purpose of NATO for U.S.

It is neither heresy nor unpatriotic to question our membership in NATO, Bridget. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other Founders were quite explicit in their warnings about staying out of permanent, entangling alliances, and they had the Europeans in mind when they said that. This is an excerpt from Washington's presidential farewell address:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities... it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.

Would anyone care to question the patriotism of the father of our country?

Bottom line, it's not 1949 anymore. What made sense then doesn't necessarily make sense now, and we have to look to our own interests and welfare first, not Europe's. Rest assured, the Europeans will look to their own interests and welfare first and not ours.

What we need to do today is take stock of our situation today. Can we continue to expend the immense amounts of blood and treasure we have spent since the end of World War II? If we can't we shouldn't, and if we can we need to ask ourselves why we should? As you asked, what's in it for us - how does it benefit our people and our country? Do the costs justify the benefits?

And what of our friends and allies - do they not have the means of defending themselves and their interests?

It's high time we reassessed our nation's place and role in the world today - not what the world was 50 to 80 to 100 years ago.

Food for thought: Prior to the internationalist Roosevelt and Wilson Administrations the United States was happy with being a regional power. We didn't feel a need to interject ourselves into the bloody and expensive atavisms of the Old World, and quite frankly I wonder why we feel obligated to interject ourselves into them now?

Old habits (and bad habits) are hard to break. Perhaps, it's time we broke this one for our own good. It would do the Europeans good, too.

 

The USSR (Soviet Union) under Joseph Stalin was a significant threat, though
the destruction of Dresden was a good example of the bombing capabilities
of the US and Britain, no doubt made a very good point. As did the atomic bomb
which even after the USSR developed it in August 1949, the US was way
ahead in numbers and delivery methods for many years.

Joseph Stalin died in March 1953 and after a few years Khrushchev became
the clear leader of the USSR. In the meantime in 1956 the USSR sent tanks
into the capital of Hungary to crush a developing rebellion. This action showed
both the continuing authoritarian behavior of the USSR and discontent within
the USSR.

In 1961 the US placed Jupiter missiles in Turkey with the ability to hit Moscow.
The USSR responded by placing missile(s) in Cuba leading to the USSR
withdrawing their missiles and then the US taking our missiles out of Turkey.

That was the result of JFK and Khrushchev negotiating directly.

Things have changed a lot since then.

 

Over the next 3 decades the USSR was not a real threat, there were magazines
owned by US weapons makers showing false information about the size of
the USSR nuclear arsenal, but the USSR was primarily concerned with keeping
it's own union together, and eventually in 1989 it came apart.

NATO continued to exist as a place for European nations to put their militaries
and guaranteed they would not fight each other.

Although NATO has expanded almost to the border of Russia, this did not
threaten the Russian Federation until NATO crossed the red line and moved
weapons and training into Ukraine, and dual use missiles into Romania and
Poland (Aegis Ashore) which are presently claimed to be defensive, for
protection against missiles from Iran, the installations can be altered to
launch Tomahawk nuclear armed missiles against Russia, and the threat
of building launch sites in the Eastern Ukraine, a location of no value in
countering threats from missiles in Iran or Russia, appears to be a veiled
threat against Russia, which has not been a threat to Europe or the US.

Moving NATO weapons and training 680,000 troops in Ukraine, is the
threat Russia felt a need to respond to, but didn't until Kyiv began shelling
Donetsk.

 

So what is NATOs role now?

NATO is still organized as a defensive alliance and needs big control and command
changes for it's projected role of attacking Russia or China or anywhere else.

 

There is a very compelling reason. Any war that NATO fights will be fought on European soil, not our own. We'll still have to deal with all the world fallout but it won't be our cities and countryside that bears the brunt of the destruction. Europe is our buffer zone and also one of the highest concentrations on our allies. It's about far more than politics.

 

There are no dues.

 

A tax right off! There is a "WHAT We get out of it" but the WE are all those other countries that save GDP, and of course there is BONUS times where all the elites around the world profit off shitshows like Ukraine and Russia

 

We have made a pledge to our allies. I cannot see how reneging on that pledge helps this country in any way. We lose the faith of others in our word, we lose allies and perhaps we lose Europe. It would also set a bad example in the Pacific. Do you think that might encourage China?

 

What makes you think NATO members pay dues

 

Ordinary working class schlubs like me are profiting off shitshows like Ukraine and Russia, too.

When I set up my retirement portfolio I filled it with defense stocks and while the markets have gone up and down my investments have gone up up UP.

WAR: The Second Oldest Profession....and it's even more popular than the First.



Hey look - It's raining money....again....

It's like P.J. O'Rourke's said, and this is good investment advice, too:

I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners — two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.

 

In the case of Ukraine, you're making money off American TAXPAYER, now if Nato and Ukraine were paying the lions share of the bills, that would be Better? In your view?

 

Good question. It most certainly would be better - 100% profit.

When I have to help pay for sh*t that goes BOOM! it cuts into my margin.

 

America has always been a more effective and reliable ally for nations/people who vigorously help themselves.
As the prospect of a Trump victory becomes more likely Europe and Taiwan will inevitably increase war production.

Of course, the best result would be a quick victory for Ukraine, and permanent end to Russian and Chinese imperialism.

 

Europe most definitely should increase its war production and not just because of Trump's mean tweets. After Biden's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, British MPs and other European leaders expressed the need for their countries and militaries to operate independently from the United States:

The sooner they're weaned off the American teat the better - for everybody.

 

IMO, a US alliance with a strong Western Europe is critical to the long term security interests of every NATO country. Ignoring aggressive wars of conquest and occupation has always been followed more aggression and since the start of the last century world wars.

That said every NATO country now needs to show that is committed to defending itself by maintaining a high state of military preparedness.
They should all prepare for war or expect another wave of isolationism in the US and the inevitable consequences.

 

I too support NATO, but Im not sure that I understand your premise.

Why does it ensure that it will be fought on European soil? I would agree that a war with Russia probably would be fought on European soil, but why would the NATO alliance make it a surety? In other words, what about the existence of NATO means that Russia (or China) could not launch an attack or fire a missile here? What am I missing in this equation?

 

Actually it has 3 purposes

1. Keep the US in,
2. The Russians out, and
3. The Germans down.

Trump is right about NATO burden-sharing.

Our NATO allies are “eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.”

'You might think this is a line from one of former President Donald Trump’s stump speeches decrying the majority of NATO members’ continual failure to meet their defense spending commitment of 2% GDP. But this was a direct warning from then-Obama Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2011.'

'For nearly half a century, United States leaders have pleaded with our allies to step up their share of the burden. But until Trump began the public drumbeat for defense cost-sharing, European politicians were quite comfortable with American taxpayers subsidizing their defense so they could pay for their social welfare programs. As a result, the alliance is falling short of addressing the threats of today’s great power competition.'

'When Trump visited Brussels in 2017 to urge NATO members to “contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump was accused of scolding and chastising our allies.'

'Despite the outrage from the media and foreign policy elite, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was quick to praise Trump’s remarks, arguing it was the same message he’d given dating back to the 1970s while serving in the Nixon and Ford administrations.'

Trump is right.

Trump INCREASED NATO spending, and he also got our allies to increase their spending. Further, since Trump has take the lead in the polls and looks to be on a glide path toward re-election, the number of NATO allies who plan to finally meet their spending commitments, many for the first time, in 2024, has increased significantly.

 

Huh? A war fought in NATO territory will be in Europe whether we are a member or not. It is nothing but politics and international relations. There is no actual reason for us to be involved in it.

 

I am receiving quite an education in history! Which can only benefit me. We will see if the NATO agreement keeps Russia in Ukraine only. I think whatever happens will occur while Biden is still in office.

 

You people should read some old magazine articles. You will find the U.S. has been complaining about European NATO members not paying their "fair share" of NATO for the last FIFTY YEARS

 

If Russia doesn't respect the U.S. (and it doesn't) then it doesn't respect NATO either. The U.S. is the thousand pound gorilla in the room.