Dad-O-Lot said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Let's see: we more or less turned our backs on them as far as Ukraine/Russia.

---

How so? Which NATO nations? I don't see any other NATO nations doing anything about the Russian/Ukraine war

---

Then you haven't been paying attention

Gordo14 said:

---

Reminder: we spent all of January talking about how we were going to invade Greenland. We spent all of February going on military adventurism without consulting our allies despite potential consequences to them. We spent all of March whining about them not helping a situation they were completely left out of. We are the bad ally. Anybody above the age of 5 should be able to see that.

---

the way things are going, Europe might decide they want us out of NATO even more than we do

Did I say we didn't provide anything?

Why do you think that's the choice we're facing?

Less than 10% of our DoD budget per year for three years sounds a lot less dramatic that what you just said, especially when a lot of that value was surplus equipment of little to no use to us anyway.

So you didn't like that I said we turned our backs on them but now you're pointing out that we… turned our backs on them.

Old McDonald said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

Reminder: we spent all of January talking about how we were going to invade Greenland. We spent all of February going on military adventurism without consulting our allies despite potential consequences to them. We spent all of March whining about them not helping a situation they were completely left out of. We are the bad ally. Anybody above the age of 5 should be able to see that.

---

the way things are going, Europe might decide they want us out of NATO even more than we do

---

Some people just aren't very smart

We delivered them from nuclear holocaust?

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

I wish people would turn their backs on me by giving me piles of cash, what a dumb comment.

---

yeah but you shouldconsider yourself abandoned when they quit funding your misuse of that money - this is one of the weakest arguments for "turning our backs" on them you can make. He just can't admit his bad take and keeps going doubling down

GAC06 said:

---

We delivered them from nuclear holocaust?

---

So why is it that you don't believe in that serious threat? What part of Iran's actions have indicated to you that they really don't mean their stated convictions? And what nuclear detonation do you think would be just a ho hum event while the rest of the world goes about their business?

Those aren't just rhetorical questions - if you have a reasonable take, I'd listen.

ttu_85 said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

It is basically dead already. All it really does is stir up troublesome nonsense.

---

Yep it died when Europe quit contributing their agreed quotas of military contributions. Most are still under 2% of GDP They've been leeching off of us for several decades.

Europe killed NATO not us. And yes it was needed but at the end of the day Europe went socialist withered their economies and spirit. That place is a useless husk these days.

---

And yet, they are reversing that. Have been last couple of years. Yes, the other nations had been slacking. Yes, they deserved to have the faces rubbed in it and they did. No, that does not mean we cut ourselves off because of it when they reacted and have started spending like they should have been. You don't drown a puppy because it ****s on the floor. You scold it, then you teach and cultivate it and it stays/becomes a close ally.

Every single Euro body, every single Euro spent, is an American body used elsewhere/saved and American dollar not spent. There is zero need to be petulant and take our toys and go home. And tbh, I wouldn't trust the US either and understand a LOT of the reservations the other NATO nations have.

And no, it is not most of the under 2% GDP spending. In fact, every single one is now meeting the minimum, at a minimum as of mid '25.



Source: https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/finance/def-exp-2025-en.pdf

I think Iran getting nukes is pretty far down Ukraine's list of things to worry about when they're still being invaded by a country with nukes.

GAC06 said:

---

I think Iran getting nukes is pretty far down Ukraine's list of things to worry about when they're still being invaded by a country with nukes.

---

I guess I didn't establish my antecedent, which I thought was obvious, but apparently...

I meant that NATO countries should be happy that we are saving NATO countries from the likely threat of a nuclear holocaust by removing the imminent threat of Iran completing and using a nuclear warhead. This was in contrast to you implying that NATO countries had a reason to be unhappy about the war. They are being quite foolish in my opinion.

I don't think they (Europe) see it that way.

End of NATO is fine with me.

Give the UN folks a couple of days to box up their **** and get out of the country. Sell the real estate. It would be great if Trump was the high bidder!

It seems to me the problem with NATO is really the UK, France, and Spain. Merz (Germany) is actually taking Europe to task over a lot of their idiocy.

The rest of NATO has been pretty quiet because they either agree with us or are smart enough to stay out of the way. Rutte (NATO Secretary General) literally laughs at his own compatriots when they suggest walking away from us.

aezmvp said:

---

My favorite take here is how the US was talking about invading Greenland. Which is patently untrue.

---

Leftists lie. It's what they do.

They have to advance the narratives of our enemies. It makes them feel better about wishing for America's demise.

You sure about all of that? They haven't been very helpful against Iran, when it would benefit them far more than it benefits us.

Gordo14 said:

---

Reminder: we spent all of January talking about how we were going to invade Greenland. We spent all of February going on military adventurism without consulting our allies despite potential consequences to them. We spent all of March whining about them not helping a situation they were completely left out of. We are the bad ally. Anybody above the age of 5 should be able to see that.

---

When my parents were paying for my food, clothing, home, car, insurance, gas, etc. (at least, for the most part), they had a right to expect me to do a few chores around the house and help them out a LITTLE. I probably should have done more. Anyone above the age of 3 should be able to understand and agree to that.

We (USA) are doing far more for NATO than my parents did for me in terms of covering the butts of these weak ass countries that are *****ing. You're damn right we've got the right to whine about it (if that's what we actually are doing, which we aren't really).

Your "bad ally" comment is simply idiotic. Iran and/or militant islamism would take them over in a heartbeat.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

You sure about all of that? They haven't been very helpful against Iran, when it would benefit them far more than it benefits us.

---

Beyond positive about all that. Not very many Americans understand how NATO actually works, which you appear to fall into that group. Being a part of NATO does not mean carte blanche mandatory involvement for every single military adventure every member gets into. They didn't follow us into Grenada just like we didn't follow them into the Falklands.

NATO is a defensive alliance where it is agreed that a party member may invoke Article 5 if attacked. If said Article is ratified, then the other nations are obligated to assist in the manner they see fit in a collective self-defense. They can range from just open borders to supply and logistics help to outright conventional military forces and everything in between.

NATO is not an offensive body. There isn't even any provision for offensive actions whatsoever. I don't care how much spin some try to apply to this. We attacked Iran with Israel. Period. NATO is forever off the hook for that alone. Furthermore, as Israel was the main driver of this conflict and can be said to be actual primary instigator, the other NATO nations are even more distanced from having to help.

Trump didn't even warn them in time about the initial attacks. Nor did Bibi. Everyone here would be screaming their heads off if we found ourselves pulled into another ME war literally overnight because two other nations decided to start blowing **** up on their own. Don't even bother trying to deny that. F16 would melt down the day that happened. So why shouldn't they be pissed and reserved on approaching the area with lethal arms? Not a single one of them asked for this war that WE started or the mess it is developing into. Truly don't understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp.


Here is the original charter for NATO btw. Simple read really. Highly encourage you to read and educate yourself directly on at least the basics on a very important organization that involves us.

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty

aezmvp said:

---

My favorite take here is how the US was talking about invading Greenland. Which is patently untrue. The failure of entities like Spain and France, in spite of their own self interest in reopening the Gulf, shows exactly why we can't rely on these allies.

NATO hasn't pulled their weight since the end of the Cold War. Everyone knows it. The only semi credible forces left in Europe are the French, Poles and Finns. Ukraine not withstanding as they're outside the EU and NATO. You could maybe include the Greeks, but they are only focused on the Turks.

This whole thing has shown the ineptitude and weakness of the Euros. If we can't rely on them to even let us pass by and land, refuel, and transit via bases we've sponsored for the better part of a century then we need to, out of necessity, rethink our defense policy in Europe. Full stop.

There is a reason Whitehall is sending the King to the US for a state visit. It's because the PM has badly fd the special relationship. Macron is so afraid of RN and losing cooperation from Frances radical left that he'll resort to these tantrums. Same with Spain and others.

It's time to seriously rethink our defense strategy.

---

Ok, I am game. I'm awake and bored. Let's go through this then. What would be the first steps in securing a better defensive strategy than what we have right now? Actually super curious as to your answer. You are supposing a withdrawal from NATO. So I guess start there? Ok, we are out. What's next and what are the immediate impacts you see from that withdrawal and how do they help our global defensive posture that we currently enjoy now?

Step 1: Leave nato and tell all european nations you are on your own.

Step 2: Give the U.N. 30 day eviction notice. Turn the U.N building into a homeless shelter for tear it down doesn't matter.

Step 3: Use the money that is saved from dealing with nato and the U.N. to pay down the debt.

Step 4: Buy new firearm in celebration of steps 1,2 and 3.

Step 5: Party like its 1776 for telling europe to get bent.

Trump says he is strongly considering leaving NATO, citing U.S. support in the Ukraine war: "Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us."

- The Telegraph

— Polymarket Intel (@PolymarketIntel) April 1, 2026

We can contract for basing rights without nato membership, if/as needed, as we've done in other places such as Japan for years. Spoiler; we don't need more than a couple bases/airfields in eastern/southern Europe probably.

The Israeli's have also offered, for the first time, to host American forces there.