General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Dump pulls us out of NATO tomorrow,
we need to march and protest. Pulling out of NATO would upend the world.
Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)Eko
(7,245 posts)And there is one thing Dump likes to do is assume power not given to him.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to ratify any treaty? Wouldn't it follow the would also have to ratify pulling out?
Eko
(7,245 posts)So,,,,,,,,
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)Bettie
(16,071 posts)anything? If it requires congressional approval, he'll have it in a day, what with McConnell and Ryan.
vlyons
(10,252 posts)Isn't there a NATO treaty? It is afterall called the North Atlantic TREATY Organization. A treaty that the US Senate affirmed, and was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949.
Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)Eko
(7,245 posts)Article 13
Any party may quit NATO one year after depositing its notice of denunciation.
Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)Eko
(7,245 posts)He does things that no one thinks could be done and no one thinks should be done.
Quixote1818
(28,918 posts)But even Trump at least pretended to fold on separating babies from the parents. Too much pressure and he sometimes does back down and there are a lot of Republicans who would defend NATO.
Eko
(7,245 posts)I really don't have much hope for reasonable republicans at this point, and this has been a conservative wet dream for a long time. I will be so glad to be proven wrong, so glad.
Eko
(7,245 posts)That's his shtick. https://democraticunderground.com/100210853023#post1
TheBlackAdder
(28,167 posts)Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)If NATO folds, our military costs skyrocket. I'm old enough at 75 to know that for a fact.
TheBlackAdder
(28,167 posts).
The more countries we self-exile from, the less strength the US has, the less ports of call.
The military will be pulled from the region or regions, and will have nowhere to go.
.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)Their budgets will go up and it would be the first step toward unified EU forces.
The Holy Roman Empire is about to be reborn.
Eko
(7,245 posts)And create smaller alliances between themselves.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)The EU is basically a Franco-German alliance.
The removal of the US from NATO will strengthen that core.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Easy pickings for the Russians.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Several of them have formidable militaries and some like the French are excellent. Russia is losing men in Ukraine as welll.
And France and the U.K. are Nuclear powers.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)It's helpful to read history.
AlexSFCA
(6,137 posts)if there are any questions/litigations, SC will make it clear. We are talking about putins #1 geopolitical goal - weaken nato.
Eko
(7,245 posts)The damage is done, he wins either way.
Response to Eko (Original post)
Post removed
roamer65
(36,744 posts)He wants the dissolution of NATO, which would be to the benefit of his Russian handlers.
Eko
(7,245 posts)Trump is so stupid,,,,how stupid you ask? He is so stupid he thinks NATO need to pay us back. NATO does not pay us to defend them, and the agreement is for countries to pay 2% of gdp on defense by 2024.
Mirt?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)In case you are totally ignorant about history, read about WWI and WWII and the Franco-Prussian War and all the wars that have bloodied Europe for centuries.
NATO's existence brought openness and trust among nations that had been enemies for centuries.
NATO saves us money because as long as NATO is strong, we don't have to fight wars in Europe -- the most costly and dangerous wars we have every participated in.
I hate to insult people, but honestly, I've lived in Europe, and I will tell you that without NATO, we would be involved in so much conflict in various parts of Europe.
NATO involves joint military exercises. It builds trust among nations while insuring their sovereignty and national existence.
I feel very, very, very strongly that NATO is a good thing -- and mostly because of the fact that it has prevented wars, prevented misunderstandings from escalating into wars among NATO members.
superpatriotman
(6,246 posts)And her emails?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)It promotes openness and peace.
If Trump leaves NATO, he is responsible for the deaths and wars that follow -- and they will.
Ilsa
(61,690 posts)his corruption, His allegiance to putin?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The US entered NATO with a treaty ratified by the Senate. The President cannot unilaterally void a ratified treaty.
On top of that any member state that wishes to withdraw must give a years notice.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)Eko
(7,245 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2018, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)
As I said, I would love to be wrong.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)wonkwest
(463 posts)Instead of jumping at ghosts, let's charge at things that can happen.
What Trump can and might actually do is terrifying enough.
Eko
(7,245 posts)wonkwest
(463 posts)It's seriously never ever - ever - going to happen. It would upend the entire world order in unimaginable ways.
Trump's a narcissistic, incompetent, idiotic asshole partial and probably indebted to Russia.
He's not an actual Bond villain.
Eko
(7,245 posts)"Trump's a narcissistic, incompetent, idiotic asshole partial and probably indebted to Russia. "
"It would upend the entire world order in unimaginable ways. "
Sorry to flip your words around, although it doesn't change the validity of either statements when I do, it does change the perspective a bit though.
wonkwest
(463 posts)Not the voters who go along with him at all times.
The actual Republicans in power would bail immediately. He's an idiot, but I'm sure - even if it was an inkling in his tiny mind to pull out - that he knows he'd lose all support. And once Republicans in power vanish, then comes the impeachment and the indictments. They would crucify him.
We always ask, "What would it take?!" I'm pretty sure trying to unilaterally pull out of NATO would qualify. NATO is a source of our military power and standing. Say what you will about Republicans, but military power is kind of one of their boner pills.
dalton99a
(81,392 posts)Granting a petition for certiorari but without hearing oral arguments, the court vacated a court of appeals ruling and remanded the case to a federal district court with directions to dismiss the complaint. A majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument. Justices Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist issued two separate concurring opinions on the case. Rehnquist claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not eligible to be heard by the court. Powell, while agreeing that the case did not merit judicial review, believed that the issue itself, the powers of the President to break treaties without congressional approval, would have been arguable had Congress issued a formal opposition through a resolution to the termination of the treaty. (The Senate had drafted such a resolution, but not voted upon it.[2]) This would have turned the case into a constitutional debate between the executive powers granted to the President and the legislative powers granted to Congress. As the case stood, however, it was simply a dispute among unsettled, competing political forces within the legislative and executive branches of government, and hence still political in nature due to the lack of majority or supermajority vote in the Senate speaking officially as a constitutional institution. Today, the case is considered a textbook example of the political question doctrine in U.S. constitutional law.
While dismissing the case of Goldwater v. Carter, the Supreme Court left the question of the constitutionality of the President Carter's action open. Powell and Rehnquist merely questioned the judicial merit of the case itself; they did not explicitly approve Carter's action.[7] Moreover, Powell even stated that this could be a valid constitutional issue.[2] Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress.