all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 41 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Last time i heard NATO was established to defend member countries, not attack non-member states...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    He doesn’t know what NATO is

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Can we just take it as a given the US is not going to do shit for NATO, and that we're on our Todd?

    Sooner we move ahead with that as a given fact we can commit to turn alliance, or whatever remains of it, into something stable for the rest of the members, and whoever else wants to join.

    Heck, let's add Australia, Mexico, Canada, and whoever else doesn't want to bomb the ever loving shit out of random people to the EU while we're at it.

    At this point it's starting to make sense to commit to the idea of helping Trump wall off the USA, so the rest of the world can get on with its life. We'll check back in on them in a few centuries.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    I am all for a nato without the usa. The usa should be isolated the most possible

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    USA has a military to maintain economic dominance, other countries have militaries for defence

    An ally starting a moronic war without discussing with us is not a good reason to get involved and not covered by any treaty

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    If he does not like it he can just leave!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    But that always was the excuse to buy all those shiny toys! Trump, just cut your military spending down 50% - and then try to survive :-)

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Why does The Guardian call NATO "Nato"? That's just weird.

  • source