A1 LeatherVintage LeatherRitzy AkaEastman FlightJpb VintageAka SwagEastman LeatherUniforms ScaleLife MoodsForwardEastman Leather Clothing / US A1 Leather Jacket - it looks like the 30 y old jacket my father gave me.No, of course it shouldn't.It gives the US strategic depth - Thanks to NATO, the war, if it comes, will be closer to the enemy than it will to the North American continent. 2. It gives the US actual allies - Russia and China have a coterie of weak allies who they are more patrons to than actual perceived equals. The US has the majority of European nations supporting it and that has proven to be an invaluable resource in contain the USSR/Russia as well as China.3. The US has access to numerous overseas military facilities for all sorts of purposes - This has assisted immensely in the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.4. NATO has prevented all but a single major conflict in Europe since the late 1940s. Considering the seething cauldron of hatred that was Europe well into the early 20th century, that is no small feat and it has benefited the US in economic as well as military scenarios.

So of Donald Trumps numerous poor ideas (the border wall, flat taxes, banning US citizens in direct violation of US law, etc.) his plan to lower the US presence in NATO remains at or near the top of the "non-starters."Should the U.S. diminish involvement in NATO?I would say disband! That’s why:CONTRA NEWS AND VIEWSNATO Is An Anachronism: Declare Belated Cold War Victory And Close It DownFollowing is an excerpt from:Militarism vs. Diplomacy: The Case of NATOBy Michael S. RozeffApril 1, 2014NATO is now an independent and militaristic voice or power. It has degrees of freedom beyond government control, with its decision methods and processes being manipulable by its committee and consensus processes. At the same time these processes are murky, obscure, far from transparent and several levels removed from control by civilian voters.We already know of NATO’s participation in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Libya. A number of eastern European countries are in its bailiwick. It speaks out on Ukraine which is a NATO “Partner”.

This history of warfare since 1989 and the military nature of this organization, its very reason for being, combined with its lack of transparency and accountability, should cause us to sharpen our focus on this organization’s negatives.A strong case can be made that NATO should have been dissolved once the Cold War ended. gsxr for sale in ncA strong case can be made that the U.S. should not be committed to defend every member state in NATO in the eventuality of some situation that NATO can define as war or close enough to war or a material matter of security so as to justify the commitment of military forces. kawasaki vulcan for sale on ebayA strong case can be made that NATO is now an instrument of certain states to work their will when they cannot obtain UN Security Council approval. kawasaki vulcan for sale on ebay

While NATO is taking this militaristic position concerning Ukraine, which fits its newfound structure and mission, put in place since 1989, we have diplomacy going on between Putin and Obama and between Lavrov and Kerry. The Russians have pulled back forces from near Ukraine as a signal, and Lavrov has made some very strong statements denying any intent whatsoever to invade Ukraine. motorcycle spark plug neonDiplomacy is not helped by either militaristic public pressures stemming from slanted newspapers or news agencies in the U.S. or by militaristic pressures from a NATO that has an existential interest in exaggerating threats or even fanning the flames of conflicts.NATO has gotten a pass from the mainstream media that its war-making record since 1989 does not warrant. The recent statements by its Secretary-General confirm NATO’s militaristic orientation.Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.I see two questions here that need answering. The first is "Is NATO useful and necessary to the security of all its members". It needs to be seriously discussed since circumstances have changed.The second question, assuming NATO is not disbanded,has to do with the allocation of costs associated with NATO. Basically, who pays what share of costs to protect and defend what territories. Some countries may have a greater ability to pay in money rather than supplying arms or armed forces. Obviously, this is very complicated but in fairness to all members it needs to be constantly reassessed.The American public needs to feel it is not getting the short end of the stick in regards to NATO and other mutual defense agreements that the U.S. signs onto. It is a well know fact the the European countries resist increasing defense spending since they don't want to cut social welfare spending.

Life is all about making those difficult choices and they may have to make some choices that they don't like.  NATO is a great tool for influence on the world stage and allows the US to create coalitions when actions are called for. Now, should some of the rules governing it be updated for a post Cold War world? That would be a grave mistake.Trump can do whatever he wants, but if he pulls out, the US will be kindly requested to pay back the billions of dollars in US government bonds held by European nations right now (The Real Owner of the U.S. Debt Will Surprise You). That’ll allow them to buy a military so “terribly amazing” that it makes the stuff the US now sends to Europe look like dinky toys.Hell, poor little Belgium with 10 million souls on its own holds enough US gov bonds to finance 11 Gerald Ford Class aircraft carriers. With its US gov bonds, even tinier Luxembourg can equip each one of them with a state-of-the-art air wing.And the really nice part is, that would pay European contractors, sailors, airmen and soldiers, not American ones.