How is Putin invading a nonNATO nation rather than the small neighboring Baltic States show NATO is a deterrent a “random phrase?”
US Should Dump NATO, and the UN
- Thread starter Grokmaster
- Start date
And MAGA doesn’t comprehend why even Trump’s ME benefactors aren’t jumping to join his Iran War
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Poor john bircher
Really, how many troops has Qatar committed, or did they give him another luxury plane instead
What can NATO do for us?
They lack the ability (and in some cases the willingness) to defend our interests. They don't appear to have the capability to even defend themselves, either.
The only benefit I can see is the siting of forward air bases and port facilities, and some of the member nations have been less than enthusiastic (to put it mildly) about that.
What can the UN do for us?
I can't think of a single thing.
They lack the ability (and in some cases the willingness) to defend our interests. They don't appear to have the capability to even defend themselves, either.
The only benefit I can see is the siting of forward air bases and port facilities, and some of the member nations have been less than enthusiastic (to put it mildly) about that.
What can the UN do for us?
I can't think of a single thing.
NATO is an extension of US power, it would be foolish to "dump" them.
Libhater
Verified User
I wholeheartedly agree with you on dumping NATO and the UN that is currently being run by Islamists. NATO nations are currently allowing Islamists to virtually run their dying nations. Somehow, Trump got up to 30 Mideast nations to come to their senses by helping us with straightening out the Hormuz canal and engaging with us against Iran.
Oh look who learned a new term !!
John Birch opposed civil rights....LIKE EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT, in the Klan, etc.
Republicans broke the Race-o-crat filibuster of the Civil Rights Act(s) in 1964, under the great Everett Dirksen.
John Birch was one of yours.
Learn actual history, dumbfuck.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Poot dumb fuck whitey wanna be
The John Birch Society is an American right-wing political advocacy group. Founded in 1958, it is anti-communist, supports social conservatism, and is associated with ultraconservative, radical right, far-right, right-wing populist,
How the John Birch Society radicalized the American Right
How the John Birch Society radicalized the American Right, with Matthew Dallek - Niskanen Center
In this podcast discussion, Matthew Dallek describes the history of the Birch Society as well as dynamics that made it a significant political force and an enduring influence on the contemporary American right.
www.niskanencenter.org
Founded in 1958, the John Birch Society (JBS) fiercely opposed the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s and 1970s.
The John Birch Society's Anti-Civil Rights Campaign of the 1960s, and Its Relevance Today
The rise of the Tea Party and the ongoing “Ron Paul Revolution” have helped the JBS make a comeback as it attracts young people by re-branding itself as “libertarian.”
politicalresearch.org
YARP. Try to stay on topic, anchovies.
MAGA isn't a person, anchovies. What Iran war??
Keep up?? Anchovies can't even keep track of the conversation!
YARP
In what way?
What can NATO do for us?
As I stated earlier, they manifestly ack the ability (and in some cases the willingness) to defend our interests.
They don't appear to have the capability to even defend themselves, either.
The only benefit I can see is the siting of forward air bases and port facilities, and some of the member nations have been less than enthusiastic (to put it mildly) about that.
Because of NATO we have bases all over Europe. It is a direct line, it isn't a mystery.
I believe I mentioned that.
Do you suppose we won't have those bases anymore if we leave NATO? We might lose some forward land-based capability. But who are the
If the US formally withdraws from NATO (possible with one year's notice under standard treaty rules, though Congress has tried to add hurdles), the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) would no longer apply to the US.
Host nations could legally terminate or refuse to extend the underlying basing rights. The US couldn't simply "keep" the bases without the host country's consent.
Host nations could choose to keep some limited US access via new bilateral deals (the US has SOFAs with non-NATO countries).
Withdrawal from NATO doesn't instantly shutter every base.
The US maintains a large network of military bases and facilities in numerous non-NATO countries—often under separate bilateral defense treaties, Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), or access pacts that are not tied to NATO membership. These arrangements would remain unaffected if the US withdrew from NATO.
The US has roughly 128 known overseas bases across ~49–55 countries/territories total, with the largest non-NATO concentrations in East Asia, the Middle East, and select spots in Africa/Latin America.
These non-NATO arrangements are country-specific bilateral deals (e.g., mutual defense treaties with Japan/South Korea, access pacts in the Gulf). They do not rely on the NATO SOFA or North Atlantic Treaty, so a US NATO withdrawal would have no automatic legal or practical impact on them. Many are explicitly for regional deterrence (e.g., China, North Korea, Iran) rather than collective European defense.
Remind me; what defensive purpose do the ~80,000 US troops and 40+ American NATO-aligned facilities across Europe serve, and for whose disproportionate benefit are they being maintained?