Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

agnos.is Forums

  1. Home
  2. World News
  3. US to withdraw from NATO under Republican bill

US to withdraw from NATO under Republican bill

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved World News
world
346 Posts 186 Posters 2 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • I [email protected]

    They wanted to leave during Trump’s first term because it helps Russia’s war with Europe

    The increased spending is just meant to make the incumbents unpopular so the Russian backed candidates can win

    anunusualrelic@lemmy.worldA This user is from outside of this forum
    anunusualrelic@lemmy.worldA This user is from outside of this forum
    [email protected]
    wrote on last edited by
    #77

    That's probably a factor as well.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • C [email protected]

      Except they have the largest nuclear arsenal and the world biggest navy. They can't be ignored.

      S This user is from outside of this forum
      S This user is from outside of this forum
      [email protected]
      wrote on last edited by
      #78

      Only "solution" I see is civil war. The nukes are still a problem for the rest of the world though

      1 Reply Last reply
      13
      • witchfire@lemmy.worldW [email protected]

        Honestly, NATO might be better off without them

        B This user is from outside of this forum
        B This user is from outside of this forum
        [email protected]
        wrote on last edited by
        #79

        Why do you think that? How would losing half the military assets and technology would benefit NATO?

        A W 2 Replies Last reply
        13
        • R [email protected]

          that is the less undesirable outcome, but still it is depressing how primitive and fucking dumb humans are to still be bashing each others skulls in in the year 2025.

          M This user is from outside of this forum
          M This user is from outside of this forum
          [email protected]
          wrote on last edited by
          #80

          I don't think the US military complex consider that "less undesirable" than basically any other possible outcome.

          ... well, it may be better in their minds than an asteroid destroying Earth before they can cash-out. Maybe. I'm not sure about this one...

          R 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • circav@lemmy.caC [email protected]

            Great!! Fuck right off USA!!! Without you idiotic dipshits in NATO the rest of the aligned countries don’t have to listen to your moronic whining to spend $ on US defense weaponry/planes etc. You won’t be missed and piss off. From Canada’s POV we’re really looking forward to spending billions on Saab Gripens - so we can protect ourselves from you.

            G This user is from outside of this forum
            G This user is from outside of this forum
            [email protected]
            wrote on last edited by
            #81

            hello Russian shill.

            circav@lemmy.caC D 2 Replies Last reply
            4
            • K [email protected]

              Russia is losing against Ukraine, the fuck they gonna do against EU, unless they use nukes in which case who cares, it's game over

              B This user is from outside of this forum
              B This user is from outside of this forum
              [email protected]
              wrote on last edited by
              #82

              Russia has an army that is capable of invading another country. The only country in NATO that have done that is the US.
              I don't think Russia invading the whole of the EU is a realistic possibility but grabbing a few ex Soviet countries off the border...

              A K 2 Replies Last reply
              1
              • G [email protected]

                hello Russian shill.

                circav@lemmy.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                circav@lemmy.caC This user is from outside of this forum
                [email protected]
                wrote on last edited by
                #83

                Are you high? The US president is literally a Putin fluffer. But please, go on.

                🙄🙄🙄

                G 1 Reply Last reply
                13
                • B [email protected]

                  Why do you think that? How would losing half the military assets and technology would benefit NATO?

                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  [email protected]
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #84

                  The US is great at spending money in the military, but it absolutely sucks at actual war.

                  Look how they wasted trillions in Afghanistan to surrender to the Taliban.

                  the US military exists solely to funnel tax payer money to military shareholders.

                  G B rickyrigatoni@retrolemmy.comR L L 7 Replies Last reply
                  23
                  • P [email protected]

                    My brother-in-law is career Navy and he says they'd get mopped by the Chinese.

                    G This user is from outside of this forum
                    G This user is from outside of this forum
                    [email protected]
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #85

                    sounds like E1 speak to me. I'm sure your BIL is a lovely cadet, but he should learn when to turn-to and stfu.

                    P 1 Reply Last reply
                    3
                    • A [email protected]

                      The US is great at spending money in the military, but it absolutely sucks at actual war.

                      Look how they wasted trillions in Afghanistan to surrender to the Taliban.

                      the US military exists solely to funnel tax payer money to military shareholders.

                      G This user is from outside of this forum
                      G This user is from outside of this forum
                      [email protected]
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #86

                      I'll grant you it's a big racket, it's corrupt, it's inefficient, but I don't think it's a skill issue.

                      https://youtu.be/d5v6hlRyeHE

                      I wouldn't consider failing to win the hearts and minds of the local populace using violence a military failure rather than a policy failure.

                      A 1 Reply Last reply
                      4
                      • circav@lemmy.caC [email protected]

                        Are you high? The US president is literally a Putin fluffer. But please, go on.

                        🙄🙄🙄

                        G This user is from outside of this forum
                        G This user is from outside of this forum
                        [email protected]
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #87

                        yes!

                        and...?

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • T [email protected]

                          NATOs other purpose is to stop socialism/communism from existing and emerging anywhere, unjustifiably. The Soviet Union wasn’t going to take over Europe, that was a lie created by the US and others. The US was the aggressor during the Cold war working overtime to sabotage any socialist nation because of “freedoms” and “democracy.”

                          Russia has been a capitalist country since the fall of the USSR (goal accomplished I guess) but the West has still wanted to destroy them even before the Ukraine conflict. Yes what Russia is doing is wrong and they need to be stopped, but also the US, EU, and NATO.

                          T This user is from outside of this forum
                          T This user is from outside of this forum
                          [email protected]
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #88

                          As someone from a country take over by the Soviet union... Lol.

                          T 1 Reply Last reply
                          3
                          • G [email protected]

                            I'll grant you it's a big racket, it's corrupt, it's inefficient, but I don't think it's a skill issue.

                            https://youtu.be/d5v6hlRyeHE

                            I wouldn't consider failing to win the hearts and minds of the local populace using violence a military failure rather than a policy failure.

                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            [email protected]
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #89

                            Ukraine showed that modern warfare is a different game than it used to.

                            it's s resource war, cheap drones can cause lots of damage, and it is far more costly to fight them. long range rockets, v defense systems...

                            and given that US have painfully expensive toys, they won't be able to hold of again a cheap enemy.

                            yhea, Maybe the F22 can outmanoeuvre another airplane in a dogfight, but who tf needs a dogfight? the enemy can just launch a volley of self guided missiles that costs 100x to intercept.

                            G 1 Reply Last reply
                            10
                            • G [email protected]

                              sounds like E1 speak to me. I'm sure your BIL is a lovely cadet, but he should learn when to turn-to and stfu.

                              P This user is from outside of this forum
                              P This user is from outside of this forum
                              [email protected]
                              wrote on last edited by [email protected]
                              #90

                              He's an officer and over 20 years now. This discussion took place shortly after he gave me a tour of the bridge of the carrier he was assigned to at the time. The terminals were running Windows XP. This was 7-8 years ago tops.

                              G 1 Reply Last reply
                              5
                              • B [email protected]

                                Russia has an army that is capable of invading another country. The only country in NATO that have done that is the US.
                                I don't think Russia invading the whole of the EU is a realistic possibility but grabbing a few ex Soviet countries off the border...

                                A This user is from outside of this forum
                                A This user is from outside of this forum
                                [email protected]
                                wrote on last edited by [email protected]
                                #91

                                asdf

                                L B 2 Replies Last reply
                                7
                                • R [email protected]

                                  I keep getting this sinking feeling that this is all leading up to a precise and coordinated attack of evil.

                                  Russia bombards the EU, the US attacks Greenland and Canada, while Israel finally bulldozes Gaza and Iran. China takes Taiwan and the south sea.

                                  All at the same time so NATO is overwhelmed and can’t decisively defend it all without risking spreading too thin. No matter what happens, one of the bad guys gains ground.

                                  I honestly have no idea if this is even possible, it’s based on a dream I had a few weeks ago.

                                  Disturbing thought though.

                                  B This user is from outside of this forum
                                  B This user is from outside of this forum
                                  [email protected]
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #92

                                  The thing is the EU is mostly concerned about Europe, while the US wants to play world police. So if China would invade Taiwan and NATO is without the US, I'm not sure they are going to get involved, it would open the gate for Russia. If the US is still part of NATO I'm not sure what will happen as it's not an article 5 event. So the other NATO countries are not automatically involved even if the US is.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • F [email protected]

                                    It was a talking point that Trump had in his first term. He tends not to let go of bad ideas once they get into his head.

                                    At the time, people didn't take it seriously. With the Ukraine War, Europe feels like it has to now. But it's going to be domestic production, not paying US MIC companies like Trump was thinking.

                                    B This user is from outside of this forum
                                    B This user is from outside of this forum
                                    [email protected]
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #93

                                    The 5% is probably too much, but its realistically 3.5% the othet 1.5% can be spend on infrastructure (like make bridges strong enough so tanks can drive over them), on cyber defense and other things that are not weapons.

                                    Also it's about deterrence, when we spend enough Russia can't attack unless they match the spending, this is part why the Soviet Union collapsed.

                                    A 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • F [email protected]
                                      This post did not contain any content.
                                      G This user is from outside of this forum
                                      G This user is from outside of this forum
                                      [email protected]
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #94

                                      Does the bill include all military installation closures and those that are on European territories? For example Greenland. If MAGA wants out, then GTFO and I do not want hear any crying afterwards because that will give the Europeans every excuse not purchase US made weapons. I'm certain US MIC lobbyists will weasel their way in to tear apart the bill.

                                      E 1 Reply Last reply
                                      31
                                      • M [email protected]

                                        I don't think the US military complex consider that "less undesirable" than basically any other possible outcome.

                                        ... well, it may be better in their minds than an asteroid destroying Earth before they can cash-out. Maybe. I'm not sure about this one...

                                        R This user is from outside of this forum
                                        R This user is from outside of this forum
                                        [email protected]
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #95

                                        I don’t think the US military complex consider that “less undesirable” than basically any other possible outcome.

                                        Either I disagree about the preferences of those murder-weapons-vendors, or you misunderstood my intentional double-negative, whose purpose it was to emphasize that it is absolutely not desirable that budgets have to be increased for mass-murder weapons.

                                        I am saying the military industrial complex over in the divided states of fuck all and everyone, would absolutely prefer if people bought from them, less so as a cash-out but preferably as a permanent source of income. A privatized murder-weapons industry in the billions is the best way of ensuring we will never get lasting peace on this planet.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • A [email protected]

                                          The US is great at spending money in the military, but it absolutely sucks at actual war.

                                          Look how they wasted trillions in Afghanistan to surrender to the Taliban.

                                          the US military exists solely to funnel tax payer money to military shareholders.

                                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                                          B This user is from outside of this forum
                                          [email protected]
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #96

                                          That was to funnel money, steal gold, and oil.

                                          A 1 Reply Last reply
                                          2
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups