Yet chances of getting there, are higher than ever in those 60 years.

The EU alone will give enough protection. It's not like we need NATO to defend our borders.

/e: If we want to intervene somewhere together, when wanting to prevent a world war, then that can be done without NATO.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Nov 13 2018 09:44am

A couple of days ago, I read someone say "Trump is like the yotube comment section became a person". Quite a fitting description.


But I mean, it's not like he's completely wrong.

First, it was indeed moronic by macron to suggest a european army which would strategically be positioned against the United States. And it was a provocation to make this suggestion right before a meeting with the American president, before a ceremony celebrating the countries' history as allies.
Second, being on its own, without protection from the U.S., indeed didnt work that well for France in the past. And considering the current, pathetic state of the european armies, a European Army without NATO support would be significantly weaker and provide significantly less deterrence against Russia or China.

Of course it is highly idiotic from Trump to pretend like Germany was still a threat to France, and the tone of that tweet is unpresidential, ignorant and unacceptable from a world leader. But he does have a point, no matter how off the tone is in which he conveys it.

There is no evidence circumstancial or otherwise to support your hypothesis.

The US was at war with the UK, yet both are in Nato.. "how incredibly ironic".

What's the point to be made other than relations were different in the past?



Then don't, I don't give a shit what you think.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Nov 13 2018 09:55am

Maybe European SLBM is cool in case of emergency transition where US leave NATO
Because US is not longer an ally on my eyes and on the eyes of many europeans

i mean you're not entirely wrong, but hasn't NATO by that same logic been the single largest hurdle to negotiating with Russia?

i think that nations, or blocks of nations, stand to gain in negotiations through self reliance. Europe right now is somewhat beholden to the US, and while much of the "Europe doesn't pay it's fair share" narrative is overblown there is a strain of truth to it. Europe has benefited for half a century from the US being everpresent with a defense plan that Russian or Domestic-within-Europe expansion, while the US benefits monetarily. Well, if Europe can become autonomous they will have maintained the same safety while at the same time removing a large bargaining chip from the US. I don't think a European army would be seen as an act of aggression against the US as much as a loss monetarily to our Economy. Admittedly tho, with that much money on the line the politicians would play it up as an act of aggression to try and thwart the move. It's a bit hard to speculate without info of where they'd buy their stuff, if it's from the US then I see very little issue. If it's from Ghina......... look out.



as far as trade partners, sure. i can see that.

when it comes to military allies you'd have to be even dumber than i thought a human could be. we jostle back and forth on trade, on immigration, on how to best govern, on how to best lead, etc. but if you've deluded yourself into thinking we don't have your back in a war you're even more lost than i thought sauci. France is the US's oldest ally, despite all of the cheese/wine/not-able-to-make-their-women-orgasm jokes we make, we're still the big brother that would be happy to bloody up whatever bully you guys can't handle.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 13 2018 10:00am

I broke him, guys

your trashcan president has 26% approval rate

delete your account

? no, I just really don't care.

nato not being needed? there's mountains of evidence, the strongest being that it's almost never been used since it was created lol