- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BREAKING: Trump hints US could 'pull out of NATO' over Greenland
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:21 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:21 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Is President Trump starting to lose his mind??
Time for the 25th Amendment.
2
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:23 pm to j1897
quote:
Isreal will release the epstein video tapes if we pull out of NATO.
No they won't
They cannot afford at this juncture in time to lose all that leverage.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:26 pm to tigerfootball10
quote:
Boasberg incoming
Any judge would sign that injunction, seeing as POTUS doesn’t have authority to withdraw the US from NATO without either an act of Congress to that effect or 2/3’rds of the Senate approving a withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:If you're going all in on subsidies then where in the links you provided does it say the U.S. subsidizes 31 other NATO countries' military.
The confusion is that you don’t think a subsidy is a gift.
I don't remember seeing that word anywhere in the text I read but this fool's errand you're promoting isn't worth my time to go back and read the links again.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:28 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Any judge would sign that injunction, seeing as POTUS doesn’t have authority to withdraw the US from NATO without either an act of Congress to that effect or 2/3’rds of the Senate approving a withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty.
Since when does Trump give 2 shits what another coequal branch of government thinks.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:28 pm to keks tadpole
Then if the could hold Russia back we aren’t needed anyway. It’s the reason we were there
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:28 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The confusion is that you don’t think a subsidy is a gift.
Where is the subsidy you’re talking about?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:29 pm to LetsGoBrandon
Somebody with Pentagon level experience, explain to me why NATO still exists when the Berlin wall fell 37 years ago..
TIA
TIA
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:38 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Not one of those countries can take on Russia in a non nuclear way, the have no clothes. I would think real open capitalism would work if America were absent from NATO
You must not have heard of this country called Poland which just can’t stop buying our most modern military equipment. They woukd be able to handle Russia by themselves.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:43 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Having assets in Europe is called being prepared.
If there is no cost to gaining and maintaining something obviously you want to control as many strategic bases to project power as possible.
However in a world of scarcity resources should only be allocated based on an objective ROI analysis and a solid grasp of how they align to your current and future strategic goals.
Because of the cost to achieve access to those bases and maintain our presence there I think many of our current deployments are unnecessary.
I suspect I’d need to understand what your strategic goals are to see how the allocation of resources to our current alliances would be effect that outcome.
Ultimately it seems likely that our disagreement stems from a fundamental difference in thought as far as what Pax Americana should mean going forward.
I want to see a future defined by MAGA/AF global strategic outcomes, but I’m interested to understand how you see things.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:47 pm to Decatur
quote:
Would be an impeachment-level offense. FWIW
Similar to putting on the wrong shoe first in the morning.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:50 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Where is the subsidy you’re talking about?
Let’s get an answer to my question first. Is a subsidy a gift?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:50 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If you're going all in on subsidies then where in the links you provided does it say the U.S. subsidizes 31 other NATO countries' military.
Let’s get an answer to my question first. Is a subsidy a gift?
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:51 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I guess if we don’t need it right now we never will.
You forgot to explain why we need to protect Europe on a permanent basis at our own expense in terms of how that benefits you or me.
As I see it the only possible benefit to maintaining the status quo with the WEF era EU is to ensure the stability of the petro dollar with reserve currency status.
Outside of that I see very little in common with them culturally, socially or fiscally with them moving forward and as a result there’s no reason to defend them at our own expense by positioning troops there outside of a specific mutually beneficial circumstance.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:52 pm to TigersBucs
quote:
Time for the 25th Amendment.
useful idiot. Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:53 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Drama Queen bullsnot.
Like saying the President has lost him mind because he floated leaving NATO.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:54 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Besides, only an act of Congress or a 2/3rds Senate vote can withdraw us from NATO. That isn’t happening and President Trump cannot do it on his own.
Would be an interesting exercise. Article II power versus a law from Congress purporting to curtail that power. The conventional thinking for years is withdrawal is an exclusive Article II power.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:54 pm to tide06
quote:
suspect I’d need to understand what your strategic goals are to see how the allocation of resources to our current alliances would be effect that outcome. Ultimately it seems likely that our disagreement stems from a fundamental difference in thought as far as what Pax Americana should mean going forward. I want to see a future defined by MAGA/AF global strategic outcomes, but I’m interested to understand how you see things.
It’s hard to opine at this level of vagueness. But we have allies and current strategic interest worldwide, be it military, trade and shipping lanes, resources, or whatever else. Being able to respond quickly to security or logistical threats is in our interest. So is providing security to what I call China alternatives (for goods and services) in the Indo-Pacific for example—Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. Simply being there deters the PLAN. We’re beginning to invest heavily there and it’s worth protecting.
That’s not nothing.
The same logic extends to keeping the Arabian and Persian Gulfs open for commerce and free exchange. Those areas require a quick reaction capability given the instability in those areas.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:57 pm to BBONDS25
quote:That's not the only thing POTUS has said recently which makes me question his mental stability.
Like saying the President has lost him mind because he floated leaving NATO.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 2:57 pm to therick711
quote:
Article II power versus a law from Congress purporting to curtail that power. The comventional thinking for years is withdrawal is an exclusive Article II power.
Foreign treaties have always been an Article 1 power of the Senate.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News