Maybe they learn to defend themselves

At some point Great Britain offered to come but we told them not too because their Navy is so inadequate that they just create an extra target we have to defend

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Everyone completely misses the fact we can negotiate a new mutual defense treaty with whomever wants, respects and will be an ally.

But first you have to kill the old one to drive home the point the old order is gone.

---

So Israel?

Old McDonald said:

---

the spending complaint was legitimate for decades, but has since been addressed which weakens the urgency of the argument.

the bits about free speech and tech companies and leftism are just vibes and ultimately immaterial to a defense alliance. the US has defense partnerships with saudi arabia, which beheads people for sorcery, with egypt, who holds sham elections as a matter of routine, with turkey which jails journalist at industrial scale, and nobody in the american right orbit argues these partnership should be dissolved because of shared value deficits.

regarding Iran, NATO is working as intended. european allies are signaling that this particular war lacks legitimacy, which is what sovereign allies in a defensive alliance are supposed to do when they think you're wrong. NATO is a mutual defense pact, it's not a blank check for wars of choice.

---

I disagree. The spending is barely over the required minimums which is just enough for maintenance. It does not make up for decades of under spending.

The treatment of us companies and tech is absolutely relevant. When europe attempts to regulate our tech firms through their draconian laws, it affects us. When they fine them absurd amounts, it affects us. It erodes trust and understanding between the entities. It begs the question of why are we spending our time and money dealing with a group who neither spends their time nor money to protect themselves, doesnt build or maintain forces to protect themselves, and is antagonistic towards our industries (which they lack the ability to create).

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

We effectively cannot use those bases for our own interests anymore. We need to pack up and let them turn them into Muslim habitats.

---

I don't think Donald Trump or the majority of his cabinet believe that. Which is why I'd bet money we're still in NATO when Trump leaves office.

Quote:

---

The treatment of us companies and tech is absolutely relevant. When europe attempts to regulate our tech firms through their draconian laws, it affects us. When they fine them absurd amounts, it affects us. It erodes trust and understanding between the entities. It begs the question of why are we spending our time and money dealing with a group who neither spends their time nor money to protect themselves, doesnt build or maintain forces to protect themselves, and is antagonistic towards our industries (which they lack the ability to create).

---

I am uneasy about equating NATO with the actions of the EU. Having said that, if we do pull away from NATO, will the EU finally be forced to stand up their own military forces like they have long discussed but never achieved? Would they even have that ability?

aggiedent said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

We effectively cannot use those bases for our own interests anymore. We need to pack up and let them turn them into Muslim habitats.

---

I don't think Donald Trump or the majority of his cabinet believe that. Which is why I'd bet money we're still in NATO when Trump leaves office.

---

I dunno about that. Wish I could find the map from a few days ago showing how we were not allowed any airspace of continental Europe and essentially had to fly down the center of the med.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The treatment of us companies and tech is absolutely relevant. When europe attempts to regulate our tech firms through their draconian laws, it affects us. When they fine them absurd amounts, it affects us. It erodes trust and understanding between the entities. It begs the question of why are we spending our time and money dealing with a group who neither spends their time nor money to protect themselves, doesnt build or maintain forces to protect themselves, and is antagonistic towards our industries (which they lack the ability to create).

---

I am uneasy about equating NATO with the actions of the EU. Having said that, if we do pull away from NATO, will the EU finally be forced to stand up their own military forces like they have long discussed but never achieved? Would they even have that ability?

---

I hear that. They are 2 different organizations.

aggiedent said:

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

aggiedent said:

---

AstroAggie15 said:

---

Does it affect us at all?

Does Europe become at risk to Russian influence? Does it really matter?

---

We will no longer have access to a lot of bases we currently use.
We'll have reduced favored trade status with many of those nations.
Some will turn to countries like China, which has already drawn the ire of President Trump.
Generally our influence will wane with Europe.

---

you mean the bases that we were already denied access to ? Huge loss no doubt for the tds infected group.

---

Incorrect……… we still have access to all our European bases. Some governments asked we not fly combat missions from those bases. Equipment is still being staged from many of those bases however.

Loss of those bases would definitely impact our ability to project power in the future. Don't pretend it wouldn't.

---

Most of the bases are relics and don't really convey a whole lot of "projecting power" in the same manner that they did 40 years ago when the Cold War was still a thing and we needed bases and boots on the ground to act as a standing army. The world has changed significantly since then.

We launch bombing runs to Afghanistan from Kansas. We have supercarriers that can park off the coast of anywhere and project power if necessary. We are seeing with the fun we are having with Iran how much the scope and face of war has changed - the old Napeoleonic days of batallions of troops marching across a continent are long gone and have been since the 70's when how wars are fought fundamentally changed.

NATO was formed as a direct response to the threat once produced by the old USSR. The soviet union is dead and what remains can't even conquer Ukraine. The makeup of Europe has changed significantly as well - it isn't the same as it was 30 years ago, both politically and socially.

Also, the idea that if we were to pull out of NATO that every single member state would automatically go running to China and/or Russia is simpleton thinking at best. It isn't a binary choice, acting like or thinking that they are automatically forced to choose them or us is just silly thinking.

schmellba99 said:

---

aggiedent said:

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

aggiedent said:

---

AstroAggie15 said:

---

Does it affect us at all?

Does Europe become at risk to Russian influence? Does it really matter?

---

We will no longer have access to a lot of bases we currently use.
We'll have reduced favored trade status with many of those nations.
Some will turn to countries like China, which has already drawn the ire of President Trump.
Generally our influence will wane with Europe.

---

you mean the bases that we were already denied access to ? Huge loss no doubt for the tds infected group.

---

Incorrect……… we still have access to all our European bases. Some governments asked we not fly combat missions from those bases. Equipment is still being staged from many of those bases however.

Loss of those bases would definitely impact our ability to project power in the future. Don't pretend it wouldn't.

---

Most of the bases are relics and don't really convey a whole lot of "projecting power" in the same manner that they did 40 years ago when the Cold War was still a thing and we needed bases and boots on the ground to act as a standing army. The world has changed significantly since then.

We launch bombing runs to Afghanistan from Kansas. We have supercarriers that can park off the coast of anywhere and project power if necessary. We are seeing with the fun we are having with Iran how much the scope and face of war has changed - the old Napeoleonic days of batallions of troops marching across a continent are long gone and have been since the 70's when how wars are fought fundamentally changed.

NATO was formed as a direct response to the threat once produced by the old USSR. The soviet union is dead and what remains can't even conquer Ukraine. The makeup of Europe has changed significantly as well - it isn't the same as it was 30 years ago, both politically and socially.

Also, the idea that if we were to pull out of NATO that every single member state would automatically go running to China and/or Russia is simpleton thinking at best. It isn't a binary choice, acting like or thinking that they are automatically forced to choose them or us is just silly thinking.

---

Where do you think the tankers launch from?

all fair arguments, especially the "too little too late" one, but the conclusion of withdrawing NATO still doesn't follow

the proposed remedy of walking away destroy something far more valuable than what's being complained about. beyond our military influence, we also have 450 million people running their economies, communications and information infrastructure on american platforms, buying american weapon systems, and organizing their entire defense architecture around american leadership.

abandoning that position over a regulatory fines and deferred defense budgets hands europe both the incentive and the justification to build sovereign alternatives to everything american, trading a relationship where the US is dominant but annoyed for one with the US is irrelevant and unbothered.

I dont necessarily disagree with you. We lose much leverage the day we leave nato.

Id much rather this be a partnership than an adversarial relationship, which is where its lived since Afghanistan

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

NATO is the only alliance in history where the dominant military power gets 31 countries to organize their entire defense architecture around american leadership, american equipment, american interoperability standards, and american strategic priorities.

leaving surrenders the most favorable strategic arrangement any great power has ever negotiated and hands the board to russia and china for free.

---

Everything you posted is false.

Throughout history, hegemonic countries have exacted tribute to keep the wheels of global economy well greased while shouldering the brunt of the military load. Egypt, Assiyia, Babylon , Persia, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, the United Kingdom...

We are the most taken advantage of super power in history.

Don't be so naive.

---

every empire on that list collapsed, and the ones that lasted longest (Rome and Britain) did so precisely because they built alliance systems rather than ruling purely by extraction, which is the lesson you're ignoring in favor of a vibes-based reading of ancient history

Old McDonald said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

NATO is the only alliance in history where the dominant military power gets 31 countries to organize their entire defense architecture around american leadership, american equipment, american interoperability standards, and american strategic priorities.

leaving surrenders the most favorable strategic arrangement any great power has ever negotiated and hands the board to russia and china for free.

---

Everything you posted is false.

Throughout history, hegemonic countries have exacted tribute to keep the wheels of global economy well greased while shouldering the brunt of the military load. Egypt, Assiyia, Babylon , Persia, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, the United Kingdom...

We are the most taken advantage of super power in history.

Don't be so naive.

---

every empire on that list collapsed, and the ones that lasted longest (Rome and Britain) did so precisely because they built alliance systems rather than ruling purely by extraction, which is the lesson you're ignoring in favor of a vibes-based reading of ancient history

---

Built alliances? The British empire capitulated one of the most powerful empires in history by parking capital ships in Chinese harbors and demanding they buy their opium or else.

Rome contolled the central trade routes of the world and demanded much in return for the pleasure. You either participated in global trade and paid Rome for the pleasure to do so or you stayed in isolation.

You really know nothing of history.

In no other time in history has the world super power bent over backwards so much to make their vassal states happy.

**** them. They know they project literally nothing on the global scale without us.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

NATO is the only alliance in history where the dominant military power gets 31 countries to organize their entire defense architecture around american leadership, american equipment, american interoperability standards, and american strategic priorities.

leaving surrenders the most favorable strategic arrangement any great power has ever negotiated and hands the board to russia and china for free.

---

Everything you posted is false.

Throughout history, hegemonic countries have exacted tribute to keep the wheels of global economy well greased while shouldering the brunt of the military load. Egypt, Assiyia, Babylon , Persia, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, the United Kingdom...

We are the most taken advantage of super power in history.

Don't be so naive.

---

every empire on that list collapsed, and the ones that lasted longest (Rome and Britain) did so precisely because they built alliance systems rather than ruling purely by extraction, which is the lesson you're ignoring in favor of a vibes-based reading of ancient history

---

Built alliances? The British empire capitulated one of the most powerful empires in history by parking capital ships in Chinese harbors and demanding they buy their opium or else.

Rome contolled the central trade routes of the world and demanded much in return for the pleasure. You either participated in global trade and paid Rome for the pleasure to do so or you stayed in isolation.

You really know nothing of history.

In no other time in history has the world super power bent over backwards so much to make their vassal states happy.

**** them. They know they project literally nothing on the global scale without us.

---

We cannot project power into the ME without basing in Europe.

Full stop.

Quote:

---

We cannot project power into the ME without basing in Europe.

Full stop.

---

Do you intend to be funny?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

We cannot project power into the ME without basing in Europe.

Full stop.

---

Do you intend to be funny?

---

Hawg…this is a math conversation.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

We cannot project power into the ME without basing in Europe.

Full stop.

---

Do you intend to be funny?

---

Hawg…this is a math conversation.

---

Here's some math:

19 Middle East bases + 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers = ???

The problem with many of these NATO countries is the vast importing of Muslims. They are now afraid they will lose their power, so they are doing their bidding. Action to neuter a full fledged terrorist organization that was developing a nuclear weapon for the sole purpose of hitting Europe used to be considered great. However, with the new Muslim population, anything that doesn't specifically hurt Israel is somehow "unjust". LOL. So, we should:

1. End our participation in NATO
2. Countries want our protection, pay for it
3. New alliance based on these payments. MONTHLY
4. Payments stop? You lose our protection.
5. Want our protection back? Pay us for the months you left.
6. Profit

If these countries want China or Russia as their "protection", good luck.

AstroAggie15 said:

---

Does it affect us at all?

Does Europe become at risk to Russian influence? Does it really matter?

---

let the socialist French, Spanish and British deal with it.

I am sure they will be just fine!

So much stupidity to satisfy the emotional needs of our infantile president. Maybe he'll feel much better about the disaster he caused if he picks up his toys and leaves.

Old McDonald said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

NATO is the only alliance in history where the dominant military power gets 31 countries to organize their entire defense architecture around american leadership, american equipment, american interoperability standards, and american strategic priorities.

leaving surrenders the most favorable strategic arrangement any great power has ever negotiated and hands the board to russia and china for free.

---

Everything you posted is false.

Throughout history, hegemonic countries have exacted tribute to keep the wheels of global economy well greased while shouldering the brunt of the military load. Egypt, Assiyia, Babylon , Persia, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, the United Kingdom...

We are the most taken advantage of super power in history.

Don't be so naive.

---

every empire on that list collapsed, and the ones that lasted longest (Rome and Britain) did so precisely because they built alliance systems rather than ruling purely by extraction, which is the lesson you're ignoring in favor of a vibes-based reading of ancient history

---

LOL, bult alliances? No, Rome just conquered everyone. Rome's collapse had nothing to do with military alliances. A history book would do you good.

Every day it becomes obvious the leftist panican mouthpieces within military intelligence remain intact.

A better comparison (forgive me for defending his position slightly) would be the later collapse of Byzantium/'New Rome' which was betrayed by allies far and wide in modern-day Turkey, Hungarians, Rome itself etc when finally conquered by the muslims.

It was however a shell of itself in wealth and population (plagues), and while the Eastern Roman empire had held on longer than Rome itself by centuries, it had lost key alliances with princes/kingdoms in the middle of modern Anatolia/Turkey today (somewhat, of course, because they couldn't afford to pay them any longer, which is a decent parallel to our stationed forces/facilities in Europe imho).

But our real loss is not a similar threat of military invasion near term (which the feckless Euro's would cheer somehow anyway), it is the insidious attempt to undermine/facilitate an invasion of foreign money and 'migrants' by our leftist political faction known as Democrats. Nato does nothing to protect that, and never will/could, being a clear foreign entanglement that offers no positive value to Americans.

All the US needs is a few individual deals either a few European countries to house bases and troops. Let the rest of Europe fund NATO. AND get out now.

The REAL world consequences are minimal. There is too much speculation and hyperbole on this thread. NATO was founded when Western Europe could not stand on its own vs Russia. That is no longer the case given the expansion and relative strength of NATO member countries.

We can exit NATO and still have bases in Europe in countries that are amicable to it and will be a full partner and participate.

We would still be allies with NATO / EU members and have a mutual defense pact.

The EU is a seperate entity from NATO and does not have equal membership though there is quite a bit of overlap. We will still be the largest or a major trading partner of the EU. And it would be a good thing to divorce NATO membership and dealings from EU dealings.

IMHO it would be a net benefit and plus TO the member NATO countries for the USA to exit NATO as they need to increase their defense spending and invest in their standing armies and defense, they all need to do that and present a strong Western Europe, not one hiding in the shadow of the US which is across the Atlantic Ocean.

Lastly, we no longer need to be a member of NATO as this is not 1950 when it takes weeks or months to move men, supplies and weapons systems to engage in a battlefield.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

NATO is the only alliance in history where the dominant military power gets 31 countries to organize their entire defense architecture around american leadership, american equipment, american interoperability standards, and american strategic priorities.

leaving surrenders the most favorable strategic arrangement any great power has ever negotiated and hands the board to russia and china for free.

---

Everything you posted is false.

Throughout history, hegemonic countries have exacted tribute to keep the wheels of global economy well greased while shouldering the brunt of the military load. Egypt, Assiyia, Babylon , Persia, Greece, Rome, the Mongols, the United Kingdom...

We are the most taken advantage of super power in history.

Don't be so naive.

---

every empire on that list collapsed, and the ones that lasted longest (Rome and Britain) did so precisely because they built alliance systems rather than ruling purely by extraction, which is the lesson you're ignoring in favor of a vibes-based reading of ancient history

---

Built alliances? The British empire capitulated one of the most powerful empires in history by parking capital ships in Chinese harbors and demanding they buy their opium or else.

Rome contolled the central trade routes of the world and demanded much in return for the pleasure. You either participated in global trade and paid Rome for the pleasure to do so or you stayed in isolation.

You really know nothing of history.

In no other time in history has the world super power bent over backwards so much to make their vassal states happy.

**** them. They know they project literally nothing on the global scale without us.

---

We cannot project power into the ME without basing in Europe.

Full stop.

---

We can. We have 11 major bases in the ME already and Israel has offered for us to base there as well. The US 5th Fleet is headquartered in the ME. Another base in Turkey that isn't included in the numbers above. We have more bases in the ME than we do in continental Europe.

But also, there is nothing that says we have to maintain an old antiquated alliance that has no real reason to exist anymore outside of "well, it has since 1950, so we obviously must need to keep it because reasons!" simply because it's existed since the 50's either.

Given the option of NATO continuing to exist, but existing based on the fact that all partner countries pull the weight they are supposed to pull and not simply default to the US to make up the difference because we've stupidly done so for 50 years or NATO going the way of the Dodo, the best choice is a strong and equally funded NATO.

But you take away the aspect of partner countries living up to their obligations - not a whole lot of point of propping up an old organization that has no real reason to exist. Especially if we can do something out of this world crazy like negotiate terms with individual countries that we have bases in already.

Whenever I read through a "Let's get out of NATO!" thread, I always wonder who the people are who post in favor of the U.S. leaving NATO.

Leaving NATO would literally be the dumbest thing our country has done this century thus far, and we have done some real clunkers.

How do we get to the ME without bases in Europe?

Well, the Spanish have tried to sever the EU's associate relationship with Israel, ignoring Turkey's Islamist tendencies and while legalizing 500,000 previously illegal migrants. They call our war on extremist Islam a crime against humanity. The Spanish are, for all intents and purposes, our enemies.

GAC06 said:

---

How do we get to the ME without bases in Europe?

---

It's limited when your allies treat the USA like enemies.

VP at Pierce and Pierce said:

---

Europe is already toast due to mass immigration of third world people with different values. Their leadership is a bunch of limp wristed corrupt fools that have sold out. Let's part ways.

---

May want to wait and see if this MEGA candidate gets elected. If so, he may need some help cleaning all that up.

If not, then start the process of leaving.

GAC06 said:

---

How do we get to the ME without bases in Europe?

---

Uhmm, the bases we already have in the ME?

Why don't you take a look at how we got our forces in position for the current war. They didn't teleport to bases in the Middle East.

They went through Lajes, Rota, Moron, Lakenheath, Souda, Sigonella, and others

I'm not sure what your whining has to do with a feckless organization that is just stealing taxpayer money at this point?