Toggle sidebar

The United States Should Exit NATO - Collapse In Real Time - Calls Intensify

ANEW

ANEW

All-Conference
Jul 7, 2023
2,123
3,018
113
PAWrocka said:
I’m conflicted here because … we engaged Iran without our allies (sans Israel) and Im assuming we didn’t consult with them before we did so. I’m also assuming that we under estimated (unsure to what degree) Iran’s capabilities when it came to the Straight….. soooooooo I understand Europe’s hesitance in “helping us out” here. We started it …

buuuuuuuuut I also think the Europeans/NATO have been taking advantage of us … at least since the late 70s- early 80s and certainly since the USSR fell. They LOVE to belittle us for our healthcare system, University costs, and other social programs …. however they were quite content to grow their social programs knowing they could live under the umbrella of safety the US provided and knew we would shoulder the burden of defense costs.

not sure how Iran will play out long term, but I don’t think it’s controversial to think that this open “conflict” will be over by the end of April if not A LOT sooner. What comes after is less clear …. but I think Iran officially surrenders in the next couple of weeks, the Straight is open and clear under US control … soooooo does the US allow oil deliveries to Europe after we control the Straight? Do we levy some kind of tax/tariff for European bound tankers???

If we did either of the above … I could see THAT being the catalyst for WW3
Click to expand...
European Nato countries are not going to start WW3 with us no matter what we do. They can't even fight off all the muslims that they let into their own coutries, let alone us. But, we're not going to block oil shipments to europe over this either. I trust / hope that trump recoups some costs and i assume that if he does it's going to come from Iran; but that's above my pay grade.

They shoul;d be ponying up some assets because everyone befefits from a neutered, non-nuclear weapons holding Iran, but ok. If you can't follow the leader, then at least stay the hell out of the way and let us do work. That's really the issue. Denying basing and denying overflight and probably port use as well. They have done it many times over the years and I think we now need to stop pretending that they are rock solid allies and stop and accepting the status quo. Time to open our eyes and make sure whatever arrangement we have is truely a net benefit for us.

I can guarantee that if the US gets into a war with China over Taiwan, European NATO isn't going to do **** to help that will move the needle. That's for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
ANEW

ANEW

All-Conference
Jul 7, 2023
2,123
3,018
113
baltimorened said:
to be honest, I have thought for a long time that given the state of the world today, we should be on a path to reduce our active duty footprint throughout Europe. European nations should now be in the position of defending themselves. Russia is no longer the great "Bear" - just look at what Ukraine has been able to accomplish - although with equipment/weapons from US...that they should be able to buy.

I've posted before, NATO has been playing us for suckers for decades. I've posted some stories about my time as a US rep on some of the panels/advisory groups. Trump, love him or hate him, has been the first president in my lifetime to actually stand up for us.
Click to expand...
^^100%^^
 
P

PalmettoTiger1

Heisman
Jan 24, 2009
12,390
12,172
113
ANEW said:
There is a limit to what the executive branch can do unilaterally, as certain minimum personnel levels in europe are mandated by the NDAA, but, both the executive branch and congress should re-examine what we are doing as far as NATO is concerned.

The last time we did that materially was in 1991, when the post WWII occupation of Germany was finally ended on paper and the US withdrew about 75% of the forces that it had on the continent.

If we cant use the bases when we need them or have overflight denied when we need it in support of OUR national interests, then we need to re-look at what we are doing. Just like Canada can help european NATO members from where they are at with no forward basing of their vast military, so can we.

Maybe it's time to shrink our footprint in europe and shift resources to shoring up our own Pacific backyard and prioritizing defending our other treaty partners in that region over NATO. European NATO members have enough population and GDP to take primacy for defending themselves and then they can ask us if they need something ...and at that time we can help as much as we see fit.
Click to expand...

I really like and endorse the idea of backing away from supporting so much on Europe and putting a HUGE EMPHASIS ON THE PACIFIC RIM to counter China

The Europeans are so good let them defend Europe after using the US for all these years as DADDY and then pissing on the US
 
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
PalmettoTiger1 said:
I really like and endorse the idea of backing away from supporting so much on Europe and putting a HUGE EMPHASIS ON THE PACIFIC RIM to counter China

The Europeans are so good let them defend Europe after using the US for all these years as DADDY and then pissing on the US
Click to expand...



 
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
My stance.

NATO wants to leech off the teet of America.

They want their socialized programs, but they want the capitalist America to pay for it.

Let socialism stand on its own.

Withdraw the US from NATO. If individual countries want to make defense deals with us that’s fine. But NATO has failed the US while being great for Europe. No more, America First!


 
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
The United States should make unilateral defense agreements with European countries that want them. That way they can hold individual countries accountable. NATO is dead


 
UrHuckleberry

UrHuckleberry

Heisman
Jun 2, 2024
9,234
18,778
113
ANEW said:
There is a limit to what the executive branch can do unilaterally, as certain minimum personnel levels in europe are mandated by the NDAA, but, both the executive branch and congress should re-examine what we are doing as far as NATO is concerned.

The last time we did that materially was in 1991, when the post WWII occupation of Germany was finally ended on paper and the US withdrew about 75% of the forces that it had on the continent.

If we cant use the bases when we need them or have overflight denied when we need it in support of OUR national interests, then we need to re-look at what we are doing. Just like Canada can help european NATO members from where they are at with no forward basing of their vast military, so can we.

Maybe it's time to shrink our footprint in europe and shift resources to shoring up our own Pacific backyard and prioritizing defending our other treaty partners in that region over NATO. European NATO members have enough population and GDP to take primacy for defending themselves and then they can ask us if they need something ...and at that time we can help as much as we see fit.
Click to expand...
I agree that what we are doing isn’t working. We use to be leaders, building a coalition, setting the pace for NATO. I can get behind the idea that we were slowly being taken advantage of, but it wasn’t pointless by us. We got a lot of influence, bases around the world, where we led NATO generally followed.

So what we’re doing now is straight bullying and ostracizing and chiding. And it’s great that the rest seem to be working on building their self defense more, but eventually no one needs the bully anymore and they lose leadership. I can’t see where pulling out of Europe actually benefits us, but won’t be surprised if you get your wish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DividedPi, dpic73 and yoshi121374
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
UrHuckleberry said:
I agree that what we are doing isn’t working. We use to be leaders, building a coalition, setting the pace for NATO. I can get behind the idea that we were slowly being taken advantage of, but it wasn’t pointless by us. We got a lot of influence, bases around the world, where we led NATO generally followed.

So what we’re doing now is straight bullying and ostracizing and chiding. And it’s great that the rest seem to be working on building their self defense more, but eventually no one needs the bully anymore and they lose leadership. I can’t see where pulling out of Europe actually benefits us, but won’t be surprised if you get your wish.
Click to expand...

We were straight bullied into defending Ukraine. NATO failed when the script was flipped.

Iran tried to bully us and we punched them in the nose.

When Putin bullies Europe they come running to us. When we punch the bully in the nose they come running to us.


The bully argument doesn’t pass muster.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dpic73 and yoshi121374
UrHuckleberry

UrHuckleberry

Heisman
Jun 2, 2024
9,234
18,778
113
PAWrocka said:
I’m conflicted here because … we engaged Iran without our allies (sans Israel) and Im assuming we didn’t consult with them before we did so. I’m also assuming that we under estimated (unsure to what degree) Iran’s capabilities when it came to the Straight….. soooooooo I understand Europe’s hesitance in “helping us out” here. We started it …

buuuuuuuuut I also think the Europeans/NATO have been taking advantage of us … at least since the late 70s- early 80s and certainly since the USSR fell. They LOVE to belittle us for our healthcare system, University costs, and other social programs …. however they were quite content to grow their social programs knowing they could live under the umbrella of safety the US provided and knew we would shoulder the burden of defense costs.

not sure how Iran will play out long term, but I don’t think it’s controversial to think that this open “conflict” will be over by the end of April if not A LOT sooner. What comes after is less clear …. but I think Iran officially surrenders in the next couple of weeks, the Straight is open and clear under US control … soooooo does the US allow oil deliveries to Europe after we control the Straight? Do we levy some kind of tax/tariff for European bound tankers???

If we did either of the above … I could see THAT being the catalyst for WW3
Click to expand...
Two things can be true. You can have a good point (NATO needs reform and more investment by others) and wrong (how you get across or deal with that point).

Anyone who’s been married has run into this concept a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fskillet, tigres88, yoshi121374 and 1 other person
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
All of it.



Europe is on a path to destroying itself. Unchecked immigration of millions of immigrants that burden their welfare states, bring violence and terrorism to their shores, and take over local governance, one city at a time. Anti-capitalist policies that make it difficult for businesses to adapt their workforces to a rapidly changing competitive environment now accelerating due to AI. A business environment and tax regime that is antithetical to startups. The absence of any progress or innovation in AI and limited access to the compute necessary to compete. Energy dependence due to the green movement at a moment when energy demands are rapidly increasing. And now, the abandonment of the U.S. when we have asked for limited assistance — base access and flyover rights — in the midst of our efforts to eliminate Iran’s nuclear and ballistic threat which is already within striking range of Europe, after we have invested nearly $200 billion in helping Ukraine. NATO is about to be toast. Europe’s defense burden is about to rise massively while their economies continue to fall further and further behind. In short, Europe needs to wake up before it is too late, and it may very well be too late.
 
ANEW

ANEW

All-Conference
Jul 7, 2023
2,123
3,018
113
NATO has denied use of basing and overflight and port use in the past. During the 1973 yom kippur war, in '86 for El Dorado Canyon when Regan bombed libya. (adding over 1,000mi to the round trip needing multiple refuelings of the FB-111's. , Turkey during the lead up to Gulf War II. There were some other random issues in the 70's and 80's with germany and the uk but they got worked out. And then there is the current example.

Why did those countries do that? I don't know, but it must have bee in their own national interest, because it certainly wasn't in ours.

France "withdrew" from full participation in NATO in 1966 because of national sovereignty issues while still committing to Article 5 (on the down-low?) to jump in if the Soviets kicked off WWIII. They did that because the felt it was in there national interest to not have US bases un their territory etc. They worked their way back into more persistent military staff participation by the 2000's but never went back to full integration (their nuclear forces are fully independent) and the us has no troops there.

Why did france do what it did? ... .Because they thought it was in their own national interest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
dpic73

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
28,839
21,080
113
He's hated here at home and around the world. If we pull out of NATO, who will our friends be? It would be reckless to do this to future administrations who certainly won't agree with the actions of our mad king.

1775139786844.png
1775139833155.png
1775140019580.png
 
PAWrocka

PAWrocka

Heisman
Nov 3, 2008
21,037
28,334
103
UrHuckleberry said:
Two things can be true. You can have a good point (NATO needs reform and more investment by others) and wrong (how you get across or deal with that point).

Anyone who’s been married has run into this concept a lot.
Click to expand...
My wife and I just celebrated our 20th anniversary yesterday (yes … we got married on April fools day), so I’m quite familiar with the concept haha.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Allornothing, ANEW, yoshi121374 and 1 other person
yoshi121374

yoshi121374

Heisman
Jan 26, 2006
12,800
21,757
113
PAWrocka said:
My wife and I just celebrated our 20th anniversary yesterday (yes … we got married on April fools day), so I’m quite familiar with the concept haha.
Click to expand...

Congrats.

As I heard a comedian say once, "At 20 years, you start thinking, well damn, we might just make it. Until then you're always one shot of tequila away from screwing it all up."
 
firegiver

firegiver

Heisman
Sep 10, 2007
73,249
19,252
113
fatpiggy said:
Click to expand...

I'm telling you, this would be catastrophically moronic move to do. The outcome, which yes leaders consider outcomes, that is infact what they do : "We choose to go to the moon..." I know you had problems understanding that process in another thread and called me a control freak. What leaders do is lead, not just rip up things and destroy them. Any jack *** can knock down a barn, it takes a carpenter to build one. Rand Paul and his dad would pull us out of every treaty on the planet if they could. Its just their libertarian MO. In doing so they would set ablaze all the achievements of the 20th century and would condemn us to be a less prosperous country for at least 2 decades. China would rise and seize the global power structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
firegiver said:
I'm telling you, this would be catastrophically moronic move to do. The outcome, which yes leaders consider outcomes, that is infact what they do : "We choose to go to the moon..." I know you had problems understanding that process in another thread and called me a control freak. What leaders do is lead, not just rip up things and destroy them. Any jack *** can knock down a barn, it takes a carpenter to build one. Rand Paul and his dad would pull us out of every treaty on the planet if they could. Its just their libertarian MO. In doing so they would set ablaze all the achievements of the 20th century and would condemn us to be a less prosperous country for at least 2 decades. China would rise and seize the global power structure.
Click to expand...
The last time you ran around yelling "Wolf!" was about tariffs. And you were dead wrong. It will be the same thing here.

Countries are still free to make defense pacts with the Untied States, it should just be unilateral instead of via NATO. That way the US can hold them accountable.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: yoshi121374
firegiver

firegiver

Heisman
Sep 10, 2007
73,249
19,252
113
fatpiggy said:
The last time you ran around yelling "Wolf!" was about tariffs. And you were dead wrong. It will be the same thing here.

Countries are still free to make defense pacts with the Untied States, it should just be unilateral instead of via NATO. That way the US can hold them accountable.
Click to expand...
No I wasn't wrong. It caused inflation

Heres a source for you to chew on:
As of April 2026, tariffs have contributed to inflation by raising the prices of imported goods by about 7 percentage points, with imported goods seeing a 6.8% increase and domestic goods a 4.8% increase. The pass-through of tariffs to consumer prices ranges from 46% to 115% for different goods, depending on the methodology used.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DividedPi and yoshi121374
B

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
4,944
3,610
113
firegiver said:
No I wasn't wrong. It caused inflation

Heres a source for you to chew on:
As of April 2026, tariffs have contributed to inflation by raising the prices of imported goods by about 7 percentage points, with imported goods seeing a 6.8% increase and domestic goods a 4.8% increase. The pass-through of tariffs to consumer prices ranges from 46% to 115% for different goods, depending on the methodology used.

Click to expand...
last I saw, the FED estimated the impact of tariffs (the old ones) as about a 1% increase in inflation
 
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
My complaint all along.

The socialists are leeching off America.

Let their socialist system stand on its own! Go get your own oil!

Leave NATO!!



For 24 polite years, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama diplomatically asked NATO members to increase defense spending. For 24 years, it was one excuse after another, all focused in Western Europe on how they wish they could spend more, but their social welfare spending priorities wouldn’t let them. In other words, you the US will spend on defense and protect us.



 
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
Dadar said:
Should the US just abandon all military bases in other countries?
Click to expand...
Make unilateral deals. If countries want us there and want to cooperate and be allies then we can keep our bases there.

If countries like Spain don’t want us there, then we will turn the bases over. It’s an agreement, if they don’t want to live up to their agreement then we need to leave.

Germany will have tough choices to make. We have big bases there and they waffle on whether they want our protection.

Unilateral deals. I assure you we will have plenty of bases over there, as plenty of countries are scared of big bad Vladi.


 
fatpiggy

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
23,496
21,886
113
baltimorened said:
last I saw, the FED estimated the impact of tariffs (the old ones) as about a 1% increase in inflation
Click to expand...

Last I saw was a one time .5%.

Not a continuing add, a one time add of .5%


Not sure where I saw it to be honest so can’t provide a source, going off memory.
 
M

Moogy

All-Conference
Jul 28, 2017
4,944
3,316
113
fatpiggy said:
Last I saw was a one time .5%.

Not a continuing add, a one time add of .5%


Not sure where I saw it to be honest so can’t provide a source, going off memory.
Click to expand...

You didn't see that.

--------------------------------------

Research shows that a portion of these costs is passed through to retail prices, with studies suggesting that in 2025, tariffs contributed nearly 0.7 percentage points to the U.S. Consumer Price Index.


  • Gradual Price Pass-Through:
    Research into 2025 tariffs showed that the effect was not a one-time spike, but a gradual increase in prices, with consumers paying for roughly 55% of the total tariff costs.

  • Investment Goods Impact: Tariffs have a larger inflationary impact on investment goods—like machinery and factory equipment—compared to consumer goods, potentially slowing business expansion.

  • Reduced Economic Efficiency: By reducing trade, tariffs can decrease productivity, which may lower real incomes and add further inflationary pressure.
 
B

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
4,944
3,610
113
Moogy said:
You didn't see that.

--------------------------------------

Research shows that a portion of these costs is passed through to retail prices, with studies suggesting that in 2025, tariffs contributed nearly 0.7 percentage points to the U.S. Consumer Price Index.


  • Gradual Price Pass-Through:
    Research into 2025 tariffs showed that the effect was not a one-time spike, but a gradual increase in prices, with consumers paying for roughly 55% of the total tariff costs.

  • Investment Goods Impact: Tariffs have a larger inflationary impact on investment goods—like machinery and factory equipment—compared to consumer goods, potentially slowing business expansion.

  • Reduced Economic Efficiency: By reducing trade, tariffs can decrease productivity, which may lower real incomes and add further inflationary pressure.
Click to expand...
so we now have supported estimates of 1%, .5% and .7%. Might lead me to believe that we really don't know. I might tend to put more emphasis on the FED chairman's estimate of 1%...but that's just me
 
M

Moogy

All-Conference
Jul 28, 2017
4,944
3,316
113
baltimorened said:
so we now have supported estimates of 1%, .5% and .7%. Might lead me to believe that we really don't know. I might tend to put more emphasis on the FED chairman's estimate of 1%...but that's just me
Click to expand...

It's a variable baked into other estimates ... and it was an ever-changing variable due to the maniacally haphazard way the fuhrer was decreeing his punishments on any given day .. you're never going to know an exact amount, but you can know that it contributed significantly to inflation and that contribution was and still is a "slow burn" ... and that the American consumer was harmed, and is still being harmed, by these taxes. So are American businesses, and the American laborer.

We now take you back to your regularly scheduled programming: Power-Hungry Madman Destroys NATO, Further Imperiling His Country's Future
 
A

Allornothing

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
11,114
12,049
113
TheValley91 said:
Imagine starting a fight, realizing it was a mistake, your friends know it’s a mistake, they don’t come to your aide, and then you get mad.

Sounds rather childish
Click to expand...
Lord/Board knows you and all your liberal friends have no skin in the game. Y'all just sit around and *****/moan/complain and use your EBT card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom