4 ms·

NATO is so we don't have to BACK over to Europe... No one wants a third trip over there and to rebuild Europe/UK again. There's an agreement of % of GDP that

NATO is so we don't have to BACK over to Europe... No one wants a third trip over there and to rebuild Europe/UK again. There's an agreement of % of GDP that members should pay. They should pay it or defend themselves. I don't see why that's a debate.

dopidopHN 5y ago
NATO also give you access to bases where you would not, and capacity to deploy your air career where you would not. ( Black Sea for instance ) Or store ICBM where you could not. It’s convenient. RE: going back to Europe, for what exactly. If the German act out again? Russia maybe? We’ll see what actually happen with that one but we can only notice the US is way less trigger happy than it was in says : Iran invasion. Overall, we figured it out amongst ourself for a while. It will be fine. NATO allow the US army to have a considerably larger reach. I do agree with recent comment that it’s “brain dead” ( see : Turkey bullying Greece.) I’m with you, it should be disbanded and Europe should pay for its own army. But I don’t think the US would actually want that. That would be a blow to it’s reach. Edit : mandatory comment about USSR bearing most of WW2 war effort. Not the US :)
- throwrqX 5y ago
  NATO is the only reason the rest of Eastern Europe at the very minimum isn't also under the threat of invasion. I know a few Russian military guys, they joke often about raping Germany a second time, not in the sense of military but in the sense of their women, with the first being 1945 of course. Sometimes I doubt they are jokes, although perhaps if Germany was under such threat again it would make them realize their current strategy of being passive and try to be neutral will never work out in the long run. The ICBM argument has long been irrelevant since you can loiter nuclear subs around a country, especially Russia which has large ocean borders.
  - dopidopHN 5y ago
    Yes, NATO should be dissolved and the US pack their bag out of Europe. I wish more American would think like you.
    - throwrqX 5y ago
      I'm not American.
      - dopidopHN 5y ago
        So why do you care about the cost of NATO? I should care, I pay taxes in the US. And oh wait… I always forgot since it’s new: I’m actually a US citizen as well. That does not change my view : US should not be surprised to bear the brunt of the cost. Since it’s their toy. And my personal wish would be for that alliance to be replaced by something controlled by EU. Then if the US want to keep their base, they can ask.
        throwrqX 5y ago
        Because NATO is beneficial for western led global order which I much prefer to other systems that would be leading if not for it. Anything led by the EU is useless because the EU programs are death by 1000 committee cuts. Nothing ever gets done there because there's too much bureaucracy.
nautilius 5y ago
See what happens to all the US non-NATO wars/interventions in the middle East when there are no more NATO-justified bases in Europe (Ramstein) as convenient turnstiles.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  That would be a bonus in my eyes. We shouldn't be there fighting endless wars, funneling taxpayer money into defense contractor's and politician's pockets. We should reduce our presence in Germany speaking of Ramstein, Merkel didn't like that idea though when President Trump pitched it. Nowadays it'd be more useful to have them in Poland.
  - nautilius 5y ago
    Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? >That would be a bonus in my eyes. We shouldn't be there fighting endless wars, funneling taxpayer money into defense contractor's and politician's pockets. Sure. But that doesn't change that currently the US very much profits from having NATO bases in Europe for its own, non-NATO purposes. >We should reduce our presence in Germany speaking of Ramstein, Merkel didn't like that idea though when President Trump pitched it. How did Merkel come into play here as a gotcha? You're the one arguing that the base should be removed. Further, President Trump pitched ~10000 ideas a day, from drinking bleach against COVID to raking forests, to having to flush toilets 10s of times, to applauding Frederick Douglass for becoming more successful, I don't blame any sane person not keeping up with that crap. >Nowadays it'd be more useful to have them in Poland. Huh? Where did that 180 come from? So you want bases in Europe after all?
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      > Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? Rude. If you need clarification to my statements, just ask. No need for snark. > Sure. But that doesn't change that currently the US very much profits from having NATO bases in Europe for its own, non-NATO purposes. These are my opinions. I'm saying NATO countries should pay what they agreed to or leave the agreement. I'm saying we shouldn't be in the Middle East. > How did Merkel come into play here as a gotcha? It's not a gotcha, it's current events. The Ramstein base was brought up recently. Trump wanted to reduce troops, Merkel didn't like the idea. That's all. Just because Trump was mentioned you don't have to bring up the propaganda like the bleach lie (he was talking about UV disinfectants). He talked about forest management to prevent wildfires (he's correct), which you simplify to raking forests. Please keep on track and don't diverge into petty stuff like that. > Huh? Where did that 180 come from? So you want bases in Europe after all? I'm saying if we do have to have strategic bases in Europe, it would make more sense to have them in Poland to defend against the most likely adversaries, Russia and China.

dopidopHN 5y ago

NATO also give you access to bases where you would not, and capacity to deploy your air career where you would not. ( Black Sea for instance ) Or store ICBM where you could not. It’s convenient. RE: going back to Europe, for what exactly. If the German act out again? Russia maybe? We’ll see what actually happen with that one but we can only notice the US is way less trigger happy than it was in says : Iran invasion. Overall, we figured it out amongst ourself for a while. It will be fine. NATO allow the US army to have a considerably larger reach. I do agree with recent comment that it’s “brain dead” ( see : Turkey bullying Greece.) I’m with you, it should be disbanded and Europe should pay for its own army. But I don’t think the US would actually want that. That would be a blow to it’s reach. Edit : mandatory comment about USSR bearing most of WW2 war effort. Not the US :)

throwrqX 5y ago
NATO is the only reason the rest of Eastern Europe at the very minimum isn't also under the threat of invasion. I know a few Russian military guys, they joke often about raping Germany a second time, not in the sense of military but in the sense of their women, with the first being 1945 of course. Sometimes I doubt they are jokes, although perhaps if Germany was under such threat again it would make them realize their current strategy of being passive and try to be neutral will never work out in the long run. The ICBM argument has long been irrelevant since you can loiter nuclear subs around a country, especially Russia which has large ocean borders.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Yes, NATO should be dissolved and the US pack their bag out of Europe. I wish more American would think like you.
  - throwrqX 5y ago
    I'm not American.
    - dopidopHN 5y ago
      So why do you care about the cost of NATO? I should care, I pay taxes in the US. And oh wait… I always forgot since it’s new: I’m actually a US citizen as well. That does not change my view : US should not be surprised to bear the brunt of the cost. Since it’s their toy. And my personal wish would be for that alliance to be replaced by something controlled by EU. Then if the US want to keep their base, they can ask.
      - throwrqX 5y ago
        Because NATO is beneficial for western led global order which I much prefer to other systems that would be leading if not for it. Anything led by the EU is useless because the EU programs are death by 1000 committee cuts. Nothing ever gets done there because there's too much bureaucracy.

nautilius 5y ago

See what happens to all the US non-NATO wars/interventions in the middle East when there are no more NATO-justified bases in Europe (Ramstein) as convenient turnstiles.

hunterb123 5y ago
That would be a bonus in my eyes. We shouldn't be there fighting endless wars, funneling taxpayer money into defense contractor's and politician's pockets. We should reduce our presence in Germany speaking of Ramstein, Merkel didn't like that idea though when President Trump pitched it. Nowadays it'd be more useful to have them in Poland.
- nautilius 5y ago
  Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? >That would be a bonus in my eyes. We shouldn't be there fighting endless wars, funneling taxpayer money into defense contractor's and politician's pockets. Sure. But that doesn't change that currently the US very much profits from having NATO bases in Europe for its own, non-NATO purposes. >We should reduce our presence in Germany speaking of Ramstein, Merkel didn't like that idea though when President Trump pitched it. How did Merkel come into play here as a gotcha? You're the one arguing that the base should be removed. Further, President Trump pitched ~10000 ideas a day, from drinking bleach against COVID to raking forests, to having to flush toilets 10s of times, to applauding Frederick Douglass for becoming more successful, I don't blame any sane person not keeping up with that crap. >Nowadays it'd be more useful to have them in Poland. Huh? Where did that 180 come from? So you want bases in Europe after all?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    > Were these supposed to be three answers to three other posts? Rude. If you need clarification to my statements, just ask. No need for snark. > Sure. But that doesn't change that currently the US very much profits from having NATO bases in Europe for its own, non-NATO purposes. These are my opinions. I'm saying NATO countries should pay what they agreed to or leave the agreement. I'm saying we shouldn't be in the Middle East. > How did Merkel come into play here as a gotcha? It's not a gotcha, it's current events. The Ramstein base was brought up recently. Trump wanted to reduce troops, Merkel didn't like the idea. That's all. Just because Trump was mentioned you don't have to bring up the propaganda like the bleach lie (he was talking about UV disinfectants). He talked about forest management to prevent wildfires (he's correct), which you simplify to raking forests. Please keep on track and don't diverge into petty stuff like that. > Huh? Where did that 180 come from? So you want bases in Europe after all? I'm saying if we do have to have strategic bases in Europe, it would make more sense to have them in Poland to defend against the most likely adversaries, Russia and China.