President Donald Trump has warned the U.K. and France that the “U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore,” as he vented his frustration over the close allies’ refusal to join military action against Iran.
When was it ever? Since WWII, what has the US done for Europe?
Why don’t they just ask their best buddy Israel to step up their game?
The only country in NATO to invoke the defence retaliation clause in 60 years is the US, following SEP 11.
Mofo should go pound sand. What an ass.
Putin is all too happy seeing this happening.
as his russian and israeli handlers commanded.
Was the US there to help them before?
Don’t let fact stand in the way of a good rant from a pudding brained imbecile.
The word “allies” means people who work together for a common goal. When Trump made up his own goals (e.g., tariffs, wars), he got rid of those. So there’s nothing to ally around.
The world needs to cut the US out entirely for the foreseeable future.
it would be good to see him get impressed or politically neutered or both or other things
I find it helpful to picture Zoidberg whenever Trump opens his mouth.
They never were. We were there for them though. There’s only one NATO country who used NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”: the US after 9/11. And the rest came to their aid.
Really? Let’s check that:
The decision to invoke NATO’s collective self-defense provisions was undertaken at NATO’s own initiative, without a request by the United States, and occurred despite the hesitation of Germany, Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands.
Two small military operations were ultimately authorized under the terms of the resolutions: Operation Eagle Assist, consisting of the deployment of several aircraft to North America; and, Operation Active Endeavour, a mostly symbolic naval deployment in the Mediterranean Sea. The United States, which was skeptical of NATO capabilities, elected not to seek further Article 5 support and the alliance did not participate in the ensuing American invasion of Afghanistan, though some individual members did make contributions outside of the NATO command structure.
You check it with a Wikipedia source. Not the most trustworthy of sources.
Here’s another source.
Article 5 has been officially used only one time in history. This occurred after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.1 On September 12, 2001, the North Atlantic Council (NAC), which is the political leadership of NATO, agreed that if the attack was found to be directed from abroad, it would be treated as an action covered by Article 5.3
The alliance formally confirmed that Article 5 applied on October 2, 2001. This happened after the United States presented evidence showing that the attacks were carried out by the al-Qaeda terrorist group and directed from outside the country.4 In response, NATO began its first-ever military mission in direct support of the United States. This was called Operation Eagle Assist, and it involved sending NATO planes to patrol and protect the skies over the U.S.5
Another measure was Operation Active Endeavour, which was a naval mission in the Mediterranean Sea. This operation was designed to help detect and stop terrorist activities by monitoring shipping lanes. These actions showed how the alliance could use its military assets for collective defense even when the threat came from outside of Europe.
The fact remains article 5 was used after the terrorist attack on the US and NATO members responded. It has been the only time article 5 was used, and it was in response to an attack on the USA. Just like NATO article 5 states, the US it’s allies came to help. Not just a tiny operation, but years and years of deployment in Afghanistan. I myself took part in operation Active Endeavour for which I earned 2 medals.
So Trump his argument that NATO won’t help the US while the US always helped NATO, is bullshit.
Most NATO countries even helped when the US attacked Iraq without proper cause. There are also NATO countries helping the US in counter drugs operations around the Carribean, even outside jurisdictional zones of overseas territories.
The US has always been a war monger, with economy thriving around that. Since the second World War the US has been the agressor, the bully, not the protector it claims to be.
Did your military brain forget that Wikipedia is not a primary or even a secondary source, but they cite those?
Ever heard of RAND Corporation? Well their ‘The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with Europe, NATO, and the European Union’ says:
NATO reacted swiftly and strongly to the September 11 attacks. Within hours, the North Atlantic Council (NAC) unanimously condemned the attacks and pledged its assistance and support. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, speaking with Secretary of State Colin Powell later that evening, encouraged the United States to formally invoke the collective self-defense provisions included in Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Robertson later recalled that he told Powell that “invoking Article 5 would be a useful statement of political backing, that it would help the United States build an instant anti-terror coalition based in part on the moral authority behind Article 5, and that it would be a deterrent—in that whoever was responsible for the attack would know they had taken on not just the United States, but also the greatest military alliance in the world.” U.S. officials soon responded that they would welcome an invocation of Article 5, even though they later stressed that they had not officially asked NATO to do so.
U.S. officials soon responded that they would welcome an invocation of Article 5, even though they later stressed that they had not officially asked NATO to do so.
How about NATO Defense College, whatever that is?
There are differing accounts of what happened on 9/11. It seems that the deputy director of the Secretary General’s private office immediately suggested invoking Article 5. The Dean of the Council and Canadian ambassador David Wright also mentioned Article 5 that day, and told US ambassador Nicholas Burns that NATO should invoke it. Burns agreed, then sought – and got – approval from the White House, and formally made the proposal to the Council. A former US official offered this author a slightly different version: reportedly, the United Kingdom requested the Secretary General at the time to ask Member States to declare an Article 5 contingency. The Secretary General then claimed that the United States had asked for NATO support. In fact, the White House had approved the invocation of Article 5, nothing more.
the White House had approved the invocation of Article 5, nothing more
Meaning approved, but didn’t invoke themselves.
The United States – legitimately consumed, as it was, with national priorities – did not seriously consider a full-fledged NATO operation in Afghanistan. US Central Command General Tommy Franks reportedly said in an interagency discussion: “I don’t have the time to become an expert in the Danish Air Force.” (It is to be recalled that 9/11 came only two years after the Kosovo war, during which slow and contentious decision-making was often criticized as “war by committee.”)
A few days after the attacks, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Council that he “didn’t come here to ask for anything.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz threw more cold water when speaking to the Council on September 26; he emphasized that the mission should determine the coalition, with what some called a “we’ll call you if we need you” attitude. After formally invoking Article 5 on October 2, NATO agreed two days later on a set of eight measures, notably to protect the North Atlantic airspace (Operation Eagle Assist) and the Mediterranean (Operation Active Endeavour). Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan remained a US-, not NATO-, led operation (though NATO further expanded its non- Article 5 geographical reach – after first doing so in the Balkans beginning in 1994 – by intervening in Afghanistan after 2003).
My point is that NATO countries came to aid as required by NATO article 5 after the attacks on the US on 9/11, which has been the only time NATO article 5 was used. While Trump claims NATO countries never helped the US.
What is your point exactly?
So far you’ve come with loads of text proving my point, what are you trying to achieve here?
Did your military brain forget that Wikipedia is not a primary or even a secondary source, but they cite those?
Are you aware anyone can edit Wikipedia? I used to work in Intel, you don’t have to tell me how sources work. I can tell you Wikipedia is forbidden to be used in Intel.
Here’s an article on Wikipedia and it’s flaws.
So you immediately forgot that you wrote:
“There’s only one NATO country who used NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”: the US after 9/11”.
Whose words were those, could you elaborate? Probably not, as you apparently have severe dementia making you forget everything after a few minutes.
Are you aware anyone can edit Wikipedia?
Can everyone also edit RAND Corporation’s documents? No, but that doesn’t matter to you because you can’t tell one from another anymore, thanks to your extensive brain damage.
So you claim article 5 wasn’t used when the US was attacked in 2001? Again, what are you trying to prove here?
Question: did NATO countries came to aid when the US was attacked on 9/11 2001, in compliance with NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”? Or did NATO countries never helped the US, like Trump claims?
Another question: do you have to be so rude?
Just to make it clear to your evidently severely delayed comprehension: if you served in NATO’s nothingburger deployments in 2001, it was only because your country preemptively bent down to slob on Bush’s knob, without him asking for it.
Amazing how you weasel unabashedly out of what you yourself have said before.
Question: “There’s only one NATO country who used NATO article 5 “an attack against one is an attack against all”” — which country is that? Can you answer that without dodging your own phrasing?
I thought America had the greatest army in the world and didn’t want out help anyway
Also, from what he’s said previously, apparently we already won the war?
When has America actually helped anyone since WW2? Korea? Kuwait? Everything else was dubious, at best; often crimes against humanity levels of imperialism, corruption, and war crimes.
Most of the cold war was so tense and dangerous because they considered everything other than capitalism — regardless of any populations democratic will and self-determination — an existential threat that warrants warfare and mass murder.
I think the cold war was less about ideology about economic systems and more about alignment with the Soviet Union.
There was plenty of eurocommunism and social democracy in Europe that wasn’t commented on by the US. Relations with the PRC were normalized in the 1970s after the 1961 sino-soviet split.
Technically we were trying to help out France with the Vietnam war
Pete’s Warriors just need a little bit of help. Warriors ask for help don’t they?
Yeah and the war is already over but they need help with the current main objective of the war opening the straits to pedophile run countries that was open before the war started if I’m tracking things right
Wow, grape army.
Draft dodging pedophile says what?
Okay, great, let us know if you need a hand dismantling U.S. bases in Europe
Or like in Afghanistan, just leave everything behind and gtfo.
The fool doesn’t understand that any “joint military action” will trigger WW3
Pretty sure that’s the intent of whoever is telling Trump what to do.
then THAT “whoever” is a fool. A world war is pretty much the end of the gravy train. They’re dumb if they think they will come out on top.
You seem pretty confident in that despite the fact that large scale wars have made the current players in this war rich and powerful in the first place.
Look at the outcomes of WWII. The US and Russia emerge as superpowers. Hell, it’s the only reason Israel even exists.
Wars exist because they benefit the ruling class.
Hell, it’s the only reason Israel even exists.
This is an understandably common view, but it’s not true. The only fundamental change WWII brought to Palestine was weakening the British Empire; Zionists, partially due to British support, were by far the ascendant group in Palestine as early as 1939, so Israel was going to appear as soon as the British left Palestine. Zionist wealth and diplomacy, Arab weakness and division, Western colonial ambitions and British colonial policy made something resembling the current situation inevitable with or without WWII.
Does anyone remember when Zionists bombed a ship full of Jewish refugees in 1940 (SS Patria Disaster) and Palestinians helped save victims from the water and then many were forced out of their homes 8 years later by Zionists?
Why would you leave out why they ‘bombed the ship’?
They bombed the ship because the Zionists didn’t want them leaving. So they miscalculated the explosives and killed hundreds of Jewish refugees. Because of their stupid religious beliefs.
You seem pretty confident in that
if you ask me to gamble on starting of a nuclear war vs. it not happening… I wouldn’t risk it.
Look at the outcomes of WWII
I did look at the outcomes. It was quite a different set of circumstances.
- Most of the world did not have Nuclear Missiles.
- We didn’t have Social Media to the extent to allow a small group of people to spread FUD so easily.
- We didn’t have global mega-corps manipulating the fabric of society with impunity. The average CEO is out of touch with workers and only thinks ahead 3 months. There is a lot of arrogance and ignorance about concepts beyond one’s understanding.
- Making Money/Having Clout is the only metric of success.
- Human induced climate change is messing with the ecological system and making it difficult to rely on crops. It will hit hard especially when we are not paying attention due to pointless wars.
- There is a fucking betting market for if a child gets bombed to bits in some part of the world, and a pedophile and his cabinet seem to be doing insider trading on it.
- Every fucker is a racist or facist or adjacent. Empathy has taken a permanent sabbatical.
Wars exist to benefit the ruling class. But if all of the ruling class dies it’s fucking stupid.
Not if the hyper rich all go hide in their bunkers and underground cities
Look at the outcomes of WWII. The US and Russia emerge as superpowers.
The US and Russia emerged as superpowers because 99% of the fighting wasn’t on their land. They didn’t have to rebuild.
You are correct about the US, but including Russia makes you sound like a moron.
Why? Because you think there’s enough difference between the USSR and Russia to differentiate between them? The only major difference is that half the continent is no longer under Russian rule. Russia is USSR light. Same shit different day, regardless of what they want to claim about communism/capitalism/oligarchs/etc. It’s the rich fucks running everything and killing or “disappearing” anyone critical of the regime.
So what I am hearing if they you don’t care that your statement is factually incorrect. Neat.
You need to understand that there is a real faction within the already heinous Nationalist Christians that are even more truly batshit insane than their already crazy baseline, who are genuinely doing their level best to bring about the biblical end times - which, of course just means a nuclear holocaust for everyone. This is not hyperbole. There are people who are actually pushing for that outcome who are part of our regime right now.
I would love to see the day their faces realize they are going to jail as the handcuffs click
I want to believe
They want the world to end, so Jesus will come.
That’s utterly delusional. And it’s a shame on sane people like me who allowed such morons to change the destiny of the world.
Us
Speak for yourself. I refuse to advocate for any kind of war. Especially one full of ego and pettiness.
This is a joke. This is the context. I’m mocking the idea that Miller/Hegseth is looking at ww2 and saying “but we can do it”
The moment anyone else moves to assist he will simply bail out and walk away. He was actually dumb enough to say that out loud too. It would be strategically stupid and politically suicidal for anyone else to get involved.
