NATO toast?

[libbity bibbity]

If NATO falls on Trump’s watch he owns it. Fvck him

NATO is about as worthless as the UN is. We pay the lion share of the money for these organizations and the other countries hate us, yet expect us to protect them when they don't pay their fair share, fvck them.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

NATO is about as worthless as the UN is. We pay the lion share of the money for these organizations and the other countries hate us, yet expect us to protect them when they don't pay their fair share, fvck them.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

If NATO falls on Trump’s watch he owns it. Fvck him

An event I would gladly claim ownership of. F.uck NATO. Parasitic cocksuckers.

 

[wilson reborn]

'Accounting issue'?

You think you snap fingers and have an army, or an air force?
It's years and years of sufficient investment to create military.
I don't know why you feel it important to obfuscate what Trump called out, which was their neglect of their agreement, and their duty to be able to protect their own citizens from the threats on their doorstep, not ours.
We don't have a huge military to protect us from Canada and Mexico, we have it to protect Europe, South Korea, Japan, and Middle Eastern nations. They can damn sure carry their share of the cost.

Got it. But you do think NATO is worth saving if everybody boosts spending? Some bros in this thread seem to disagree on the value of NATO.

 

[wilson reborn]

NATO is about as worthless as the UN is. We pay the lion share of the money for these organizations and the other countries hate us, yet expect us to protect them when they don't pay their fair share, fvck them.

NATO is worse than worthless. They could get in the way of our territorial expansion goals. We need to align with Russia and China, which share our objectives 😉

 

[libbity bibbity]

NATO is worse than worthless. They could get in the way of our territorial expansion goals. We need to align with Russia and China, which share our objectives 😉

We need to beat Russia and China to the punch, not align with them.

 

[wilson reborn]

We need to beat Russia and China to the punch, not align with them.

No, they share our objectives. We must align with them.

 

[seminole97]

Got it. But you do think NATO is worth saving if everybody boosts spending? Some bros in this thread seem to disagree on the value of NATO.

I'm in favor of a defensive alliance.
That's not a problem.

I am concerned about a 'defensive alliance' that Democratic presidents use to partition or other throw foreign countries with that haven't attacked that alliance.

 

[wilson reborn]

I'm in favor of a defensive alliance.
That's not a problem.

I am concerned about a 'defensive alliance' that Democratic presidents use to partition or other throw foreign countries with that haven't attacked that alliance.

That doesn’t make sense. Please rephrase

 

[Tenacious E]

I'm in favor of a defensive alliance.
That's not a problem.

I am concerned about a 'defensive alliance' that Democratic presidents use to partition or other throw foreign countries with that haven't attacked that alliance.

You do understand that it exists because of counties like Russia which actually invaded a European democratic county trying to overthrow it, right?

 

[seminole97]

That doesn’t make sense. Please rephrase

Is doesn't make sense, yet it happened.
NATO was used to attack and partition Serbia. Clinton ordered a bombing campaign, with several NATO allies, against a country that hadn't attacked us. He should have been impeached for violating the War Powers Resolution and keeping the bombing going past 60 days without Congressional authorization, but neither side of the aisle really wants to enforce that.
Then Obama used NATO to help jihadists overthrow the Libyan government, again a case where NATO started bombing a country that hadn't attacked it and triggered Article 5. Libya is still fractured in civil war, with jihadists and warlords creating another case study in regime change efforts gone sideways.

 

[wilson reborn]

Is doesn't make sense, yet it happened.
NATO was used to attack and partition Serbia. Clinton ordered a bombing campaign, with several NATO allies, against a country that hadn't attacked us. He should have been impeached for violating the War Powers Resolution and keeping the bombing going past 60 days without Congressional authorization, but neither side of the aisle really wants to enforce that.
Then Obama used NATO to help jihadists overthrow the Libyan government, again a case where NATO started bombing a country that hadn't attacked it and triggered Article 5. Libya is still fractured in civil war, with jihadists and warlords creating another case study in regime change efforts gone sideways.

You’re totally distracted. The NATO alliance could be wrecked soon.

 

[seminole97]

You’re totally distracted.

Sharp and focused on how the alliance has actually been used since the end of the Cold War, exactly why it is perceived as a threat in some quarters.

The NATO alliance could be wrecked soon.

The NATO alliance has actually been strengthened by its members finally coming around to the idea that the 'peace dividend' they enjoyed (and America did not) for the last 30 years is gone.

It is time for them to carry their weight. We can't deploy the bulk of our military in Europe, and still offer credible deterrence in the Pacific.

 

[boxahawks]

I've not seen anyone else say it but I believe Trump thinks that if he can in any way be seen as a mediator in a Russia/Ukraine peace treaty, he has a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got one when most thought he didn't deserve it, and Trump has to be thinking he can get one too. It's no co-incidence that he's got plans for both major conflicts occurring right now. It would absolutely make heads explode.

 

[OrlandNole]

I've not seen anyone else say it but I believe Trump thinks that if he can in any way be seen as a mediator in a Russia/Ukraine peace treaty, he has a shot at the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama got one when most thought he didn't deserve it, and Trump has to be thinking he can get one too. It's no co-incidence that he's got plans for both major conflicts occurring right now. It would absolutely make heads explode.

Explain, if you would, how "mediation" occurs with only one side at the table?