Pro-Nato or Against-Nato?

[Stefan]

U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world. In long-term needs USA necessarily will depend on the oil of Middle East. A mere thirty years ago, 28% of the oil consumed in the United States was imported. Today nearly 60% of the oil utilized and consumed in the United States is imported from other countries.

The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011.

The largest reserves of oil in the world:

Middle East - 727 billion barrels
Central and South America - 99 billion barrels
Africa - 87 billion barrels
Nations of the former Soviet Union - 78 billion barrels
Western Europe and China - 18 billion barrels
Mexico - 16 billion barrels
India - 5 billion barrels

U.S. has no reason to feel comfortable regarding the fulfillment of its oil needs.

In the long-term we better not be thinking about oil. It's far too devastating on the environment, and it's still limited. However; you might just be right that most will go that way, unfortunately.

I am aware about the concerns of American taxpayers, but I also think that the existence of NATO is in the good of your country and nation.
Strength of its influence in the world is vital for your existence.

I also think that U.S. foreign policy is the same, regardless of who is president.

Not necessarily. We have 270 million guns in our country, the most powerful military in the world with the most money in it, and various militias. It's good for the government though, yeah. Unfortunately the government has not always been working ,or at least hasn't in 100 years, in the best interest of the people. I am a noninterventionalist, but also believe that permanent treaties conflict with the sovereignty of the people and their ability to allocate power. Hence, it is an external conflict which damages the internal dynamics of our country at the expense of helping other countries and enabling their own complacency. If we were to cut NATO it would essentially force the EU constituents to actually put money into their militaries at the expense of their own people. Why is it the job of the United States to secure this oil and to fight these wars? No thank you! We have internal matters to think about.

'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

[Adrian]

In the long-term we better not be thinking about oil. It's far too devastating on the environment, and it's still limited. However; you might just be right that most will go that way, unfortunately.

In the future the needs for oil will be even greater. As long as greater oil resources are in the Middle East, the eyes of the customers will be concentrated there. Sometimes arrangements with those countries are made with the understanding and mutual economic interest, and sometimes through violence. This is the reason of the current existence of NATO.

Let's be clear in one thing. I am taking oil as an example.
Sometimes aims are opium, uranium, diamonds, etc.

Not necessarily. We have 270 million guns in our country, the most powerful military in the world with the most money in it, and various militias. It's good for the government though, yeah. Unfortunately the government has not always been working ,or at least hasn't in 100 years, in the best interest of the people. I am a noninterventionalist, but also believe that permanent treaties conflict with the sovereignty of the people and their ability to allocate power.
Hence, it is an external conflict which damages the internal dynamics of our country at the expense of helping other countries and enabling their own complacency. If we were to cut NATO it would essentially force the EU constituents to actually put money into their militaries at the expense of their own people. Why is it the job of the United States to secure this oil and to fight these wars? No thank you! We have internal matters to think about.

NATO is financed based on the participation of its members. All members of NATO share a certain % of GDP proportionally. U.S. pays more, since its GDP is higher, but this does not mean that other countries remain at the expense of the U.S.

The way you have understood the role of NATO and its interventions in different countries is much different from the way how an European citizen understands that. Usually they are Europeans who oppose the idea to follow each U.S. initiative, when it comes to the military interventions. Not the opposite.
There are cases when European countries have not shown interest to participate in any mission/war, and in some other cases, certain European countries have left in the half of the mission. This is because they think that the US is exploiting them through NATO.

Regarding the internal problems of U.S.
I think that the withdrawal of your country from the current position (military presence in different countries of the world) would cause more/and grater internal problems in U.S. than any other problem.
We can discuss this more widely.

[Fortis in Arduis]

NATO perpetuates the endless Orwellian war of the rich against the poor, and so support for this supranational body, which is surely the military expression of the policies of other entities such as the World Trade Organisation, implies a lack of social conscience in addition to a disregard for national sovereignty.

NATO = Bending Over

[Stefan]

In the future the needs for oil will be even greater. As long as greater oil resources are in the Middle East, the eyes of the customers will be concentrated there. Sometimes arrangements with those countries are made with the understanding and mutual economic interest, and sometimes through violence. This is the reason of the current existence of NATO.

Let's be clear in one thing. I am taking oil as an example.
Sometimes aims are opium, uranium, diamonds, etc.

My point was that even these reserves are limited. We need to look at other options than fossil fuels.

NATO is financed based on the participation of its members. All members of NATO share a certain % of GDP proportionally. U.S. pays more, since its GDP is higher, but this does not mean that other countries remain at the expense of the U.S.

The way you have understood the role of NATO and its interventions in different countries is much different from the way how an European citizen understands that. Usually they are Europeans who oppose the idea to follow each U.S. initiative, when it comes to the military interventions. Not the opposite.
There are cases when European countries have not shown interest to participate in any mission/war, and in some other cases, certain European countries have left in the half of the mission. This is because they think that the US is exploiting them through NATO.

Regarding the internal problems of U.S.
I think that the withdrawal of your country from the current position (military presence in different countries of the world) would cause more/and grater internal problems in U.S. than any other problem.
We can discuss this more widely.

The issue is, by having NATO we [Americans] have an obligation to protect these Europeans. Europeans are by far more vulnerable than Americans. Furthermore, NATO enables my government to utilize it as an excuse to not derive its power from the people of the United States. No matter how you put it, it's parasitical to expect Americans to put in the only effort to maintain these resources, when the largest consumers of these resources are Europeans and Asians. And no, the internal problems of the U.S would be immensely better if we didn't spend as much on the military as we do and our government didn't have a means to crush our individual rights in the name of "terrorism." Of course, it would be devastating for Europe if the U.S left.

[Dacul]

Lol how people voted here is really comforting my heart.

[Adrian]

My point was that even these reserves are limited. We need to look at other options than fossil fuels.

This is how we wish to be. The reality is that fossil oil can not be substituted for a very long time.

The issue is, by having NATO we [Americans] have an obligation to protect these Europeans. Europeans are by far more vulnerable than Americans. Furthermore, NATO enables my government to utilize it as an excuse to not derive its power from the people of the United States. No matter how you put it, it's parasitical to expect Americans to put in the only effort to maintain these resources, when the largest consumers of these resources are Europeans and Asians. And no, the internal problems of the U.S would be immensely better if we didn't spend as much on the military as we do and our government didn't have a means to crush our individual rights in the name of "terrorism." Of course, it would be devastating for Europe if the U.S left.

We are talking about Europe and USA, not Asia. Except Turkey, which is Eurasian country, there's not any other Asian country in NATO. And if we talk about consumption, not Europe but the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world -
United States 19,150,000 bbl/day
European Union 13,680,000 bbl/day

Stefan, after the end of the Cold War, the external threat for Europe is significantly lower. I think the last ten years of military interventions have not occurred because of any external threat against Europe, but due to the removal of dictatorships on some countries.

Removal of dictatorships was necessary because they were more likely to cooperate with Russia and China than with U.S. or EU.

Regarding expenses, the U.S. has different ways to cover the costs of military missions. U.S. is the biggest arms exporter of the world with 30%. Russia is second with 24%.



In case of withdrawal or changes in foreign policy, the U.S. will lose the primacy in arms export.
Thanks to 'Arab Spring', the U.S. has achieved to get some new customers. Before the intervention, they were Russia's traditional customers
So, the enemies have become consumer.

[Stefan]

This is how we wish to be. The reality is that fossil oil can not be substituted for a very long time.



We are talking about Europe and USA, not Asia. Except Turkey, which is Eurasian country, there's not any other Asian country in NATO. And if we talk about consumption, not Europe but the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world -
United States 19,150,000 bbl/day
European Union 13,680,000 bbl/day

Europe (along with Asian countries) benefit more from oil that is in the Middle East, was my point. The United States does not.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444...y-be-surprised

Only 12.9% of U.S oil comes from the Persian Gulf.





Meanwhile the top buyers of say, Iran's oil, include Italy, Spain, Greece and France, but no United States.

http://www.kippreport.com/2012/01/to...-of-irans-oil/

Furthermore, while we're the top consumer we're also the top producer of oil, besting Saudi Arabia. Europe is dependent on the Middle East and Russia to offer oil. The U.S has 88% of its oil gained elsewhere and we have a lot of potential to cut back.

If we went to war with Iran who would it be for? Certainly not Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/wo...ions.html?_r=0

Stefan, after the end of the Cold War, the external threat for Europe is significantly lower. I think the last ten years of military interventions have not occurred because of any external threat against Europe, but due to the removal of dictatorships on some countries.

Then what's the point of NATO?

Removal of dictatorships was necessary because they were more likely to cooperate with Russia and China than with U.S. or EU.

Why must we {Americans} be enemies of Russia and China? They can do their stuff and we can do our own. They're nowhere near as bad as they were, and like I said we just can't afford these military activities as a population anymore. I'm not even worried about it. As soon as these countries become totalitarian they always collapse internally. It happened during the cold war, and they've learned their lesson.

Regarding expenses, the U.S. has different ways to cover the costs of military missions. U.S. is the biggest arms exporter of the world with 30%. Russia is second with 24%.


In case of withdrawal or changes in foreign policy, the U.S. will lose the primacy in arms export.

Why is that? We'll still be economically active. Russia sells weapons fine without the need to inhabit other countries, so can we. And costs are much more than just money. There are causalities and emotional damage as well.

Thanks to 'Arab Spring', the U.S. has achieved to get some new customers. Before the intervention, they were Russia's traditional customers
So, the enemies have become consumer.

Yes, this is good for the government, but bad for the people. Our economy is 80% a service economy and much (if not the the vast majority) of the weapons produce go to Americans. We'll survive any lost potential costumers, but we wouldn't survive a Permanent War Economy.

Just so you get an idea how much we spend on our military, AND we're in debt.



Now let's compare this with Britain, which is the most likely European country to have a larger military.




Now imagine if we cut the budget and we started to make our economy more independent, akin to the American school of economics. We'd be able to sustain ourselves and we'd be on the path to greatness as we were. When we rely on war, there's no good out of it. The infrastructure of the U.S is decaying while the government puts more and more money into war and weapons research. How is that a good thing for Americans?

[King Claus]

tbh, fuckem!
Germany should rule this world alone

[RussiaPrussia]

Yeah, in football and Eurovision.

youre not even a country and you never will so forget about eu or anything europe lol

[Gospodine]

The UN and NATO need to be dismantled along with the the EU.

Basically all globalist, supra-national, power centralizing entities should take a friggin' hike because we've tried an entire century of it their way and all it got us was narrowly avoiding an all-out nuclear war on about a dozen occasions.