8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How did the USA benefit from European dependency?

Can you not think of any good reasons why the USA benefits from allies remaining dependent on them?

9 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Can you not think of any good reasons why the USA benefits from allies remaining dependent on them?

You said it, can you come up with nothing?

It was my understanding, that as an alliance, we should be mutually dependent.

But Iran shows us just how much most NATO members can be relied on.

On 4/23/2026 at 7:00 AM, Yellowtail said:

We kicked your a**.

What unit were you in, and in what war? You did use "We".

I'd hate to think you're just another fat old man valor stealing.

37 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Can you not think of any good reasons why the USA benefits from allies remaining dependent on them?

You would have more success trying to teach shrimp Feynman Tricks for solving integrals than to teach a MAGA anything.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You said it, can you come up with nothing?

It was my understanding, that as an alliance, we should be mutually dependent.

But Iran shows us just how much most NATO members can be relied on.

If you cannot understand the fundamental reason NATO exists, then I cannot help you much further. I have answered this multiple times now, not only here, but also in other threads you have participated in.

The same goes for why Europe’s dependency on the US is valuable for the US. That has also been answered almost to death by now.

Point by point, Europe’s dependency benefits the US because it gives America:

1. political influence over European foreign policy.

2. military bases, ports, airfields, and logistical access across Europe.

3. strategic depth close to Russia, the Arctic, the Middle East, and North Africa.

4. intelligence reach through shared systems, surveillance, and NATO cooperation.

5. leadership over the Western alliance.

6. a stronger position in sanctions, trade pressure, and global diplomacy.

7. large defence markets for American weapons, aircraft, software, upgrades, spare parts, and maintenance.

8. long-term military lock-in, because once allies build their defence around US systems, changing supplier becomes expensive and difficult.

9. burden-sharing, where allies support US-led operations, missions, logistics, and political legitimacy.

10. a stable, wealthy, US-aligned Europe that remains open to American business, finance, energy, and technology interests.

That is why the USA benefits from that dependency.

Whether it remains “benefits” or becomes “benefited” is up to future administrations.

But the most important: NATO is a defence pact!

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

If you cannot understand the fundamental reason NATO exists, then I cannot help you much further. I have answered this multiple times now, not only here, but also in other threads you have participated in.

The same goes for why Europe’s dependency on the US is valuable for the US. That has also been answered almost to death by now.

Point by point, Europe’s dependency benefits the US because it gives America:

1. political influence over European foreign policy.

2. military bases, ports, airfields, and logistical access across Europe.

3. strategic depth close to Russia, the Arctic, the Middle East, and North Africa.

4. intelligence reach through shared systems, surveillance, and NATO cooperation.

5. leadership over the Western alliance.

6. a stronger position in sanctions, trade pressure, and global diplomacy.

7. large defence markets for American weapons, aircraft, software, upgrades, spare parts, and maintenance.

8. long-term military lock-in, because once allies build their defence around US systems, changing supplier becomes expensive and difficult.

9. burden-sharing, where allies support US-led operations, missions, logistics, and political legitimacy.

10. a stable, wealthy, US-aligned Europe that remains open to American business, finance, energy, and technology interests.

That is why the USA benefits from that dependency.

Whether it remains “benefits” or becomes “benefited” is up to future administrations.

But the most important: NATO is a defence pact!

And how is that helping us with Iran?

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And how is that helping us with Iran?

Oh, you want help with Iran? Fine. But NATO is not a rent-a-war machine for American foreign policy. It is a defensive alliance. Article 5 is about collective defence when an ally is attacked, not automatic support for every U.S. conflict of choice. And even under Article 5, each ally decides for itself what action is necessary.

So what you seem to want is not an ally, but obedience. A real alliance involves consultation, respect, and shared purpose. It does not mean Europe must salute and fall in line every time Washington picks a fight.

Norway did not officially take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That much is true. But Norway was not entirely absent either. It contributed officers and special soldiers, op and observation personnel. So while Norway did not openly join the war in the formal political sense, it was still involved on the ground. Afghanistan is different: there Norway clearly joined and remained involved for two decades.

Why Trump was elected twice, is no surprise to be honest!

29 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Oh, you want help with Iran? Fine. But NATO is not a rent-a-war machine for American foreign policy. It is a defensive alliance. Article 5 is about collective defence when an ally is attacked, not automatic support for every U.S. conflict of choice. And even under Article 5, each ally decides for itself what action is necessary.

So what you seem to want is not an ally, but obedience. A real alliance involves consultation, respect, and shared purpose. It does not mean Europe must salute and fall in line every time Washington picks a fight.

Norway did not officially take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That much is true. But Norway was not entirely absent either. It contributed officers and special soldiers, op and observation personnel. So while Norway did not openly join the war in the formal political sense, it was still involved on the ground. Afghanistan is different: there Norway clearly joined and remained involved for two decades.

Why Trump was elected twice, is no surprise to be honest!

Why do you think Trump was elected twice?

liked you better when you thought/wrote for yourself.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Oh, you want help with Iran? Fine. But NATO is not a rent-a-war machine for American foreign policy. It is a defensive alliance. Article 5 is about collective defence when an ally is attacked, not automatic support for every U.S. conflict of choice. And even under Article 5, each ally decides for itself what action is necessary.

So what you seem to want is not an ally, but obedience. A real alliance involves consultation, respect, and shared purpose. It does not mean Europe must salute and fall in line every time Washington picks a fight.

Norway did not officially take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That much is true. But Norway was not entirely absent either. It contributed officers and special soldiers, op and observation personnel. So while Norway did not openly join the war in the formal political sense, it was still involved on the ground. Afghanistan is different: there Norway clearly joined and remained involved for two decades.

Why Trump was elected twice, is no surprise to be honest!

These deranged supposed supporters on this forum don't understand why the US Navy didn't rush en masse to support the Royal Navy eject a wicked murderous fascist regime from British sovereign territory in 1982. The support, such as it was, was begrudging. But that's ok, because the Falkland Islands, like Iran, are not north of the Tropic of Cancer and not in Europe, so therefore outside of NATO's remit. Similarly, the US didn't back Britain, France and Israel against the evil Soviet stooge, Nasser, in 1956.

Likely their minds are so addled from various STDs, they have forgotten a lot of things in life.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You said it, can you come up with nothing?

It was my understanding, that as an alliance, we should be mutually dependent.

But Iran shows us just how much most NATO members can be relied on.

Where were you in 1982?

1 minute ago, Roadsternut said:

Where were you in 1982?

What month(s)? I worked in at least ten states that year.

7 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Where were you in 1982?

On board an RN frigate that took part in that war!

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What month(s)? I worked in at least ten states that year.

Where were you?

Here is another guy who is not too optimistic about Canada surviving.

So Canada might collapse economically without the US needing to do anything.

Look at this map he has drawn out. Split into 3.

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And how is that helping us with Iran?

Why would ANY responsible world leader support TRUMP in a war he started were he squandered our best bargaining chips to feed the really ugliest among us….the dude who is a pathological liar who has proven time and time again he can’t be trusted…..the guy who betrays the oath of office daily ….the guy with a clown car cabinet….the guy who actively attempted to destabilize everyone’s economy’s and trade….who started this fiasco without consulting any of the nation’s affected…..who created this extra financial burden on the worlds people???you have to be kidding!!now with trumps removal and a non senile semi trustworthy person in charge they might begrudgingly help in this self inflicted fiasco out of self interest.I doubt anyone will before trumps run off.

5 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Where were you?

In the '80s I worked in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virgina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. I was in a number of other places, but not for work.

Where were you?

On 4/22/2026 at 9:29 PM, Patong2021 said:

The issue is NATO, not the financial status of the USA, nor is its support of Israel. The USA contributes 15% of the operating budget of NATO and approx. 60% of the overall national defense spending allocations. The USA is questioning, why it has to contribute so much while many countries do the bare minimum. If the USA reduced its defense spending it could address the financial issues that so worry you. Why do you expect the USA to have a large defense budget while countries like Spain, Italy and others do the bare minimum?

I support the concept of NATO. However, I do understand the USA's concern and position.NATO members did not act in good faith. Countries like Canada left the burden of their defense to the USA. Look at Canada. It does not have the capability of defending its sovereignty. It's available fighter aircraft is hovering at around 40 and it occupies the second largest land mass in the world. It does not have a naval fleet capable of securing its own coasts and waters from foreign fishing fleets and illegal transits. It does not have domestic airlift capacity to respond in the event of a natural catastrophe, like an Earthquake that levels Vancouver. It has 1 operating submarine in a fleet that was 4. Small Australia has 6. If it had not been for Trump, Canada would not be investing in its own security. It's like that for other NATO members as well, as though, not as bad. Germans want the US military bases closed. Fine. The USA can do that and save at least $3billion. It can still meet its NATO budget commitments. Germany can defend itself with the assistance of other Europeans. If and when Germany is attacked, the USA can assist as per Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Until then, the USA can save $3 billion+ per annum.

Europeans want it both ways: They want the USA to go away, but they expect the USA to be there to protect them. They complain about Putin, but they still allow Russian "tourism", and discrete financial transactions.

On 4/22/2026 at 9:29 PM, Patong2021 said:

The issue is NATO, not the financial status of the USA, nor is its support of Israel. The USA contributes 15% of the operating budget of NATO and approx. 60% of the overall national defense spending allocations. The USA is questioning, why it has to contribute so much while many countries do the bare minimum. If the USA reduced its defense spending it could address the financial issues that so worry you. Why do you expect the USA to have a large defense budget while countries like Spain, Italy and others do the bare minimum?

I support the concept of NATO. However, I do understand the USA's concern and position.NATO members did not act in good faith. Countries like Canada left the burden of their defense to the USA. Look at Canada. It does not have the capability of defending its sovereignty. It's available fighter aircraft is hovering at around 40 and it occupies the second largest land mass in the world. It does not have a naval fleet capable of securing its own coasts and waters from foreign fishing fleets and illegal transits. It does not have domestic airlift capacity to respond in the event of a natural catastrophe, like an Earthquake that levels Vancouver. It has 1 operating submarine in a fleet that was 4. Small Australia has 6. If it had not been for Trump, Canada would not be investing in its own security. It's like that for other NATO members as well, as though, not as bad. Germans want the US military bases closed. Fine. The USA can do that and save at least $3billion. It can still meet its NATO budget commitments. Germany can defend itself with the assistance of other Europeans. If and when Germany is attacked, the USA can assist as per Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Until then, the USA can save $3 billion+ per annum.

Europeans want it both ways: They want the USA to go away, but they expect the USA to be there to protect them. They complain about Putin, but they still allow Russian "tourism", and discrete financial transactions.

On 4/22/2026 at 9:29 PM, Patong2021 said:

The issue is NATO, not the financial status of the USA, nor is its support of Israel. The USA contributes 15% of the operating budget of NATO and approx. 60% of the overall national defense spending allocations. The USA is questioning, why it has to contribute so much while many countries do the bare minimum. If the USA reduced its defense spending it could address the financial issues that so worry you. Why do you expect the USA to have a large defense budget while countries like Spain, Italy and others do the bare minimum?

I support the concept of NATO. However, I do understand the USA's concern and position.NATO members did not act in good faith. Countries like Canada left the burden of their defense to the USA. Look at Canada. It does not have the capability of defending its sovereignty. It's available fighter aircraft is hovering at around 40 and it occupies the second largest land mass in the world. It does not have a naval fleet capable of securing its own coasts and waters from foreign fishing fleets and illegal transits. It does not have domestic airlift capacity to respond in the event of a natural catastrophe, like an Earthquake that levels Vancouver. It has 1 operating submarine in a fleet that was 4. Small Australia has 6. If it had not been for Trump, Canada would not be investing in its own security. It's like that for other NATO members as well, as though, not as bad. Germans want the US military bases closed. Fine. The USA can do that and save at least $3billion. It can still meet its NATO budget commitments. Germany can defend itself with the assistance of other Europeans. If and when Germany is attacked, the USA can assist as per Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Until then, the USA can save $3 billion+ per annum.

Europeans want it both ways: They want the USA to go away, but they expect the USA to be there to protect them. They complain about Putin, but they still allow Russian "tourism", and discrete financial transactions.

Is there perhaps another point...

Is it not true that the USA rushes headlong, without being asked at times to be the biggest contributor to NATO then says 'look, we contribute more than you do?

9 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Is there perhaps another point...

Is it not true that the USA rushes headlong, without being asked at times to be the biggest contributor to NATO then says 'look, we contribute more than you do?

NATO member financial obligations are based on percent of GDP.

Did you not know that?

On 4/25/2026 at 2:22 AM, Yellowtail said:

In the '80s I worked in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virgina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. I was in a number of other places, but not for work.

Where were you?

Road 2802, West Rifa'a. The question you idiot, was where was the royal you. Americans were nowhere to be seen supporting their closes ally in fighting a murderous Latin dictatorship that was on the point of brutally subjugating Anglo-Saxon people.

The people you support planned to murder hundred of British and American citizens living in Argentina (including Embassy staff) and blame terrorists.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CONTINGENCY%20PLANS%20FOR%20VIO%5B15514333%5D.pdf

As of the early evening of 11 April. the 601st battalion, the operational arm of the Argentinian Intelligence Service (SIE), was making contingency plans to "disappear" US Citizens in Argentina if the US Government adopts the British position in regsrd to the dispute in the Falkland islands. In the terminology used by the 601st battalion, "Disappeared" does nit mean "put in jail". "Disappeared" probably means killed..........

.......Also on the early evening of 11 April, teams from the 601st battalion were moving into position to be ready to take immediate action to "disappear" 500 British subjects in Argentina as soon as hostilities begin....... the 601st intelligence battalion had received a copy of a firm order from Mario ((Firmenich)), head of Montonero Organization, instructing Montoneros to attack British subjects and to sabotage British-owned installations in Argentina; if the 601st intelligence battalion takes action against British subjects, this instruction will be used as cover and it will be made to appear that the actions were taken by the Montoneros

<deleted> me, and American politicians like Jesse Helms were prepared to give the Argies the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, if he knew about this, through Congressional briefings, that's giving into terrorism.

15 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Road 2802, West Rifa'a. The question you idiot, was where was the royal you. Americans were nowhere to be seen supporting their closes ally in fighting a murderous Latin dictatorship that was on the point of brutally subjugating Anglo-Saxon people.

The people you support planned to murder hundred of British and American citizens living in Argentina (including Embassy staff) and blame terrorists.

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CONTINGENCY%20PLANS%20FOR%20VIO%5B15514333%5D.pdf

<deleted> me, and American politicians like Jesse Helms were prepared to give the Argies the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, if he knew about this, through Congressional briefings, that's giving into terrorism.

Oh, name calling how clever, you must be a man of the left, yes?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

NATO member financial obligations are based on percent of GDP.

Did you not know that?

Its not exactly that. That's the agreement reached at the Vilnius summit in 2023. The communique said the pledge (2% of GDP, rising to 5%) was consitant with Article 3.

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2023/07/11/vilnius-summit-communique

Consistent with our obligations under Article 3 of the Washington Treaty, we make an enduring commitment to invest at least 2% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually on defence.  We do so recognising more is needed urgently to sustainably meet our commitments as NATO Allies, including to fulfil longstanding major equipment requirements and the NATO Capability Targets, to resource NATO’s new defence plans and force model, as well as to contribute to NATO operations, missions and activities.  We affirm that in many cases, expenditure beyond 2% of GDP will be needed in order to remedy existing shortfalls and meet the requirements across all domains arising from a more contested security order.

Article 3 says simply:

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

The Treaty has not been amended. The only financial commitment in the treaty is the joint funding of the NATO HQ. Its a core principle. NATO is not a Protection Racket. Its perfectly possible for NATO to waive a member's spending commitment, if there is a consideration they meet Article 3. The 2% GDP is an arbitrary figure. Its the 2023 version of how to interpret "will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack". Another interpretation is that it also allows members to receive aid to maintain their "individual and collective capacity". In reality, in a club of liberal democracies, if a member suffered severe economic catastrophe, the club members will seek to lend a fraternal hand. We wouldn't turn our backs on them.

These Articles are always open to interpretation. In 2016, candidate Trump said he wouldn't automatically defend the Baltic States if they came under attack. The US nuclear umbrella was designed to make sure Germany never developed its own nuclear deterrant, but candidate Trump wanted to shift that to an economic model, which likely could of created the conditions for a militant Germany to arise again. The 1951 NATO treaty was designed in the knowledge that Germany, or a proto-Germany, was responsible for starting 3 ruinous wars in living memory, implying there is an implicit flaw in the German character that gravitates towards war. The Alliance harnessed the good parts of the German in a very clever way, and has ensured a peaceful Western Europe for 80 years. The flaws in the German character are something acknowedged by Nobel Price winner, Tomas Mann, in his keynote 1945 address on "the Germans".

6 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Its not exactly that. That's the agreement reached at the Vilnius summit in 2023. The communique said the pledge (2% of GDP, rising to 5%) was consitant with Article 3.

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2023/07/11/vilnius-summit-communique

Article 3 says simply:

The Treaty has not been amended. The only financial commitment in the treaty is the joint funding of the NATO HQ. Its a core principle. NATO is not a Protection Racket. Its perfectly possible for NATO to waive a member's spending commitment, if there is a consideration they meet Article 3. The 2% GDP is an arbitrary figure. Its the 2023 version of how to interpret "will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack". Another interpretation is that it also allows members to receive aid to maintain their "individual and collective capacity". In reality, in a club of liberal democracies, if a member suffered severe economic catastrophe, the club members will seek to lend a fraternal hand. We wouldn't turn our backs on them.

These Articles are always open to interpretation. In 2016, candidate Trump said he wouldn't automatically defend the Baltic States if they came under attack. The US nuclear umbrella was designed to make sure Germany never developed its own nuclear deterrant, but candidate Trump wanted to shift that to an economic model, which likely could of created the conditions for a militant Germany to arise again. The 1951 NATO treaty was designed in the knowledge that Germany, or a proto-Germany, was responsible for starting 3 ruinous wars in living memory, implying there is an implicit flaw in the German character that gravitates towards war. The Alliance harnessed the good parts of the German in a very clever way, and has ensured a peaceful Western Europe for 80 years. The flaws in the German character are something acknowedged by Nobel Price winner, Tomas Mann, in his keynote 1945 address on "the Germans".

I know

On 4/25/2026 at 8:22 AM, Yellowtail said:

In the '80s I worked in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virgina, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. I was in a number of other places, but not for work.

Where were you?

Someone should probably notify the Feds and have them run that info up against unsolved murders.

Better safe than sorry!

On 4/24/2026 at 8:10 PM, save the frogs said:

Here is another guy who is not too optimistic about Canada surviving.

So Canada might collapse economically without the US needing to do anything.

Look at this map he has drawn out. Split into 3.

Looks like im moving out west. Bc is so beautiful.

15 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Looks like im moving out west. Bc is so beautiful.

15 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Looks like im moving out west. Bc is so beautiful.

Then when Canada collapses, you may automatically get US citizenship.

Are you in Canada or Thailand now? Moving back home soon?

19 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Then when Canada collapses, you may automatically get US citizenship.

Are you in Canada or Thailand now? Moving back home soon?

Im in canada now. Id have 3 passports if that happens.

Sweet.

You lucky b'stards!

21 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Im in canada now. Id have 3 passports if that happens.

Sweet.

21 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Im in canada now. Id have 3 passports if that happens.

Sweet.

21 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Im in canada now. Id have 3 passports if that happens.

Sweet.

oh, that gives you a lot of options.

6 hours ago, scorecard said:

Is there perhaps another point...

Is it not true that the USA rushes headlong, without being asked at times to be the biggest contributor to NATO then says 'look, we contribute more than you do?

No. Some countries like Poland have been making higher contributions (as a % of GDP) than the USA, and they were just as vocal, with their concerns also ignored. The underlying issue was the refusal of too many members not to meet the 2% spending target, and now, not meeting the increased investment target. A large part of the budgeting was about investing in the infrastructure and resilience of a country, not just bullets and guns and things that go boom.

People lose sight of the fact that defence budgets include search and rescue, peace keeping capability and disaster response. The most glaring example of this is Canada. It can no longer meaningfully participate in international peace keeping because it lacks both personnel and equipment. Canada occupies the 2nd largest land area in the world and has 42 million people. It has 20% of its population living in potential catastrophic earthquake zones. And if and when the time comes to ferry in supplies and to evacuate its own people, the RCAF has exactly 17 cargo (Hercules) aircraft in the inventory, of which only 12 are airworthy at the best of times. It has 15 heavy lift Chinooks, of which 10 might be available. It cannot protect its airspace, nor its ocean sovereignty. That's what the 2% budget will maintain. It's not just Canada. Spain is worse. Romania can't defend itself. The UK has inadequate and depleted equipment and so on. Even the mighty French and German militaries have critical equipment issues. The USA isn't filling that shortfall, but it is expected to backstop countries who do have it. It will take a decade to fix the crisis, assuming the NATO countries actually follow through on their funding commitments. The UK Greens say they won't invest. A large number of Canadians and Europeans say the investment should not be made. Who then do they expect to respond when they invoke Article 5 or ask for assistance when there is a catastrophe or a need for international peace keeping or foreign protection activity? France was very hard pressed to support a presence in African countries under attack my Boko Harem and other militant groups. It came s a partial relief when they had to leave Niger.The UK cannot even honour its defense commitments to Arab allies and the Falklands at the same time.

Edited April 26Apr 26 by Patong2021

3 hours ago, BLMFem said:

You lucky b'stards!

Andrew Tate could not enter Canada even if he wanted to because he is inadmissible. The legal charges and indictments arsing from alleged human trafficking and rape have done that. It's like a Pattaya punter staying in a shared toilet fan room saying he wouldn't buy a luxury villa in Krabi because he doesn't like the number of farangs there. 😁