- 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: What’s the point of NATO?
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:41 pm to LawTalkingGuy
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:41 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
The question was about NATO. At what point did I question whether this action should have been taken? I support confronting Iran, I just believe Congress should have voted on it first.
I don't trust enemies of the USA to vote on anything in the right way.
0
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:42 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
There are 30 something countries in NATO all with opinions. They could only hamper us when we are considering what to do with a country madly working toward a nuclear weapon. It shows that NATO is really a one way street when it comes to their security or in particular cases, our's. Iran can simply use the propaganda machine to separate our interests from NATO. I think it's done.
NATO is a defensive pact. Article 5 of yhe NATO charter has been invoked exactly ONCE: following the attacks on 9/11.
When I said we should involve our allies in making offensive military decisions, I wasn't talking about getting consensus from all 30 NATO members, just our actual allies.
What doesn't make sense is telling the British Navy to go frick itself, and then two weeks later complain when they won't help protect the Strait.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:43 pm to Deuces
There’s no point any longer. We need to stop paying and pull out.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:47 pm to Deuces
You need to study history and what the NATO treaty requires of its members.
NATO members have in fact assisted us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have suffered casualties on our behalf.
NATO members have in fact assisted us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have suffered casualties on our behalf.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:56 pm to VOR
quote:
NATO members have in fact assisted us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have suffered casualties on our behalf.
Yes...they invoked article 5 and assisted us in Afghanistan because the US was attacked. And they were on the Frontline, despite what Trump said.
NATO did NOT assist in Iraq, however, many of our allies who are also NATO members did assist us....after months of buildup and consensus building.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:01 pm to Covingtontiger77
Britain help us? With what? Their Navy is a joke. Is any part of their military viable.?
When the USS GHW Bush arrives it will have more firepower than the entire British Navy.
Their two aircraft carriers are less capable than one US carrier, but they have no ships for escort. They have about 24 F-35 Bs capacity but their entire air force and Navy only have 36. They use choppers like we use E-2 Hawkeyes. If they have 36 probably only 18 are mission capable.
Pathetic.
When the USS GHW Bush arrives it will have more firepower than the entire British Navy.
Their two aircraft carriers are less capable than one US carrier, but they have no ships for escort. They have about 24 F-35 Bs capacity but their entire air force and Navy only have 36. They use choppers like we use E-2 Hawkeyes. If they have 36 probably only 18 are mission capable.
Pathetic.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:05 pm to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
Britain help us? With what? Their Navy is a joke. Is any part of their military viable.?
Their carrier strike group just went home after 6 months on deployment. That is why it took them a few days to get Dragon ready to go to the Med.
The RN is a shell of itself, but its not like its nonexistent. Plus they are in the early stages of a pretty large buildout on new escorts--something we still refuse to do or can't get past the planning stages of.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:10 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
nd we can force project by setting up shop in places like Greenland, Eastern Europe, etc.
Yes and we would probably be able to set up agreements in current host nations outside of treaty but without out the fabric of NATO, as flimsy as you think it is, there would be a tremendous amount of uncertainty introduced to the system. Without US protection as bargaining chip, other incentives will have to be considered and paid.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:19 pm to Indefatigable
They have two carriers. They shouldn’t both be in the docks. They aren’t nuclear and should not take long to be mission capable. The Brits are inept. They’ve spent very little on their fleet. Many of their destroyers have been in dry dock for over 1000 days. That is ridiculous. Their own military experts are pointing this out. The whole reason for two is so you have one available at all times.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:21 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:You can do whatever the frick you want when you are paying all the bills and providing all of the protection. If your “allies” don’t want to get on board frick em. Let them figure out how to pay their own bills and fund their own defense. It’s that simple. Daddy pays the bills, so that makes daddy the decision maker.
Our allies typically help us out, but thats when they are part of the decision making process. You cant just start a military on your own - with Israel, of course - and expect your allies to just jump.on board.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:26 pm to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
They have two carriers. They shouldn’t both be in the docks.
They are't. PoW could sail again if the need arose, along with her escorts. The QE is constantly in dry dock it seems, though. There is just no actual need for that so soon after a deployment when they are doing refits.
Dragon is the ship you referenced that has been in docks for years with propulsion issues, and that's what they just sent to the Med.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News