They did join the war and pay their way in the war that pertained to them because we were attacked. NATO is a defensive alliance and they are under no obligation to jump into wars we decide to start. It's amazing I'm having to explain this to you, but apparently our commander in chief doesn't quite grasp it either.
Is The Official End Of NATO Nearing?
17,352 Views |
270 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by txags92
GAC06 said:ts5641 said:
Once we are serious about pulling our money out they'll bend the knee.
What money are you talking about? Be specific.
Discussion was about the UN. Probably UN funding.
bobbranco
Joined:
Dec 15, 2006
Posts:
25,663
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GAC06 said:
They did join the war and pay their way in the war that pertained to them because we were attacked. NATO is a defensive alliance and they are under no obligation to jump into wars we decide to start. It's amazing I'm having to explain this to you, but apparently our commander in chief doesn't quite grasp it either.
I acknowledged the emboldened. So? We did not ask anything but to use airbases and fly over, and join a coalition to pressure opening the SOH.
Germany and GB are paper tigers.
The French sit on this berets and whine.
Turkey is incalcitrant.
Great allies we have in NATO.
But keep making excuses for our crappy allies.
We didn't ask anything except come join our war to open the strait. Listen to yourself.
Or guess maybe we didn't mean it. After all Trump says we didn't really want them and they're useless anyway. But seriously come help. Ok don't, we didn't want you anyway.
It's absurd.
Or guess maybe we didn't mean it. After all Trump says we didn't really want them and they're useless anyway. But seriously come help. Ok don't, we didn't want you anyway.
It's absurd.
Eliminatus said:
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
The significant 'allies' in Europe are and have been absolutely/incontrovertably lying about this stuff fyi.
Happening all across NATO. pic.twitter.com/Ytos1BzFhn
— J Lory (@J__Lory) April 2, 2026
GAC06 said:
We didn't ask anything except come join our war to open the strait. Listen to yourself.
Or guess maybe we didn't mean it. After all Trump says we didn't really want them and they're useless anyway. But seriously come help. Ok don't, we didn't want you anyway.
It's absurd.
Not what I posted.
Try again.
Ah yes, join our coalition to totally not join the war but open the strait. Totally different.
GAC06 said:
Ah yes, join our coalition to totally not join the war but open the strait. Totally different.
Defend the poltroonery.
GAC06 said:
Ah yes, join our coalition to totally not join the war but open the strait. Totally different.
Not what I posted.
Try again.
We asked for several things, use of our air bases we pay for, and a patriot battery from Poland. Which was sanctimoniously/publicly derided/refused.
Give Europe what they want; the withdrawal of our participation in the North-Atlantic treaty organization. Clearly shouldn't be a problem for them, now.
NATO: It is clear that it is time to shutter America's 200+ installations in Europe and to bring our 100,000 troops home. We don't have to leave NATO but we don't need to spend $20 billion a year to defend Europe.https://t.co/QFcVTYzJqA
— @amuse (@amuse) April 2, 2026
THE END OF NATO (PART 78)
— Ron Jost (@ron_jost) March 31, 2026
European powers invited the dissolution of NATO (or a major realignment) themselves with thier decisions.
1. The UK (Labour, left-wing government denies US requests);
2. France (Left-wing government shuts airspace to US);
3. Spain (Socialists shut out… https://t.co/Ytuc1shAsO
Give Europe what they want; the withdrawal of our participation in the North-Atlantic treaty organization. Clearly shouldn't be a problem for them, now.
Perhaps we should have built a coalition instead of starting a war then absurdly expected a defensive alliance to spring into action because of rambling truth social posts.
GAC06 said:
Perhaps we should have built a coalition instead of starting a war then absurdly expected a defensive alliance to spring into action because of rambling truth social posts.
Our "allies" cant be trusted.
This seems to be a point you refuse to grasp.
aTm '99
Quote:
Our "allies" cant be trusted.
This seems to be a point you refuse to grasp.
According to who, our current President?
Our allies have been there for us throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror.
The difference right now is that we have a President intent on completely blowing up all the traditional military, economic, and foreign policy arrangements of the last 80 years. We did not consult them at all before taking unilateral military action.
Of course they are going to take a pass on this. We have already signaled we are ditching them on every front so why would they step up now?
Windy City Ag said:Quote:
Our "allies" cant be trusted.
This seems to be a point you refuse to grasp.
According to who, our current President?
Our allies have been there for us throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror.
The difference right now is that we have a President intent on completely blowing up all the traditional military, economic, and foreign policy arrangements of the last 80 years. We did not consult them at all before taking unilateral military action.
Of course they are going to take a pass on this. We have already signaled we are ditching them on every front so why would they step up now?
Our "allies" cant even defend themselves because they are broke spending on social programs. All of the increased "spending" on defense is a farce and its well documented.
What happend in Iraq (and the rest), in the past is pointless, and irrelevant to TODAY. You know, the present.
Quote:
Our "allies" cant even defend themselves because they are broke spending on social programs.
If we are honest, it is no different here at home. We just keep extending the deficits to buy both guns and butter but that has a limited runway.
Windy City Ag said:Quote:
Our "allies" cant be trusted.
This seems to be a point you refuse to grasp.
According to who, our current President?
Our allies have been there for us throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror.
The difference right now is that we have a President intent on completely blowing up all the traditional military, economic, and foreign policy arrangements of the last 80 years. We did not consult them at all before taking unilateral military action.
Of course they are going to take a pass on this. We have already signaled we are ditching them on every front so why would they step up now?
I forgot, why do we have to notify them? The majority are compromised, any notification would result in a heads for Iranian leadership.
Most of NATO is an embarrassment of underfunding and they have nearly zero military capability. Further, Iran threatens ALL western nations. They abdicated any responsibility for world security already. They've also intentionally hamstrung their energy sectors so badly they were in bed with Russia (directly funding Putins ability to invade Ukraine) and in bed with a State Sponsor of Terror. Why on Earth should we trust them for anything?!
Trumps point is: they need the resources so they should be responsible for security in the straight. They need 1000x more than we do. The USA is doing the heavy lifting to secure world stability. If you haven't been paying attention the for.er status quo was only enriching enemies and I creasing g their ability to wage war.
I can draw this in crayon if that's easier.
aTm '99
GAC06 said:
Perhaps we should have built a coalition instead of starting a war then absurdly expected a defensive alliance to spring into action because of rambling truth social posts.
A coalition of enemies who want(ed) to see the Iranians succeed in their nuclear program was not...really practical, despite our nominal treaty organization. This is the same reason specific plans couldn't be leaked to seditionists like Schumer/Swalwell etc. ahead of time.
The whole world saw our forces build up for 2+ months and was free to think it was either (a) a bluff, or (b) not. The IRGC/mullah leadership, and their Euro allies chose (a) obviously.
this was true ten years ago but no longer is. russia invading ukraine was the wake up call. as of 2025 all NATO members but iceland and belgium meet or exceed the 2%. the transformation europe's defense spending has seen in the last ten years, and especially since 2022, is historically unprecedented in peacetime.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.
Windy City Ag said:Quote:
Our "allies" cant be trusted.
This seems to be a point you refuse to grasp.
According to who, our current President?
Our allies have been there for us throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror.
LOL, that was 26 years ago! That Europe doesn't exist anymore.
Also, this stuff about them being there for us is nonsense. Europe was on the AQ hit list and the Euros knew it. It was in their OWN interest to join the effort.
Windy City Ag said:Quote:
Our "allies" cant be trusted.
This seems to be a point you refuse to grasp.
According to who, our current President?
Our allies have been there for us throughout Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror.
The difference right now is that we have a President intent on completely blowing up all the traditional military, economic, and foreign policy arrangements of the last 80 years. We did not consult them at all before taking unilateral military action.
Of course they are going to take a pass on this. We have already signaled we are ditching them on every front so why would they step up now?
This was always going to happen. Been predicted since at least 2014. World is vastly different now including the USA. Could definitely argue Trump is accelerating it.
The "Traditional" establishment does not benefit the United States. It certainly benefits the deadbeats who haven't held up their end of the bargin for decades.
I keep seeing the weak argument "Well they're doing the bare minimum NOW". Again, that's a weak position to argue from. The GDP of the EU is comparable to the US, HOWEVER, they do not have the military industrial base, or any sort of established military capabilities remotely comparable to the US. They have always held an entitled position the the US will back stop them no matter what and thus they do NOT have carry the cost of a military to defend themselves.
And this was before they wrecked their own energy sectors by tying them to hostile nations for which NATO exists for mutual defense FROM. Absolute lunacy. And this is the primary reason we have to cut them off to force them to carry the overhead cost of a military.
This is also exactly why Trump is telling them to pound sand and send forward equipment and people to secure their own transportation supply lines AND to get engaged with removal of a hostile terrorist supporting government. Which also, is butchering their own people by the tens of thousands.
The last lame argument is 'they don't pose a threat now'. Do you deal with cancer at stage 1 or wait for stage 4 when it's threatening your life?
I keep seeing the weak argument "Well they're doing the bare minimum NOW". Again, that's a weak position to argue from. The GDP of the EU is comparable to the US, HOWEVER, they do not have the military industrial base, or any sort of established military capabilities remotely comparable to the US. They have always held an entitled position the the US will back stop them no matter what and thus they do NOT have carry the cost of a military to defend themselves.
And this was before they wrecked their own energy sectors by tying them to hostile nations for which NATO exists for mutual defense FROM. Absolute lunacy. And this is the primary reason we have to cut them off to force them to carry the overhead cost of a military.
This is also exactly why Trump is telling them to pound sand and send forward equipment and people to secure their own transportation supply lines AND to get engaged with removal of a hostile terrorist supporting government. Which also, is butchering their own people by the tens of thousands.
The last lame argument is 'they don't pose a threat now'. Do you deal with cancer at stage 1 or wait for stage 4 when it's threatening your life?
aTm '99
nortex97 said:Eliminatus said:
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
The significant 'allies' in Europe are and have been absolutely/incontrovertably lying about this stuff fyi.Happening all across NATO. pic.twitter.com/Ytos1BzFhn
— J Lory (@J__Lory) April 2, 2026
Actually, forgive me. I had momentarily forgotten I had quit this thread. It's a circle jerk at this point. My side included. Mea culpa.
GAC06 said:
Perhaps we should have built a coalition instead of starting a war then absurdly expected a defensive alliance to spring into action because of rambling truth social posts.
Practically, I dont disagree with you.
But we already have a coalition, where our current partners refuse to contribute...financially, physically, or even passively (ie. Spain's airspace). I'm not sure what another coalition will do differently.
The problem is that Europe relies on M.E. natural resources. But they've imported so many M.E. people into their countries, they're scared to act. So here they sit, unwilling to do provide for their own defenses, unwilling to protect their energy supply, and unwilling to support those who will...because they don't want to upset their new voting population...all the while, harming their own self interests.
I'm not sure what to think of the current conflict. But it's certainly shed some additional light on the lack of cooperation we currently have with our 'allies'. So why are we paying for it all? Give them what they want. Let them fend for themselves. I think that will change some minds over there very very quickly.
Lets face it, NATO stands for Needs America to operate.
NATO has been sucking on Americans tit since the 80s, when the eastern bloc regimes started to collapse. Time for the European nations to step up or get bent. Enough funding those ungrateful b*stards and their holy than thou morals.
NATO has been sucking on Americans tit since the 80s, when the eastern bloc regimes started to collapse. Time for the European nations to step up or get bent. Enough funding those ungrateful b*stards and their holy than thou morals.
Can't decide if I want to be cute & cuddly, or go blow some sh*t up.
Decisions decisions.
Decisions decisions.
I question the argument that states we should close up shop on our bases over there & stop spending to defend them. I'm nervous about the idea of just closing up shop on these places. Do we not need the locations from a strategic perspective?
I understand why we went in without giving our NATO allies a heads up, but you have to expect some blowback there. These places aren't going to just fall in line with us - diplomatically, that's now how this is supposed to work. I'm not saying we made the wrong call, but we should probably accept where we are at this point.
I understand why we went in without giving our NATO allies a heads up, but you have to expect some blowback there. These places aren't going to just fall in line with us - diplomatically, that's now how this is supposed to work. I'm not saying we made the wrong call, but we should probably accept where we are at this point.
The Collective said:
I question the argument that states we should close up shop on our bases over there & stop spending to defend them. I'm nervous about the idea of just closing up shop on these places. Do we not need the locations from a strategic perspective?
I understand why we went in without giving our NATO allies a heads up, but you have to expect some blowback there. These places aren't going to just fall in line with us - diplomatically, that's now how this is supposed to work. I'm not saying we made the wrong call, but we should probably accept where we are at this point.
I think that's the point. In our current setup we count on and need those bases but when we need them they're not available. If that is the case moving forward then the plans need to be made at the bases bypassed/ minimized/ or relocated. We pay a lot of money under the current setup and if in the end when we need them they're not available then what is the point?
The Collective said:
I question the argument that states we should close up shop on our bases over there & stop spending to defend them. I'm nervous about the idea of just closing up shop on these places. Do we not need the locations from a strategic perspective?
We needed them and the Euros told us to F off.
GAC06 said:
Let's see: we more or less turned our backs on them as far as Ukraine/Russia. We just lit their economies on fire with a war they didn't want. We are publicly coercing them into joining said war. We lifted Russian oil sanctions to try to assuage the economic consequences of the war, which only helps Russia in their fight against Ukraine/Europe.
Can't understand why they'd be upset.
I wouldn't say spending $188B is turning our back on them...
Skipped reading a few pages to post that, I see
Exactly.
We protect the free world.
Our "partners" should ask how high when we ask them to jump.
We protect the free world.
Our "partners" should ask how high when we ask them to jump.
The Ex Officio Director said:
Lets face it, NATO stands for Needs America to operate.
NATO has been sucking on Americans tit since the 80s, when the eastern bloc regimes started to collapse. Time for the European nations to step up or get bent. Enough funding those ungrateful b*stards and their holy than thou morals.
John Cleese.....
Please, please...leave NATO
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) April 2, 2026
It doesn't work at the moment because the strongest military member is helping Russia
NATO was formed to confront Russia, remember ?
But once Putin got kompromat on Trump. America changed sides
So now NATO doesn't work because its strongest… https://t.co/I6OaFtq9lq
John.
Assume your position.
Assume your position.
Old McDonald said: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.
this was true ten years ago but no longer is. russia invading ukraine was the wake up call. as of 2025 all NATO members but iceland and belgium meet or exceed the 2%. the transformation europe's defense spending has seen in the last ten years, and especially since 2022, is historically unprecedented in peacetime.
Well, I don't know what they are spending their money on. Let's just look at armor. France is ranked #32 with 427 tanks, Spain is #47 with 298 tanks; Germany is #48 with 296 tanks and the UK is #50 with 288 tanks. A traditional full up US Armored Division, brigade composition dependent has as many as 400 tanks. I guess they are spending all of their money on cheap drones.
Scouts Out
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/uk-gathers-more-30-countries-041404455.html
So...it's working?
Quote:
UK gathers more than 40 countries to press Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz
LONDON (AP) Britain accused Iran on Thursday of holding the world's economy hostage as diplomats from more than 40 countries held talks on ways to press Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil route that has been choked off by the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.
The U.S. didn't attend the virtual meeting, which came after U.S. President Donald Trump made clear that he thinks securing the waterway is not America's job. Trump has also disparaged America's European allies for failing to support the war and renewed his threats to pull the U.S. out of NATO.
So...it's working?
Featured Stories
See All
19:26
6h ago
2.5k
Earley's Aggies set for regular-season finale at Blue Bell Park
by Ryan Brauninger
Graduation admiration from a damn-proud LSU dad
by Olin Buchanan
21:29
3h ago
1.2k
Scars of last May have prepared Ford & Co. for 2026 B/CS Regional
by Kayla Gaither
Series Preview: Aggies-Bulldogs is a high-stakes final weekend
by Richard Zane
16:13
5h ago
1.8k