re: NBC: Pentagon thinking about pulling many troops planes ships and weapons out of Europe

What units do we have in Italy?

quote:

---

Just Europe or elsewhere as well?

---

I think just Europe at the moment

Good, tired of fighting Europe's wars.

Bring them home.... Out of Japan also.

quote:

---

fricking mouthbreather

---

Eat shite arse Wipe

quote:

---

but you're too stupid to understand, or realize, that the US is Treaty obligated to keep a certain number of troops based on percentages of the other members, and the only ones that can do anything about it is Congress, like it or not, because Congress approved the Treaty for US Membership to occur.

---

I dont think this is correct at all. Can you back it up?

quote:

---

It's all fine good to walk around beating your chests like Neanderthal MAGA types, but you're too stupid to understand, or realize, that the US is Treaty obligated to keep a certain number of troops based on percentages of the other members, and the only ones that can do anything about it is Congress, like it or not, because Congress approved the Treaty for US Membership to occur.

---

Where can I find this info to validate your claim?

quote:

---

No such treaty obligation exists for the US to maintain a fixed or percentage-based number of troops relative to other members. Extensive searches of treaty texts, official analyses, Congressional Research Service materials, NATO documentation, and related sources turn up no provision matching that description.

thefinalexodus.org

North Atlantic Treaty (NATO / Washington Treaty, 1949)The treaty (ratified by the US Senate) creates collective defense under Article 5: an armed attack on one is considered an attack on all, and each party shall take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
Article 3 calls for members to maintain and develop individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack through self-help and mutual aid.
Article 11 requires that provisions be carried out “in accordance with [each party’s] respective constitutional processes.”
There are no numerical troop requirements, no percentage formulas tied to other members’ forces, and no mandatory permanent basing levels. Force contributions for NATO operations or missions are voluntary (“force generation”). Permanent US troop presence in Europe has been a policy choice for deterrence and reassurance, not a treaty quota. Historical Senate debates (including 1949) explicitly rejected the idea of permanent large US troop commitments as a treaty requirement.

cato.org

NATO’s 2% (and more recent higher) GDP defense-spending guidelines are political commitments from summit communiqués, not binding treaty obligations for troop numbers. They are measured as shares of national GDP, not percentages of other members’ troops.Other relevant treaties and limitsTreaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE, 1990): This set upper limits (ceilings) on categories of conventional equipment (tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, attack helicopters) for groups of states in Europe. It included a “sufficiency” rule so that no single state would hold more than roughly one-third of the group total in those categories. It did not mandate minimum US troop levels or percentage-based troop contributions. Personnel/manpower limits were discussed separately and largely dropped or handled via non-binding declarations. The treaty focused on equipment reductions/upper bounds; the US and NATO allies later suspended participation regarding Russia.

nuke.fas.org

Bilateral mutual-defense treaties (e.g., with Japan, South Korea, Philippines) generally allow or facilitate US forces by mutual agreement but do not impose percentage-based troop quotas relative to the partner’s forces.
Domestic US law has contained overseas end-strength limitations (e.g., a former statutory cap around 203,000 permanent duty ashore outside the US, with wartime/emergency exceptions and presidential waiver), but these are ordinary statutes enacted by Congress, not treaty formulas.

uscode.house.gov

Role of CongressTreaties requiring Senate advice and consent (two-thirds) become part of the “supreme Law of the Land” once ratified, but:Implementation, funding, and force structure remain subject to Congress’s constitutional powers over appropriations, the size and organization of the armed forces, and declarations of war/authorizations for use of military force.
The President, as Commander in Chief, directs deployments, subject to funding and statutory limits. Congress can (and has) influenced overseas presence through the National Defense Authorization Act, appropriations, and oversight. Recent legislation has restricted unilateral presidential withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty itself.

congress.gov

Actual US troop numbers abroad (historically highest in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.) have fluctuated with strategy, budgets, and politics—not because a treaty formula dictated a share of allies’ forces.

In short, the claim appears to conflate political/policy expectations around burden-sharing, voluntary force contributions, equipment ceilings in arms-control treaties, or domestic statutes with a nonexistent treaty rule requiring percentage-based US troop levels. No primary treaty text or authoritative legal analysis supports a binding obligation of that form. US force posture is ultimately a matter of national policy, executive direction, and congressional funding and legislation.

---

If it's part of the flex to the Pacific even better.

quote:

---

NBC: Pentagon thinking about pulling many troops planes ships and weapons out of Europe

---

quote:

---

Trump is attempting to dismantle NATO

---

No you dumbfxck he is trying to get them to pull their own weight as agreed upon in the damn treaty!

quote:

---

making allies enemies and enemies allies

---

You are an even bigger dumbfxk than I thought, You think if you pay every bar tab your friends are really your friends. Test it! Make them pay or better yet tell them not o but your enemy’s booze and if they do you are not friends.

quote:

---

Seems like he is on pace to bankrupt US Govt with this new endless war just spending money like making it rain at strip club.

---

Yeah it is a great idea to let a Radical Islamic country who has said “death to America” and killed 1,000’s of US servicemen/citizens to get a nuclear weapon……Jesus you may be the biggest moron on this board!