txags92 said:

---

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.

---

It costs them nothing to let us use the bases we paid for and to let us fly over their airspace. Denying us such is a hostile act and not in keeping with the fact that we are the keystone member of an alliance with them. It is in fact sound basis to question whether they are actually still our allies.

---

Or their gonads are rehydrating.

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

It costs them nothing to let us use the bases we paid for and to let us fly over their airspace. Denying us such is a hostile act and not in keeping with the fact that we are the keystone member of an alliance with them. It is in fact sound basis to question whether they are actually still our allies.

---

---

And we spend $, our service members spend $, and our employees all spend $ in country. They are rewarded in many ways.

bobbranco said:

---

Or their gonads are rehydrating.

---

So...it's working.

We need them to grow a pair, and start assuming some responsibility.

AgGrad99 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Or their gonads are rehydrating.

---

So...it's working.

We need them to grow a pair, and start assuming some responsibility.

---

Yes.

Trump had to humiliate them in the public square to force them to act.

Funny that American citizens pee themselves, same as the Euros, when confronted with stark realities.

Agreed.

It's like I tell my kids....I shouldn't have to remind you of this. Unfortunately we see this playing out globally.

If you need more reasons for why the US should pull out of NATO or at least Germany watch this whole video. However if you are pressed for time watch starting at 28:50 with Loyle Campbell's comments:

bobbranco said:

---

The Ex Officio Director said:

---

txags92 said:

---

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.

---

It costs them nothing to let us use the bases we paid for and to let us fly over their airspace. Denying us such is a hostile act and not in keeping with the fact that we are the keystone member of an alliance with them. It is in fact sound basis to question whether they are actually still our allies.

---

---

And we spend $, our service members spend $, and our employees all spend $ in country. They are rewarded in many ways.

---

They are afraid of pissing of their large muzzy populations.

GAC06 said:

---

Skipped reading a few pages to post that, I see

---

Posted it when I read it...

Too lazy to delete it after 30 other people told it to you...

Quote:

---

As Trump recently put it, "They haven't been friends when we needed them. We've never asked them for much. ... It's a one-way street." Rubio has been similarly blunt: "If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they're attacked but then denying us basing rights when we need them, that's not a very good arrangement. ... So all that's going to have to be reexamined."
They're spot-on.

---

https://townhall.com/columnists/joshhammer/2026/04/03/what-exactly-is-the-purpose-of-nato-in-the-year-2026-n2673885

Great Substack on President Trump's constitutional authority and leaving NATO:

Quote:

---

Imagine a statute that tells the President of the United States he may not send a letter. Not a declaration of war. Not a repeal of domestic law. Just a letter, addressed to a foreign government, invoking an exit clause that the treaty itself explicitly contemplates. That is, in its essence, what Congress attempted when it passed Section 1250A of the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act, now codified at 22 U.S.C. 1928f.

---

https://open.substack.com/pub/amuseonx/p/the-constitution-gives-trump-nato?r=tfmfm&utm_medium=ios

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

This Substack goes into details on the state of our so called NATO Allies


https://open.substack.com/pub/vaughncordle/p/natos-freeloaders-weak-cowards?r=tfmfm&utm_medium=ios

Trump will discuss the U.S. withdrawing from NATO with Secretary General Rutte today. pic.twitter.com/zl4Af7L8xE

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 8, 2026

Gaeilge said:

---

Trump will discuss the U.S. withdrawing from NATO with Secretary General Rutte today. pic.twitter.com/zl4Af7L8xE

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 8, 2026

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

Proposal involves moving US troops from countries deemed unhelpful on Iran, sources - WSJ https://t.co/h61hEIAZ6k

— FinancialJuice (@financialjuice) April 8, 2026

US may close at least 1 base, possibly in Spain or Germany - WSJ

— FinancialJuice (@financialjuice) April 8, 2026

A base? We may just cease all trade with Spain.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump says he's considering cutting off ALL TRADE with Spain due to them being TOTALLY uncooperative with America and NATO

"They are not cooperating AT ALL. I think they've been VERY bad — not good at all. We may cut off trade with Spain!"

They have been… pic.twitter.com/S2JI6bkHlj

— ZA.US 🇺🇲❣️ (@za_usrt) April 8, 2026

I think Moron AB is a foregone conclusion at this point. Just make sure to bulldoze the buildings on the way out so they can't use them for 'migrants.'

nortex97 said:

---

A base? We may just cease all trade with Spain.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump says he's considering cutting off ALL TRADE with Spain due to them being TOTALLY uncooperative with America and NATO

"They are not cooperating AT ALL. I think they've been VERY bad — not good at all. We may cut off trade with Spain!"

They have been… pic.twitter.com/S2JI6bkHlj

— ZA.US 🇺🇲❣️ (@za_usrt) April 8, 2026

I think Moron AB is a foregone conclusion at this point. Just make sure to bulldoze the buildings on the way out so they can't use them for 'migrants.'

---

After all is said and done with Iran. It's time to cut all ties with NATO and tell those ungrateful f**** to go to hell.

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

---

---

---

---

Our so called allies Spain, France, and Italy actually put our air crew at risk by adding flight time. It also cost the US more in fuel with those longer flight paths. This isn't the first time France has pulled this ****e they didn't back April 14th, 1986.

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

---

You are ignoring what is being said and creating a strawman to fit your narrative. I am not talking about asking them to participate in the war, such as protecting shipping in the SoH. I am talking about flights coming from the US to the Middle East being told to go around Spanish airspace. I am talking about Italy and Britain telling us that we cannot land or takeoff planes from our own bases that we paid them to let us place on their soil. That is not "refusing to participate in the war", that is needlessly making things more difficult and expensive for us in the name of virtue signaling to islamic regime in Iran that they are more on their side than on the side of the US.

If they are against us using our bases on their land to project power in the middle east and africa, that is fine. But we are also justified in reviewing whether a continued alliance with them is in our interests or not based on their refusal to act like an ally.

It could be argued that the alliance is already over, it's just a matter of paperwork at this point.

Greenland is back on the menu boys and girls!!

PRESIDENT TRUMP:

“NATO wasn’t there when we needed them, and they won’t be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland, that big, poorly run, piece of ice!” pic.twitter.com/B5NQWlOlJH

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 8, 2026

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

---

You are ignoring what is being said and creating a strawman to fit your narrative. I am not talking about asking them to participate in the war, such as protecting shipping in the SoH. I am talking about flights coming from the US to the Middle East being told to go around Spanish airspace. I am talking about Italy and Britain telling us that we cannot land or takeoff planes from our own bases that we paid them to let us place on their soil. That is not "refusing to participate in the war", that is needlessly making things more difficult and expensive for us in the name of virtue signaling to islamic regime in Iran that they are more on their side than on the side of the US.

If they are against us using our bases on their land to project power in the middle east and africa, that is fine. But we are also justified in reviewing whether a continued alliance with them is in our interests or not based on their refusal to act like an ally.

---

the distinction between participation and transit access blurs more than you'd like to admit. every nation that allowed american overflight and basing for iraq transit in 2003 paid real diplomatic costs in the muslim world, and these governments know that facilitating power projection against iran makes them co-belligerents in tehran's eyes, regardless of what washington calls it.

the entire reason you have those bases and routine overflight agreements is because NATO's legal and political architecture underwrites them. withdraw from the alliance and you don't punish them for saying no, instead you lose the standing to ask at all. dismantling the framework that gives you leverage over their behavior guarantees you get even less cooperation.

Quote:

---

every nation that allowed american overflight and basing for iraq transit in 2003 paid real diplomatic costs in the muslim world, and these governments know that facilitating power projection against iran makes them co-belligerents in tehran's eyes, regardless of what washington calls it.

---

In summary, they'd rather appease Iran than help their main ally in NATO.

So basically we are less likely to get involved in another middle eastern conflict if we leave NATO? I'm listening….

nortex97 said:

---

It could be argued that the alliance is already over, it's just a matter of paperwork at this point.

---

To bad we can't get a refund of all the money wasted on the stupid alliance.

Calling out specific countries for not allowing overflight or use of bases would be perfectly reasonable.

Calling out a defensive alliance for declining to join your offensive war is mind blowingly dumb.

MaxPower said:

---

So basically we are less likely to get involved in another middle eastern conflict if we leave NATO? I'm listening….

---

we can dream, can't we?

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

---

You are ignoring what is being said and creating a strawman to fit your narrative. I am not talking about asking them to participate in the war, such as protecting shipping in the SoH. I am talking about flights coming from the US to the Middle East being told to go around Spanish airspace. I am talking about Italy and Britain telling us that we cannot land or takeoff planes from our own bases that we paid them to let us place on their soil. That is not "refusing to participate in the war", that is needlessly making things more difficult and expensive for us in the name of virtue signaling to islamic regime in Iran that they are more on their side than on the side of the US.

If they are against us using our bases on their land to project power in the middle east and africa, that is fine. But we are also justified in reviewing whether a continued alliance with them is in our interests or not based on their refusal to act like an ally.

---

the distinction between participation and transit access blurs more than you'd like to admit. every nation that allowed american overflight and basing for iraq transit in 2003 paid real diplomatic costs in the muslim world, and these governments know that facilitating power projection against iran makes them co-belligerents in tehran's eyes, regardless of what washington calls it.

the entire reason you have those bases and routine overflight agreements is because NATO's legal and political architecture underwrites them. withdraw from the alliance and you don't punish them for saying no, instead you lose the standing to ask at all. dismantling the framework that gives you leverage over their behavior guarantees you get even less cooperation.

---

And the part in bold is exactly what I am talking about. They weighed the value of being an ally to us against the value of being seen as an ally to Iran and decided that being an ally to Iran was worth more to them. They believed that they would suffer little or no consequences from telling us no, and they are about to find out how wrong they were about that. Who else in the muslim world was going to hold it against them? All of the gulf states are under attack too and they are letting us use their bases. The reality is that being seen favorably by the Islamic regime in Iran and their own imported muslims was more important to them than being seen favorably by the US. Which is fine if that is what they want, but we should not just forget about it and pretend it never happened. We should reevaluate their value as an ally and reassess our own commitment to being tied to them geopolitically.

Military alliances are one of the many advantages we have over our enemies that they can't replicate. Nations with strong alliances thrive and those without them wither. Alliances are a key underpinning of our current National Security, Defense and Service level strategies.

Someone once said if you can't create harmony vicious harmony on the battlefield, based on trust across different military services, foreign allied militaries, and diplomatic lines, you need to go home, because your leadership is obsolete.