• 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!

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger or weaker?

Does NATO Members paying more make NATO stronger and weaker


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
When did NATO's usefulness pass?

Who are they supposed to be defending against? There is no more Soviet Union, no communist Eastern Europe, no Warsaw Pact, just the Russians; you know, the country they just signed a huge pipeline and energy deal with. So where's the big threat they're supposed to be afraid of?
 
Funny, but that's like asking "Do bears take a dump in the woods"?

Here is the deal, even since long before Bush Jr. became president, the goal of 2% of GDP has been the longstanding goal for all NATO countries to spend on defense.

In fact, during the Obama/Trump White House turnover briefings, it is public record that Obama advised Donald Trump that one of his difficult duties he'll be facing, will be to coax the NATO nations with a pretty heavy push to continue working towards meeting their NATO defense spending goals, and stressed the importance of them doing so. He also went into explaining how some of the countries were going through hard financial times.

That's why this is such a joke to say that he and his tough talk are making a difference, when all of these countries have been paying more each and every year as they are coming out of their financial problems.

The way Obama did it was different than Trump. As Obama would use the good examples of the ones who were fulfilling their commitments, by pointing them out as good examples to the ones who were lagging behind.

Here is a great news story on how, Obama would carry this out, along with some other surprising facts.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-nato-pay-fair-share-231405
 
Last edited:
Who are they supposed to be defending against? There is no more Soviet Union, no communist Eastern Europe, no Warsaw Pact, just the Russians; you know, the country they just signed a huge pipeline and energy deal with. So where's the big threat they're supposed to be afraid of?

The mutual defense principle has only been invoked once, far as I know. When the US was attacked on 9/11. Two Portugese soldiers died because the US had been attacked. How many Americans have died because Portugal was attacked?
Four Latvians, too.
The point isn't Russia. The point is mutual defense. Personally, I'd be happy to see the US pull out. At least then we might hear less whining about NATO countries not supporting US military contractors enough.
 
The mutual defense principle has only been invoked once, far as I know. When the US was attacked on 9/11. Two Portugese soldiers died because the US had been attacked. How many Americans have died because Portugal was attacked?
Four Latvians, too.
The point isn't Russia. The point is mutual defense. Personally, I'd be happy to see the US pull out. At least then we might hear less whining about NATO countries not supporting US military contractors enough.

When the old Soviet Union broke up and the eastern European countries gained independence it was with the explicit agreement that they would remain neutral. The US and NATO immediately began courting these countries and convinced several to join NATO. The Russians were very angry about this development. Eastern Europe had been their buffer zone against invasion, which has happened to them several times over the centuries. Russia has no natural barrier to invasion from Europe. Napoleon knew this as did Hitler. The Russians wanted this barrier for defensive reasons, and recruiting eastern European nations to join NATO was seen as an aggressive move by the US and Western Europe. And NATO wasn't necessary in order for any European nation so inclined to assist the US after 9/11. In any case, some nations supported the US directly, and some virtually stayed on the sideline. That would have happened with or without NATO. How would we feel if Russia were to establish a new Warsaw Pact which included Mexico and Canada? Jeeeez, we went ape **** when they put missles in Cuba. And we don't like Russian or Chinese influence ANYWHERE in the Western Hemisphere. That's our turf. So try to see the other fella's point of view.
 
Back
Top Bottom