The protection of foreign countries at the American taxpayer’s expense must end once and for all.
Pay up, or go it on your own. Trump will make them respect America.
PaulE
6 years ago
NATO countries all agreed to contribute 2 percent of their annual GDP to NATO for the joint defense of western Europe from a potential Russian military action. That all but 5 nations of the NATO alliance have chosen to renege on their financial commitment to the organization, over many years, should NOT mean the American taxpayer should have to make up the difference to keep NATO a viable military deterrent. In many cases, the western nations that have chosen to short change NATO on their annual contributions are also the same countries that have systematically elected to re-direct their annual defense spending towards the promotion and maintenance of the ever-growing social welfare states. In essence, hollowing out their own military defense capability to instead keep expanding government handouts within their social democracies. This money they don’t spend on their NATO obligations is also used to pay for economic deals with some of the very countries, Russia and Iran to name two, that we are supposed to be protecting them from. Is this insanity on our part? Yes. However, this is the arrangement that has been tolerated and accepted by past Presidents of the United States, of both parties, for decades with little to no push-back on our part. President Trump is merely highlighting an issue that has been intentionally ignored by past American administrations. We have numerous other issues just as lopsided as this all around the world. Just most of the American people don’t know about them, because they haven’t been paying attention for a long, long time.
Today the United States represents well over 70 percent of the total military capability of all of NATO. There are 28 countries in NATO. Yet the United States is over 70 percent of the total military capability of NATO. Countries like Germany and France, two of the most prosperous European countries in NATO, have allowed their militaries to deteriorate to the point where, should Russia actually make an active push westward without the United States providing the over-whelming amount of military push-back, they wouldn’t last a week before they would have to surrender. Most of the empty suit pundits on TV like to point out that we have an obligation, as a member of NATO, to come to the assistance and defense of any member nation attacked. As if that somehow forgives the continual short-changing of NATO contributions and the sorry state of the military capabilities of most NATO countries. What you NEVER hear from these same empty suit pundits is those NATO countries are supposed to be ready and able to come to OUR assistance should any other nation attack us. Now seriously, do you really think that the European nations that have intentionally allowed their militaries to fall into such disrepair would be in any shape to provide substantial military support to us? Of course not. There are real consequences to countries deciding to go the social democracy route. One of the most prevalent is that military spending gets slashed to the bone, so money can be directed to social welfare programs and buying votes. Just this week if you were paying attention, President Trump outlined the sorry state of the German military. Most of their planes and ships are either mothballed or inoperative due to cost cutbacks and lack of spare parts. Yet we are expected to look the other way and not only pay our agreed upon percentage of the NATO budget, but make up the intentional financial shortfalls in both contributions and military capability.
The question you should all be asking yourselves is “If most of the European nations of NATO don’t feel a pressing need to contribute what they have committed to and have no problem entering into multi-billion dollar long-term deals with both Russia and Iran, just what is the actual threat we are protecting them from?” Seriously. That is a question you will NEVER hear asked by the media of any network. The attitude of most of the European leaders at the NATO summit was “How dare you ask us to pay what we ourselves committed to or provide a realistic amount of the military deterrent capability?”
Have a nice weekend.
Dano
6 years ago
So for the no voters, we should just permit aggressive regimes to take over countries that are not or cannot pay 2%? Talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees.
Delphos Speaks
6 years ago
I can agree in part with both statements. The operational word here is “fair”. If a person only has $100, then $2 is lot of of money to spend on one item. But if the person has a $1 Million dollars, then he can more than afford to pay for something that is $20,000. Many if these countries are in dire financial straits, so maybe 2% is a mountain too steep. However, that being said, maybe there are other ways to supplement their share of the burden. And Germany should be able to more than meet that threshold as well as France (who is going to milk the 6 years to comply). I agree with Trump that doing business with the Russians on Oil and gas is a slippery slope. And Germany would be better off getting their reserves from the US as a NATO ally. So, I guess, the answer is, don’t bite the hand that feeds you (and protects you).
BobA
6 years ago
Stopping our protection would only give some aggressive countries the ability to overpower the lesser prepared. Trump is right to call out countries like Germany who is taking advantage of us and needs to pay their share, however, to stop our support would only lessen our dominance in world power. Fear is the best defense against some of these continue and we must continue to be at the top.
J W Eason III
6 years ago
They still need to pony up their share of the money ASAP
Joseph Papp
6 years ago
If these countries are not committed to protecting their citizens, it’s not our responsibility to shoulder that burden. We should provide no more than humane assistance for those in need.
John
6 years ago
Wats the choice? Let them b over run by some communists country or worse ? Democracy may not b the best way to live but I believe it’s better than all the alternatives . People will some day c the light.
Wayne
6 years ago
Why wouldn`t small countries pay their fair share and happily pay it. Look at what happened to small countries when Hitler over run them. These small countries can not raise a military large enough to protect themselves. NATO is the solution and everybody must pay their fair share to be effective. NATO does not help the United States, we can take care of ourselves. It is asinine that these small countries are not on the ball!
Kip McNinch
6 years ago
I would cut Britain out of that protection no matter how much they spend!
Bob wiltse
6 years ago
I believe each country should be evaluated separately – you can not just set one number and draw the line
Bill Barnes
6 years ago
This really the first U.S. administration to push back on NATO. In time I think we’ll see those countries not carrying their weight, step up and make good on their responsibilities.
Wanda Pope
6 years ago
The US should not provide protection. Let the countries that do not pay their share provide their own protection.
William Eddie Cook
6 years ago
They should be given a warning to get caught up or forfeit their membership. It is morally wrong to withhold protection from someone behind in payments. Arrangements can be made to refinance their debt and reinstate their standing in NATO>
Christiana
6 years ago
The USA should cut back to 2.0% of the GDP untill all countries contribute their fair share.
Refruss
6 years ago
There is a reason why the US has a problem with the debt. We don’t have the money to bank roll the rest of the world. We act like we can afford so much in this country but our debt is out of control.
Bob
6 years ago
POTUS Trump has exposed, made transparent the POLITICS in NATO and holding all ACCOUNTABLE …. being those who make a commitment and pay their agreed upon portion supporting the Alliance and ….those who make the same committment and don’t pay …..playing “political games” within the Alliance! No more to politics, (1) either pay (2) if can’t pay bring reason and solution so Alliance can assist or (3) get out of Alliance to risk defense of their country! NO more political posturing, expectations for American Taxpayers to pick up their tab!
Mark
6 years ago
For all the nay-sayer commentary, please consider this: most of these NATO countries spend little or nothing on their own country’s military (mostly for show to protect gov’t. officials), choose to enrich their citizens with great social welfare (healthcare, etc) and generally have trade surpluses with the U.S. They have been taking advantage of us for decades – we not only pay ~70% of the bill we also deploy troops and equipment to these countries at our military bases. This must change and President Trump is right to demand they live up to their financial commitment – they all willingly signed the agreement decades ago and then chose to ride our coattails because we let them… the free ride is over…
Reggie Sorensen
6 years ago
We will have to defend those countries any way in case of war.
Jim Wharry
6 years ago
Just like everything else, spending money on defense is a choice. If someone doesn’t want to pay, we should pull out all our troops and equipment and when they want help, they pay 100% of the bill. Other than that, we should just our spending back to the same level as everyone else.
Roger
6 years ago
NATO has gotten used to the ‘free teat’ and (as we should do with the UN) America must stop funding our philosophical/ideological enemies. Germany and France have ceased being an ally. Their governments are what Obama wanted for America and they will use their sovereignty to an invasion of immigrants and, ultimately, lose their identity. Socialism is on display in a variety of failed nations and, while both Russia and China are beginning to see that ‘a form’ of capitalism is beneficial to their economy (if not their populace) folks who have never experienced (read:millennials) the harsh realities of Marxism at its worst, Communism, seem to be drawn towards that nirvana of ‘everyone helping/paying/feeding everyone else’. Doesn’t work, never has worked. But stupidity rules and all of this will end badly for mankind.
Ken Powers
6 years ago
The problem is not do we defend countries that are not paying 2% because that is not up to us. That decision is one for members of NATO to decide as a whole. What we are deciding is if we are continuing to support NATO if the continue to allow countries as members who are not paying. You question is being wrongly worded and presented to the American people. Get it right!
Dave L Flotron
6 years ago
My initial inclination was to say that this is a way too much more complicated issue than a simple “Yes” / “No” response. However, upon pondering it for a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that in fact, we should not defend any not paying their fair share as it won’t take long before they will be paying! – “Deep Down in the Dirt” Dave
Dvail
6 years ago
It is time for other countries to stop freeloading off the USA and start learning to carry some of the load. Remember feed others fish and you feed them forever,teach them to fish then not only can they feed themselves but teach others how to feed themselves.
Carol Coker
6 years ago
When the country joined NATO, it agreed to pay a price. So Be It.
Mike Senko
6 years ago
The US should not be defending countries that dont match our percentage of GDP for their NATO contribution. We need to stop being the police of the world and to stop other countries from exploiting our good nature. If men of fighting age are not willing to stand and defend their country, why the hell are we accommodating their emigration?
Larry C
6 years ago
Yes, but with a qualifier. The U.N. should be relocated to Paris or Brussels, so that Europe can take its turn. We have paid a disproportionate share for decades, and it’s time to quit underwriting this corrupt and ineffective bastion of liberal bias. The money we save on the U.N. budget could go towards other more worthwhile things, like Nato, until President Trump can shame them into fiscal responsibility. Securing our borders is much more important than enabling the liberals at the U.N. Let’s turn that building in NY into something useful. Just talking about it would make liberals heads explode, and that in itself would be worth it…
Donna
6 years ago
I appreciate that President Trump is like the boy who pointed out that the “Emperor had NO CLOTHES” in most of the issues the USA has been dealing with. It is obvious, but “political correctness” holds back. Thank you Mr. President. Let Trump be TRUMP. Not perfect, but REAL.
Papa can't afford 2 retire
6 years ago
My wife and I own our home, we accomplished this by making a budget and sticking to it. The US and other “NATO” countries governments are full of highly paid economists who never manage to make, nor follow a budget. Why is this you ask? Because they simply raise taxes to generate more money to compensate the shortage. If they are thus so incompetent of being Economic Professional why do we need them on the payroll ? America should not and can not afford to finance the rest of these slackers ( countries ) using us to pay their way. My theory is simply : “If you can”t afford it you don’t get it, we can’t except someone else to pay for it.” If you should disagree with my terms I need a brand new truck come get me and we can go shopping.
Linn Stevenson
6 years ago
Why is it mostly America that fight to defend other nations while those nations either barely help or don’t at all?? If war broke out on American soil, which of the NATO nations would defend us? My guess in none of them.
humpy
6 years ago
for those countries that dont pay their share America should award them with obama protection which threatened Russia obama warned Russia by saying “cut it out”
and or the devastating threat he made to Syria “dont cross this red line”
Rich
6 years ago
The United States must drop the support to Nato to 2% immediately! Stop this ridiculous covering for the deadbeat countries that don’t pay for their fare share! Enough already…
Katie
6 years ago
as my Canadian friend says: ” why does the U.S. always have to bail every other country out??”
PTY
6 years ago
If each were to bolster its military spending, the end result would be a strong united NATO maintaining peace through strength. We finally have a President who is willing to take a stand on behalf of America, its people and our military men and women. After all who is funding NATO but our U.S. tax dollars! Enough is enough. Tired of being a piggy bank for the rest of the world!
Alexander F Janisieski
6 years ago
President Trump to Europe: We’re not your baby sitter anymore, Stand up on your own two feet!
Stu
6 years ago
These countries are “freeloading” as Obama put it. Now Trump calls them out and he’s vilified by the MSM. The “hate speech” coming from the left has no basis in fact. They hate this president so much, they ignore the same behavior exhibited by their president. It’s shameful.
Jack Cuff
6 years ago
Either there or here our choice.
Alex
6 years ago
President Trump to Europe: We’re not your baby sitter anymore, Stand up on your own two feet!
Joel R McGarvey
6 years ago
Yes, we must defend, not to do so would most certainly lead to changes in power. BUT, we should withhold aid or any other assistance we give.
William Roberson
6 years ago
The U.S. pays 4% GDP. It’s not too much to ask other countries to pay 2%. If a country says the 2% is an overburden, SHOW PROOF of such and it can be looked at on a case by case basis. These rich EU countries that REFUSE to pay the 2% should have to defend themselves (or without U.S. support). Any country that refuses, the U.S. should pull all troops out of that country and bring them home and put them on our southern border, to protect our sovereignty from the foreign invasion that is currently ongoing.
charles culver
6 years ago
We must continue to defend these countries even if they are not paying their way. However a way must be found to pressure them to change their ways. To do otherwise is tantamount to just giving them to the Russian block. That, we can not afford.
William MvKenba
6 years ago
This poll was very poorly constructed with only questions that are to complex for overly simplistic yes or no answers. You harm the credibility of the Association by poorly constructed poling.
Deb L
6 years ago
USA Tax payers should not have to pay for Countries that do not pay their share. We should only pay our share and no more!
charlesw04
6 years ago
Because of the Soviet threat to all of central Europe we need to maintain a line of defense. If the Nations involved are not carrying their share of the burden there are other ways to make them pay. Sanctions can be placed that will affect their economies. Pressure can be placed on their bordering countries to also sanction and restrict trade with non-payers. There are a multitude of things we can do to cause them to pay up. If they choose to pull out of the agreement because of such action it would be them shooting their own foot.
Jack Colton
6 years ago
Some countries really don’t have an economy to support NAT at the lecel suggested.
LumenVR
6 years ago
I tend to agree with PaulIE’s statement. Operatively though, we should strongly encourage the members to fulfill their treaty obligations and encourage them not to enrich the opponent of the treaty by entering into agreements that strengthen the opponent. These should probably be done in private (praise in public, punish in private). All that being said, We should not weaken the standing agreement by saying that they will not but protected under the treaty. If we intend to do that we should have the treaty amended to exclude the parties not meeting their obligations formally. That would both strengthen the notion that we are a nation of laws as well as putting formal pressure on the target nations to meet their obligations. And … as PaulIE said – Have an nice weekend!
Tom
6 years ago
United States should withdraw completely away from NATO defend the US and let the other countries defend themselves
Kathleen
6 years ago
Yes we should defend all NATO countries, but those countries MUST pay their fair share! Are there nothing but scammers and cheats in this world??? Where has old-fashioned HONOR gone!
Mamie
6 years ago
US in dept for trillions. Does it make sense to keep paying for other countries in NATO. What about theUS state dept funding the Palentenian Auhority under the Taylor force act?Donald Trump is waking up America. He knows that the first thing in a successful business is to cut waste. Wouldn’t you say president Trump has been a successful business man?
Brian Turrisi
6 years ago
NATO was created for a strategically important reason; to balance the post World War II power in Europe between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. The presence of NATO (by deterrence) prevented a secondary conflict in that region from 1945 until 1989. There were many times during that period when conflict was “probable” yet the Soviets realized they were not going to win a battle with all of NATO the way they could battling an individual country. That formula seeming changed in 1989 and many over the next few years questioned whether there was still a purpose for NATO.
The outcome of that discussion went in the other direction. Instead of NATO disbanding, it expanded into Eastern Europe which is a net positive for the West. And then, in the age of Putin, Russia has raised its ugly head again as a potential aggressor manifested by its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Without NATO, it is pretty clear he would be “taking more” at this point.
Although a firmly believe that that all NATO members should live up to what they agreed to do; including paying their fair share, establishing a doctrine that we will not defend a member who has not paid their dues weakens the entire organization. To be strong, NATO needs to be united. The solution to what should be done to the delinquent payers is what you have seen in the last week. Publicly calling them out, rather than quietly allowing them not to pay, is the way to go. It is already working. That is the correct strategy for NATO to take.
The protection of foreign countries at the American taxpayer’s expense must end once and for all.
Pay up, or go it on your own. Trump will make them respect America.
NATO countries all agreed to contribute 2 percent of their annual GDP to NATO for the joint defense of western Europe from a potential Russian military action. That all but 5 nations of the NATO alliance have chosen to renege on their financial commitment to the organization, over many years, should NOT mean the American taxpayer should have to make up the difference to keep NATO a viable military deterrent. In many cases, the western nations that have chosen to short change NATO on their annual contributions are also the same countries that have systematically elected to re-direct their annual defense spending towards the promotion and maintenance of the ever-growing social welfare states. In essence, hollowing out their own military defense capability to instead keep expanding government handouts within their social democracies. This money they don’t spend on their NATO obligations is also used to pay for economic deals with some of the very countries, Russia and Iran to name two, that we are supposed to be protecting them from. Is this insanity on our part? Yes. However, this is the arrangement that has been tolerated and accepted by past Presidents of the United States, of both parties, for decades with little to no push-back on our part. President Trump is merely highlighting an issue that has been intentionally ignored by past American administrations. We have numerous other issues just as lopsided as this all around the world. Just most of the American people don’t know about them, because they haven’t been paying attention for a long, long time.
Today the United States represents well over 70 percent of the total military capability of all of NATO. There are 28 countries in NATO. Yet the United States is over 70 percent of the total military capability of NATO. Countries like Germany and France, two of the most prosperous European countries in NATO, have allowed their militaries to deteriorate to the point where, should Russia actually make an active push westward without the United States providing the over-whelming amount of military push-back, they wouldn’t last a week before they would have to surrender. Most of the empty suit pundits on TV like to point out that we have an obligation, as a member of NATO, to come to the assistance and defense of any member nation attacked. As if that somehow forgives the continual short-changing of NATO contributions and the sorry state of the military capabilities of most NATO countries. What you NEVER hear from these same empty suit pundits is those NATO countries are supposed to be ready and able to come to OUR assistance should any other nation attack us. Now seriously, do you really think that the European nations that have intentionally allowed their militaries to fall into such disrepair would be in any shape to provide substantial military support to us? Of course not. There are real consequences to countries deciding to go the social democracy route. One of the most prevalent is that military spending gets slashed to the bone, so money can be directed to social welfare programs and buying votes. Just this week if you were paying attention, President Trump outlined the sorry state of the German military. Most of their planes and ships are either mothballed or inoperative due to cost cutbacks and lack of spare parts. Yet we are expected to look the other way and not only pay our agreed upon percentage of the NATO budget, but make up the intentional financial shortfalls in both contributions and military capability.
The question you should all be asking yourselves is “If most of the European nations of NATO don’t feel a pressing need to contribute what they have committed to and have no problem entering into multi-billion dollar long-term deals with both Russia and Iran, just what is the actual threat we are protecting them from?” Seriously. That is a question you will NEVER hear asked by the media of any network. The attitude of most of the European leaders at the NATO summit was “How dare you ask us to pay what we ourselves committed to or provide a realistic amount of the military deterrent capability?”
Have a nice weekend.
So for the no voters, we should just permit aggressive regimes to take over countries that are not or cannot pay 2%? Talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees.
I can agree in part with both statements. The operational word here is “fair”. If a person only has $100, then $2 is lot of of money to spend on one item. But if the person has a $1 Million dollars, then he can more than afford to pay for something that is $20,000. Many if these countries are in dire financial straits, so maybe 2% is a mountain too steep. However, that being said, maybe there are other ways to supplement their share of the burden. And Germany should be able to more than meet that threshold as well as France (who is going to milk the 6 years to comply). I agree with Trump that doing business with the Russians on Oil and gas is a slippery slope. And Germany would be better off getting their reserves from the US as a NATO ally. So, I guess, the answer is, don’t bite the hand that feeds you (and protects you).
Stopping our protection would only give some aggressive countries the ability to overpower the lesser prepared. Trump is right to call out countries like Germany who is taking advantage of us and needs to pay their share, however, to stop our support would only lessen our dominance in world power. Fear is the best defense against some of these continue and we must continue to be at the top.
They still need to pony up their share of the money ASAP
If these countries are not committed to protecting their citizens, it’s not our responsibility to shoulder that burden. We should provide no more than humane assistance for those in need.
Wats the choice? Let them b over run by some communists country or worse ? Democracy may not b the best way to live but I believe it’s better than all the alternatives . People will some day c the light.
Why wouldn`t small countries pay their fair share and happily pay it. Look at what happened to small countries when Hitler over run them. These small countries can not raise a military large enough to protect themselves. NATO is the solution and everybody must pay their fair share to be effective. NATO does not help the United States, we can take care of ourselves. It is asinine that these small countries are not on the ball!
I would cut Britain out of that protection no matter how much they spend!
I believe each country should be evaluated separately – you can not just set one number and draw the line
This really the first U.S. administration to push back on NATO. In time I think we’ll see those countries not carrying their weight, step up and make good on their responsibilities.
The US should not provide protection. Let the countries that do not pay their share provide their own protection.
They should be given a warning to get caught up or forfeit their membership. It is morally wrong to withhold protection from someone behind in payments. Arrangements can be made to refinance their debt and reinstate their standing in NATO>
The USA should cut back to 2.0% of the GDP untill all countries contribute their fair share.
There is a reason why the US has a problem with the debt. We don’t have the money to bank roll the rest of the world. We act like we can afford so much in this country but our debt is out of control.
POTUS Trump has exposed, made transparent the POLITICS in NATO and holding all ACCOUNTABLE …. being those who make a commitment and pay their agreed upon portion supporting the Alliance and ….those who make the same committment and don’t pay …..playing “political games” within the Alliance! No more to politics, (1) either pay (2) if can’t pay bring reason and solution so Alliance can assist or (3) get out of Alliance to risk defense of their country! NO more political posturing, expectations for American Taxpayers to pick up their tab!
For all the nay-sayer commentary, please consider this: most of these NATO countries spend little or nothing on their own country’s military (mostly for show to protect gov’t. officials), choose to enrich their citizens with great social welfare (healthcare, etc) and generally have trade surpluses with the U.S. They have been taking advantage of us for decades – we not only pay ~70% of the bill we also deploy troops and equipment to these countries at our military bases. This must change and President Trump is right to demand they live up to their financial commitment – they all willingly signed the agreement decades ago and then chose to ride our coattails because we let them… the free ride is over…
We will have to defend those countries any way in case of war.
Just like everything else, spending money on defense is a choice. If someone doesn’t want to pay, we should pull out all our troops and equipment and when they want help, they pay 100% of the bill. Other than that, we should just our spending back to the same level as everyone else.
NATO has gotten used to the ‘free teat’ and (as we should do with the UN) America must stop funding our philosophical/ideological enemies. Germany and France have ceased being an ally. Their governments are what Obama wanted for America and they will use their sovereignty to an invasion of immigrants and, ultimately, lose their identity. Socialism is on display in a variety of failed nations and, while both Russia and China are beginning to see that ‘a form’ of capitalism is beneficial to their economy (if not their populace) folks who have never experienced (read:millennials) the harsh realities of Marxism at its worst, Communism, seem to be drawn towards that nirvana of ‘everyone helping/paying/feeding everyone else’. Doesn’t work, never has worked. But stupidity rules and all of this will end badly for mankind.
The problem is not do we defend countries that are not paying 2% because that is not up to us. That decision is one for members of NATO to decide as a whole. What we are deciding is if we are continuing to support NATO if the continue to allow countries as members who are not paying. You question is being wrongly worded and presented to the American people. Get it right!
My initial inclination was to say that this is a way too much more complicated issue than a simple “Yes” / “No” response. However, upon pondering it for a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that in fact, we should not defend any not paying their fair share as it won’t take long before they will be paying! – “Deep Down in the Dirt” Dave
It is time for other countries to stop freeloading off the USA and start learning to carry some of the load. Remember feed others fish and you feed them forever,teach them to fish then not only can they feed themselves but teach others how to feed themselves.
When the country joined NATO, it agreed to pay a price. So Be It.
The US should not be defending countries that dont match our percentage of GDP for their NATO contribution. We need to stop being the police of the world and to stop other countries from exploiting our good nature. If men of fighting age are not willing to stand and defend their country, why the hell are we accommodating their emigration?
Yes, but with a qualifier. The U.N. should be relocated to Paris or Brussels, so that Europe can take its turn. We have paid a disproportionate share for decades, and it’s time to quit underwriting this corrupt and ineffective bastion of liberal bias. The money we save on the U.N. budget could go towards other more worthwhile things, like Nato, until President Trump can shame them into fiscal responsibility. Securing our borders is much more important than enabling the liberals at the U.N. Let’s turn that building in NY into something useful. Just talking about it would make liberals heads explode, and that in itself would be worth it…
I appreciate that President Trump is like the boy who pointed out that the “Emperor had NO CLOTHES” in most of the issues the USA has been dealing with. It is obvious, but “political correctness” holds back. Thank you Mr. President. Let Trump be TRUMP. Not perfect, but REAL.
My wife and I own our home, we accomplished this by making a budget and sticking to it. The US and other “NATO” countries governments are full of highly paid economists who never manage to make, nor follow a budget. Why is this you ask? Because they simply raise taxes to generate more money to compensate the shortage. If they are thus so incompetent of being Economic Professional why do we need them on the payroll ? America should not and can not afford to finance the rest of these slackers ( countries ) using us to pay their way. My theory is simply : “If you can”t afford it you don’t get it, we can’t except someone else to pay for it.” If you should disagree with my terms I need a brand new truck come get me and we can go shopping.
Why is it mostly America that fight to defend other nations while those nations either barely help or don’t at all?? If war broke out on American soil, which of the NATO nations would defend us? My guess in none of them.
for those countries that dont pay their share America should award them with obama protection which threatened Russia obama warned Russia by saying “cut it out”
and or the devastating threat he made to Syria “dont cross this red line”
The United States must drop the support to Nato to 2% immediately! Stop this ridiculous covering for the deadbeat countries that don’t pay for their fare share! Enough already…
as my Canadian friend says: ” why does the U.S. always have to bail every other country out??”
If each were to bolster its military spending, the end result would be a strong united NATO maintaining peace through strength. We finally have a President who is willing to take a stand on behalf of America, its people and our military men and women. After all who is funding NATO but our U.S. tax dollars! Enough is enough. Tired of being a piggy bank for the rest of the world!
President Trump to Europe: We’re not your baby sitter anymore, Stand up on your own two feet!
These countries are “freeloading” as Obama put it. Now Trump calls them out and he’s vilified by the MSM. The “hate speech” coming from the left has no basis in fact. They hate this president so much, they ignore the same behavior exhibited by their president. It’s shameful.
Either there or here our choice.
President Trump to Europe: We’re not your baby sitter anymore, Stand up on your own two feet!
Yes, we must defend, not to do so would most certainly lead to changes in power. BUT, we should withhold aid or any other assistance we give.
The U.S. pays 4% GDP. It’s not too much to ask other countries to pay 2%. If a country says the 2% is an overburden, SHOW PROOF of such and it can be looked at on a case by case basis. These rich EU countries that REFUSE to pay the 2% should have to defend themselves (or without U.S. support). Any country that refuses, the U.S. should pull all troops out of that country and bring them home and put them on our southern border, to protect our sovereignty from the foreign invasion that is currently ongoing.
We must continue to defend these countries even if they are not paying their way. However a way must be found to pressure them to change their ways. To do otherwise is tantamount to just giving them to the Russian block. That, we can not afford.
This poll was very poorly constructed with only questions that are to complex for overly simplistic yes or no answers. You harm the credibility of the Association by poorly constructed poling.
USA Tax payers should not have to pay for Countries that do not pay their share. We should only pay our share and no more!
Because of the Soviet threat to all of central Europe we need to maintain a line of defense. If the Nations involved are not carrying their share of the burden there are other ways to make them pay. Sanctions can be placed that will affect their economies. Pressure can be placed on their bordering countries to also sanction and restrict trade with non-payers. There are a multitude of things we can do to cause them to pay up. If they choose to pull out of the agreement because of such action it would be them shooting their own foot.
Some countries really don’t have an economy to support NAT at the lecel suggested.
I tend to agree with PaulIE’s statement. Operatively though, we should strongly encourage the members to fulfill their treaty obligations and encourage them not to enrich the opponent of the treaty by entering into agreements that strengthen the opponent. These should probably be done in private (praise in public, punish in private). All that being said, We should not weaken the standing agreement by saying that they will not but protected under the treaty. If we intend to do that we should have the treaty amended to exclude the parties not meeting their obligations formally. That would both strengthen the notion that we are a nation of laws as well as putting formal pressure on the target nations to meet their obligations. And … as PaulIE said – Have an nice weekend!
United States should withdraw completely away from NATO defend the US and let the other countries defend themselves
Yes we should defend all NATO countries, but those countries MUST pay their fair share! Are there nothing but scammers and cheats in this world??? Where has old-fashioned HONOR gone!
US in dept for trillions. Does it make sense to keep paying for other countries in NATO. What about theUS state dept funding the Palentenian Auhority under the Taylor force act?Donald Trump is waking up America. He knows that the first thing in a successful business is to cut waste. Wouldn’t you say president Trump has been a successful business man?
NATO was created for a strategically important reason; to balance the post World War II power in Europe between the Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. The presence of NATO (by deterrence) prevented a secondary conflict in that region from 1945 until 1989. There were many times during that period when conflict was “probable” yet the Soviets realized they were not going to win a battle with all of NATO the way they could battling an individual country. That formula seeming changed in 1989 and many over the next few years questioned whether there was still a purpose for NATO.
The outcome of that discussion went in the other direction. Instead of NATO disbanding, it expanded into Eastern Europe which is a net positive for the West. And then, in the age of Putin, Russia has raised its ugly head again as a potential aggressor manifested by its annexation of Crimea in 2014. Without NATO, it is pretty clear he would be “taking more” at this point.
Although a firmly believe that that all NATO members should live up to what they agreed to do; including paying their fair share, establishing a doctrine that we will not defend a member who has not paid their dues weakens the entire organization. To be strong, NATO needs to be united. The solution to what should be done to the delinquent payers is what you have seen in the last week. Publicly calling them out, rather than quietly allowing them not to pay, is the way to go. It is already working. That is the correct strategy for NATO to take.