At least when a Republican starts a war they know how to finish it.
Yes, see my post about US economic interests.
And conveniently, Iraq didnāt have nuclear weapons.
How about France? Denmark? Latvia?
Why not go down the list of countries that you are treaty-bound to defend but do not wish to.
At this point, I would argue there is no reason the EU canāt defend themselves. Its not 1950 any more.
Ok. No more NATO.
I donāt think you know what that would mean for the US, but OK.
And honestly, I think Trump has caused the EU and others to take stock of things. US hegemony only works when there isnāt a nutter in charge.
And Trump is only a symptom, you could easily elect another. The US is no longer a reliable ally.
Part of the reason for NATO is keep individual European militaries fairly small relative to ours.
Thereās a reason for that. Europe tore itself apart twice in 20 years and we got drug into it. The unstated goal of NATO is to keep Europeans from having the capabilities to go to war with each other so that 1914 and 1939 never repeat.
Mmmm, Iād say the goal of the EU is to stop Europe from ripping itself apart, notsomuch NATO. But both play their part.
And members of the EU have voiced support for an EU-wide military. The UK was one of the few members vetoing that idea, since weāre out itās a lot more likely to happen imo.
1 Like
Geography.
āWell there are strategic and economic interests of the US that are worth fighting for, I just donāt see what they are in regard to Iraq,ā is pretty much what I said in 2003.
We would lose a crap ton if NATO disbanded. As an american I like the idea of having British Royal Marines, French Infantry, and German Special Forces integrated under our command of ā ā ā ā ever hits the fan.
Not including the Royal Navy which integrates nicely with our carrier battle groups.
And rememberā¦ we arenāt going to war because of Montenegro.
That possibility isnāt really even on the table.
The point is that the country is in our sphere of influence.
itās pretty funny how your foreign policy lines up perfectly with the President you often pretend not to like.
Yeahā¦ itās like some want to have a global hegemony but not have to actually pay for it or something.
It wouldnāt disband, it would essentially reform without the US.
Youād be iced out, and it would cost both sides.
Seems like Republicans want to take America back to a pre WWII standing in the world.
Well we disagree on that. And I am pretty sure I can make a better case they existed for Iraq than you can that they do for Montenegro.
Rand Paul has been leading the ānon-interventionistā charge for a while, but itās looking an awful lot more like isolationism these days.
And yeah it seems to have taken a hold of the Republican electorate, in one form or another.
Yep as Russia and China extend influence America will basically be told to shut up and sit down.
They are already doing with Iran.
I figured Rand Paul for the last person to become a Trumpist but it sounds like heās slowly being assimilated. Oh well. Guess he liked the talk but had no walk.
