SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, echoing his boss in Washington, warned on Wednesday that the amount of American support for NATO could depend on whether other countries meet their own spending commitments.
"Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do," Mr. Mattis said in his first speech to NATO allies since becoming defense secretary. "I owe it to you to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms."
"America will meet its responsibilities," he said, but he made clear that American support had its limits.
In his speech to NATO defense ministers, Mr. Mattis repeated a call made by previous American secretaries of defense, for European allies to spend more on their militaries. His comments on Wednesday give teeth to President Trump's expressed skepticism about the alliance.
What's more, Mr. Mattis went further than his predecessors in apparently linking American contributions to the alliance to what other countries spend.
"If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense," he said.
Source: The New York Times
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Gaaark on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:03AM
We all need to pay our fair share, however you want to decide fairness, BUT!
BUT, how much of the problems right now were caused BY the U.S.?
-Selling arms to Afghanistan so they could fight Russia, and then finding those weapons turned on them.
-Disrupting elections in foreign countries (sounds oddly familiar of late) which then causes military coups and the rise of war lords
-Invading foreign countries that undeniably have WMD (or, maybe they were undeniably wrong...ooops, sorry)
So much destabilisation: is this due to the rise of the military industrial complex that Truman(?) warned about?
If the US would stay more defensive instead of always warring, maybe the world would be more stable and would also need to spend less on NATO (but what would the Military industrial complex have to say about THAT?
Maybe NATO should ban the selling of weapons... Bet the US would pull out of NATO quick!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by RedGreen on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:40AM
"is this due to the rise of the military industrial complex that Truman(?) warned about?"
Eisenhower would be the president you are thinking of there.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:48AM
Thanks... Didn't feel like Googling on the tablet. ;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:03PM
Your welcome.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:27AM
Letting aside NATO is a military alliance (would you really want a military organization interfere in commerce? What's next? NATO banning marijuana?), here are some facts:
- Germany's arms export to EU7.5B [dw.com]
- France's arms exports to EU16.9B [iiss.org]
- Britain now the second largest arm dealer [independent.co.uk] - selling arms to «39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.»
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday February 19 2017, @02:50PM
They could interfere in military commerce, sure.
If they can't stop the selling of arms, how can they possibly stop war? Warring countries want to buy, selfish countries want to sell: NATO steps in and says no, warring countries have to resort to clubs, NATO stops the war.
But this won't happen because of the money selfish countries (read corrupted governments) can make.
Too bad: Earth could be such a nice place to live, except for the money you can make from people dying.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:15PM
That is entirely what this whole story is about. Everything else you say is irrelevant. These countries formed an alliance and they all made commitments. They're just being asked to keep to their commitments. There are millions of very nervous people in the EU right now, and they are nervous because Putin feels the need to swing his dick around to show the people back home how manly he is and how great of an empire they have. I'm not sure how you can blame that on the US.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday February 20 2017, @12:57AM
And you seem to be saying that the only nervous people live in the EU:
How about the people in the middle East, you know, the Iraq/Iran area:
The US disrupts Iran by helping out the Shaw in power
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran [history.com]
When that doesn't work out well, they help Khomeini to power
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160 [bbc.com]
When that didn't work out
"Less than a year later, Khomeini - while holding the US Charge d'Affaires and dozens of other Americans during the Iranian hostage crisis - declared: "America can't do a damn thing."
He then celebrated the first anniversary of his victory with a major proclamation: Iran was going to fight American Imperialism worldwide.
"We will export our revolution to the entire world," he said, once again asserting: "This is an Islamic revolution."
Iraq invades Iran, thinking it is weakened, then the US invades Iraq over W.M.D. (read O.I.L.), and that leads us to this whole mess.
If America had stayed out of the middle East, we MIGHT be a whole lot better off... but we'll never know, now.
Damn, I hate typing on a tablet.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---