Posted on 07/19/2018 6:30:15 AM PDT by C19fan
Once again, Donald Trump has raised questions about America’s commitment to NATO, this time in an interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson.
Carlson asked a variation of the typical question about American military commitments overseas: Why send our kids to fight in obscure foreign lands?
Membership in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member that’s attacked. So let’s say Montenegro, which joined last year, is attacked. Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
As I wrote on another thread, the Founders warned us against entangling alliances. So did World War I.
For each new NATO member, one must ask, “Is the added risk worth it?”
The EU encompasses 500 MM people almost 4 times Russia’s. The GDP of the EU is over $17 trillion compared to $1.3 trillion for Russia. Europe has all the resources to defend itself.
We should kick Turkey out.
Neo-cons are STILL trying to get us into a war with Russia.
NATO is an outdated concept. It does not enhance the security of the American people.
I don’t think most Americans - the majority of whom couldn’t correctly point out Montenegro on a world map - would be willing to have a large war over Montenegro or Latvia if push came to shove, no matter what NATO or our politicians may say now.
Mourir pour Montenegro ?
That is why there are a few hundred American troops is Latvia to serve a a wiretrap.
I think the EU’s participation in Spygate should put paid to staying in NATO.
I keep pointing this out. Europe has over 500 million people and a GDP larger than America’s.
Russia has 145 million people and a GDP that is not even in the top 10 in the world. It spends about 3.5% of GDP on Defense.
Why pray tell, should Europe need America’s help defending itself from Russia?
The dirtbags at national review, nevertrumpers all, particularly this warmonger filth david french have zero credibility. Not sure why anyone would even post this garbage.
Ethiopia was not worth the bones of one European to save Haile Salassi from Mussolini. The German occupation of the Rhineland was not worth the bones of a single Frenchman to stop Hitler. The Russian attack on Finland was not worth the bones of a single European to stop Stalin. The Japanese attack on Manchuria was not worth the bones of a single European to stop Japanese expansion. The Indonesian attack on Papua New Guinea was not worth the bones of a single Australian to stop Indonesian militarism. The Iranian occupation of the US Embassy was not worth the bones of a single American to stop Khomeini and Islamist expansion. Etc., etc., etc.
A lot has occurred since the mid-1970s. I would suggest that Russia has no serious economic interest in destroying or screwing with Europe...it is dependent upon them for the purchase of their oil/gas. Without any true enemy, the time has simply come to disengage from NATO and reallocate our funding.
I would suggest the same for the Middle East...there’s just not any reason to continue this fake defense talk without any real threat.
Well how can we justify hundreds of billions per year on our military if we just give up having enemies to confront?
Quand un jour de froid en enfer.
Screw Mountednegros. Get me home from Walmart alive.
Oui.
One would put david french right next to whatshisname, miltromley’s buttboy... eggamuffin or something like that.
We have no shortage of enemies to confront, starting with the invaders crashing our border.
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.