Try the political quiz

2.6k Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

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

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...6yrs

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

@5495QKWfrom Kentucky  answered…2yrs

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…2yrs

@548HSP8from Nebraska  answered…2yrs

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?

@548YD53from Illinois  answered…2yrs

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.

@5485KZ2from Minnesota  answered…2yrs

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.

@549GJYVfrom Maine  answered…2yrs

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.

@549T7R3from Florida  answered…2yrs

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.

@5498TF5from Maine  answered…2yrs

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

@54B5TNPfrom Illinois  answered…2yrs

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.

@54B6PNZfrom Virginia  answered…2yrs

@5496WQDfrom Ohio  answered…2yrs

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

@98WBZ37Libertarian from Georgia answered…19hrs

@98W8K7X from Illinois answered…1 day

@98W322J from Alabama answered…1 day

I think it would be nice to support the nations financially and militarily equipment wise but i would not send our troops

@98T4888 from Georgia answered…5 days

@98T3BVX from Virginia answered…5 days

@98SXDYMfrom Maine  answered…5 days

@98STQ5F from Texas answered…6 days

Yes but the United States needs to push for more military spending in other NATO countries

@98SRY34Independent from Tennessee answered…6 days

Yes, but provide a little less support until they spend more than 2%

@98SQB2V from Florida answered…7 days

@98SN7XQProgressivefrom Guam  answered…7 days

Yes, but these NATO countries would have increase their defense budgets so that the U.S. does not have to provide more funding to their defense.

@98R6LJVfrom Maine  answered…1wk

@98QPMNP from South Carolina answered…1wk

@98QMZC3Republican from Texas answered…1wk

No, we should withdraw from NATO and re-establish treaties with certain nations, definitely the United Kingdom and France.

@98PYSGNfrom Virgin Islands  answered…2wks

@98PT9Y5Democrat from Oregon answered…2wks

Yes by aiding them first by aiding the countries with our resources. Sending our troops to the countries should be a last resort.

@98P6PBF from Michigan answered…2wks

I don't really care about it, defending other NATO countries will bring more problems to the economy but it will aslo help in maintaining the balance of global power.

@wanderer1129 from South Carolina answered…2wks

@98NL6G9 from Texas answered…2wks

@98MFYS8Republican from Virginia answered…2wks

@98LCM4L from Florida answered…3wks

Not if the US is the only country going bankrupt and increasing inflation over it. If the US is going to continue being a member of NATO, then the other countries need to support.

@98L93J8Independent from North Carolina answered…3wks

@98L548N from California answered…3wks

No, we should not defend any NATO country that spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense, unless an agreement to commit to alternative contribution is set

@98KV7SVRepublican from Pennsylvania answered…3wks

We should train them and help them build up their armed forces but we shouldn't defend them

@98JBY7G from Ohio answered…3wks

Each instance of US involvement with other countries military defense aid should be considered individually not blanketed

@98JBT9V from Ohio answered…3wks

@98H85FLIndependent from Texas answered…4wks

@98H7R5Z from Oregon answered…4wks

Yes, but we should pull out of areas in Europe in order to reduce defense spending

@98GPQZQ from Ohio answered…1mo

Yes, but pressure those countries to pay more economically and expect all countries to pay the same amount.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...