Is NATO done?
With the possible exception of the Scandinavian nations, I wouldn't call any member of NATO a "socialist" nation.
I don't support isolationist governments (though I respect strongly Washington's and Jefferson's attempts in support of "alignment" not "alliances" with friendly nations), I simply expect fairness from our allies. It would be as unfair to expect France alone to pay for NATO's expenses as it is to expect the United States alone to do so.
Socialism is, when I studied political science, where governments assume the burden of paying the costs of certain social programs (health care, arts, education) regardless of budgetary constraints on other economic revenue and sectors. If this fact remains true, I would necessarily place most European nations in the socialist category.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
All those nations supported America when it was attacked on 9/11. Perhaps he should think about that too.
Except France in the War on Terror ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries ); not that I disagree with France, it knew there was no connection with 9/11 coming from Iraq. But, France did bow out and gave no support to the United States where it could have declined direct involvement with the invasion of Iraq while providing other support.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
All those nations supported America when it was attacked on 9/11. Perhaps he should think about that too.
Except France in the War on Terror ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries ); not that I disagree with France, it knew there was no connection with 9/11 coming from Iraq. But, France did bow out and gave no support to the United States where it could have declined direct involvement with the invasion of Iraq while providing other support.
That's true. France totally didn't support the invasion of Iraq.
By that definition, even the US has "socialist" leanings. Though less extreme than many European nations.
Most NATO nations have "budgetary constraints" when it comes to supporting social programs, though the constraints are less tight than it is in the US.
Most members of NATO also have a strong free-enterprise component, the Scandinavian nations less so. Though even the Scandinavian nations do not exert total state control over the economy
A "Socialist" nation, in the present-day vernacular, is a nation where state control of the economy is paramount; there is little-or-no room for individual initiative and free enterprise within a "Socialist" nation under that definition.. China (even though there is, at present, some free-enterprise elements, and "joint ventures" with free-enterprise nations) is a prime example of such a nation.
It can be said that the Scandinavian nations "lean" more towards Socialism than most other nations; however, they are not "Socialist" nations under the present-day vernacular definition of it.
The purpose of NATO is to put a boot on your boss Vladimir's neck and keep him down.
I was thinking how Vladimir and Voldemort sort of look alike and those who are frightened of him should start calling him He Who Must Not Be Named
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
The purpose of NATO is to put a boot on your boss Vladimir's neck and keep him down.
If Russia is such a threat then it should be reflected in the defense budgets of our European allies, obviously its not a threat they are all too concerned about so why are you
I don't think anyone should have supported the invasion of Iraq, especially since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But I don't see how helping us one time 16 years ago has anything to do with them not contributing their fair share to NATO. Plus I'm not sure how much assistance the US required. 9/11 was a horrific event, but the devastation was confined to the WTC area and part of the Pentagon building.
Last edited by EzraS on 01 Jun 2017, 10:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
it's not fair to the American people who have to shoulder the burden of having to protect the ungrateful, the US can't afford to be paying off these far off banana republics for essentially their loyalty who don't even meet the minimum benchmarks. America is going broke, what we have been doing is not sustainable.
The purpose of NATO is to put a boot on your boss Vladimir's neck and keep him down.
If Russia is such a threat then it should be reflected in the defense budgets of our European allies, obviously its not a threat they are all too concerned about so why are you
That is a good point. If they consider Russia to be such a huge threat, why have they hardly been putting any effort into building up NATO? And they're supposed to wait until 2024 before they do, when they're in such imminent danger right now? And if Trump is supposedly colluding with Russia, why is he trying to get them to make NATO stronger?
Last edited by EzraS on 01 Jun 2017, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,886
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
The purpose of NATO is to put a boot on your boss Vladimir's neck and keep him down.
I say AMEN, and AMEN to that!
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,886
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
The purpose of NATO is to put a boot on your boss Vladimir's neck and keep him down.
If Russia is such a threat then it should be reflected in the defense budgets of our European allies, obviously its not a threat they are all too concerned about so why are you
That is a good point. If they consider Russia to be such a huge threat, why have they hardly been putting any effort into building up NATO? And they're supposed to wait until 2024 before they do, when they're in such imminent danger right now? And if Trump is supposedly colluding with Russia, why is he trying to get them to make NATO stronger?
They have been making NATO stronger by bringing in new members.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,886
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
I'd hardly call the stable democracies of western Europe banana republics. If anything, they've resisted attempts to establish strongman regimes so far.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
But the method of delivery of the message is where the problem lies.
NATO members should put their "fair share" of effort into keeping NATO running.
The way I heard it, Obama had been trying the velvet glove diplomacy route for 8 years and it didn't amount to anything.