Even NATO has said other countries need to pay their fair share:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...y-more-defense
Even NATO has said other countries need to pay their fair share:.... Originally Posted by bambinoYou do understand don't you that "paying their fair share" is somewhat unusual and "foreign" to the entitlement crowd who voted for HillaryNoMore and Sanders? As a result they have difficulty "wrapping their brain" around the concept ... which could be challenge anyway based on the lack of sufficient size to wrap a friggin toothpick.
NATO in its current form made sense from 1950 - 2000. Its form does not make sense in todays world. Originally Posted by dilbert firestormCountries were added in an attempt to legitimize our efforts to create a binding coalition, but the responses of the newly added countries is muted by their internal laws regarding international conflicts that were imposed by the Allied countries at the end of WWII.
Countries were added in an attempt to legitimize our efforts to create a binding coalition, but the responses of the newly added countries is muted by their internal laws regarding international conflicts that were imposed by the Allied countries at the end of WWII. Originally Posted by LexusLoverThis would be Germany, but did this also include other western European countries who were formerly under german occupation during wwII?