Posted on 03/22/2016 8:08:26 AM PDT by DeathBeforeDishonor1
The concept of an alliance where the US picks up most of the tab is foreign to Cruz. Great nations and empires decline because they spend themselves into oblivion. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its spending on defense. The UK declined as it cut its security forces to pay for an expanded welfare state as has all the countries in Europe.
The US has been providing the security umbrella for the Free World at great cost in terms of treasure and blood. We are the world's biggest debtor nation.
The US will have to make some very difficult decisions as the welfare state threatens to consume the entire federal budget. Two-thirds of the federal budget is spent on entitlement programs, other mandatories, and debt servicing costs. These costs will continue to increase as we are an aging society. In 1950 there there were 16 workers for every retiree; today, it is about 3; and by 203 there will be just two workers for every retiree. By 2030 one in five will be 65 or older, twice what it is today.
Dollars and cents drive policy. If the US goes bankrupt, there will be no one else to pick up the torch. At least the UK knew that the US would carry on after its empire declined.
Your inane posts are specious at best, and intentionally misleading.
There is nothing wrong with expecting NATO members to pay their way in a fair manner. It's well past time.
In fact, we are subsidizing the muslim invasion of Europe by not insisting they pay their fair share for the defense of the EU.
It appears that NATO is becoming the army of the United Nations. That’s a problem.
NATO: A Military Entangling Alliance
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/22739-nato-a-military-entangling-alliance
The NATO/UN Army: Perpetual War … and Bankruptcy for U.S.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/11497-the-nato-un-army-perpetual-war-and-bankruptcy-for-us
NATO: From Defense to Offense
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/19252-nato-from-defense-to-offense
How dare Cruz criticize the great and powerful Trump. /s
Not true. Most, like me, want NATO members to pay their fair share and pay the recommended 2% of GDP.
A hollowed out NATO is not in our security interests. What good is an alliance where the members refuse to pay the money needed to keep the alliance militarily effective? Then it just becomes a "paper tiger" unable to achieve its objectives.
And who pays for the missile defense deployed in Poland?
NATO needs to be crushed.
What a low life POS. Trump was referring to the capture of the Paris mastermind. Brussels has been a hotbed of terror activity. Not the time for this BS. He should join team hillary.
Read the thread and Trump.
Trump said to wapo that :
Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” Trump said, adding later, “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”
By attacking Rand, Marco, Ted, Nato, Scott W, Carly and on and on, Trump is not going to have any support left.
Trump even attacked Jeb, after Jeb is out of the race. And Carson, who damned Trump with faint praise.
I get trashed by Trump people on this thread, when I will support Trump over Hillary, even through I want Cruz on the ticket.
Amazing.
Poland in part. US in part.
Slyfox: “So, you are for abandoning our friends?”
PROCON: “You’re wasting your breath, these zealots have made up their mind, common sense be damned.”
______________
The 19th English statesman, Lord Palmerston, (a European from the country we now consider our closest European “friend”) had this to say about relationships between nations: “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
NATO was established in 1949. “(It’s) creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.”
(Above quote from “A Short History of NATO:” http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html)
Much has changed since then; the Soviet Union no longer exists. There is no threat of “European nationalist militarism.” “European political integration” has led to the dissolution of national borders and a resultant huge influx of Islamists and their sympathizers.
In addition, national economies have changed drastically and NATO now includes the Islamist-oriented government of Turkey.
Trump does not suggest an utter abandonment of allies; rather, that we cannot morally or fiscally afford to enable reckless behavior on the part of the Europeans. It is well past time for a retrenchment.
Watch what the UK does w/regard to its membership in the European Union ...that, perhaps, will give you both a clue as to what future U.S. foreign policy should be w/regards to NATO.
You and Vlad.
I’m embarrassed to admit that I supported him early on.
Yep, Cruz is being brought to us by the same brain trust that gave us McCain and Romney. Cruz talked a good game in the Senate, but it was a front, and the rigors of a losing Presidential campaign have completely unmasked him.
Cruz did wonders at the FTC for expanding ecommerce across state lines.
And for the 2nd amendment as Texas AG. And fought hard in the senate, using tough tactics.
Even linda Graham prefers Ted over Trump.
I wish Ted talked more about his overall record and Trump would act to unite the party now that the establishment has been outvoted in the primaries.
Well said. He was always one of my favorites. The mask is off indeed.
“I’m not seeing how you can come to that conclusion. How is Cruz blaming Trump for the terrorist attacks in Belgium, specifically?”
Me either—but Trump people only read the teasers and believe everything in those. They refuse to delve a bit deeper.
I have no problem with that statement. Trump is laying down a much needed marker. US Ambassadors in NATO countries have been relaying the message for decades that we want more burden sharing from our NATO partners. Not only has it been largely ignored, the other members continue to reduce their defense expenditures. We can't continue under these conditions supporting an alliance where the other members are unwilling to pay their fair share. The US is in dire financial trouble.
How much are the Poles paying? What is the US share? Did the Poles pay for the R&D costs to develop these missile systems?
And we deploy these missiles where? in Turkey? In France?
Retire the Triad. Israel and Poland have been very cost effective allies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.