- Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:34 am
#137208
"The US has more than met its obligations to NATO with not only money but with a military presence."-silly's ghostwriter
GREAT! That's what we should always do when we sign a treaty. What's your point? (By the way, stationing troops there is for OUR benefit, not theirs.)
"But NATO, once a necessity during the Cold War, has outlived its usefulness and now it's no more than an albatross around our necks...."-silly's ghostwriter
And that justifies breaking our current treaty commitments....HOW?
If Congress decides we should exit NATO because it is no longer in the U.S. interest, then that's up to Congress, not you and your uninformed opinions. So far not a single Republican has offered a bill to do that. Until they do, then we remain obligated to execute the treaty we signed.
"...and I understand now won't even allow our military aircraft to use their airspace in route to the Middle East."-silly's ghostwriter
This is 20-year-old news that is now only propaganda for Republican dimwits who can't be bothered to check up on any of the partisan propaganda they consume on a daily basis. That refusal was to allow US planes to cross in order to attack a country which had not yet attacked a NATO country. France is not obligated by treaty to allow such overflights any more than we are in a similar situation. We WERE obligated to ask. France had thwarted an attack on a U.S. Embassy, so no NATO country had yet been attacked.