Should our country defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?

No, it is unfair to our taxpayers

No, withdraw from NATO or lead efforts to disband the alliance

Yes, but only if it threatens the free world as a whole.

Yes, but they should be pressured to meet the 2% of GDP requirement.

Yes, but only on conditions to ensure our authority on defense matters directly correlates to our defense presence for that country.

Yes, but push the nations not spending their agreed upon 2% to do so.

We should only remain part of NATO if everyone contributes what they are supposed to but we should keep to our agreement if we remain.

Yes, because refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power, just as long as it doesn't start World War III, which would then evolve into a Nuclear War, which will end in Nuclear Armageddon aka a Nuclear Holocaust, resulting in the end of the world

No, the US should not only leave NATO, but declare anyone employed by the NATO outlaws and issue warrants for their arrest and bounties for their capture, dead or alive. In addition, the US should sanction all member countries.

Yes, but only send weapons.

depends on the situation in the aspect of why we are defending the other country

yes but help in necessary circumstances

I do now know enough to be able to answer yes or no on this issue

Yes, but heavily request they raise their spending to at least 2%

NATO countries that spend less than the membership requirement of 2% of their GDP should be removed from NATO because they are not fulfilling the obligations of membership.

Yes, it's an alliance for a reason

if ther aprt of nato where fighting

Yes, but raise the minimum amount and require all member states to meet a defense spending of at least 5% of GDP, or swiftly be limited on support amount from NATO. We are not going to be the sole defender, and allow these countries to build up socialist excellence off our protection, we are a large enough country as is, if they want to be state then they know how to apply or federalize.

Yes, but NATO should enforce military spending quotas.

We defend them, but charge tariffs and monetary fees if they do not contribute enough to their own defense.

Only after other countries have become involved, and they really need help

Excuse me what?

Yes and remove military ground force assets from countries that spend a fair bit on their military

Yes, But as long as the nation keeps their military well equipped and up to date

I think each situation is different, and we should decide wether to get involved or not based on how many American lives getting involved could cost.

We should protect them, but not be the main source of their defense budgets unless they are committed to and showing improvements in their ability to protect themselves.

Yes, but pressure should be put on UN members to do their part

Yes, but it should be reinforced that each NATO country needs to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense as originally agreed upon in order to remain a member

Yes, unless the other NATO countries are fighting for something unconstitutional and wrong.

Yes, only if they truely need the help.

Yes, but it should be reinforced that each NATO country needs to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense as originally agreed upon to remain a member

No, it should be reinforced that each NATO country needs to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military defense as originally agreed upon

Yes, but they need to make the countries spend at least 2%, like they agreed on. Plus, refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power

No, we should only defend a country if it coincides with our own countries best interests.

Yes, but try to encourage other countries to spend a higher percentage

Yes, but we should encourage all NATO Countries to spend up to 2% or more of their GDP on military defense

Yes, but apply pressure to those nations to increase their military budgets

Yes, when a member country's stability is essential for maintaining our own national security.

Yes, but push or convince those countries to start spending more on their military defense budgets

Yes, when the country's stability is essential to our own national security, but the 2% minimum spending of GDP on military defense should be reinforced as non-negotiable for a NATO country to remain a member.

Yes, but pressure NATO members to increase it so it can be fair to our tax payers. They should lift it to the required spending limit. If they do not comply reduce U.S troops in the country and decrease the supply we send to them.

No, and we shouldn't intervene in foreign conflicts unless it is done to protect human rights and democracy.

I don't a stance on this issue.

Yes, and we should adjust our military defense budget to be lower relative to our GDP, too

Yes, and reduce military spending to align with 2percent gdp

No, unless the NATO country starts spending a lot more on military defense, and even then, we should spend far less

Yes, but we should focus more effort on domestic issues instead

Yes, when the country's stability is essential to our own national security, but 2% minimum spending of a member country's GDP on military defense should be reinforced as non-negotiable to remain part of NATO

No, although we should stay in NATO, we should focus more effort on domestic issues instead