Try the political quiz

956 Replies

@65B6RLXRepublicanfrom Kentucky  answered…3mos

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.

@659JTQ9Republicanfrom Nebraska  answered…3mos

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?

@658X3N3Greenfrom North Carolina  answered…3mos

@6596M23Socialistfrom Minnesota  answered…3mos

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.

@659ZF64Greenfrom Illinois  answered…3mos

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.

@65BV8S4Constitutionfrom Florida  answered…3mos

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.

@65B9VG6Democratfrom Maine  answered…3mos

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

@65C6VPQRepublicanfrom Illinois  answered…3mos

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.

@65C7QQ2Constitutionfrom Virginia  answered…3mos

We need to worry about our own backyard and stop saving the world.

@65BHKZWGreenfrom Maine  answered…3mos

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.

@65B7XRFDemocratfrom Ohio  answered…3mos

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

@9RJBQ24Republican from Georgia answered…5 days

Yes, but we need limit our aid and push them to increase military defense spending.

@9H7KNZ8Democratfrom Montana  answered…3mos

@9GJM92FWorking Family from Texas answered…3mos

@9GH6WWLLibertarian from New York answered…3mos

They should be removed from NATO if they do not meet its commitments

@9GB7JLKRepublican from Connecticut answered…3mos

@9G3HPM9Independent from Indiana answered…3mos

Yes but we should drastically reduce our contribution to NATO

@9FX85BGNordic Resistance Movementfrom Illinois  answered…3mos

Yes but force them to invest more in their own defense or send them a bill for the expense of having used our services and being in violation of the agreed upon terms of membership

@9FRFW6HWorking Family from Virginia answered…3mos

@9FMN49ZWorking Family from Minnesota answered…3mos

There are other ways to add value other than monetarily. This should be analyzed in a case by case basis

@9FC8J2JVeteran from Maryland answered…3mos

Yes, and we should make minimum military spending a requirement to stay in NATO.

@9FBX86SWomen’s Equality from Nevada answered…3mos

Yes but encourage these nations to increase military funding.

@9FBSCTLDemocrat from Virginia answered…3mos

Yes, but the US should reduce their military defense budget.

@9F8N47TConstitution from Virginia answered…3mos

Does it help our economy? Does it help the american people?

@9RBQLBNVeteran from Mississippi answered…2wks

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

@9R5SX3VPeace and Freedom from Nebraska answered…3wks

Only if equal aid is provided by other powers in NATO - not just the US doing the heavy lifting

@9R2NKKDVeteran from New Jersey answered…3wks

We should defend them and they should pay for the troops and supplies that are there to defend them.

@9QV2VRQRepublican from Pennsylvania answered…1mo

Require a tax paid to the U.S for the military presence in the area.

@9QMYPQHRepublican from California answered…2mos

@9QH58JMWomen’s Equality from New York answered…2mos

On some occasions, and There should be a minimum requirement on military spending relative to each country’s GDP

@ChrisFeder2Constitution from Pennsylvania answered…3mos

@9PYDLY5Independent from Arkansas answered…3mos

@9PTVZ5RWomen’s Equalityfrom Maine  answered…3mos

@9PNMX6MRepublican from Florida answered…3mos

A minimum percentage of GDP spent on NATO should be agreed upon by NATO members. Countries with greater standard of living and surplus funding could pay a higher percentage but social programs should come second to defense in federal funding.

@9PJ7PBBRepublican from Maine answered…3mos

Yes, but we should put sanctions on those who don't pay their fair share and make their contribution public.

@9PGTR59Transhumanist from Oklahoma answered…3mos

Yes; however, the GDP agreement should be forced and deficient members expected to show good faith effort to increase the requisite funding or face possibility of expulsion from NATO.

@9PGBXYHTranshumanist from California answered…3mos

@9PC7T4WTranshumanistfrom Vermont  answered…3mos

Yes, but work to increase their military spending to meet obligations.

@9PBJ877Working Family from Wisconsin answered…3mos

@9NZ4SWBVeteran from Kansas answered…3mos

No, if a NATO country is spending less than 2% of their GDP on military defense they have broken the agreement and we are not obligated to defend them.

@9NXJG57Republican from New York answered…3mos

yes if we are assisting, but need to stop trying to rebuild everyone else's land, focus on us.

@9NW5WB4Republican from Missouri answered…3mos

Yes, but force members to spend 2% of GDP on military defense.

@9N8ST8FLibertarian from Massachusetts answered…3mos

Yes but we should decrease active spending and be more reactionary

@9N7BC8TWomen’s Equality from New York answered…3mos

We should defend them but charge them. Somehow make them pay for us defending them.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...