UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

......it would appear that they enhance my viewing experience.

Link: http://www.natoonline.org/

expanded to include intelligence and surveillance of suspected terrorists and Russia. This data must be shared with ALL of the NATO countries and a EU equivalent of the CIA should be developed.

(no message)

NATO doesn't actually cost that much, so trump's basically a stooge.

But it is a complete anachronism, and the expansion has been a major, major blunder. Especially the expansion to the Baltics, which makes it much more likely that we will get sucked into a conflict that has nothing at all to do with our national interest. And that, more than anything else, poisoned our relations with Moscow. For nothing. It's not like we're safer now that we are treaty allies with Albania, for chrissakes.

I'd rather have no NATO than the current NATO.

Clinton expanded it first, and Bush followed. Expansion halted under Obama...but I bet it continues under either Clinton 2 or anyone from the GOP. And that would be a disaster.

We would have been better off without some of the expansion, especially in the Baltics,

But it's done and the organization has kept the peace for a long time. It would be crazy to jettison it and add yet another power vacuum to an already uncertain world.

President Rubio certainly would have. At least President Trump wouldn't do that. Probably.

Both would be horrible, but Cruz would be worse. The only reason Cruz still has a chance is he's run to the right of Trump.

You don't need a completely unpredictable, ignorant, unteachable president.

(no message)

Bilateral security agreements with a couple European countries may make some sense.

are negligible.

NATO is essential for four reasons; to combat a resurgent Russia, to keep a US leadership role in Europe, to keep Europe together and peaceful in an alliance, and as a force to combat terrorist states. These are paramount US interests that override concerns of who is paying for what.

Finally, power abhors a vacuum and that left by the folding of NATO would be disasterous for us and for Europe.

....to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down.

None are particularly urgent now. And do you really think adding the Baltics has made us safer? Was it worth the cost of alienating Russia? Doesn't our strategic relationship with Moscow outweigh our strategic relationship with Talinn and Riga?

(no message)

I agree Baltic expansion was a mistake. But it is what it is.

Scrapping it would lead to additional instability and would be the wrong response to Russian belligerence.

Only morons and isolationists want to do away with it.

(no message)

And now, if Russia and Estonia have a problem, it's our problem.

Russia does not want the hassle of running these places...but teaching them the occasional lesson, or encouraging a breakaway region full of Russians, like Narva is in the realm of possibility.

The fate of Narva should not be our problem. But it is now. Thanks, NATO.

Overall I agree with you. The Baltics were a bridge too far for expansion. But it's not a reason to ditch the whole alliance.

Putin was also going to be Putin, with or without expansion. Initial expansion did hem him in on the former Warsaw Pact States. I would not have expanded into former constituent states of the USSR.

I'm not trying to fight you on this issue. NATO's expansion always concerned me. And yet, so has Russia.

I did, a refugee, it opened my eyes significantly to their plight.

I get your nationalistic point that any treaty we enter into should serve to make us safer and I agree with that in principle, but still the humanitarian in me says leaving the eastern bloc to the wolves (Russia) isn't right. One of the reasons I lament the decline of the USA is that we no longer have the resources to protect those who can't protect themselves. (Not saying our intentions have always been pure, nor results as intended, I'm referring to the principle of spreading democracy and freedom).

While our "Occupy Whatevers" were taking shits on patrol cars, their youth were demonstrating in the streets against Russian aggression in the Ukraine...with a palpable "There, but for the grace of God, go I" kind of attitude. I was in the streets with them (not protesting, but observing), and their protests moved me. The contrast to the US, where presidential candidates are mocked if they say that Russia is a threat, could not be more stark.

And if so, we have never had the ability to defend them from Russia...at least without nuclear weapons.

And we are MUCH stronger now, compared to all potential challengers, than ever before. This "decline of American power" narrative peddled by GOP candidates is 100% false.

And I'm not talking about military support at all, economic and political pressure...

The Balkan NATO allies are not the strategic liabilities the Baltic ones are.

(no message)

I understand you may just talk express your opinion about nato's role, which sounds ad hoc. I don't think Nato's role has ever been clearly defined since the fall of East European communism. I recommend you read Pat Buchanan's article about this issue.

Link: http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-right-nato-125052

Patrick Buchanon is an anti Semitic isolationist who is wrong about withdrawal from Europe.

Do you have any idea the power vacuum it would create if we dissolved NATO and abandoned Europe? It has held keep the peace for over 60 years and has been a huge stabilizing influence on the continent. The only ones who haven't liked it were the Soviets and now your boy Putin as its a brake on his imperial ambitions. Yeah, it would be really smart to dissolve our oldest alliance with Putin's planes buzzing our ships. Trump is an idiot and so are you.

Logically consistent with making the Mexicans pay for the wall, and just as likely to happen.

Yeah, that's a NOT joke.

(no message)

but is only seconded by your grasp of the English language.

I marvel at your freedom to express the zero knowledge you have of everything that isn't you tying the laces on your sneakers.

Your post concedes other countries don't pay their fare share of NATO's costs then post on France's export in arms to warring factions world wide. So, is it France's NATO involvement or is it the warring armament you object to? How about the US? Do you object to US based military companies military output flooding war zones with armament? How about the US involvement in NATO vis a vis military armament being exported to warring factions across the globe? How about US involvement in proxy wars - where do you and Trump stand? How about the US supporting special interest groups who meddle in affairs of other countries or the US exporting western culture and products to warring or feuding groups where NATO is involved?

The only possible subject you come close to getting right is the American Tax payer affording military spending for NATO and US troops fighting against wars our own military based companies (France too and any other country producing armament sales for war) supply, but then you only hit upon that by accident.

NATO is a mishmash of bureaucracy and political manipulation - but if it wasn't there, WW III would have happened already.

Just like the one of years ago when I said Bush created largest coalition in history, everybody but you on the board knew I meant Bush Sr. Same things happened again and again, but you just refused to learn the lessons and grow up. This time is no exception. I said 80% of NATO countries don't meet requirement of 2% GDP spending on military. I just assumed most people know France and Turkey belong to that 20% group that meet the requirement. Both countries are pretty well known for their high military spending. I just pointed out the reason why they spend more on military spending is because of their individual particular situations, not because they make their effort to defend Europe. France has a long history of selling weapons to their French-speaking African countries and Turkey has tension with Greece and Kurd. Obviously you are so dumb to know these information and get confused. Grow up.

It is in the US's interest to never have a shooting war again in Europe. NATO helps achieve that. The fact that former eastern bloc countries in it is a good thing as well.

And you can't talk about how much Putin has taken advantage of Obama and increased his influence and then say we don't need NATO.

NATO helps to assure that.

(no message)

Basically, if Obama proposed reducing our role in NATO, he'd be weak and conceding power to the Russians, but if Trump proposes it than it is a good business decision.

I have several problems with NATO, its actions, its current role, its expansion into Russia's historical sphere of influence and our paying the bulk of the costs.