• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The United States should withdraw from NATO

Thoreau72 said:
I'm not really against our membership in NATO, but my objection is that the organization has certainly grown too big for its britches. And it has become dishonest and provocative with Russia.
Click to expand...
The only thing NATO is doing is making sure that Russia does not invade members of NATO.

That Russia deems that as provocative, is evidence that NATO needs to move more heavy forces into their eastern states.


Thoreau72 said:
Its activities have become not much more than illegitimate regime change and military aggression.
Click to expand...
NATO's activities are centered around preventing Russia from invading its member states.



DA60 said:
What possible good does being part of NATO do for America?
Click to expand...
NATO allows free democracies to better defend themselves from world powers that are dedicated to stamping out freedom and democracy.


DA60 said:
Russia is no longer a conventional threat to America or Europe as a whole.
Click to expand...
Russia may not have the invasion of "all" of Europe on their short-term agenda.

But Russia does intend to invade some NATO countries.


DA60 said:
The Warsaw Pact is LONG gone.
Click to expand...
Putin means to re-invade and re-establish it.


DA60 said:
NATO is now just an EU Defense Organization.
Click to expand...
As I recall, they willingly helped us fight the war on terror. But as much as it is about keeping Europe free, that is good.

America is better off in a world where Europe remains free and democratic.


DA60 said:
And America should stay away from that quagmire.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think we should continue to help Europe remain free and democratic.


DA60 said:
Besides, if NATO ever really needed America, does anyone seriously think they will not welcome them back, arms wide open?
Click to expand...
If we do not provide a firm deterrence to prevent Putin's invasion before it happens, we'll have to resort to nuclear war in order to reverse their invasion after the fact.

In my opinion, firm deterrence is a much better option than nuclear war.


DA60 said:
America being part of NATO is silly with the Soviet Union no more.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think keeping Europe free and democratic is vital for American security.



Nap said:
Even if we stay in NATO, we need someone that will stand up and say America is no longer big brother to the rest of the world. We have too many problems at home to deal with to be picking up the rest of the world's issues. I still find it ridiculous we are throwing away billions of dollars to help all of these other countries when we can't even take care of our own veterans here. I am disgusted with American foreign policy and have been for years.
Click to expand...
If we stand by and do nothing while all our allies are conquered, that will have severely negative consequences for America in the long run.
 
As a practical matter, being a member of NATO does help drive military spending and trade.

Think of the numbers of jobs created here and overseas just to support the peacetime troop deployments and bases overseas.

Weapon standardization drive weapons sales for the US and other nations.

One man's wasteful spending is another's career, and it's not all high rollers benefiting.
 
DA60 said:
Really? And how did you come to possess that information?
Click to expand...
We have journalistic institutions in the west that are devoted to conveying facts instead of just regurgitating KGB propaganda.
 
DA60 said:
Really? And how did you come to possess that information?
Click to expand...
By the way, you've clearly carefully chosen your words to state that Russia is not a threat to western Europe or to Europe as a whole.

That is a strong indicator that you understand very well that Russia is an extremely severe threat to eastern Europe.


Thoreau72 said:
In his tortured dreams most likely.
Click to expand...
You've already accused NATO of being aggressive and provocative, when the only thing that NATO is doing is securing themselves from Russian invasion.

Trying to act like Russia is some innocent party who has no intention of invading anyone is just silly.
 
More importantly we should leave the United Nations. I hate supporting an anti American organization with my hard earned money.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
By the way, you've clearly carefully chosen your words to state that Russia is not a threat to western Europe or to Europe as a whole.

That is a strong indicator that you understand very well that Russia is an extremely severe threat to eastern Europe.



You've already accused NATO of being aggressive and provocative, when the only thing that NATO is doing is securing themselves from Russian invasion.

Trying to act like Russia is some innocent party who has no intention of invading anyone is just silly.
Click to expand...

Pure poppycock and propaganda.

In truth, the Russians would rather have mutually beneficial trade and relations with all Europe, not war with them. Just like this country used to be.
 
fmw said:
More importantly we should leave the United Nations. I hate supporting an anti American organization with my hard earned money.
Click to expand...
Parts of the UN are indeed an affront to decency. I understand the frustration when "human rights councils" always seem to be led by the worst human rights violators, and always seem to be devoted to accusing upstanding democracies of fictitious violations.

But the UN as a whole is a force for good, and the existence of the UN is a net positive for United States interests.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Pure poppycock and propaganda.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You really did accuse NATO of being aggressive and provocative. And NATO really is not doing anything other than preventing Russia from invading the EU.


Thoreau72 said:
In truth, the Russians would rather have mutually beneficial trade and relations with all Europe, not war with them.
Click to expand...
If that is so, then Russia shouldn't mind being prevented from invading the EU.

Kind of like me and banks. The police won't allow me to rob banks. But since I have no interest in robbing banks to begin with, that doesn't bother me a bit.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Not at all. You really did accuse NATO of being aggressive and provocative. And NATO really is not doing anything other than preventing Russia from invading the EU.



If that is so, then Russia shouldn't mind being prevented from invading the EU.

Kind of like me and banks. The police won't allow me to rob banks. But since I have no interest in robbing banks to begin with, that doesn't bother me a bit.
Click to expand...

How can you prevent somebody from doing something they have no intention of doing?

NATO and the US have gone back on the verbal agreement made between Russia and the administration of Bush 41 regarding the eastern expansion of NATO. Just as the Native American tribes learned back in 1880 or so, the Russians learned that the US government speaks with a forked tongue. If you're not US, you might not understand what I mean.

In spite of your silly psychobabble, I'll say again: Russia would much rather have mutually beneficial and peaceful trade with Europe than it would have a war with them.
 
Thoreau72 said:
How can you prevent somebody from doing something they have no intention of doing?
Click to expand...
You put armed forces in position to stop them from doing it.


Thoreau72 said:
NATO and the US have gone back on the verbal agreement made between Russia and the administration of Bush 41 regarding the eastern expansion of NATO.
Click to expand...
There was never any agreement to not expand NATO. Allegations that the west violated this imaginary agreement are KGB propaganda.

What there was, was an agreement to not move NATO military forces into eastern Europe. We adhered to that agreement up to the point when Russia started systematically invading their neighbors with plans to invade the EU next. At that point it became necessary to move forces east in order to deter that invasion.


Thoreau72 said:
Just as the Native American tribes learned back in 1880 or so, the Russians learned that the US government speaks with a forked tongue.
Click to expand...
If Russia didn't want NATO forces moved into position to protect the EU, Russia shouldn't have been systematically invading their neighbors with plans to invade the EU next.


Thoreau72 said:
In spite of your silly psychobabble, I'll say again:
Click to expand...
Facts and reality are silly psychobabble?


Thoreau72 said:
I'll say again: Russia would much rather have mutually beneficial and peaceful trade with Europe than it would have a war with them.
Click to expand...
I'll answer again: If Russia has no desire to invade the EU, then they should have no objection to being prevented from invading the EU.

Kind of like me and banks. I have no desire to be a bank robber. Consequently it doesn't bother me a bit that there are armed police officers who act to stop bank robberies.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Parts of the UN are indeed an affront to decency. I understand the frustration when "human rights councils" always seem to be led by the worst human rights violators, and always seem to be devoted to accusing upstanding democracies of fictitious violations.

But the UN as a whole is a force for good, and the existence of the UN is a net positive for United States interests.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. Sorry. I see no benefit to the U.S. in the U.N. Perhaps if you elaborated on the net positive, I might understand your position.
 
fmw said:
Perhaps if you elaborated on the net positive, I might understand your position.
Click to expand...
The UN Security Council provides an authoritative venue for the world to get together and do the right thing.

In the cases where the world refuses to get together and do the right thing, having a deadlocked UN is no worse than having no UN.

In cases where the world can agree to do the right thing (intervening against a genocide for instance), the UN helps countries come an agreement and it gives their military intervention a legal seal of approval.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
The UN Security Council provides an authoritative venue for the world to get together and do the right thing.

In the cases where the world refuses to get together and do the right thing, having a deadlocked UN is no worse than having no UN.

In cases where the world can agree to do the right thing (intervening against a genocide for instance), the UN helps countries come an agreement and it gives their military intervention a legal seal of approval.
Click to expand...

Good in theory but, in my view, most of the things the UN does are not the right thing. When did the U.N. ever stop genocide, by the way?
 
Without the US, there is no NATO. I was in the AG for operation Inherent Resolve 2014-15. I saw one French ship, 2 Brits, And the other 7 or 8 ships out there were US. (Then you had the little Iranian daos floating around.. meh)
That's not counting the subs we probably had out there, the AMERICAN support activities in Bahrain and a few other locations. And that's just the Navy's side of the house.

Point is, no US forces = VERY understaffed NATO.
 
Once a year the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association), along with experts in the field, meets to analyze the effectiveness of radioactive waste storage procedures around the world. In 1972, they banned ocean dumping of radioactive waste. If there is an accident, or an illicit dumping, they assist with remediation. This group is a branch of the UN.
 
Media_Truth said:
Once a year the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association), along with experts in the field, meets to analyze the effectiveness of radioactive waste storage procedures around the world. In 1972, they banned ocean dumping of radioactive waste. If there is an accident, or an illicit dumping, they assist with remediation. This group is a branch of the UN.
Click to expand...

100% efficacy cannot be achieved, but I think the UN is a worthwhile effort to make things better on the planet.

NATO has long ago outlived its usefulness, and is today just another belligerent group.
 
Kelfuma said:
Alright, let's get the USA out of NATO ASAP. Seriously, what do we owe those damn secularists who started TWO world wars?! That WE had to clean up?!

Donald Trump may be an idiot, but at least he's an honest idiot (pretty much bad at lying too). He's right about a few things and one thing is that NATO is a complete waste of US military resources. Russia could invade half of Europe for all I care. Hell, a war might even help our economy (see what happened to the Great Depression once WWII began and then the postwar period; we had a goddamn baby boom).
Click to expand...


you answered your own question. we are better off sitting on them as compared to letting europeans eff things up themselves. like Patton said you fight a war on the other guys dirt.
 
11Bravo said:
NATO was a great idea originally and has turned into Europe being the whiney younger brother who wants the big tough older brother (US) to fight all his stupid battles.
Click to expand...

Myself, I see that as more of a problem with the EU than NATO itself.

Thankfully not all of NATO is in the EU.
 
Thoreau72 said:
100% efficacy cannot be achieved, but I think the UN is a worthwhile effort to make things better on the planet.

NATO has long ago outlived its usefulness, and is today just another belligerent group.
Click to expand...

As is Russia- Just ask Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova(Transnistria) The few thousands troops deployed in the Baltic are a threat to Russia?
Russia can deploy 10's of thousands of troops to those borders in a very short time.
Putin prefers client States, over war. But Russia could walk thru the Baltic's in less than a week. And that would be a very short week.
 
DA60 said:
What possible good does being part of NATO do for America? Russia is no longer a conventional threat to America or Europe as a whole. The Warsaw Pact is LONG gone. NATO is now just an EU Defense Organization. And America should stay away from that quagmire.

Besides, if NATO ever really needed America, does anyone seriously think they will not welcome them back, arms wide open?

America being part of NATO is silly with the Soviet Union no more.
Click to expand...

I agree with you for the most part, but there is a logistics part of the equation that should be answered. Leaving NATO does complicate the logistics angle for us two fold. A) Divergent systems and munitions compatibility. B) Unless we seriously develop or logistics capabilities to the degree necessary to allow us to fully withdraw from NATO without affecting too negatively our abilities to move to Europe and support them if necessary effectively and with mass, withdrawing from NATO is probably a bad thing for now. If we develop the logistics necessary to move in mass on short notice then I would be much more partial in withdrawing from NATO. Right now we have the best logistics in the world by far, and it still isn't enough to allow to project force at will without serious lead times. That logistics capability we currently have is what allows us to fight everywhere we do. Superior strategy and tactics men and machines do mean jack **** if they cant be moved and supported in a timely and effective manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom