The demise of NATO ?

[727Sky]

With all the money the USA is and has spent on NATO and to have the spineless leaders of Europe refuse access to the military bases U.S. tax payer money built and maintained just might be the last straw and rightly so IMO.

[727Sky]

[gortex]

With all the money the USA is and has spent on NATO and to have the spineless leaders of Europe refuse access to the military bases U.S. tax payer money built and maintained just might be the last straw and rightly so IMO.

Spineless leaders of Europe ? , I think it would have been spineless to blindly follow Trump and Bibi into this calamity of Israel's making , there was no consultation with allies before the attacks and no clear plan laid out just a belief that everyone should just fall into line following Trumps continued verbal attacks on those allies and threats to annex a territory of Denmark , seems a bit rich to me , sorry but you reap what you sow.

Trump pulling the US out of NATO would be Putin's wildest dream come true although as I understand it Trump can't unilaterally make that decision without the approval of Congress. 

Trump is trying to bully his allies , his allies won't be bullied.

[F2d5thCav]

They aren't "allies" anymore.

UK of any country should understand that considering how EU has handled the UK in last few decades.

1945 was a long time ago.  Hell, even 1989 was a long time ago.

And in that third of a century, all western Europe did was disarm.

That isn't on Trump.  It is on the, yes, "spineless" EU technocracy that pretends to be some kind of special moral authority while buttering its bread at the expense of others.  Now that Trump has called the technocracy on their 35+ years of pretense, he is somehow uniquely "evil".

And a big part of that spinelessness turns on the technocracy's fear of what their recent arrivals might get up to if those arrivals become unhappy with EU policy or EU-nation policies.

Trump may be brash and rude.  But he didn't set the change in relationship we now see in motion.  All he did was point it out repeatedly, something that was apparently unforgivable for the hapless "elites" running the EU (who the UK's PM foolishly emulates).

If the EU wants to go their own way without significant American input into NATO, including more reliable basing support for US operations ... the European peoples will soon find out that means a hegemony under a Germany that will be only too willing to sell them out for lucrative deals with Putin's Russia.  That, by the way, won't be a development to the UK's advantage.

This bit with Iran isn't some optional exercise in "hurray patriotism".  It is the last chance to pull the nuclear teeth of a fanatical religious regime with a 7th century mentality and a record of ruthlessly slaughtering their own people.  Don't think for a minute they won't slaughter Westerners if they get the chance to do so while wielding a nuclear shield.

[Ninurta]

With all the money the USA is and has spent on NATO and to have the spineless leaders of Europe refuse access to the military bases U.S. tax payer money built and maintained just might be the last straw and rightly so IMO.

Spineless leaders of Europe ? , I think it would have been spineless to blindly follow Trump and Bibi into this calamity of Israel's making , there was no consultation with allies before the attacks and no clear plan laid out just a belief that everyone should just fall into line following Trumps continued verbal attacks on those allies and threats to annex a territory of Denmark , seems a bit rich to me , sorry but you reap what you sow.

Trump pulling the US out of NATO would be Putin's wildest dream come true although as I understand it Trump can't unilaterally make that decision without the approval of Congress. 

Trump is trying to bully his allies , his allies won't be bullied.

Yes, yes you do. You do reap what you sew.

I've been against US NATO involvement for decades now, ever since the Soviet Union - which NATO was instituted to counter - collapsed. Now, it seems that same NATO "alliance" is also against NATO, and giving the US plenty of reason and justification to just pull our props out from under it.

Frankly, I'm kind of glad to see NATO committing suicide. It's been a long time needed.

Indeed Congress DOES have to approve a pullout, but that is looking increasingly likely with every refusal to assist from our NATO "allies".

Furthermore, even in the absence of a Congressional approval for fully leaving the NATO treaty, there are a great many things Trump can do unilaterally to defang it altogether. He can stop sending funds, and let it tread water on it's own. As Commander in Chief, he can unilaterally "reallocate" US troop deployments from Europe to anywhere else in the world he deems those troops to be needed, and perhaps more appreciated as well.

NATO doesn't want to live up to their treaty obligation and support NATO? That's fine. They can foot the whole bill for it themselves. They can see to their own defense as US troops may be needed elsewhere than in countries that don't want them there. It's kind of a no-brainer, and one day may turn into a no-armer and a no-legger as well... but that is, of course, those nations choice to make as sovereign nations.

NATO is flooding their own territory with unassimilating foreigners, secure in the assumption that Daddy Sammy will pull their fat out of the fire if things go south. NATO nations are poking the Russian bear, thinking Daddy Sammy will rescue them and stand in the (Fulda) gap if that bear turns nasty. Daddy Sammy is getting tired of being the only adult in the room, and is on the verge of telling NATO to reap what it has sewn on it's own.

So, yes, you do reap what you sew. If NATO nations don't want to live up to their treaty obligations to the US, the US is under no compulsion to continue living up to their treaty obligations to NATO. If NATO wants to refuse to allow the US to use bases the US built and paid for, then the US is under no obligation to keep those bases open and staffed.

Be careful what you wish for, because the US is not the only people who reap what they sew. The US is not unique in that respect.

And with any luck at all, NATO may soon find that out. US interests are better served in realigning our alliances to nations that are more interested in... actual alliance. Alliance is, or should be, a two-way street. When it no longer is, then re-evaluations are in order.

.

[GRIZZ0317]

With all the money the USA is and has spent on NATO and to have the spineless leaders of Europe refuse access to the military bases U.S. tax payer money built and maintained just might be the last straw and rightly so IMO.

Spineless leaders of Europe ? , I think it would have been spineless to blindly follow Trump and Bibi into this calamity of Israel's making , there was no consultation with allies before the attacks and no clear plan laid out just a belief that everyone should just fall into line following Trumps continued verbal attacks on those allies and threats to annex a territory of Denmark , seems a bit rich to me , sorry but you reap what you sow.

Trump pulling the US out of NATO would be Putin's wildest dream come true although as I understand it Trump can't unilaterally make that decision without the approval of Congress. 

Trump is trying to bully his allies , his allies won't be bullied.

Yes, yes you do. You do reap what you sew.

I've been against US NATO involvement for decades now, ever since the Soviet Union - which NATO was instituted to counter - collapsed. Now, it seems that same NATO "alliance" is also against NATO, and giving the US plenty of reason and justification to just pull our props out from under it.

Frankly, I'm kind of glad to see NATO committing suicide. It's been a long time needed.

Indeed Congress DOES have to approve a pullout, but that is looking increasingly likely with every refusal to assist from our NATO "allies".

Furthermore, even in the absence of a Congressional approval for fully leaving the NATO treaty, there are a great many things Trump can do unilaterally to defang it altogether. He can stop sending funds, and let it tread water on it's own. As Commander in Chief, he can unilaterally "reallocate" US troop deployments from Europe to anywhere else in the world he deems those troops to be needed, and perhaps more appreciated as well.

NATO doesn't want to live up to their treaty obligation and support NATO? That's fine. They can foot the whole bill for it themselves. They can see to their own defense as US troops may be needed elsewhere than in countries that don't want them there. It's kind of a no-brainer, and one day may turn into a no-armer and a no-legger as well... but that is, of course, those nations choice to make as sovereign nations.

NATO is flooding their own territory with unassimilating foreigners, secure in the assumption that Daddy Sammy will pull their fat out of the fire if things go south. NATO nations are poking the Russian bear, thinking Daddy Sammy will rescue them and stand in the (Fulda) gap if that bear turns nasty. Daddy Sammy is getting tired of being the only adult in the room, and is on the verge of telling NATO to reap what it has sewn on it's own.

So, yes, you do reap what you sew. If NATO nations don't want to live up to their treaty obligations to the US, the US is under no compulsion to continue living up to their treaty obligations to NATO. If NATO wants to refuse to allow the US to use bases the US built and paid for, then the US is under no obligation to keep those bases open and staffed.

Be careful what you wish for, because the US is not the only people who reap what they sew. The US is not unique in that respect.

And with any luck at all, NATO may soon find that out. US interests are better served in realigning our alliances to nations that are more interested in... actual alliance. Alliance is, or should be, a two-way street. When it no longer is, then re-evaluations are in order.

.

I agree, and I think there are several other countries that I think would make better allies. If NATO doesn't want to send their own troops that is most certainly their choice, but to shut down U.S Access to bases just shows they don't really want to be allies.

[727Sky]

[Ninurta]

I agree, and I think there are several other countries that I think would make better allies. If NATO doesn't want to send their own troops that is most certainly their choice, but to shut down U.S Access to bases just shows they don't really want to be allies.

Absolutely. There is no point in forcing friendship - you don't wring a fella's arm up between his shoulder blades and force him to be a friend. That's not just nuts, it's counter=productive and breeds resentments. Instead, you take your ball and glove and go find someone else who wants to be friends and play catch, and leave the folks who don't want to alone to do their own thing.

There has been entirely too much emphasis on "cooperation" ever since King George (Bush) II was yammering on about his "coalition of the willing" to invade a country that didn't need invading. Ever since then, every time someone gets into a tussle, he thinks he needs to call in his boys , his posse, to handle it. Be a man. If you pick a fight, handle it yourself... and leave the rest of the world to handle theirs.

You have to be able to do that before you go out looking for allies. Who wants to ally with someone too weak to sit at the Big Boy's table all by himself if need be? Why do we always need a "posse" or a "gang" to back us up? They don't necessarily have to actively help in most cases, but neither should they actively thwart us.

I think most of it boils down to Globalism. In the UK and the EU, the Globalists are destroying it by inviting masses of invaders in to wreck the culture. In the US, which is already and always has been multicultural,, they need a different approach, so they're destroying it by convincing us we are too weak to stand on our own, that we need a "global community" to continue existing, or "consensus" or some other such rot.. There are times when you need allies, but in most situations you don't... and in NO situation do you need an "ally" that works against you instead of with you.

It's probably really the exact same thing at work in both countries, but using different avenues of approach. In both cases, the objective is to convince folks that they can't stand without having a"multicultural" gang at their back, but in reality those multicultural gangs are slowly and systematically disassembling us any-which-a-way they can, by destroying our native root cultures.

So, buh-bye, NATO. Americans don't like having Moslems tell us how to live, what to do, and when to do it. Clearly you do, so we find ourselves at odds now as the US tries to put a stop to that. We'll try not to let the door hit our asses on our way out. We need to concentrate our money and efforts on allies who prefer to help instead of hinder. You'll still get the benefits of the effort, even if you never lift a finger to assist. After all, if Iran is no longer threatening anyone at all, that also means they are no longer threatening you, either. That way, you can save all the missile defenses you have to deal with the Russians you are constantly trying to piss of, rather than having to waste any of them on Iranian missiles incoming on your location.

NATO doesn't have to go away - the US can just leave it, and NATO can sink or swim on it's own. NATO can continue to exist, we just don't have to participate in it's madness, foot it's bills, or run to it's assistance. After all, it's not doing any of that for us, so why should we continue to  reciprocate something that is obviously not there to be reciprocated?.

.

[727Sky]

According to this NATO is running out of money. The possibility of pulling 100,000 U.S. troops out of Europe seems to be a real possibility. 

[GRIZZ0317]

I agree, and I think there are several other countries that I think would make better allies. If NATO doesn't want to send their own troops that is most certainly their choice, but to shut down U.S Access to bases just shows they don't really want to be allies.

Absolutely. There is no point in forcing friendship - you don't wring a fella's arm up between his shoulder blades and force him to be a friend. That's not just nuts, it's counter=productive and breeds resentments. Instead, you take your ball and glove and go find someone else who wants to be friends and play catch, and leave the folks who don't want to alone to do their own thing.

There has been entirely too much emphasis on "cooperation" ever since King George (Bush) II was yammering on about his "coalition of the willing" to invade a country that didn't need invading. Ever since then, every time someone gets into a tussle, he thinks he needs to call in his boys , his posse, to handle it. Be a man. If you pick a fight, handle it yourself... and leave the rest of the world to handle theirs.

You have to be able to do that before you go out looking for allies. Who wants to ally with someone too weak to sit at the Big Boy's table all by himself if need be? Why do we always need a "posse" or a "gang" to back us up? They don't necessarily have to actively help in most cases, but neither should they actively thwart us.

I think most of it boils down to Globalism. In the UK and the EU, the Globalists are destroying it by inviting masses of invaders in to wreck the culture. In the US, which is already and always has been multicultural,, they need a different approach, so they're destroying it by convincing us we are too weak to stand on our own, that we need a "global community" to continue existing, or "consensus" or some other such rot.. There are times when you need allies, but in most situations you don't... and in NO situation do you need an "ally" that works against you instead of with you.

It's probably really the exact same thing at work in both countries, but using different avenues of approach. In both cases, the objective is to convince folks that they can't stand without having a"multicultural" gang at their back, but in reality those multicultural gangs are slowly and systematically disassembling us any-which-a-way they can, by destroying our native root cultures.

So, buh-bye, NATO. Americans don't like having Moslems tell us how to live, what to do, and when to do it. Clearly you do, so we find ourselves at odds now as the US tries to put a stop to that. We'll try not to let the door hit our asses on our way out. We need to concentrate our money and efforts on allies who prefer to help instead of hinder. You'll still get the benefits of the effort, even if you never lift a finger to assist. After all, if Iran is no longer threatening anyone at all, that also means they are no longer threatening you, either. That way, you can save all the missile defenses you have to deal with the Russians you are constantly trying to piss of, rather than having to waste any of them on Iranian missiles incoming on your location.

NATO doesn't have to go away - the US can just leave it, and NATO can sink or swim on it's own. NATO can continue to exist, we just don't have to participate in it's madness, foot it's bills, or run to it's assistance. After all, it's not doing any of that for us, so why should we continue to  reciprocate something that is obviously not there to be reciprocated?.

.

Exactly my thought, just far better worded than I could do.

[gortex]

Posted by GRIZZ0317

If NATO doesn't want to send their own troops that is most certainly their choice

NATO doesn't have any troops it is a Defensive Alliance of member Countries , if America or any other member of NATO had been attacked then member Countries would be there as there would be a mandate for their involvement but as this a war of Israel and America's choice NATO member Countries have their own choice to make.

When Britain went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands we went alone because that was a war of our choosing to defend our territory from invasion , we did not try to pressure our North American ally to get involved with our South American enemy.

Given Israel's recent and past history of aggression in the Middle East I think we are well advised to stay out of it , if America want's to throw its toys out of the pram because of that then I guess that's par for the course for this President but it is an action that will only make America weaker in the long run.

[YesItsMe]

NATO can stay intact ... without America.
They have become a liability.
A one way street that they get all the benefits at our expense.
We should take our money, our troops, and our toys and bring them all home from Europe.
Let Europe take care of itself ... if they can.
I don't care anymore.

[727Sky]

---