Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Res. 739

Reaffirming America’s Commitment to NATO

Argument in favor

NATO plays a critical role in maintaining international security and preventing terrorism. The 67-year-old alliance has protected—and will continue to protect— U.S. security, fending off the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and deterring Russian aggression.

Gary's Opinion
···
08/12/2016
After Trump's BS, it would be important to reassure our allies.
Like (5)
Follow
Share
David's Opinion
···
08/11/2016
Not that the bill is needed -- our relationship is covered by many treaties -- but affirming it can't hurt.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Robert's Opinion
···
08/11/2016
Yes, under the condition that all NATO countries contribute financially when action is to be taken. No more IOU's.
Like (4)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Several NATO member-countries have failed to fulfill their obligations to the U.S., such as contributing the required two percent of national GDP to their military to support mutual defense. The U.S. should not have to bear the brunt of the alliance.

Natalie's Opinion
···
08/11/2016
NATO is basically US-provided (read: taxpayer funded) social security for the other member nations. It's possible to support our allies without constantly subsidizing them.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
Leon's Opinion
···
08/11/2016
We need to have discussions with other members meeting their obligations before we consider ratifying this. If we are the only member pulling our weight and still handing out billions to those countries that are against NATO we need to evaluate which we are going to stop. It's stupid to try to buy (ransom,"protection ") influence with the sponsors of terror yet cover our end + in nato spending.
Like (12)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
02/27/2017
Not unless and until the other NATO members start paying their fair share of the costs! If they do that, I'm all for reaffirming our commitment to NATO! But our government has to quit doling out taxpayers' money like they have an endless supply! And quit letting other countries take advantage of us!
Like (11)
Follow
Share

simple resolution Progress


  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
      Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the Environment
    IntroducedMay 18th, 2016
    After Trump's BS, it would be important to reassure our allies.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO is basically US-provided (read: taxpayer funded) social security for the other member nations. It's possible to support our allies without constantly subsidizing them.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to have discussions with other members meeting their obligations before we consider ratifying this. If we are the only member pulling our weight and still handing out billions to those countries that are against NATO we need to evaluate which we are going to stop. It's stupid to try to buy (ransom,"protection ") influence with the sponsors of terror yet cover our end + in nato spending.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    NO. Washington forgets all the money they pledge doesn't belong to them. It's money taxpayers have worked for and earned. It's most literally OUT OF OUR POCKET. NATO is no different than other "entitlements". We are paying the way for other nations. Until they pay their part, their membership should be suspended or revoked completely. Not that I get a vote. But I am SICK of those who don't understand nothing's free. Someone is taking a portion of their life to earn it, and it's never the ones with their hands out. Whoever wants money someone else has earned should have to work for it. The only true entitlement class is veteran benefits and a persons personal social security that was removed from THEIR OWN paychecks. This country may be rich, but only because of taking money from people like me who live paycheck to paycheck. I could use my own money. Federal government is as bad as the mob stealing money I don't authorize or approve of out of my paycheck for purposes I don't approve of. We lock up people for petty theft but if you're the government you take what you want with no penalty. (Except for the taxpayer who doesn't give the government what they want--then they take even more.) It's no longer the land of the free when money you're busting your tail to earn is just taken with no agreement or permission with who you're taking it from then given to projects you don't agree with and people who are too lazy to earn their own. Those who work hardest and have the least governmental benefits wear heavy chains trying to have the life they are earning but not allowed to receive. "ENTITLEMENT" REFORM NOW, including NATO.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Not unless and until the other NATO members start paying their fair share of the costs! If they do that, I'm all for reaffirming our commitment to NATO! But our government has to quit doling out taxpayers' money like they have an endless supply! And quit letting other countries take advantage of us!
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    The founders specifically warned NO ENTANGLING ALLIANCES! This is how we get dragged into situations such as Vietnam. Get out of NATO and protect trade routes when necessary.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    US has been paying it's NATO bill, therefore it's my guess we are still members. So maybe we should verify what other countries wishes to remain in NATO and which members wish to seek non-membership. If you sign the agreement, pay your dues for membership and abide by GDP percent. Guess I'll call this reaffirmation.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Is NATO a military alliance or social club? The “North Atlantic” Treaty Organization just invited Montenegro to join. With 2,080 men under arms, Podgorica is a military nullity. Having peacefully separated from Serbia years ago, Montenegro neither threatens nor is threatened by anyone. Adding it to NATO is like accumulating Facebook Friends. They do little more than allow preening Washington officials to wander the globe gloating how popular the U.S. is. The United States should do in 2016 what it failed to do in 1990. It should announce that the world has changed since creation of a U.S.-dominated NATO. It is time to refashion the alliance for a world in which allies had prospered and enemies had disappeared. One possibility for the future would be a European-run NATO, with America perhaps as an associate member. Another alternative would be a continental defense run alongside the European Union. But the time for subsidizing, coddling and reassuring the Europeans is over. American taxpayers deserve as much consideration as European ones. U.S. military forces shouldn’t be deployed to advance interests of greatest concern to other nations. Any future alliances forged by Washington should act as serious military pacts, not international social clubs.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, under the condition that all NATO countries contribute financially when action is to be taken. No more IOU's.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Not that the bill is needed -- our relationship is covered by many treaties -- but affirming it can't hurt.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    While NATO is largely viewed as simply a military force, its goal of promoting peace and democracy extends far beyond military might alone. To that end, while I think it's important to make sure all member nations are pulling their fair share of the weight, I don't think we should get caught up on the 2% GDP rule. Especially in a time where terror is a global issue and Russia's continuing aggression is a major concern involving many countries, it would send a bad message if the U.S. were to drop its commitment to global cooperation. The USA is undoubtedly a leader in this coalition, and as such it should be spearheading the messages of cooperation and commitment to the alliance.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO is a good thing, however a discussion should be held about all countries abiding by the financial obligations of the treaty with the goal of bringing those in arrears up to date. It is unfair for some to bear more of the treaty obligations than others.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    I agree with Kathy everyone needs to pay their fair share.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has remained unchecked in its goal for the increasing development of a world government. No organization should be allowed to pass on regulations to countries that they don't even govern, especially when the regulations aren't even legally binding.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    It is important that we as the top dog military in the world maintain our relationships with the countries that we freed from Hitler, Napolean, and their kind of ilk...
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    NATO now, is not what is was THEN. America doesn't need NATO. NATO needs America. America is not what it once was. We have a lot more Americans who are too worried about feelings being hurt, than they are about doing what needs to be done to destroy terrorists where they live.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to leave NATO like England left the UN. It's not our responsibility to take care of other countries. If they need assistance we can help them if it is economically beneficial to us. But we have problems in our homeland that we must fix.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    It sounds like the United States is the only one committed... other countries should be moving to show us why they deserve to be protected and why they deserve support from us. We aren't babysitters and we can't go out giving away our resources for nothing.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    There should be no commitment, unless the other countries pay their own way.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We should disentangling ourselves from the affairs of foreign nations, not strengthening bonds designed for the U.S. to take care of everybody.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE