What would a GOP Congress do if Drumpf asks them to vote to withdraw from NATO?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[Generic Brad]

1. They will give him the vote he asks for

They instinctively follow the leader. It's like a collective disease they all have.

[Warpy]

7. They've already announced they won't do this one

I'm not putting any bets on it either way. One thing we can always be sure about with Republicans is that they're liars.

[wcmagumba]

2. They will be spineless with...

the Trumpenfuhrer, make a little noise about things they might oppose (if any) and then cave...IMO

[Turbineguy]

3. Simple

they would ask, "will it harm the U.S.?" Then they will do that.

[jaysunb]

4. They won't have to.

They're just waiting to get him officially in before they impeach him and install Pence.

[GP6971]

8. You really think so?

I'm hopeful, but not optimistic.

[jaysunb]

9. Well, I've been wrong a couple times ( marriages ) but

I'm nearly certain we will have President Pence in the very near future.

[GP6971]

13. Oh I agree with that.

and for numerous reasons...lack of interest, crossing the repuke party. It's all about him and nothing else. He'll refuse to make the hard decisions required of the job.

[tammywammy]

5. The Armed Services committees wouldn't allow something like that to get to the floor.

[uponit7771]

6. Vote for it

[FarCenter]

10. Why withdraw? The treaty itself doesn't actually require the US to do anything

We could simply reduce the budget for NATO related activities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. SMH

The treaty itself doesn't actually require the US to do anything

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

[FarCenter]

17. "such action as it deems necessary" doesn't commit any member state to actually do anything

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. What part of it's a treaty that commits its member to "protect each another" don't you understand?

"such action as it deems necessary" doesn't commit any member state to actually do anything

This response deserves two s

Collective defence - Article 5

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance. *

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

*This is the origial text

[FarCenter]

19. More meaningless prose

It doesn't specify what "to protect" means in terms of any actual military commitment. Which is why actual resources spent towards NATO are vastly disparate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. SMH (REDUX)

More meaningless prose

What part of a treaty is an "international agreement... governed by law don't you understand" :

Article 2. USE OF TERMS
1. For the purposes of the present Convention:
(a) "Treaty" means an international agreement concluded between States in
written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instru
ment or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

I will eschew the highfalutin language and put it in layman's terms. NATO is a mutual defense treaty which treats an attack on one member as if it was an attack on all members. An attack on Berlin is no different than an attack on New York City. That is why it was invoked on 9-11-2001.

And now back to the highfalutin language, no amount of casuistry, sophistry, and obscurantism can change the fact that the treaty obliges its members to come to the defense of one another.

But I appreciate you kicking this thread because I believe what really holds NATO together is that its members are for the most part liberal democracies and Putin wants to destroy them from within and without.

[FarCenter]

23. What held NATO together was the conflict between capitalism and communism

The capitalist nations were collectively opposed to the communist USSR which promoted an expansionist ideology that involved rounding up all the capitalists and shooting them. Capitalists not wanting to be shot understandably were in considerable solidarity with each other.

There is no more communist ideology, nor is there a USSR or Warsaw Pact. Instead, in Russia, we have rump state with half the USSRs population with an authoritarian government and an system of state and oligarch owned business enterprises. This is not unlike a whole variety of other countries in Latin America, Middle East and Asia.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Putin shares the expansionist goals of his communist predecessors. He just lacks the means to expand

Putin shares the expansionist goals of his communist predecessors. He just lacks the means to expand. That doesn't mean he won't try. He doesn't get to have a buffer of compliant states any more than other nation, including us. All he is entitled to is other nations respecting Russia's sovereignty and sovereignty doesn't include buffer states.

This is not unlike a whole variety of other countries in Latin America, Middle East and Asia.[/div


You can not compare Putin with Marcos, Batista, the Shah, Somoza, Pinochet, Duterte, et cetera because even in their diminished state Russia is infinitely more powerful than the Philippines, Nicaragua, Iran, et ctera.

NATO is a bulwark against Russian irredentism, regardless of the actors.

[edhopper]

11. House would approve it

stall in the Senate without enough GOP support.

[Ace Rothstein]

27. Yeah, the House is where the craziest of the crazies are at.

[spanone]

12. they would ask what time?

[drray23]

14. Would die in the senate

For sure it would die in the senate. People like mc cain and graham would vote against leaving nato. Probably some others too.

[Akamai]

16. Defining question -- I would think they'd tell him, "Hell no!"

NATO is certainly an intricate system of alliances, etc., and we have mistreated Russia by not living up to our agreement with Gorbachev (made with Reagan and Bush 1 during the dissolution of the Soviet Union) not to entice countries on Russia's borders to join NATO and not to put missiles in countries on Russia's borders.

Gorbachev offered the agreement and helped us lower the risk of nuclear war.

Now it's complicated and Russia has several hundred fewer nuclear devices than we do. I don't track this closely but I would step back from our agreements slowly (if at all). Not just because trump has an off-hand line about it, or Putin wants it.

Complicated, complicated, complicated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The Russians aren't saints.

They would have never invaded Crimea if the Ukraine didn't voluntarily give up its 2,000 nuclear weapons that were placed there when they were part of the Soviet Union.

[Akamai]

25. I know they are not saints. Frankly, you think that part of the world would be safer if the Ukraine

nukes were still there?

Complicated, complicated -- but certainly not a decision that should be made by an untutored, uncaring ignoramus like trump.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. You identified the power of nukes. The world is not better off if Ukraine had nukes but

You identified the power of nukes. The world is not better off if Ukraine had nukes but Ukraine surely would be.

[Akamai]

31. I am not sure that's accurate. Might be a reason for a coup by ultra

Right-wing nationalists. Lots of scary powerful nuts in that country.

I am not a historian, though, not a political science expert, do not follow the issues in Ukraine regularly, etc.

[haele]

30. MIC will not want the U.S. to pull out of NATO.

Too many business ties.

Haele

[Renew Deal]

21. In the words of Ted Cruz republicans in congress are "servile puppies."

They will do as their master wishes becaus they are terrified of their base

[Freethinker65]

26. Hem and haw, then decide on novel repeal and replace idea. Let the spin begin.

[matt819]

28. Some more highfalutin language from Wikipedia

Regarding the unilateral withdrawal from a treaty. The long and short of it seems to be, who the fuck knows? But then there's the international response, not that trump or the republicans care, but that that point, we become nothing less than a rogue state, and the world becomes far more dangerous.

Repeal[edit]
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]
Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[9] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.
In Goldwater v. Carter,[10] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[11]