The United States does not need these Allies. Our mission in Afghanistan was not contingent upon these allies participation. They certainly participated and about 1,000 lost their lives but in the grand scheme of things, they don't bring a lot to the alliance. Some of these countries have militaries of 5,000 men or less. We assume the massive risk of a large scale war with Russia by guaranteeing a lot of these countries security, these countries benefit massively... how does the United States benefit from this alliance? Getting some small scale participation in Afghanistan that it didn't really need? Not a good trade.
FWIW I don't disagree with you about levels of military spending. Unfortunately, barring a groundswell of popular support and a change in cultural mindset, I don't see it ever meaningfully changing. But I do disagree in that I think American influence is a force for good things in the world. If we retreat, diplomatically or militarily, authoritarian states like China will gladly fill the void. We ask for free elections, democratic reforms and fair application of law in return for our support. China doesn't care how many of your people you kill so long as you give them access to lithium in return for building roads and hospitals. I like the idea that America can be a moral authority in the world. Part of that is supporting NATO members like Estonia and Latvia who turned to us after resisting the USSR because of our example. We should want more democracy abroad, not less.
The US is allowed intelligence on foreign happenings from the nations in NATO. The US is allowed access to military bases which we have used. The US decreases the use of American troops by having allies help us in Afghanistan. They have spent more military personnel help for the United States lately than the United States has on them. NATO has also protected trade doing missions against pirating in the shipping lanes, etc.
The mindset around spending won't change if people keep believing nonsense about Russia being a threat to the United States of America. Is Russia a threat to Ukraine? Latvia? Lithuania? Hell yes but not the United States. No Russian tanks will ever be rolling up any American streets.
So is the eligibility of a candidate based on their engagement of an insurrection. Who enforces the Constitution if not state officials, and then ultimately the courts if their decisions are questioned? My point is that technically you are incorrect even though some might agree that yes... it would be healthier for the country if an insurrectionist running for president was handily beaten at the ballot box. Of course that message is going to ring loud, and clear in that case where if the courts step in and remove Trump from the ballots, it opens up the narrative of "DEMOCRATS" stepping in to deny a democratic process. However the Constitutions did give the power to remove candidates based on these eligibility qualifications, and the Judiciary is setup to be arbiter of those decisions being questioned. If Trump is not removed because the Supreme Court rules that it's not their place to enforce those Constitutional permeameters, then there's no reason why they would then be able to credibly claim it's their duty to deny a 32 year old or someone that is foreign born from running, and being left on the ballot. Hell... Barrack Obama can run again, and the SOS's and the Courts really have no grounds to stand on to deny him a spot on the ballot. The issue of Trump's eligibility is more important that you might think because of the longterm affect. Not because it's a healthy thing to have happen vs him being beaten by the voters. Yet your rage is only focused on Democrats 110%. All of your energy here all of the time is directed at telling everyone how bad Democrats are, and utter silence about you know... the party that is openly running on the benefits of a dictatorship. Sorry for questioning motives here a little bit. You call Democrats "Rage Driven Partisans" while some might call them Americans who are a bit freaked out about half of country literally voting for sexual assaulter, coup attempting, liar, former reality star Donald Trump to become a dictator. If that doesn't qualify as a reason to express a tiny bit of outrage then I don't know what does. Maybe get off your high horse for a second, and put yourself in the shoes of someone else who isn't a sanctimonious know it all.
We'd be perfectly fine without any of that and we can still have lots of that without being in NATO. Not being in NATO doesn't mean all international cooperation just vanishes.
Sorry, but we wouldn't be perfectly fine without our preferential trading partners, more American troops dying, deployed, and lack of Intelligence, lack of using bases. It doesn't just vanish, but allies will need something in return for the benefits. That is a cost. It might be a different cost one that would cause more economic hardship, giving away other resources, etc. The United States greatly benefits from NATO.
We absolutely spend way too much on defense yearly. The next highest spender, China, spends 1/3 of what we spend. We really should be spending way less. But as I said, it doesn't matter if we are in NATO or not. Consider these numbers: In 2022-23, the US contributed $704M to NATO budgets. This is obviously a very small fraction of the total yearly US defense budget. We have about 60k US troops in Europe as part of NATO deterrence, which costs ~$10B a year, again, a fraction of the total yearly US defense budget. Japan attacked the US in WW2 because they were afraid we would enter the war. They miscalculated, but if there was a NATO alliance at that time, Japan wouldn't even dare. No one, other than terrorists (and boy did they cost us a fortune) have attacked us since NATO. Who knows what would happen if there is no NATO. But also consider the non-NATO costs since NATO was established. The Iraq war costed ~$2 Trillion and thousands of US deaths and many more wounded. The Afghanistan war costed ~$2-10T and thousands of US deaths and many more wounded. The US spends ~$4B in military aid and assistance to Israel per year The US spent ~$30B in military aid to Ukraine (before the war) and ~100B in military and non-military aid to Ukraine (since the war). As shown above, we have spent much more on non-NATO military activities than on NATO. If we leave NATO, I don't think we are going to spend a single dime less. On the other hand, I think without collective defense, we risk being pulled into more wars, which is extremely costly. NATO should continue to exist as a deterrent. We can reduce the cost of it, but that won't impact our overall military spending much. I'm afraid nothing will with both parties not willing to touch it.
Where are our trading partners going? Just because we leave NATO we become a pariah state? This is nonsense. We can still share intelligence with European allies. We can create new alliances. We can still have a relationship with any number of countries. We just don't have to guarantee every single country in NATO's security. The United States does not "greatly" benefit from NATO... there is about 0 chance anyone starts a war with the United States. The Europeans are BY FAR the larger beneficiaries of NATO.
you wrote: someone replied: extreme like inciting an insurrection you then wrote: At this point, I has assumed that you needed an "insurrection conviction" (whatever the **** that is) in order for the One Man Crime Wave to be removed from ballots since the US Constitution would demand it ... at least from your reading thereof. My reply was simply that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require a conviction, related to "insurrection". and finally you replied thusly: I think that we are in actual agreement. The USSC will have to decide Trump's eligibility for POTUS. In doing so, the USSC will likely establish the protocol for how this should be done in the future, in the unlikely event an "insurrectionist" ever tries to run for POTUS again. The USSC will have the final word. I might dislike their opinion, but I will abide. For my politics, a Trump versus Biden contest is the best possible matchup since this gives Biden the easiest path to victory.
You do know that the US participates in the World Economy, right? You do know that the two World Wars were great destroyers of world wealth, right? WRT Russia, I do not think that Russia can beat NATO even if the US bails ... but ... they could destroy a lot of blood and money for both sides.
I don't recall reading the United States economy collapsed between 1914-1917 or 1939- Dec. 1941. The "economic" apologists for US interventionism don't make a compelling case. The world economy will adjust in the advent of a war in Europe. We have a war in Ukraine right now. Economy is doing just fine.
If SCOTUS does rule that a conviction is needed then I want to know what legal process is constitutionally required to determine whether or not a foreigner running for president is eligible or not. If I had to guess I think that’s the argument SCOTUS will make and they will create quite the slippery slope. Especially since MAGA followers are very concerned with Obama birth certificate or now Haley’s birth certificate I guess. If let’s say in 2008, Dan Patrick here in Texas refused to put Obama on the Texas ballot because he didn’t think it was legitimate, would SCOTUS have decide one way or another when the DNC sued the state of Texas or would SCOTUS say that a conviction was needed from a lower level lawsuit in which a jury trial is summoned? Of course not… SCOTUS would have stepped in and either upheld Texas’ decision to keep Obama off the ballot or they would have ruled that Obama’s birth certificate was legal. So this idea that Trump needs to be convicted first before SCOTUS can rule is ridiculous. There’s nothing in the Constitution that demands a lower court jury trial in a criminal conviction verdict run its course first. It just states you are not eligible if you are under 35, foreign born, or have engaged in insurrection. The Secretary of State has ALOT of power here and ultimately SCOTUS should be empowered to move quick to put disputes to bed since the Constitution is so black and white on the topic.
Dude, do you actually believe Russia is not a threat to the USA, if that's true no amount of debate will change your mind, but I can tell you Russia will always be a threat as long as Putin is the dictator. I don't know your age but do some research on some of the "older" folks in the gop who have dealt with Russia for decades. I am shocked at your statement, but hey, to each his own..............maybe do a little reading from the right wing heritage group, wont change your mind but does a nice job outlining key points. Its not about tanks rolling down any town USA. Hell, they openly influence elections in the US to support there narrrative. From the Heritage foundation Yes, Russia Is a Threat to the United States https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/yes-russia-threat-the-united-states
Some of this situation is intended by policy makers in Washington. They don't want Europe to be noisy like France, rather they just want financial, diplomatic, and technical support. Enforcing sanctions was nice, and the "chip ban" is only possible because of our alliance. If our alliance unravels, the entire semiconductor supply chain is in doubt. There are thousands of companies across the world working together to design, fab, and produce a design comparable to a large city. It's already hard as it is to stop a company like Nvidia from supplying China quality chips that are on the naughty list. I don't think Old Europe would fight Russia alone. It was Schröder and Merkel who enabled Putin and would still probably do it on the down low if Ukraine didn't secretly blow up Nordstream. France has a "decent" military but they treat their hardware like a bubble wrapped sports car and won't even spare one destroyer to defend against Houthi pirates. Britain is our closest Eye, but they'll need something like shadow funds from authoritarian regimes to maintain London's standing as a financial capital post-Brexit. They're all that weak and feckless to cheap energy to the point where Finland and Poland would have to do the heavy lifting in a real fight, which would never come to be because the countries financing it would be swayed by the closer and newer sugar daddy.
The smooth brain dumbasses in this thread can't see past the next Xeet...doubt they care about in depth foreign policy.
Circular logic is circular and never ending: Down with the American World Order! We're doing fine right now, aren't we?!? Prove to me that we won't be when everyone fends for themselves!!
