Try the political quiz

3.2k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes

 @9FMNMPF from Pennsylvania agreed…6mos6MO

I begin by saying something wholly obvious. There is no one in this House who does not wish to see a very wide measure of disarmament.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

Yes, and refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power

 @9GYWVLR  from Oklahoma disagreed…4mos4MO

NATO stipulations say you must use 2% of your gdp , it should be followed or renegotiated if that is no longer acceptable

 @9H4W9GJRepublican from Massachusetts agreed…4mos4MO

NATO countries should not reap the benefits of the organizations if they cannot or will not agree to the stipulations of the treaty.

 @Kaiwantsanap  from Ohio agreed…6mos6MO

We entered the nato agreement for a reason, and withdrawal at this time could cause war with countries that we are currently allied with. With the growing tensions between Russia and China and the United States, it’s a bad idea to leave and potentially start a war with nations that are currently our Allies

 @9FT9HDX from Arizona disagreed…6mos6MO

It is not our responsibility. The balance of global power is not our concern, at least not until we have fully addressed the litany of issues crushing our own people.

 @9H54TVR from New York agreed…4mos4MO

If we do not defend our partners it would cause a serious domino effect. If powers such as Russia start to act with impunity then we will have lost the free world

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

No, and we should withdraw from NATO

 @92LT76V  from Arizona disagreed…6mos6MO

Anti-NATO rhetoric will empower Russia and China to wage large-scale conventional war on all Western civilization, and may even be more emboldened to use weapons of mass destruction.

 @7HJNSX6Republican  from New York agreed…6mos6MO

I agree, we should continue to support NATO and look for future expansion into Europe but also in Asia (or the creation of another “NATO” in Asia).

 @9FQGQX8 from New Jersey agreed…6mos6MO

I don’t think countries, even powerful ones like the US or Germany, using Anti-NATO rhetoric will really empower Russia or China. Nuclear weapons will never be used by either side; both understand the concept of MAD and will not risk nuclear annihilation just because some countries in NATO are not being supportive. It may embolden them to push their influence on the west and pacific respectively but I don’t see a conventional war nor nukes being used any time soon from a lack of support for NATO. Now, if a country like Poland withdrew from the alliance, then that would be a comple…  Read more

 @9HLWQ69Libertarian from Ohio agreed…4mos4MO

NATO was established to deter the spread of Soviet influence in Europe. Since the wall fell over 30 years ago, NATO is obsolete.

 @9FT9HDX from Arizona agreed…6mos6MO

America, a particularist nation, is a free and healthy nation. We are over concerned with foreign affairs, to the detriment of our people - agreements, like paris, are fine, but not alliances.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs8Y

No

 @9H4CTBZ from Texas agreed…4mos4MO

Geopolitical dynamics and the evolving geopolitical landscape may impact the relevance and effectiveness of NATO. Strategic Focus adds a debate about whether NATO's strategic focus aligns with U.S. national interests in all cases as well.

 @Kaiwantsanap  from Ohio disagreed…6mos6MO

We are all human beings. What makes your life more valuable than theirs? What makes their safety and freedom less precious? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 @9H54TVR from New York disagreed…4mos4MO

NATO has been an essential piece of global defense since the Cold War. We should not leave them when we have been a part of them for so long

 @9G5D7T8 from California disagreed…6mos6MO

By taking a neutrality stance to the calamity going on around but not helping because these countries like Ukraine are not invloved in NATO is more hurtful than help

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs7Y

No, we should not defend any NATO country that spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense

 @9FMNMPF from Pennsylvania disagreed…6mos6MO

I think what this argument also ignores, is that the Europeans take a different political perspective on defense spending.

 @9L58VGS from North Carolina disagreed…3 days3D

At the 2023 Vilnius Summit, NATO Leaders agreed a new Defence Investment Pledge, making an enduring commitment to investing at least 2% of GDP annually on defence.

 @8JCJLWVUnity from Texas answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but should strongly encourage such nations to increase their support for NATO

 @5495QKWfrom Kentucky answered…3yrs3Y

No, but add a clause that ensures a "tax" or reparation is made to the US from those countries that need defending (and under 2%) should they need the US military for defense or aid.

 @547W2M2from North Carolina answered…3yrs3Y

 @548HSP8from Nebraska answered…3yrs3Y

We should not be expected to fund countries who prosper but do not fund their own defense -- why should we bear the cost when they can afford to do so?

 @5485KZ2from Minnesota answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, upon the condition that a lien (of sorts...) is placed on that country, resulting in a gained equitable interest to the People of the U.S. Maybe even going to so far as being a fund of mutual benefit, to the US and the country being protected. This could be practical if that country is better off spending their own budget on something which would bring more benefit to that country, thereby increasing a potential return to the US. Especially since the US has so much invested in its military already.

 @548YD53from Illinois answered…3yrs3Y

No country deserves a free ride. Each country has a reasonable responsibility to defend and protect its citizens. But failure of a government to reasonably defend and protect its citizens doesn't absolve other countries from a moral responsibility to protect and preserve life to the best of their ability.

 @549GJYVfrom Maine answered…3yrs3Y

It is the responsibility of the strong to protect (but not police) the weak, but that goes for all attacked and/or oppressed people--not just for NATO members. NATO, in itself, is an outmoded organisation, which actions since the fall of the Soviet Union arguably has done more to destabilise rather than the opposite.

 @54B6PNZfrom Virginia answered…3yrs3Y

 @549T7R3from Florida answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, The USA should pull out from NATO but still intervene or assist countries that are unable to defend themselves from hostile enemies or if the stability of the country is required for the benefit of our economy or national security.

 @54B5TNPfrom Illinois answered…3yrs3Y

GDP? What is our relationship with each country? Are we trying to buy friendship from countries that hate us? We are paying groups so they can afford to kill us in the future. It's nuts.

 @5498TF5from Maine answered…3yrs3Y

We entered Nato with the agreement to defend our Nato partners. We should stick to this promise.

 @5496WQDfrom Ohio answered…3yrs3Y

we are not the worlds military, we should not have to monitor and defend unless war is declared

 @99R93ZZ from Massachusetts answered…1yr1Y

 @9GZDTYYIndependent from Maryland answered…4mos4MO

Yes, the U.S. should defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP, but we should encourage them to increase their military defense budgets so that they can defend themselves more effectively as well.

 @93NMC5D from California answered…2yrs2Y

 @988M428Republican from Maryland answered…1yr1Y

 @8Q9PK9M from Mississippi answered…3yrs3Y

Membership in NATO should require a minimum amount of defense spending based on a countrie's GDP.

 @ChrisFeder2Constitution from Pennsylvania answered…3yrs3Y

 @9KZZVGYLibertarian  from Florida answered…6 days6D

We must prioritize countries that spend the allotted percentage, and ensure that member countries bear their fiduciary obligation, or risk expulsion.

 @9KVYS5S from Illinois answered…2wks2W

I think helping others is crucial to who we are as a nation, but at the same time I believe there are other things we need to focus on in our own country like homelessness.

 @9KV22JT from Oklahoma answered…2wks2W

Yes, but only if the conflict would have global repercussions. Countries should be more self reliant

 @9KPHZDD from California answered…3wks3W

No, the countries that have met the 2% requirement should impose tariffs on the countries that haven’t.

 @9KPHFXJ from California answered…3wks3W

Yes, but we should encourage and incentivize other NATO countries to spend enough on the militaries to mount a reasonable defense of their homelands

 @9KPBF7SDemocrat from Florida answered…3wks3W

Yes, and we should reduce our own military spending, as well. The point of NATO is that smaller militaries act jointly because the world community determines a cause is just.

 @9KNYCD6 from New York answered…3wks3W

Yes, but enough of this talk of leaving our own treaty organization we should kick out members that don't contribute or do what we say, we should also stop expanding it so much

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...