If Putin attacked a NATO country, would you support the US sending troops

[Nye Bevan]

to participate in a NATO-led response?

21 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	12 (57%)
	No
	9 (43%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Katashi_itto]

1. Hell yes. As a vet I would say at that point, we have crossed the Rubicon.

[still_one]

2. It won't happen

[Billy Budd]

3. NATO Should Be Retired, Not Repurposed!

NATO Should Be Retired, Not Repurposed!
By Joseph Gerson, Truthout | Op-Ed

In this speech delivered at the NATO Counter Summit in Wales on August 31, peace activist Joseph Gerson decries NATO's role in the Ukraine conflict, and the nuclear dangers it and US first strike threats pose, and offers hope for nuclear disarmament. The "Ukraine war reminds us that NATO is a nuclear alliance, that the dangers of a catastrophic nuclear exchange didn't disappear with the end of the Cold War," Gerson says.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25976-nato-should-be-retired-not-repurposed

[grahamhgreen]

5. Who pays for it?

[Monk06]

14. NATO was holding war games in Georgia when Saakasvili decided to bombard South Ossetia

What a coincidence. NATO in country just as Saakasvili decides to bombard Ossetian separatists in Tskhinvali with artillery.

Oh and Saakasvilli working in the same law firm as Rudolf Guilliani in 1995. Nine years later he moves to Georgia and becomes president and pushes for inclusion of Georgia in NATO.

Another NATO coincidence.

So in response to your post, yes NATO should be disbanded. It is nothing but a pretext for the US to interfere militarily in Europe with the aim of restarting the cold war.

[tech3149]

29. As another no vote I find it interesting

that no one responded to your recollection of history in reference to Georgia. It's sad and scary that facts can be dismissed that don't support your view of the world.
Maintaining NATO is as stupid as the embargo on Cuba or demonetization and destabilization of any country that's willing to challenge the US or its allies in a geopolitical pissing contest.

[Duckhunter935]

4. Yes

and I say that as one that very well may be recalled to active duty.

[grahamhgreen]

6. Seriously? How'd it work out for the Germans?

[CJCRANE]

7. Saddam, Gadaffi, Assad

Putin.

They're all the same.

All people we should be terrified of.

Let's cower in fear and give all our treasure to the MIC.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. yes, only because we need to honor out treaties

[Scootaloo]

10. Pretty much the only thread that could reel me in on this issue

We have a treaty. we should honor it if it comes up. If we're not going to, then we need to formally withdraw from the treaty BEFORE it becomes an issue, and take what costs come from doing so.

[BillZBubb]

18. Exactly.

Keep your word no matter the cost. That is a key element of character and morality.

If we don't like the prospect of having to keep our commitments, we need to get out of the alliance first.

[tech3149]

33. Sorry Bill, gotta disagree

Keeping a blind commitment to an agreement that has no reason for existence just seems a little short sighted. Back when Soviet Russia was seen as a scourge on the world, it might have been justified. Not sure I buy that viewpoint. Remember when Soviet Russia crashed and burned? I don't think they were ever the threat that Washington consensus made them out to be. Almost everyone in the halls of power here were shocked.

I don't think it's a matter of keeping our commitments so much as were those commitments honest and justified.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union we, the US, NATO, and the EU have done everything we promised not to do to assure the re-unification of Germany and assure Russia that we inclusively were not a threat.
Admit it, Russia has every reason to consider our collective actions as a challenge to their ability to deal with the world as an equal member without threat of isolation or coercion against their own interests.
Remember all of the US actions in South and Central America because their governments were acting in their own self interest? We were sold the idea that it it was a grand communist plot to expand their influence around the globe. Could it be, and I know it can be tough to remember, anyone considering that that just wasn't true and those nations just supported governments that would give everybody a chance and the opportunity to do better?
I've said enough, it's Saturday night and I have a beer to finish.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I don't believe he would but if he did, yes.

Thanks for the thread, Nye Bevan.

[Boom Sound 416]

11. That's the reason why he won't.

And no one has before

[TwilightGardener]

12. If we don't live up to our defense treaties in Europe, then what conclusion will China

draw in regard to our defense treaties in the Pacific? It's the quickest way to world war, IMO.

[BillZBubb]

21. Exactly. Plus...

At the first inkling that the US might abandon them, both Japan and South Korea would immediately begin development of nuclear weapons. North Korea would be emboldened to attack the South. China might want to preemptively take out both Japan and South Korea before they became nuclear powers.

That situation if full of dangers.

[davidpdx]

25. Any attempt by Japan or South Korea to nuclearize would cause an arms race in Asia

Our support over here is what is keeping that from happening. Some on DU are too blind to see that.

[MohRokTah]

13. That's what NATO is all about.

Putin has invited a new cold war. We cannot back down.

I only wish Ukraine was a member of NATO.

[Duckhunter935]

30. If they had not trusted

Russia and given up their nukes, I do not think what is happening would be going on right now. This is just making non-nuclear nations think twice.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

38. This ^ ^ ^ ^

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. The US would have no choice in such an event

it's pretty much required by the NATO treaty. Not responding with force would destroy the USA's credibility with its allies and would be seen as cowardice by its enemies.

[LittleBlue]

16. No

Estonia is not worth it

[AnalystInParadise]

24. This...........

A million times this.

And we have a habit of not honoring our treaties, why is this situation any different?

[tech3149]

34. Yes, I seem to remember when Europeans came to this country

We have a history of not honoring treaties if it affects our power or profits.

[BillZBubb]

17. We are obligated by treaty to do so. While that is the case, we have no alternative.

So yes.

If we as a country don't want to have that obligation, we need to get out of NATO. That is a debate we should have. But, while we are members of NATO we have a moral and ethical responsibility to uphold our commitments, no matter the cost.

[heaven05]

20. as long as we're a signatory

to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, inception date 4 April 1949, we are bound by honor to respond in a NATO force. I'm not saying bomb,bomb,bomb either. But we have obligations that cannot be ignored. Honor is still an active word to be respected both personally and nationally.....I feel.

[Sopkoviak]

22. Never again. We got sucked into Europe twice last century.

If there is a "this" time let them ramp up their own defense spending and fend for themselves.

We spend more than the next 8 countries combined on the military.

We can't afford it any more.

And it's not like we haven't broken or ignored treaties before.

Just ask the Native Americans.




Besides, what would Putin do with those countries if he did take them over?

It would further devastate the Russian economy.

[AnalystInParadise]

23. No

Because we would be doing the majority of the fighting. If the NATO nations invested more in military spending I would consider voting yes. But I don't think a war over Estonia in which the U.S. provides 2/3rd's of the combat power in a 29 nation alliance is something this war vet wants to get involved with.

[Union Scribe]

26. I support sending those voting "Yes" nt

You want a war go fight one.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Been there, done that nt

[jamzrockz]

32. Same here

Tax them for the cost and send them right to the front lines.

[Reter]

37. The "No's" would be sent there too

It would cause WWIII, so reinserting the draft would be almost certain. Staying behind wouldn't matter much anyway. It would likely go nuclear.

[tavernier]

27. Not yes

But Hell Yes.

There is plenty of anarchy in this world; at some point we have to draw a line. I truly wish that common sense and decency could prevail everywhere, but obviously that's not the case, so in lieu of this, countries with a common interest must come together to defend the smaller and weaker of their neighbors.

[shraby]

31. We have a treaty to honor. Don't want to be included? Get rid of the

treaty.
I don't like it, but there it is.

[IronGate]

35. Yes, we have a treaty and we need to honor that treaty. nt.

[Reter]

36. Doesn't matter if we support it or not

If he attacks a NATO country, we have no choice but to defend them. Under NATO, if one gets attacked, we all jump in.

[Karmadillo]

39. Yes! Because nuclear apocalypse rocks!