Archived Mattis: NATO members must boost defense spending or US will 'moderate its commitment' (foxnews.com)
submitted ago by gramman74
Posted by: gramman74
Posting time: 3.8 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 5/17/2017 10:00:00 AM
Views: 780
SCP: 93
93 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Mattis: NATO members must boost defense spending or US will 'moderate its commitment' (foxnews.com)
submitted ago by gramman74
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Sev_ 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
This is Mattis and Trump being far more diplomatic that I would. 3 different presidential administrations have been telling NATO members that they need to meet the defense spending requirements. It's time to approach it differently.
Attn: NATO Countries - You have 2 fiscal years to increase your defense spending to 2% of GDP as required by NATO. Failure to meet and maintain this requirement will result in the USA considering you to no longer be a member state, and will trigger the cessation of all US arms sales, service and support (logistical and otherwise) for your country until you go through full membership re-application and meet all requirements. End of memo.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Sev_ 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I don't have an issue with NATO as a mutual defense and intelligence sharing organization, which is what it was started as, and is supposed to be. It's not though. Somehow it's become the "America will handle our national defense while we spend our own money internally on social projects and infrastructure" club, and a platform to push social and economic changes to other states via "peer pressure".
I don't have an issue with the UN being an international body in which member states can discuss issues, assist in relieving natural humanitarian crises as a group across national lines (famines, floods, diseases, natural disasters, etc) , or act as an independent tribunal for obviously heinous things like genocide (by "black balling" truely offensive non-member states).
I do not think it has any business being an international lawmaking body, pushing social or economic policy on members, making loans or being the world police and interfering in every little civil war and conflict around the globe. I think all members of such an organization should have an equal share in both the responsibilities and obligations (financial and otherwise) - notice I said equal, not equitable - just because the US is bigger and wealthier does not mean we should be shelling out more cash, equipment, soldiers.