US Should Dump NATO, and the UN

Libhater said:
I wholeheartedly agree with you on dumping NATO and the UN that is currently being run by Islamists. NATO nations are currently allowing Islamists to virtually run their dying nations. Somehow, Trump got up to 30 Mideast nations to come to their senses by helping us with straightening out the Hormuz canal and engaging with us against Iran.
Click to expand...
And maybe by Lesbians too. You are such a low-level hater.
 
I dont think we should leave the UN but we should keep everything strictly mandatory. According to the internet we give 10 bn to the UN annually. Only 2bn of that is Mandatory the rest is voluntary. That should only be 2bn.

If we want to give aid to other countries we should do it directly in exchange for our interests instead of working thru the UN.
 
tsuke11 said:
I dont think we should leave the UN but we should keep everything strictly mandatory. According to the internet we give 10 bn to the UN annually. Only 2bn of that is Mandatory the rest is voluntary. That should only be 2bn.

If we want to give aid to other countries we should do it directly in exchange for our interests instead of working thru the UN.
Click to expand...
Okay, I can see that. Further, I think we should charge the UN for:

Leasing the land and building they occupy in New York.

An annual fee equal to the cost of all the parking tickets, and other fines levied against UN diplomats that go unpaid.

Make it illegal for the UN to operate a bar, nightclub, restaurant, or other business within its premises without permitting, licensing, and paying fees and taxes as any other such business would.
 
Diogenes said:
I believe I mentioned that.



Do you suppose we won't have those bases anymore if we leave NATO? We might lose some forward land-based capability. But who are the

If the US formally withdraws from NATO (possible with one year's notice under standard treaty rules, though Congress has tried to add hurdles), the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) would no longer apply to the US.

Host nations could legally terminate or refuse to extend the underlying basing rights. The US couldn't simply "keep" the bases without the host country's consent.

Host nations could choose to keep some limited US access via new bilateral deals (the US has SOFAs with non-NATO countries).

Withdrawal from NATO doesn't instantly shutter every base.

The US maintains a large network of military bases and facilities in numerous non-NATO countries—often under separate bilateral defense treaties, Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), or access pacts that are not tied to NATO membership. These arrangements would remain unaffected if the US withdrew from NATO.

The US has roughly 128 known overseas bases across ~49–55 countries/territories total, with the largest non-NATO concentrations in East Asia, the Middle East, and select spots in Africa/Latin America.

These non-NATO arrangements are country-specific bilateral deals (e.g., mutual defense treaties with Japan/South Korea, access pacts in the Gulf). They do not rely on the NATO SOFA or North Atlantic Treaty, so a US NATO withdrawal would have no automatic legal or practical impact on them. Many are explicitly for regional deterrence (e.g., China, North Korea, Iran) rather than collective European defense.

Remind me; what defensive purpose do the ~80,000 US troops and 40+ American NATO-aligned facilities across Europe serve, and for whose disproportionate benefit are they being maintained?
Click to expand...
The bases would probably stay. A separate negotiation. NATO does not guarantee the United States a base in another country.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Okay, I can see that. Further, I think we should charge the UN for:

Leasing the land and building they occupy in New York.

An annual fee equal to the cost of all the parking tickets, and other fines levied against UN diplomats that go unpaid.

Make it illegal for the UN to operate a bar, nightclub, restaurant, or other business within its premises without permitting, licensing, and paying fees and taxes as any other such business would.
Click to expand...
An interesting point. Ambassadors generally are exempt from these fees, but the business operating in the UN building are not!
 
NATO is a DEFENSIVE organization. When 9-11 came and we were attacked, NATO showed up bigly . They lost 1200 people. They came to our defense.
Trump is attacking nations. That is not what NATO is for. Trump must have thought they were a free army for him to use.
I understand that Trump cannot understand the difference between a defensive organization and one that should follow his orders, but all the rightys here show that they are just as stupid. Trump dishonors NATO as he does treaties. He will change the rules at his whims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top