ways of Chesty Puller. Thank God we have him.

” We are surrounded by the enemy. We have them right where we want them!”

[upbeat5]

“Rubio is a RINO of he first degree with grande illusions of grandeur. I regret immensely my vote for him as the lesser of two evils. Hopefully a true patriot will stand against him next time around. He hates Trump and shows it at every opportunity.”

---

Rubio trying to be relevant and insert himself in NATO news totally covered because Trump is there. Agree, RINO of first degree.

[BitWielder1]

We need NATO to make sure the member nations have a stake in their own and each others defense and not become complacent in their dependence on USA.
If they don't have to bear the cost of future conflicts, they will cause them.

[Zhang Fei]

[Europe’s okay getting 70% of their power from Russia. NATO was designed to protect Europe from Russia. The US pays for most of it. Other than continuing to subsidize European countries who erect barriers to US products, what purpose does NATO serve?]

---

To protect Europe from Russia. But that doesn’t mean Europe won’t screw us over, the way the Japanese and the Koreans have done pretty much since the end of WWII. And we let them do so in order to help their war-devastated economies recover. Those economies are now recovered. So we need to renegotiate the terms of the alliance. We still need the alliance, because we don’t want a Russian empire that extends all the way to the Mediterranean. But it would be nice if the Europeans carried their weight on trade and defense.

A lot of Republicans and Democrats think we should always carry all of the weight, that we should play Santa Claus. Trump’s take is that we not only shouldn’t - we can’t afford to play Santa Claus. If our allies aren’t prepared to fight, we shouldn’t be part of that alliance.

[Wuli]

“Rubio” the enabler of the opiod mass selling agenda of the pill mills of Florida, and from Florida to the nation.

[DoodleDawg]

We are there in least in part to prevent Germany from getting access to another world class military.

I don’t want an idiot like Merkel, or the E. U. to have a military to complicate global dynamics.

Then why is Trump after them to increase their defense spending?

[RinaseaofDs]

You can’t get people off the dole without just ending it. It’s the only way that works.

It’s human nature, and yes, both the Japanese (although lately that has changed dramatically, and in Korea too) and the Europeans are hooked on junk.

[raiderboy]

What is the goal and objective of Nato. I see no real purpose. It certainly is not Russia. Germany is so comfortable with Russia that they buy all their natural gas from Russia in a pipeline they are totally dependent upon. So other that Russia— what is it?

[JustSurrounded]

He’s got to keep himself visible for his 2020 Trump challenge.

[DoughtyOne]

I think he has pegged his request at 2% of their individual GDP. We pay 4% of ours.

Germany is paying a little over 1% of their GDP, others are slackers too.

He’s just tired of us having to pick up the full tab.

They can help out more than they are, and they know it.

This 2% figure would not be big enough to cause trouble. Hey, they don’t want to spend anything.

[cgbg]

Is there any huge antiquated bureaucracy that doesn’t get his man/boy love?

[FirstFlaBn]

Tomorrow’s headlines today:

Maxine Waters Calls on NATO to Impeach Trump

Kamala Harris Demands ICE Budget Be Sent to Germany to Defend Russian Pipeline Against Russian Aggression

[FLT-bird]

Do in other words Marco, you want to continue to subsidize the Yurps in perpetuity with no recognizable benefit to the US. That doesn’t work for us. We’ve done that for 73 years. Enough.

[shanover]

POTUS is right about the double standards of countries that hide behind NATO, still deal with Russia while America pays most of the NATO tab. NATO seems to think it is too big to fail and is essential like the worthless UN. It is essential that America trains with other military forces and has alliances but the NATO charter is obsolete.

[GOPJ]

It's a good idea IF they're not a bunch of ingrates ripping off the American people.

[sarge83]

NATO has been wondering aimlessly since 1991. It either has to evolve or end. Western Europe as shown by Germany has shown they are at ease with the Russian bear. I would suggest the US start a repositioning of forces to Asia from Europe. The krauts will wail like stuck pigs when we start closing those big US bases which they claim to hate but eagerly want the $$$ from those bases.

I would not however leave Poland and eastern Europe to the good graces of the Russian bear. I would think a couple of US bases and mutual defense pacts with Poland and Hungary possibly would be a good deterrent. As for the western Eurotrash, the free ride should be over asap.