@Daily_Express @instapundit But the US still has to cover the lion's share of NATO spending because, well, we have "always" done it this way— Don Surber (@donsurber) April 5, 2016
Actually, NATO is a detriment to world safety because it keeps Europe from taking responsibility for its own security. Expecting the world's policeman to protect them has left Europe unable and unwilling to hold off the hordes of Muslim invaders who plan to take over Europe the way white settlers took over North America -- by sheer numbers.
Anyway, from Morton Kondracke:
For nearly 100 years, the United States has been the guardian of peace in the world. Now, Donald Trump is threatening to withdraw — almost guaranteeing that chaos will worsen around the globe.
Most irresponsibly, he has repeatedly suggested that Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia develop nuclear arsenals even though, as he told CNN, that nuclear proliferation is “maybe the biggest issue of our time.”
He’s also declared the NATO alliance “obsolete”— a relic of the Cold War and an era when the U.S. was not “a poor country” — and threatened to pull U.S. forces out of Europe, Japan and Korea.
Trump seems mindless of history. It was nearly 100 years ago — April 1, 1916, to be exact — when the U.S. entered World War I and saved Western Europe from German domination.
The United States then reverted to "Trumpian" isolationism, only to have to fight another world war to avoid domination by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.His is a liberal argument that holds others responsible for a criminal's behavior. The United States did not cause Japan to decide to build an Asian empire. The United States did not cause Germany to decide to build a European empire. Tojo and Hitler and their followers are responsible. I do not see how participation in the League of Nations would have avoided that.
We created NATO because we had the only army standing that could stop the Soviets. The terms of the original arrangement were based on a Europe reduced to rubble by a devastating war. That no longer is the case. It hasn't been the case for 50 years. Europe should be able to defend itself.
We are broke.
Our resources are exhausted.
But neocons like Kondracke want to continue to spend and spend and spend as if GM still sold half the cars is America. We no longer own our own market in steel and other basic industries. We re;y on China to build the things our politicians do not want
That $19 trillion debt we have accumulated -- $13 trillion since 9/11 -- is the major threat to national security, not the Soviet Union or even the Muslim terrorists and illegal aliens. Washington's fiscal immaturity undermined our ability to defend ourselves -- much less Europe.
But there are all the sages of Washington -- Kondracke, the National Review and the Weekly Standard in particularly -- rejecting any call to discuss NATO.
Or free trade.
Or illegal immigration.
Or social issues.
What's left to discuss? Trump's hair.
Kondracke concluded: "Trump’s approach to the Muslim world — barring most foreigners and having police monitor mosques — will make the world more dangerous, not less. All this — plus a possible global trade war triggered by threatened tariff hikes — will not make America great again. Quite the opposite."
Well, what is his approach? Turn it into World War III with the factories of China -- not the USA -- churning out the war matériel needed to win?
Having a historic high in immigration, free trade agreements that are a de facto tariff on USA-made products, and maintaining $20 billion-a-year in military bureaucracies do not make the United States orteh world any safer. In fact, it does the opposite.
But if Kodracke insists on spending $20 billion-a-year on NATO and similar organizations, what tax will he raise to pay for it? Our credit card is maxxed out. Either cut government or raise taxes. This cannot continue.
Meanwhile, Patrick Buchanan is making sense:
Trump subjects U.S. commitments to a cost-benefit analysis, as seen from the standpoint of cold national interest.
What do we get from continuing to carry the largest load of the defense of a rich Europe, against a Russia with one-fourth of Europe’s population?
How does Vladimir Putin, leader of a nation that in the last century lost its European and world empires and a third of its landmass, threaten us?
Why must we take the lead in confronting and containing Putin in Ukraine, Crimea and Georgia? No vital U.S. interest is imperiled there, and Russia’s ties there are older and deeper than ours to Puerto Rico.
Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. Pacific Fleet to defend the claims of Hanoi, Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Brunei, to rocks, reefs and islets in the South China Sea – against the claims of China?America's self-interest must come first and foremost. Had we protected our factories, we would not have to rely on the kindness of China to save the world next time.