Trump stated that NATO is costing the US and that he plans on withdrawing, one day later the busses attacks happen, Cruz says that the attacks happened because trump said this,

so what is your opinion, should the US withdraw from NATO or not?

Cruz is full of sh*t.

Instead of us withdrawing from NATO, maybe someone other than the US in NATO should do something.

+1 Binks.

we'd contribute if we had free will and were no longer slaves

Instead of us withdrawing from NATO, maybe someone other than the US in NATO should do something.

This inherently makes no sense. There's nothing stopping France or the UK from increasing their military spending beyond their pathetic 2% of GDP. The problem with NATO is that the US is bankrolling the whole thing and we get very little in return. If someone attacks Estonia, we have to waste money and troops to free a country that has no strategic, economic, or cultural value to the US. However, if someone attacks the US getting help from Estonia and countries that spend less than 1% on a military is not going to help us one bit. This problem in political science is called a free rider problem, and the only way to get rid of it is to decrease military spending and force other countries to pick up the slack.

Why should we be financing the armed services and national protection of Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Eastern Europe, Israel, Canada, and parts of Western Europe.

Its time to get out of a ton of globalist international organizations that don't help the US, including the UN.

Ahahah Ox so true x) France was out of this shit for 40 years sadly Sarkozy the coward decided to join it again (lobbies worked well I suppose)... Europe has no common army, no free will because of NATO. See how things were when Bush forced other NATO nations to follow him. NATO has no longer any purpose since USSR was dismantled.

There's nothing stopping France or the UK from increasing their military spending beyond their pathetic 2% of GDP.

Politicians (thankfully) stopping them. Britain and France are not going to get invaded, get real, and have no chance at having a conventional military force that can challenge America. They don't need to, either. They know not to waste money on such antihuman disgusting things like armies. You know what is pathetic? That America (even officially) spends a super high amount, both in percentage and in flat.

The problem with NATO is that the US is bankrolling the whole thing and we get very little in return. If someone attacks Estonia, we have to waste money and troops to free a country that has no strategic, economic, or cultural value to the US.

NATO is not a defence organisation, it is an offence organisation which is 1.1x more powerful than American forces alone. No NATO country is in any major threat of attack today. And again, it's not all about America - it's all about helping as many as can.

Now, SCO is a true defensive organisation - although more powerful, they don't try to "spread democracy" like NATO does by invading every other country.

countries that spend less than 1% on a military is not going to help us one bit. This problem in political science is called a free rider problem, and the only way to get rid of it is to decrease military spending and force other countries to pick up the slack.

The problem is, NATO is an offence organisation, not a defence organisation, not that they're not spending enough to kill folk. Also, other countries, even small countries, of NATO, usually give a horde of soldiers to help America, and they rotate. I recall that Polish special forces got a pack of million $ for saving a few important trapped Americans. The way to rid this problem is to stop warmongering.

France was better off out of NATO.

Why should we be financing the armed services and national protection of Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Eastern Europe, Israel, Canada, and parts of Western Europe.

Japan, Hanguk, Pakistan (ha ha ha, helping the national shielding of Pakistan. Believing American and Russian propoganda, I see), and Israel are not part of NATO. Also, the idea is that if America was attacked (ha ha), it would get more than just its own forces to drive out the foe.

Its time to get out of a ton of globalist international organizations that don't help the US, including the UN.

UN doesn't help America, but it just barely hurts it (only way I can think of is member fees, which is gotten by flat rate - America's not affected significantly). If America got out of the UN, then the tortures and human rights abuses would go up, as it's easier to defend, as America would not be breaking international law as it's not part of international law "But it's against the Genève human rights protocol!" "Stop imposing your strange laws and measuring systems, we're not part of the world, and your laws don't apply to us. Now let me get back to mutilating this anti-government protestor."

Britain and France are not going to get invaded, get real, and have no chance at having a conventional military force that can challenge America. They don't need to, either. They know not to waste money on such antihuman disgusting things like armies.

Anybody who thinks any Western European nation is going to get "invaded" (like in WWiI) is insane. The attacks in Paris and Brussels reveal a new type of asymmetrical warfare that won't require tanks and rocket missiles, but it will require an increase in defense spending from what France and the UK and Brussels are currently doing. Bombing people is a good substitute for invasion with conventional military forces = its cheaper, requires less manpower, and has a more dramatic effect. Armies are not antihuman or disgusting...in fact they're probably a reason why we're not in a total state of constant feudal warfare as in before the formation of nation-states. I thank my lucky stars I'm not living in a place where tribal warlords still exist. If armies were so antihuman and disgusting, why does the UN have one lol??

NATO is not a defence organisation, it is an offence organisation which is 1.1x more powerful than American forces alone. No NATO country is in any major threat of attack today. And again, it's not all about America - it's all about helping as many as can

The best defense is a good offense my friend. You say that no NATO country is in any major threat of attack today (and I agree), but why do the Defense Ministers and Intelligence Personnel throughout Europe and N. America act and spread fear that such an attack is imminent. Europe via NATO is trying to force the US to solve the problem of the Syrian civil war and Russia's so called "bullying" by imposing it on the US military. We're getting scammed. Also, to be frank, I could give 0 shits about helping any European country. We gave them the Marshall Plan, freed them from Communism, and saved them from Nazi Germany...I think we did enough for at least 200 years. If they want to defend themselves against Russia they should spend their own money (some of them have a higher GDP per capita than we do).

The way to rid this problem is to stop warmongering.

Good luck with that. I literally can't even kill an ant under my religious laws and even I don't believe warmongering will end. At some point you have to be pragmatic.

helping the national shielding of Pakistan. Believing American and Russian propoganda, I see

....If its "propaganda" then why did the US lift the embargo and okay the sale of F-16s to Pakistan?? Pakistan is a failed state and the US shouldn't be wasting money to help the ISI fund terrorist attacks. From 1951 to 2011 the US has given a total of $67 billion in aid to Pakistan. Please show me how that's propaganda lol? Its a fact.

http://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers

If America got out of the UN, then the tortures and human rights abuses would go up, as it's easier to defend, as America would not be breaking international law as it's not part of international law

Again this doesn't make sense. The US has already removed itself from the International Criminal Court and we don't allow UN Laws to trump US Laws as created by Congress. The UN could declare America a terrorist organization right now and the US would probably just veto the resolution. The UN is a sham for the 5 big world powers to control international affairs.

Edited 3/23/2016 22:26:25

@JaiBharat909

If you're going to quote someone, please put [quote,] and [/quote,] (but without the comma) either side of the quote. Your post is too ugly and I have to keep checking back to see what you typed yourself and what you're just quoting from other people.

The attacks in Paris and Brussels reveal a new type of asymmetrical warfare that won't require tanks and rocket missiles, but it will require an increase in defense spending from what France and the UK and Brussels are currently doing.

Let me put it in perspect for you. These attacks are very minor if you look at the big drawing.

130 folk were killed in Paris in November. 665 were killed of homicide in France in 2012. 1 in 100,000 folk. Adding this to it would raise France's murder rate from 1 to 1.2. From low to slightly less low. (America has 3.8 murder rate).

Let's be liberal and say that 40 folk were died of the Bruxelles attacks. 182 were killed of homicide in Belgium in 2012, and this 40 folk extra, if they were murdered, would raise Belgium's murder rate from 1.6 to 2.

Wanting more military spending for what best amounts to a minor demographic problem (in great bit brought about by military spending), this is just mad in my thought.

Bombing people is a good substitute for invasion with conventional military forces = its cheaper, requires less manpower, and has a more dramatic effect.

Yeah, it substitutes the lack of humanity and blood, too, it's wonderful. Also, not necessarily cheaper, it just depends on how big an air force there is, how much is being spent on it, how much hurt they want to do, same with footsoldiers.

Armies are not antihuman or disgusting

Antihuman = against humans. Obviously armies are antihuman, soldiers kill folk for a living. And that's disgusting, in my opinion. If every politician had to go to the frontlines, and not just as a commander in the back of the frontlines, "leading it", but as actually the pointman, then I think war would be greatly more unpopular, today.

in fact they're probably a reason why we're not in a total state of constant feudal warfare as in before the formation of nation-states.

Feudal warfare? No, nowhere. Though it's hard to tell for sure, it's highly unlikely that tribal systems killed more than government systems (until semi-government under overseas settlements that encouraged violence and differences). Sometimes, it's kind of a primitive communism - each tribe does what's best for the tribe, although it's better told as primitive socialism in most cases. But anyhow tribes can definitely have armies, too.

If armies were so antihuman and disgusting, why does the UN have one lol??

UN isn't perfect, but that said. UN rarely uses its small military force, and only in cases of near-full approving with the members, and due to conflicting interests between all the countries, only pure evils get warred upon, as the result of so many conflicting interests is a kind of neutral settling, and if a neutral settling is reached on a conflict, it's near-objective.

Maybe I should rephrase - most armies at their being today, are antihuman and disgusting.

The best defence is a good offence my friend.

In strife, better take than make. That said, just don't get into strife at all. Don't pick fights, like NATO is.

why do the Defense Ministers and Intelligence Personnel throughout Europe and N. America act and spread fear that such an attack is imminent.

You know what America's modern economy (1900s on) has been driven on? War and arms industries. America's GDP rose well 1914to1918, then rose loads in 1938-1945, and when it lastly got it's loan-debts back in the 1960s or 1970s, and kept steadily rising until deceleration in the 1990s. Then, the War on Terror is bring it back.

And this fear, it's just to build up popular support for more authoritarianism (which is great for government), for example, by bigger military force.

Europe via NATO is trying to force the US to solve the problem of the Syrian civil war

It's not a problem to Europe (except Turkey) nor America. I don't see why they would be. But anyhow, America is "solving" problems just fine already.

and Russia's so called "bullying" by imposing it on the US military.

Again, this is like asking a writer to write - it's not your asking that drives them to write.

Also, to be frank, I could give 0 shits about helping any European country. We gave them the Marshall Plan, freed them from Communism, and saved them from Nazi Germany

Marshall Plan: A way to help far west European countries, in exchange for greater American control and military stretching in Europe. Think about Germany's bailout of Greece*30.

freed them from Communism

Do they still teach in textbooks in America that the Second World War was the ultimate war between Soviet Union and America, which ended in the Soviet Union's fall in 1991?

Get real, communist groups are still popular in many these countries. 17.2% Russians voted Communist Group in 2012 (second most popular). Also, Yugoslavia seemed to do great under capitalism.

saved them from Nazi Germany

Was dragged into a war that it contributed little to the European front (seriously, Americans never seem to brag about slaying Militarist Japan even though America had a much bigger role there, and arguably Japan was more powerful and atrocious).

I think we did enough for at least 200 years.

I think America has done enough warring for at least 1,000.

If they want to defend themselves against Russia they should spend their own money (some of them have a higher GDP per capita than we do).

But they shouldn't though.

Good luck with that. I literally can't even kill an ant under my religious laws and even I don't believe warmongering will end. At some point you have to be pragmatic.

Pragmatism is ok, but you must do your part, for every drop will help the puddle.

If its "propaganda" then why did the US lift the embargo and okay the sale of F-16s to Pakistan??

It's a sale, not a gift. They later (after 2008 or so) realised that Pakistan (a nuclear country) was getting angry, the government and the citizens and so started to be a bit more friendly to it. Then America introduced extremist Islamists in the northwest who have began killing Pakistani folk, too, and all this since Pakistan is a bit dubious with what's happening in the Middle East (America is far more dubious). Your government is terrible and antihumanitarian, as are most, admit it.

Again this doesn't make sense. The US has already removed itself from the International Criminal Court and we don't allow UN Laws to trump US Laws as created by Congress.

Well, that's awful, the thing to do is to rebring these laws back.

The UN could declare America a terrorist organization right now and the US would probably just veto the resolution.

What's your point?

The UN is a sham for the 5 big world powers to control international affairs.

control military* deeds* of the UN. Also, Russia, Britain, and France are not the top 5 world powers (Russia arguably, but Britain and France, they just forgot to replace them).

The world controls international deeds of the UN.

Edited 3/24/2016 00:43:13

Your post is too ugly

https://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/b9kou3aciaeqyvv.jpg?w=863&h=644

No one cares how aesthetically appealing someone's post is. Anything that someone else says is placed in italics. Its really quite a simple system.

@Жұқтыру - Most of our debate has descended into historical revisionism and interpretation at this point.

Do they still teach in textbooks in America that the Second World War was the ultimate war between Soviet Union and America, which ended in the Soviet Union's fall in 1991?

Get real, communist groups are still popular in many these countries. 17.2% Russians voted Communist Group in 2012 (second most popular). Also, Yugoslavia seemed to do great under capitalism.

^Take this for example. While no doubt several variables contributed to the fall of the USSR in 1991, no doubt that US foreign and economic policy was a major driving force behind bankrupting the Soviet Union and the economic liberalization of Eastern Europe. Most if not all historical professors agree with this point.

Edited 3/24/2016 00:30:21

No one cares how aesthetically appealing someone's post is. Anything that someone else says is placed in italics. Its really quite a simple system.

Obviously Atlee cares, and so many folk. I'm usually fine with it, but GeneralPE's replies in particular are badly formatted.

Most of our debate has descended into historical revisionism and interpretation at this point.

Some of it is, some isn't, certainly not all of it is.

Take this for example. While no doubt several variables contributed to the fall of the USSR in 1991, no doubt that US foreign and economic policy was a major driving force behind bankrupting the Soviet Union

Soviet Union was in slipspace. The average Soviet (and average with little spread - this is communism) lived ok, and was stable under the system they were (though nationally, America was quickly catching up). The median Soviet lived on more than the median American in the Brezhnev times.

And that's all there is to it. Some international competition, yes, and what later turned into an awful economy with the introduction of capitalism. Think of it this way: a government GDP PPP is basically how much they can buy within their own country. If a government runs on 90% slave work, then their GDP PPP must be off the charts, since A country can get a car for the costs of giving the energy (food) and maybe supervision to make the car, while B government has to pay loads for that same car.

Is it economically bad when slavery is banned? Yes, definitely. But the banning only came from Russia itself, with Gorbachöv, America and the outside had nothing to do with it (despite much propoganda elsewise saying).

Your interpretation of history is very interesting hahaha. I have to call it interpretation not because I doubt your honesty, but because what you call propaganda I call history and what you call history I call incorrect interpretation. Perhaps you've just read different materials (textbooks, novels, etc) then what I have. History is 50% subjective interpretation and 50% is actual fact.

For example take this argument from one historian about how Ronald Reagan helped speed up the collapse of the USSR: "A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan’s massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels."

Now the actual statistics may be correct, what's up to interpretation is whether the USSR increased its own defense spending in direct response or reply to America's increase in defense spending. The only way to prove that interpretation would be primary and secondary sources.

A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan’s massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.

America is/was in a kind of slipspace (but unstable within), come to think of it. Paying debt would not be a good day, but it's all ok as long as you never pay debt.

Anyhow, this likely happened, so? It's a bold jump to say that this in any significant way helped the Soviet Union fall. Germany did much more (proportionally) hurting in the Second World War, and Soviet Union was in (literal) debt to America, too. But Stalin was not Gorbachöv.

NATO is so weak. The US should have withdrawn from it years ago. NATO fights proxy wars that increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks happening back home, and has no clear goals to end Islamic terrorism. The amount of money will spend on military is not going to put a significant dent in ISIS. We could defeat ISIS for less; we could carpet bomb countries like Syria and lay them to utter waste. Instead we waste our time with precision drone strikes that take out a few men, men easily replaceable in a matter of days.

Trump is absolutely right, we need to cut military costs so the government can fund education and social security. We need to rethink our strategy against fighting ISIS because the current one is not designed to destroy ISIS, it is designed to keep us in perpetual war.

Lastly, we need to cut all military funding to Israel (ONE FIFTH OF THE US MILITARY BUDGET). Israel is not our ally and its role in the middle east has ruined OUR reputation with Muslims. If Israel cannot fund its own existence then it needs to disappear.

Furthermore, the original intent of NATO was to suppress Communism. It was a coalition of states that agreed to undermine the influence of other states. States can negotiate with one another and NATO was a perfect negotiation tool. Do you think ISIS gives a shit about nation states? The men of ISIS do not have a rationale for those kinds of situations.

NATO wasn't designed to destroy it was designed to deter. That's precisely why it's failing, the alliance uses cold war logic to fight modern terrorists. You can't deter ISIS you have to completely destroy it and kill everyone in it to succeed. We've seen how relentless and insane ISIS is.

Edited 3/24/2016 02:15:17

Lastly, we need to cut all military funding to Israel (ONE FIFTH OF THE US MILITARY BUDGET)

Just wanted to correct some facts. The US defense spending budget for FY 2015 was $598.5 billion. US aid (nonmilitary and military) to Israel per year (according to a 10 year agreement set to expire in 2017) is $3.1 billion. That means that funding to Israel accounts for .52% of the US Defense Budget.

Also why take aim specifically at Israel? If you don't like foreign aid, cut it to ALL nations. If you don't think there's a reason to prop up the Jewish State then cut off foreign aid to everyone and everything, including Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Tanzania. Most of these are failed nation states anyway and our money won't make a dent in fixing them. We'll decrease defense spending and we'll be able to invest in domestic spending.

the alliance uses cold war logic to fight modern terrorists.

^This. +1. Asymmetrical warfare is always the death of the US (see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria). Disband NATO.

I'd rather just drop out and let European countries ruin their budgets by paying for it so the EU will be sent its way and Europe will never become a unified strong thing. Say what you want about Europe but they're much less dangerous to us and the world when their economy is bad.

NATO is an outdated affair.

I believe it needs to be disbanded.

Well if the US withdraw from NATO, NATO will cease to exist, because NATO was designed and created by and for the US. I agree with most of you, NATO should just be dismantled right now. But sadly this won't happen in the near future.

Obviously Atlee cares, and so many folk. I'm usually fine with it, but GeneralPE's replies in particular are badly formatted.

I just do the quote with brackets thing :(

I'd rather just drop out and let European countries ruin their budgets by paying for it so the EU will be sent its way and Europe will never become a unified strong thing. Say what you want about Europe but they're much less dangerous to us and the world when their economy is bad.

That's a poor thought. Why do you think there's no European army yet? Because there's NATO. Most EU members already are in NATO and don't feel like it's necessary to have one unified army, as they already cooperate in the clauses of the alliance.

That been said, europe should definetly leave NATO and stop being an american puppet when it comes to international crisis. The total budget of the armed forces in the EU is ~200 billion euros (so a bit more in dollars), with 1.7 million active soldiers and more as reservists and paramilitary organisations.

An unified EU army would have more soldiers then the US and the second budget in the world, while spending less then 2% of the GNP. TOTALLY FINE FOR ME!