House approves bill warning against U.S. NATO pullout

[webfact]

House approves bill warning against U.S. NATO pullout

 

U.S. and Polish soldiers take part in NATO military defence exercise Anakonda 2018, at military range near Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, November 16, 2018. Cezary Aszkielowicz/Agencja Gazeta via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a warning to President Donald Trump not to try to withdraw the United States from the NATO military alliance, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved legislation aimed at preventing such a move.

 

The Democratic-led House approved the measure by a bipartisan 357-22 vote, with the only "no" votes coming from Republicans. It now goes to the Republican-majority Senate, where its future is unclear, although a similar measure has been introduced there.

 

At a news conference before the vote, Democratic lawmakers said they were alarmed by reports of the Republican president's low regard for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a 70-year-old military alliance that joins the United States and Canada with allies in Europe.

 

The New York Times said last week that several times over the course of 2018, Trump privately told his advisers he wanted to withdraw from NATO.

 

Publicly, the president has rebuked NATO allies for spending too little on defence.

 

The legislation that passed the House Tuesday reaffirms lawmakers' support for NATO, and says no U.S. funds will be spent to withdraw the United States from it.

 

"This bill ... makes it clear that the United States Congress still believes (in) the NATO mission and will prevent any short-sighted efforts to undermine NATO or unilaterally withdraw our country,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, said.

 

"It is in a sense crazy that we have to be doing this,” added freshman Democratic Representative Tom Malinowski, a former assistant secretary at the State Department.

 

"I take the President of the United States seriously. He has made no secret of his disdain for the NATO alliance and his willingness to consider leaving it ... Congress is now the only check we have," Malinowski said.

 

Last week a bipartisan bill was introduced in the Senate to prohibit any U.S. president from withdrawing from NATO without Senate approval.

 

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Chris Reese)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-01-23

[TVGerry]

Of course he wants to pull out of NATO! The orange idiot is a stooge for the Russians and Putin would be delighted if NATO is weakened! Money well spent!

[Berkshire]

It's amazing that the US Congress even has to introduce such a bill.  But I can see the necessity as the idiot in the WH may do some lasting damage if not reined in.  It's reassuring that we do have some adults in Washington now (House Dems) because before, the spineless Republicans would do nothing to stop Trump and his craziness. 

[Nyezhov]

Do you want to lose American lives to defend Latvia?

 

Isnt it time for Europe to defend themselves?

 

Being the worlds policeman is only good when the Dems say so, and only bad when the Dems say so?

[sirineou]

16 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Do you want to lose American lives to defend Latvia?

Does Latvia got oil? 

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Does Latvia got oil? 

Nope. But the foreign policy principles of the Democratic Party over the last 40 years are more slippery than light crude. 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Nope. But the foreign policy principles of the Democratic Party over the last 40 years are more slippery than light crude. 

 But not as slippery as WMDs in Iraq

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Nope. But the foreign policy principles of the Democratic Party over the last 40 years are more slippery than light crude. 

Because the Democrats have not historically supported NATO?  

[sirineou]

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Do you want to lose American lives to defend Latvia?

are American lives only worth losing defending Big Oil profits?

 

[Kasset Tak]

Yeah, Trump only rattle the cage so that the European countries will buy more weapons from his friends in the (American) weapons industry... if a NATO member (Turkey) buy more sophisticated weapons from another country (Russia) than US want to sell/can offer, then US (Trump) complains about that too...

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

are American lives only worth losing defending Big Oil profits?

 

That depends if you view access to cheap oil to be in our national interest. Or whether you take a neocon view of the world. Don't forget Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. 

[sirineou]

26 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

That depends if you view access to cheap oil to be in our national interest. Or whether you take a neocon view of the world. Don't forget Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. 

 access to cheap oil is bankrupting as. To me cheap oil does not look very cheap. 

But But , Hillary Clinton! , Good try.

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Do you want to lose American lives to defend Latvia?

 

Isnt it time for Europe to defend themselves?

 

Being the worlds policeman is only good when the Dems say so, and only bad when the Dems say so?

So, we have ability to reach an accord here. While I would continue to support NATO membership, I want to see a realignment of the US military posture. 800 installations around the globe and endless wars is indeed, “overkill” to me. I favore regional defense where allies in the region take the first line of dealing with what they see as regional threats, The USA no longer pushes to take the lead. I realize that this will take some doing as the military arms sales, the protection of US commercial interests will take a lessened directing role in the US military posture.

[Berkshire]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Do you want to lose American lives to defend Latvia?

 

Isnt it time for Europe to defend themselves?

 

Being the worlds policeman is only good when the Dems say so, and only bad when the Dems say so?

[mcambl61]

2 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

Yeah, Trump only rattle the cage so that the European countries will buy more weapons from his friends in the (American) weapons industry... if a NATO member (Turkey) buy more sophisticated weapons from another country (Russia) than US want to sell/can offer, then US (Trump) complains about that too...

what friends are those precisely?

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Do you want to lose American lives to defend Latvia?

 

 

If Latvians are also willing to reciprocate, then why not?  

 

Does nobody remember the single time NATO's mutual defense clause was activated?  Americans came to the defense of nobody - it was precisely the other way around.

[Burma Bill]

He is definitely not the man from U.N.C.L.E.!!

[connda]

Why doesn't Congress simply grow a set and take back their Constitutional authority to declare war that they handed over to the Executive without so much as a whimper years ago? 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

One doesnt need to be a "trumpist" to oppose further sacrifice of American lives in foreign wars.

 

But hey, Ill play, how does defending Europe from the Russians help our national interests? What has changed In US policy towards Russia since the Obama administration? What has changed in US policy towards Nato since the Obama administration? Is there a difference between sacrificing lives to stop communism vis a vis sacrificing lives to stop Russian revanchism?

 

I have more but that will do for now. I hope folks can answer or debate those questions in a maure fashion without the silly TDS comments that destroy the chance to have a meaningful debate on serious issues.

The question, more correctly, is why should the USA stay in nato.... and the answer is fairly well covered in this article, written by someone better equipped to answer than I

 

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/here-s-why-the-united-states-needs-nato

 

as to what’s changed between 2016 and now... well now you have an irrational, autocratic leaning, unreliable, lying, cheating, conniving <deleted> in charge, who seems to be cozying up to the recognized enemies of the free world.... whereas before that, you had Obama.

 

as a man of many talents... i herein give you both reasonable and mature debating points, with bonus TDS ranting.... and I justify this by suggesting that anyone actually seeking mature debate as to how the US benefits from NATO, would not start out by asking why American lives should be lost in Latvia, as this is so simplistic as to be unworthy of debate.

 

thinking point... stronger with allies, than without.... or as Putin would say... divide and conquer.

[Nyezhov]

28 minutes ago, connda said:

Why doesn't Congress simply grow a set and take back their Constitutional authority to declare war that they handed over to the Executive without so much as a whimper years ago? 

Thats an interesting point but probably off topic.

[Redline]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

One doesnt need to be a "trumpist" to oppose further sacrifice of American lives in foreign wars.

 

But hey, Ill play, how does defending Europe from the Russians help our national interests? What has changed In US policy towards Russia since the Obama administration? What has changed in US policy towards Nato since the Obama administration? Is there a difference between sacrificing lives to stop communism vis a vis sacrificing lives to stop Russian revanchism?

 

I have more but that will do for now. I hope folks can answer or debate those questions in a maure fashion without the silly TDS comments that destroy the chance to have a meaningful debate on serious issues.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/here-s-why-the-united-states-needs-nato

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

as to what’s changed between 2016 and now... well now you have an irrational, autocratic leaning, unreliable, lying, cheating, conniving <deleted> in charge, who seems to be cozying up to the recognized enemies of the free world.... whereas before that, you had Obama.

That diatribe is nice, but doesnt even come close to answering the questions I raised.

 

But hey, just as an aside, is President Trump cozying up to China?

7 minutes ago, farcanell said:

and I justify this by suggesting that anyone actually seeking mature debate as to how the US benefits from NATO, would not start out by asking why American lives should be lost in Latvia, as this is so simplistic as to be unworthy of debate.

Really? Well what is our interests in the Baltics then? They border Russia do they not? They were historically non independent countries and indeed a part of the Russian Empire were they not commencing in the 17th century? In fact, isnt Lake Piepus the venue wherein Alexander Nevsky beat the Teutonic Knights in the 13th Century? Forgetting the whole issue of revanchism, and looking at the history and location of the area, would you not say that the political and security interests of the Russians outweigh ours? Is the Democratic party now saying that it guarantees the territorial autonomy of every nation in the world? 

 

I hope thats not too simplistic.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use has been removed.  

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Is the Democratic party now saying that it guarantees the territorial autonomy of every nation in the world? 

 

I hope thats not too simplistic.

Your hope is in vain.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

That diatribe is nice, but doesnt even come close to answering the questions I raised.

 

But hey, just as an aside, is President Trump cozying up to China?

Really? Well what is our interests in the Baltics then? They border Russia do they not? They were historically non independent countries and indeed a part of the Russian Empire were they not commencing in the 17th century? In fact, isnt Lake Piepus the venue wherein Alexander Nevsky beat the Teutonic Knights in the 13th Century? Forgetting the whole issue of revanchism, and looking at the history and location of the area, would you not say that the political and security interests of the Russians outweigh ours?

If the year were 1850 you might have a point. Clearly you're nostalgic for the days when empires were considered admirable or at least inevitable things and it was considered perfectly acceptable for one people to rule over other peoples with different languages, culture and religion. It's clear from your often pointless references to Russian history that you long for those days. But they're long gone. Get over it.

[farcanell]

51 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

That diatribe is nice, but doesnt even come close to answering the questions I raised.

Right... so I take it you decided to ignore the link, which I supplied, saying that the authors where more qualified than I.... ignorance by choice, seems to fit

[farcanell]

55 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Really? Well what is our interests in the Baltics then? They border Russia do they not?

That’s exactly why NATO should be interested... it’s a border country....

 

and if you wish to go medieval, I’ll take the opportunity to remind you of the marcher lands that existed on many borders, which were ruled over by strong marcher lords, to protect the larger kingdoms from those trying to steal ( back) territory

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Right... so I take it you decided to ignore the link, which I supplied, saying that the authors where more qualified than I.... ignorance by choice, seems to fit

Ok, you dont have an answer LOL. The articles philosophy is the same as yours, America as the world policeman protecting peace and democracy. Back to the Bush years.

 

Im still curious as to how Trumps policy towards Russia and Nato differs from Obamas.

 

 

 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

In fact, isnt Lake Piepus the venue wherein Alexander Nevsky beat the Teutonic Knights in the 13th Century?

Sure... Estonia not Latvia, though, but still a Baltic nation, much like Poland, which is also located in/at the geographical center of Europe.

 

of more relevance would be mentioning that Lake Ladoga, which is now completely within the land borders of Russia, was once bounded by Finland.

[Nyezhov]

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

That’s exactly why NATO should be interested... it’s a border country....

 

and if you wish to go medieval, I’ll take the opportunity to remind you of the marcher lands that existed on many borders, which were ruled over by strong marcher lords, to protect the larger kingdoms from those trying to steal ( back) territory

I dont quite understand the Marcher reference. 

 

Regardless, your position is that Nato should be interested in protecting historically Russian territory, on a Russian border, and we should go to war over it?

 

Again, how do the Baltics affect American security?

 

Conversely then, Putin should be permitted to base tropps and weapons in Cuba, to defend his ally?