- 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: Rubio: “Have to reexamine the value of NATO and alliances for our country.”
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I was just pointing out that, while that is a common goal in the rotation used in the Art of the Deal marketing strategy online, it isn't likely. Similar to regime change. Nobody has articulated a strategy that wouldn't lead to a stronger Iran-China relationship following this war, similar to how they didn't propose a viable strategy for regime change (and I use past tense b/c it seems regime change is a dead avenue now).
I was negative-ambivalent on this when it looked like another nuclear wack-a-mole scenario with an assassination to see if they’d crumble.
I was opposed to it as soon as it was clear that Iran wasn’t crumbling, we didn’t have a deal with the IRGC and Israel wasn’t letting Trump walk away from it because they have much larger regional aspirations they need us to achieve for them.
I’m loudly 100% opposed to them escalating to a ground war for a litany of reasons I’ve already outlined.
We’re currently stuck in a Mexican standoff as I see it with the clock negatively impacting both sides hopefully resulting in some sort of deal.
On one side we have total naval and aerial control of the area and their economy is completely shut down making us the only safe major global source for oil while not really impacting our domestic supply which itself is a massive point of leverage for Trump.
On the other side they don’t care if their people starve because they’re religious extremists and our entire economic recovery becomes impossible if the world economy craters due to oil supply issues. My concern on that front stems from the downstream impact of that on our debt service situation particularly in an inflationary environment.
To get to a point of long term economic stability we need low interest rates and growth. That’s not where we’re quickly headed and no one wants to talk about that here because it’s complicated and negative.
But there are scenarios that end with us in an advantaged situation wherein we now control the strait with a neutered or neutral Iranian regime making us the global arbiters of the energy markets and thus able to set the terms for a post NWO/globalist order but we are not there and there are at least as many potential scenarios which end poorly for us at this point so I think it’s on a knife’s edge currently.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 9:29 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When was the last time they were allowed to use a US base for an operation we opposed?
Do the UK and France "oppose" the Iran war? Spain has made statements that they believe the war is illegal and thus we can assume they oppose it. But I am not sure about the UK, FRance, and others.
The U.S. was officially neutral during the Falkland War - but we let the British use our Wideawake Airfield to stage operations.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think we have ever allowed that
So, it's never happened.
Meh, it doesn't matter. The US has been amd is the backbone to NATO. Considering that fact, and the shitty manner Europe has been treating and speaking about us, frick em and feed em fish heads.
We should pull out of NATO and leave em to their green energy and mooslum problems.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Pushing away our closest and richest allies just means they will get closer to China, which makes the second part of the quoted language funny.
They have been getting closer to China for a long time. That didn’t start recently
So why subsidize them? We pay their bills and they don’t do what we want, or we don’t pay their bills and they don’t do what we want
Same result either way
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:59 am to GeauxBurrow312
quote:
They have been getting closer to China for a long time.
Europe moved closer to Russia during the 21st Century. Look what that got them. But they are dumb enough and desperate enough to make a similar mistake.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 1:01 pm to hawgfaninc
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:16 pm to hawgfaninc
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
“NATO is the most successful military alliance in history. It has underpinned the security of the United States for more than 70 years.
The only time NATO has gone to war has been in response to an attack on America. NATO troops fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside American forces. The United States must not take this sacrifice — nor our allies’ commitment to make it again — lightly.
Alliance disputes are as old as the alliance itself. Americans are safer when NATO is strong and united. It is in our interest for all allies to tend this unity with care. United States joined NATO in 1949 when the Senate voted to ratify the NATO treaty, and the United States will remain in it. The Senate will continue to support the alliance for the peace and protection it provides America, Europe, and the World.”
Posted on 4/1/26 at 2:50 pm to Ailsa
Amazing that they have to come out to say this.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nobody has articulated a strategy that wouldn't lead to a stronger Iran-China relationship following this war,
First off, they already have a strong relationship.
Secondly, what makes you so certain that relationship will be strengthened after this war? You have no idea who will be in charge of Iran. You have no idea what Iran will have to agree to in order to stop the destruction of their country.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They are experts in using infrastructure building as a means to gain leverage over countries
You overestimate China. Doesn't surprise me at all, you seem that type of weak minded person. China isn't as strong as you seem to believe.
But, you do you....
Posted on 4/1/26 at 3:33 pm to Decatur
Rubio is wrong, and he knows it. NATO was ratified by the Senate in 1949 and under the Constitution it would take a similar Act to withdraw or quit the alliance
Popular
Back to top

0






