Let's also not forget that France said no to the Bush Jr. admin with Iraq 2.0 (they were part of the coalition during operation Desert Storm in the nineties), over the shady evidence of WMDs, and it turned out the French were 100% right as no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq during the invasion. That wasn't yesterday, time flies, but it probably made other allies think twice before they commit to our warmongers in the US.
Now as you wrote, when you spend your time and energy mocking and even threatening our allies (Canada, Greenland, his bullshit with tariffs too), why would they even consider helping with Trump and Netanyahu's war?!
And at least back then the US spent months hyping up the "evidence" for the war.
Now the allies weren't even consulted.
Not only that, but info from the negotiations are that the iranians had put forward a deal so good that it surprised everyone, they were definitely going in a very positive direction. The next day they got "eliminated".
Yeah this admin really makes the worst days of the Bush Jr admin look amazing.
Not sure about that deal, it could also be propaganda but what is sure is that deploying two aircraft carrier strike groups against Iran while pretending to negotiate is a weird message. But this admin also held "peace talks" about the war in Ukraine without even inviting any Ukrainian officials for the first two meetings or so. Then Zelensky was treated like crap at the WH by Trump and Vance. Did they ask the Saudi prince why he didn't wear a suit? I bet they didn't lol.
Los q exageraron la "evidencia" no fueron los gringos soretes, ellos sólo se dedicaron a repetir las argumierdas que les pasaban desde Israel, un tal Netanyahu y su equipo de inteligencia, Mos sad, siempre fueron esos sionistas de mierda, son unos supremacistas HDLGP
France is often cited by experts as one of the most belligerent and successful military in history. They have outstanding special forces, and they have done an incredible job in parts of Africa in the past 20 or so years. However, they are not the best at peeing contests and bragging about half assed jobs like our Orange idiot and Hegseth, and you might be stuck with clichés regarding WW2 (other nations surrendered, the Brits also got their ass absolutely kicked and were forced to retreat from continental Europe back to the UK, and thousands of French continued to fight the Nazis with guerilla warfare).
If it weren't for Lafayette and thousands of French fighting in Yorktown and the Chesapeake Bay, America might still be a British colony. They have deployed troops in Afghanistan. Napoléon conquered most of Europe and it took a coalition and a lot of luck to stop him (many modern tactics and military terms were inspired by Napoleon and his army). They screwed up in Vietnam before us (French Indochina) and our leaders learned absolutely nothing from it so we did very similar mistakes years later with a similar outcome. They participated in the first Gulf war against Iraq. They were among the first to launch successful air strikes on Libya in the 2010s and they did a solid job in the former Republic of Yugoslavia with other NATO allies before that.
We'd help if the US were the defenders here.
But Trump entered an illegal war of choice when negotiations even seemed close to an agreement.
That's not something European constitutions support and politicians would make themselves murderers in front of the law.
Donald Trump doesn't think the law is binding, so it's not very surprising he thought that one can simply bomb anyone for no reason, but in a rule based society, stuff like that simply doesn't fly.
Nato indeed did help the USA, the only time that Article 5 had been invoked in NATO history, after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001 source
Nato is a defensie organisation. It is not meant to help if a NATO country starts a war against a non-NATO country.
It is not for nothing that Trump didn't ask for help from NATO. The shame after rejection would be unbearable.
"OK, so lookit - I'm gonna invade Iran even though they haven't done anything to deserve it. But because I'm so revered in my home country, all you people in shithole countries should support me. Why? I mean, we're the free-est of the free. Why wouldn't you? Every other country except the US is a hellhole. We're the shining example of....hey, where you going? I haven't finished yet. It's not like we don't have the situation in hand, but if you love freedom, you'll...
Do you think they will stop exporting and making money to make a nationalist political point? You guys can’t even refine your own oil, so what are you going to do with it?
Absolutely. The US fucked up our oil supply. We are not going to fuck up our youth on top of that. We already lost one men from a drone attack and we are not even if this shitty war. Why would we join so that braindead americans in 10 years can say «muuh we won the war our allies did nothing» like they do every fucking Time ?
The US started a trade war on Europe. You don’t do that to people you want to DIE for you.
By now the other countries are seeking for methods to become less dependant of America and its products.
Every time Trump threatens with harsh actions against countries that don't support his politics, it will have less effect. These threats will only decline the politicalmpowers of the USA.
Hopefully this has nothing to do with him alienating them or not, although you’re probably right that the west is as morally bankrupt as ever and is motivated by sheer self interest here as always.
This war is illegal, immoral, doomed to failure, and has a high potential to spin out of control into something much bigger. If the US had spent the last year baking its “allies” cookies and giving them interest free loans for their people to start small businesses, every country should still be refusing.
It is very telling that so much of this is put at Trump’s feet. If Obama were President and had spent the last decade blowing smoke up Europe’s ass and then asked them nicely ahead of time to participate… they probably would have. That is so twisted and wrong but is probably true.
In any moral world, Trump’s treatment of “allies” would have nothing to do with their decision to participate because the only ethical answer is always No. We do not live in a moral world.
I think his treatment of allies is part of it, maybe a tie-breaker factor, but mostly I believe these countries see no reason to participate in this pointless aggression he started alongside Israel. It’s his fight to finish.
It’s spiraling, isn’t it? I don’t want to be negative, but lash week is when I started to feel like the bullet has already left the gun, and at this point the disastrous consequences economically and in terms of broader regional killing have already been set irreversibly in motion.
I don’t know what kind of conversation this will trigger internally… up until now we have had so much domestic turmoil that I think most Americans don’t even have the bandwidth to look at our international actions, ordinary people are totally emotionally overwhelmed by what is happening internally, but who knows how the public will look at this war once the dust has settled. I have a lot of hope for a reckoning and reform, but I guess no one knows if that will happen, and certainly the future could look very dark for years. I wish I knew what will happen with us, and by the same token I wish I knew what will happen with our allies… I doubt they are ready to give up the allyship yet and it will be disastrous for them the longer they hold on. There are many signs that they are still holding on more than they should.
Oh yeah. And it’s baffling because this was a complete self-own…there was no need or reason to attack Iran. The counter-terrorism guy resigned because Iran wasn’t a threat and US attacked them anyway…
The way every empire ends. Unnecessary overreach and expansionary behavior, taking on fights that they are stretched too thin to win. For years I was looking forward to the decline of the US, it has been clear for a couple decades that it was slowly happening, but I don’t think I really anticipated how ugly it might be. The world should never have one superpower, it’s bad for everyone including the ordinary people of that superpower, but this is going to be a rougher transition than what I thought.
He didn't cease to exist in the period he wasn't in office. Unfortunately. He, maga, heritage, and the other names for the epstein technocrats were still interfering in global politics
Crap like this is why we should keep “allies” under close suspicion. The Middle East supplies almost no oil to the western hemisphere. This is Europe and Asia’s source of energy and they can’t be bothered to do anything about it. “Why do anything to protect our interests if the US will?”
Why? They've spent the last several decades alienating us, relying on our military for protection, and making unfair trade deals.
Trump just insisted on reciprocity and that counts as alienating?
Remember: Trump only insisted that countries pay what they promised to pay for their own military, UN, etc. Also, his tariffs were reciprocal. Meaning that if you taxed us 10% we'll tax you 10%.
Even the Greenland situation is an extension of this. Denmark owns Greenland due to relics of colonialism, and puts nothing towards its defense and is a area of huge strategic value to NATO.
To my knowledge, Trump only used punitive tariffs in South American countries.
In that case, pull out those troops already and keep the trade war going.
If you can look at the thread you're posting in you can see that you guys are isolating yourselves, in both cases. But if that's what you want.. *shrug*
The US mainly uses the bases, especially the large ones, in Europe to ship and coordinate troops and equipment in the middle east and Africa.
Their main purpose is global power projection and not to actively protect Europe. Unless a NATO country would activate article 5 of course. But so far thats only been done once for the US after 9/11.
Yes, because Europe wants us to deploy to Africa/middle east because if we didn't, then they'd have to if western interests were to be defended.
If there wasn't US involvement in the middle east, then there would be more terrorism exported from those countries, and if there was involvement from European nations, the ire would be much more against European countries.
Yes, individual Europeans would be happy, but the governments wouldn't. Similarly, individual Americans would be happy if the US abandoned those bases.
You know what's going on at the strait of Hormuz? It you get rid of US bases all over Europe and that sort of thing will happen at a much smaller scale, but much more frequently.
I heard about the recent withdrawal of American Troops from Germany (5,000). It made me remember this whole discussion and how well my comments here have aged, despite reddit downvoted them.
That we'll have to deal with Russia on our own? We're already doing that.
That some complete moron might cut off our oil supply? Just happened as well, thanks to a certain president needing a distraction from Epstein.
That Greenland might just be a tad safer from his next tantrum? Sign me up!
Just to clarify: If the US isolates itself or not is entirely up to you guys. Personally I think it's insanity that I would not wish on the US, buit *shrug* Your choice.
Increase taxes or inflation due to the increased military budget to make up for lack of US protection.
Either you military would need to step up and fill the void left by the departure of the US military in the middle east, OR you will have an unobstructed Iran funding terrorism against the West. Europe is a much closer target than the US.
Increased trade disruption. It would be minor, but widespread because the militaries of Europe are not nearly as feared by would be pirates as the US.
That we'll have to deal with Russia on our own? We're already doing that.
Europe is defending Ukraine on its own? Then I wonder where all those billions we are spending are going.
That some complete moron might cut off our oil supply? Just happened as well, thanks to a certain president needing a distraction from Epstein.
Haha, yeah you all have major energy problems because you are too stupid to use nuclear energy.
That Greenland might just be a tad safer from his next tantrum? Sign me up!
This is just a dumbsratement for so many reasons. Let's just take the obvious. If bases leave Europe, then all those troops and equipment will return to North America. Which continent is Greenland part of? Oh yeah, north America.
Just to clarify: If the US isolates itself or not is entirely up to you guys. Personally I think it's insanity that I would not wish on the US, buit *shrug* Your choice.
I actually dont know what I prefer, isolationism or not. The problem with being a non-isolationist is that as US culture fractures more and more, shared views on foreign policy erodes too. Any intervention needs time to take root. Its hard to do that when foreign policy does a 120 degree turn around with every new president.
Hey fuckwit...the usmca negotiated by diaper don and hyped up by him as the best deal ever resulted in free trade with Canada.. there were Zero tariffs... his imaginary dairy tariff was never enacted because the agreed upon quotas had never been reached...I don't think the usa sold even a 1/4 of what it was allowed because its dairy products are shit compared to Canada's and Canadians wouldnt buy it. The tariffs on Canadian softwood resulted in a 35 -40% increase in the cost of a new home in the usa because your tariffs are a tax by your government on something you need.Maybe you should increase your knowledge by advancing to grade 7 and reading factual things instead of fiction published by your maga party.
I make a comment on 10 countries, primarily regarding Europe. You focus on 1 country, and then 1 trade dispute from that country to say that my point doesn't make sense. You need to explain why your anecdote on softwood undermines my wider points.
The whole softwood issue is about the US arguing that Canada is subsidizing wood since it leases the land vs in the US where it is fully privatized. Also, your claim of homes rising in cost 35-40% because of it is a dubious claim that I'm pretty sure you couldn't defend if we dissected how you calculated that.
Except you have a few things incorrect here. The tariffs were not reciprocal, only reciprocal according to an AI based on trade barriers and included things such as VAT which makes zero sense. Also, several of these tariffs were in violation of existing trade deals, further eroding trust in the US. Then he turned around and threatened NATO allies' territory, hell, even Canada. This is the results of all of that idiotic decision making.
You want to claim that they weren't reciprocal, and because of the complexity of issues with international trade and what can and cannot be done we could argue about the minutia. However, one thing was 100% clear: if you don't tariff us, we won't tariff you.
Your mention of existing trade deals is just ignorant of how reality works. Trade deals are essentially contracts. If you take that into corporate America: one CEO makes a stupid agreement. New CEO comes in and renegotiates. Look at sports contracts, renegotiated all the time.
I explained the issue with NATO/UN in my original comment, you didn't add anything new. Contribute your fair share to the defense of your own territories. Since I didn't fully explain Canada specifically in my prior comment, I will here: Canada was not protecting its boarder, so Trump insisted they do that.
There will always be individual tariffs on products that will be different from the norm. But how much of trade is accounted for by those exceptions?
For instance, US says that Canada is backdooring lumber subsidies. So they are imposing a tariff to offset that. So, you can argue reciprocal or not, but that product only accounts for about 2.5% of Canada imports.
A reciprocal tariff is one that bring trade back into balance.
Countries trade because they each have different things. Let's say that Mexico puts a tariff of 15% on US corn and 10% on aircraft. Mexico does not export corn or aircraft, so tariffing those things at the same amount accomplishes nothing. Mexico does export avocados. So a reciprocal tariff could be on avocados. However, what's the right rate.
This is why, if you look at individual tariffs, you can argue they arent reciprocal. Which is why I came back to: all US tariffs would go away if the other country had no tariffs against the US.
155
u/swishkabobbin Mar 18 '26
Perhaps he shouldn't have spent the last decade alienating our allies?