9 minutes ago, connda said:

Can the U.S. really walk away from NATO?

The Gulf States invited the US to build bases so that the US could protect them. Howzat working out?
During the Cold War Europe wanted the US to build bases so the US could protect them. Then the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia has no interest in colonizing Europe. But if they did. Look at the US in the Gulf. Is the US "protecting" the Gulf States. Nope. Can the US "protect" Europe? Nope

Time to cut bait and run

The US is protecting the Gulf Arabs and doing a better job of it than the UK.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

To date, the original treaty has never been reviewed, nor has a member withdrawn from NATO.

France left in 1966. That was courtesy of Charles de Gaulle -- whose head was fatter than Trump's. Of course, France's departure probably enhanced the defense of Europe, as France still maintained that the Maginot Line was how you defined a superior defense.

16 minutes ago, JimGant said:

France left in 1966. That was courtesy of Charles de Gaulle -- whose head was fatter than Trump's. Of course, France's departure probably enhanced the defense of Europe, as France still maintained that the Maginot Line was how you defined a superior defense.

I might agree but that line of my comment came directly from the NATO site, as does this part:

In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle decided to withdraw France from NATO's integrated military structure. This reflected the desire for greater military independence, particularly vis-à-vis the United States, and the refusal to integrate France's nuclear deterrent or accept any form of control over its armed forces.

In practical terms, while France still fully participated in the political structures of the Organization, it was no longer represented on certain committees, for instance, the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. This decision also led to the removal of French forces from NATO commands and foreign forces from French territory. The stationing of foreign weapons on

French territory, including nuclear weapons, was also banned. NATO's political headquarters (based in Paris since 1952), as well as the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe or SHAPE (in Rocquencourt since 1951) moved to Belgium.

Despite France's withdrawal from NATO's integrated military structure, two technical agreements were signed with the Alliance, setting out procedures in the event of Soviet aggression. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, France has regularly contributed troops to NATO's military operations, making it one of the largest troop-contributing states. It is also NATO's fourth-biggest contributor to the military budget.

So not a complete formal withdrawal.

Just a Gaullist bespoke one, I suppose.

https://www.nato.int/en

30 minutes ago, JimGant said:

France left in 1966. That was courtesy of Charles de Gaulle -- whose head was fatter than Trump's. Of course, France's departure probably enhanced the defense of Europe, as France still maintained that the Maginot Line was how you defined a superior defense.

Fake Nooz. France never left NATO as you damn well know. You profess to be an historian, so I assume your posting was compiled with serious intent, and not a slip of the keyboard.

France left the integrated NATO military command, not NATO itself. France continued to be part of the political structure, and were part of planning arrangements for the defence of Western Europe. If the Soviet Union invaded, there would be no doubt who's side France would be on. During the Yugoslav Wars, France was part of the NATO Military Committee, planning peacekeeping. France commanded the Multi National Division at Mostar and were the second largest contributor to the NATO operation "Allied Force".

And you further lie with the statement "France still maintained that the Maginot Line was how you defined a superior defense". After the WW2, the Maginot line was surveyed. It was broken in places, but still subtantial. There was no plan after WW2 to fully reactivate the Maginot Line. Instead the structures were repurposed to fit with NATO doctrine of layered defence and highly mobile armoured forces, The Maginot Line consisted of a series of underground buried forts that were interconnected. Post war, these forts, or Ouvrages, were deliberately isolated, rearmed and modifed. A wall can be bypassed, hidden forts, with gaps in between, cannot. France was not a nuclear power at the time. The strategy was similar to NATO battle plans for West Germany. Soviet armoured columns would swarm past the forts, entering killing grounds. The same was planned in Germany, but without forts. France's motivation was the fact that NATO had 13 divisions, the USSR had 30+. They had no faith that the British or Americans had sufficient forces in Germany (the West German army was nascent still, and lightly armed) to hold back the Soviets, so they anticipated having t defend the homeland.

Once France became the 4th nuclear power in 1960, that strategy was obsolete. Any threat to France would be met by the Bomb. That commitment to defending their homeland was part of the reason why they left the NATO military command structure. It was because they saw how the Americans treated the British. The British had developed an independant nuclear force but the end of the 50s, with the famous V-Bomber force. The British developed the advanced TSR2 supersonic bomber (beautiful aircraft).

The Americans conspired for Britain not to have it, persuading them to adopt the then new F111, which was never delivered. Eventually F111 became Polaris, and now we have Trident. Britain doesn't truely have independant control of its nuclear defences; the warheads are owned by Britain, but the missiles themselves are leased.

In the early 60s, France could see the writing on the wall. America would never allow France to exercise its nuclear defence independantly. By leaving the command institutions, France was able to develop and retain a truely independant nuclear defence force, which 60 years later, is probably an advantage.

Personally, I am glad to count France as an ally. I had the pleasure to be at the opening of the Entente Cordiale room at the FCO, marking the historic 1904 Agreement between two fraternal nations.

5 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

France never left NATO as you damn well know.

OK, they only half left. And then -- is half an ally better than none? When it comes to France, none is probably better, based on their WWII record: Vichy French killing Americans in North Africa. Arrogant Charles de Gaulle, insisting a defeated nation have equality with the UK and US!! Can you imagine incorporating any French thoughts -- after having been so easily trashed by the Germans -- into Allied war planning?

Anyway, NATO could survive quite nicely without France -- as long as the US remained. But if the US leaves, I guess Europe will need France and its nuclear option. At which point, France will insist that all European NATO members learn to speak French. C'est l'arrogance.

6 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

And you further lie with the statement "France still maintained that the Maginot Line was how you defined a superior defense"

Ever heard of 'tongue in cheek?'

21 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Be careful what you wish for. The UK is incapable of defending its economic and national interests. It is not alone. Other western countries are no better. For too many years, the UK allowed its national security to be neglected. If the Falklands were invaded again today, it is doubtful the UK could defend or liberate the islands. Various MPs now serve the interests of foreign countries, whether it is an MP running for office in Bangladesh, or MPs allegedly aware of relatives/staff spying for China and doing nothing. The UK government is more concerned about remaining in power by appealing to its muslim and radical leftist voter groups to avoid their migration to the Greens, than it is in building a manufacturing base or encouraging people to work.

The USA is looking out for its national interests. Its President is responsible for the USA not for the well being of any other nation. One should not be surprised if those interests are not always compatible with those of other nations. The USA may well go the way of the UK and become a marginal, insignificant entity, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Unlike much of the world, the USA is both energy and food independent and has access to abundant fresh water (if it plays nice with Canada). Much of the world will be facing potable water and food shortages, and energy insufficiencies.

Having said all that, if the US is hell bent on ridding themselves of the burden of NATO participation and telling the European collective they need to fend for themselves, why is JD Vance headed to Budapest next Tuesday and Wednesday for talks with the incumbent Prime Minister just days before the Hungarian election? Apparently Viktor Orbán is facing a stiff challenge to his 16-year rule.

14 hours ago, TedG said:

Why does it sound stupid. Explain yourself. NATO was created to protect Europe from the USSR. NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be dissolved.

You’re falling for a false prophet who claims Europe and other allies are the reason the U.S. is struggling, instead of acknowledging how much those alliances helped build American wealth and influence. Europe was not just a burden. We contributed to the system that benefited the U.S., repaid investments after World War I and II, aligned with your foreign policy for decades, followed your sanctions, and treated your enemies as ours.

The history is long and complicated, but your comment shows a real lack of understanding of both history and international politics.

That kind of oversimplified blame-shifting is exactly what MAGA thrives on.

On 4/2/2026 at 6:53 AM, Patong2021 said:

Be careful what you wish for. The UK is incapable of defending its economic and national interests. It is not alone. Other western countries are no better. For too many years, the UK allowed its national security to be neglected. If the Falklands were invaded again today, it is doubtful the UK could defend or liberate the islands. Various MPs now serve the interests of foreign countries, whether it is an MP running for office in Bangladesh, or MPs allegedly aware of relatives/staff spying for China and doing nothing. The UK government is more concerned about remaining in power by appealing to its muslim and radical leftist voter groups to avoid their migration to the Greens, than it is in building a manufacturing base or encouraging people to work.

The USA is looking out for its national interests. Its President is responsible for the USA not for the well being of any other nation. One should not be surprised if those interests are not always compatible with those of other nations. The USA may well go the way of the UK and become a marginal, insignificant entity, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Unlike much of the world, the USA is both energy and food independent and has access to abundant fresh water (if it plays nice with Canada). Much of the world will be facing potable water and food shortages, and energy insufficiencies.

Switzerland has done well down the ages and the UK is an island with nukes. Sod the rest of the world. Defend the Homefront ! No more wars for oil ! Yankees go home ! Israel go to hell !

Jesus is coming back - get ready and he doesn't like the moneyelenders.....

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

I might agree but that line of my comment came directly from the NATO site, as does this part:

In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle decided to withdraw France from NATO's integrated military structure. This reflected the desire for greater military independence, particularly vis-à-vis the United States, and the refusal to integrate France's nuclear deterrent or accept any form of control over its armed forces.

In practical terms, while France still fully participated in the political structures of the Organization, it was no longer represented on certain committees, for instance, the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. This decision also led to the removal of French forces from NATO commands and foreign forces from French territory. The stationing of foreign weapons on

French territory, including nuclear weapons, was also banned. NATO's political headquarters (based in Paris since 1952), as well as the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe or SHAPE (in Rocquencourt since 1951) moved to Belgium.

Despite France's withdrawal from NATO's integrated military structure, two technical agreements were signed with the Alliance, setting out procedures in the event of Soviet aggression. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, France has regularly contributed troops to NATO's military operations, making it one of the largest troop-contributing states. It is also NATO's fourth-biggest contributor to the military budget.

So not a complete formal withdrawal.

Just a Gaullist bespoke one, I suppose.

https://www.nato.int/en

Plus they got to murder a million Algerians as the Empire fell and folks wonder why so many Arabs hate the west.

54 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Plus they got to murder a million Algerians as the Empire fell and folks wonder why so many Arabs hate the west.

They hated the Romans, they hated the knights.

Then they were the Barbary pirates in the 1800s.

Basically all they can do is hate, that's their religion.

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

They hated the Romans, they hated the knights.

Basically all they can do is hate, that's their religion.

You used to be a teacher ? Teacher in what? I bet it was not history, social studies philosophy, science or religion,

https://english.nv.ua/amp/u-s-senators-defend-nato-against-trump-s-attacks-50597185.html

Senators say no

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You used to be a teacher ? Teacher in what? I bet it was not history, social studies philosophy, science or religion,

French and German with a bit of art.

Stay in NATO

Get out of the UN

Move the UN to Turkey

On 4/2/2026 at 12:31 AM, beautifulthailand99 said:

I hope they do and let's kick out their bases whilst we are at it and build social housing on them and.or have music festivals in the hangers. Yes please.

Baby talk from a 🤡

27 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

They hated the Romans, they hated the knights.

Then they were the Barbary pirates in the 1800s.

Basically all they can do is hate, that's their religion.

Honestly, I have to ask: what was there to love about the Romans if you were the one being conquered? How warmly do you think the British welcomed them? Hadrian’s Wall alone says enough about conflict and resistance.

And what was there to admire about the crusading knights who fought their way to Jerusalem, slaughtering women and children along the way? Or about pirates and so-called barbarians? History is full of violence, conquest, and empires acting in their own interest.

The Ottoman Empire can be described as highly functional for a time, especially while it was expanding and able to maintain order and grant certain civil rights. But like every empire, it eventually declined. Nothing lasts forever.

And what was there to love about the British Empire if you were not part of the upper class? For most people, empire meant war, loss, repression, and families constantly paying the price..

5 hours ago, JimGant said:

OK, they only half left. And then -- is half an ally better than none? When it comes to France, none is probably better, based on their WWII record: Vichy French killing Americans in North Africa. Arrogant Charles de Gaulle, insisting a defeated nation have equality with the UK and US!! Can you imagine incorporating any French thoughts -- after having been so easily trashed by the Germans -- into Allied war planning?

Anyway, NATO could survive quite nicely without France -- as long as the US remained. But if the US leaves, I guess Europe will need France and its nuclear option. At which point, France will insist that all European NATO members learn to speak French. C'est l'arrogance.

My Grandfather fought with the French at Cherbourg. The French fought like beasts.

The Americans have tasted defeat, They gave up easily in the Phillippines to opposition that had inferior equipment opposition. In North Africa, the first time you met the Afrika Korps, you had your arses kicked at Kasserine. In Vietnam you were defeated by an enemy that wore bits of car tyres as shoes. America has experienced defeat and victory, so has France. In WW1, so many peope were impressed by the French defiance at Verdun, they named their kids after the battle ("battle babies"), like my father.

If America was invaded by the Nazis in 1941, I expect defeat would have been quite quick, because like much of Europe, large parts of America were in thrall to the <deleted> Nazi scum. Many Americans supported the policies of Joseph Kennedy, and rallied to Charles Lindbergh.

I guess you are one of the anti-NATO, pro-Russia/Commie Berkshire Hunts. Some of you voted for a bloke who called the American dead in WW1, WW2 and Vietnam "losers". Each to their own.

17 hours ago, TedG said:

The weak Europeans should be able to the threat of Russia without the USA getting involved.

Could be problematic after replacing their populations to prove progressivism works, which was great other than it was a monumental failure which ended any cohesiveness and national pride. Hence why stating the obvious is illegal in UK and Europe. So, good luck Europe in a war😅

3 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Could be problematic after replacing their populations to prove progressivism works, which was great other than it was a monumental failure which ended any cohesiveness and national pride. Hence why stating the obvious is illegal in UK and Europe. So, good luck Europe in a war😅

Europeans are proud to be what they are, citizens of various countries with their own identities and languages but also part of a greater whole, namely Europe. We learnt from two devastating world wars, shame Putin didn't.

We just shake our heads in disbelief at the moron you have elected president. The most destructive, idiotic president in living memory , surrounded by sycophants and yes men/women.

He wouldn't survive five minutes in any parliament in Europe.

6 minutes ago, bannork said:

We just shake our heads in disbelief at the moron you have elected president.

You also shook your head in disbelief when this so called moron pointed out to Europe's heads that relying on Russian energy while refusing to pay NATO dues was foolish. Oh how they laughed.

How is that working out for you guys? Gentle hint - Trump is ALWAYS right.

https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/germans-laugh-after-trump-warns-of-reliance-on-foreign-oil/5029974

2 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Jesus is coming back - get ready and he doesn't like the moneyelenders.....

This is the problem. People like Mike Huckabee are essentially Armageddon fans, who believe in the Second Coming. They support Israel not because they feel sympathy for the Jewish people, but because it fulfills Biblical prophecy about the return of the Jews. In reality, they hate the Jewish people, regarding them as Jesus killers. They are content though when the Apocalypse comes, the Jews will either convert or die in the flames of hell. Christian fiction is a $2bn market in the US, dominated by series such as the Left Behind books, which are all about the Rapture. Such literature is at the heart of movements like QAnon. About 1 in 3 Americans are Evangelicals, which preaches this nonsense. And every since Billy Graham, the Evangelical movement has had unusual access to the Whitehouse, unlike any other part of the church. Leading to this.

9 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You also shook your head in disbelief when this so called moron pointed out to Europe's heads that relying on Russian energy while refusing to pay NATO dues was foolish. Oh how they laughed.

How is that working out for you guys? Gentle hint - Trump is ALWAYS right.

https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/germans-laugh-after-trump-warns-of-reliance-on-foreign-oil/5029974

Come on, Trump himself admitted his unforgivable ignorance just the other day' What an idiot.

Trump stated on 16 March 2026, that "Nobody expected that. We were shocked," referring to Iranian missile and drone strikes against countries including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

The U.S. and Europe, in the bigger picture, are like Cain and Abel: born of the same civilization, tied by history, culture, and power, yet repeatedly pulled into rivalry, blame, and betrayal. That is why reducing Europe to some parasite on America is not just ignorant, it is a complete misunderstanding of how deeply our histories and fortunes are intertwined

The question is, who is who

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

This is the problem. People like Mike Huckabee are essentially Armageddon fans, who believe in the Second Coming. They support Israel not because they feel sympathy for the Jewish people, but because it fulfills Biblical prophecy about the return of the Jews. In reality, they hate the Jewish people, regarding them as Jesus killers. They are content though when the Apocalypse comes, the Jews will either convert or die in the flames of hell. Christian fiction is a $2bn market in the US, dominated by series such as the Left Behind books, which are all about the Rapture. Such literature is at the heart of movements like QAnon. About 1 in 3 Americans are Evangelicals, which preaches this nonsense. And every since Billy Graham, the Evangelical movement has had unusual access to the Whitehouse, unlike any other part of the church. Leading to this.

The scary thing is a lot of these folks beleive this nonsense whearas Trump is just a grifter preying on them literally. Huckabee though is a full on card carrying religious nutjob. Together this unholy alliance soupedup on Israeli rhetoric is the greatest threat to world stability way ahead of any other power bar none. They are now both evil and mad far more than Iran which whatever you think about their country and theocracy acts rationally and with aforethought. America/Israel losing is the best hope for both stability in the middle east and the wider world. I hope it happens.

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Gentle hint - Trump is ALWAYS right

Any person that believes that any other human being is "ALWAYS right" is in urgent need to get his medication adjusted!

Any person that honestly believes that Trump is "ALWAYS right" needs to be rushed to the nearest psychiatric facility!

he can't, he needs Congress approval and he will not get it, although he thinks and acts like a dictator there are things he can not do without congress, the people will have the last word

20 hours ago, TedG said:

The weak Europeans should be able to the threat of Russia without the USA getting involved.

if European's are so weak why did your master asked them for help solving the mess he created with Iran

7 hours ago, Hummin said:

You’re falling for a false prophet who claims Europe and other allies are the reason the U.S. is struggling, instead of acknowledging how much those alliances helped build American wealth and influence. Europe was not just a burden. We contributed to the system that benefited the U.S., repaid investments after World War I and II, aligned with your foreign policy for decades, followed your sanctions, and treated your enemies as ours.

The history is long and complicated, but your comment shows a real lack of understanding of both history and international politics.

That kind of oversimplified blame-shifting is exactly what MAGA thrives on.

You need the USA more than we need Europe. The USA built influence because USA rebuilt Europe after WW2 and defended Europe for the pasts 80 years. The fact is Europe is not paying their fair share when it does to defense spending.

Firstly, let us dispense with what would likely be the liberal internationalist response to these statements: “NATO members have been increasing their spending.” This is true, in that spending has increased from anemic to slightly less anemic. But for all of the bragging in European capitals, many still fail to spend at least 2% on defense; in 2023, only 11 actually hit the mark. More have claimed that they will soon hit 2%, but this promise is not worth the paper it is printed on, as it can simply be reversed the moment a new government comes into power or the spotlight turns away

https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/03/27/the_truth_about_european_defense_spending_1021087.html

Europe deserves to be conquered by Russia.

21 hours ago, nauseus said:

I think that Trump would rather have a strong and unified NATO than leave it. As Eric suggests, Trump is probably as concerned with the security of Taiwan as with anything else.

You do him great service, few if any observers elsewhere in the world thinks it has any purpose except to keep certain documents and other evidence relating to his predatory paedophile activities in his pre political past from becoming public, and ending up as virtually any other politician in the world would - facing the consequences in court.

I doubt if Taiwan and it's security has crossed his mind for months!