Post New

Okay, homie. If that's how you want things to be:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trump...

UK blocking Trump from using RAF bases for strikes on Iran
The disagreement over the use of British sites is behind the US president’s withdrawal of support for the Chagos Islands deal, The Times understands

All rightie, then.

Okay, homie. If that's how you want things to be:

Another excellent illustration of why it might not be entirely in our interests for Europe stop being a supplicant, dependent on collective security with the U.S. serving as the tentpole, and go back to being a globally relevant military power in its own right.

We've made it abundantly clear that we really aren't going to be the "World Cop" protecting them from the bad guys anymore. That we fully expect them to massively, and rapidly, increase their own defense capabilities and start operating as a strong military power commensurate with their economic strength. That we regarded the historic collective security arrangement under NATO as Europe "free riding" on our coattails. After all, we weren't getting anything out of it.

Well, one of the consequences of forcing Europe to be stronger on their own is that they have more leeway to say "no" to us on things. We benefited from them being dependent on us militarily. We benefited from being the oversized contributor to NATO. It meant that we were the ones that were completely in charge of most security decisions - that if we wanted to engage in military exercises, everyone would have little option but to go along with it.

We've changed that. We get the benefit of spending less on military support for Europe. But the cost of that benefit is that we don't get to be quite as influential in Europe. Turning a loyal supplicant into a militarily strong competitor doesn't seem like it's the most beneficial thing for the U.S. to do....but there you are.

I expect this won't be the last time that we start running into our erstwhile allies saying "no" to us more often. The less dependent they are on us, the less they have to cooperate with us when their own interests - or their own domestic politics - point them in the other direction.

Well, one of the consequences of forcing Europe to be stronger on their own is that they have more leeway to say "no" to us on things.

This has zilch to do with "making Europe stronger", because they're...not. This is all about Kier Starmer not wanting Trump to whack the Mullahs once and for all. Barack Obama could have intervened in a similar manner during term when there were massive amounts of unrest...but chose to send them money instead.

This is a problem with the left - it is wholly unwilling to take decisive action against Iran.

MI5 recently said they stopped ~20 Iranian plots inside the UK. You'd think that Starmer and Labour would be more keen to defend their own country and let us do the heavy lifting...but nope. They're not.

The only question is, why?

We get the benefit of spending less on military support for Europe. But the cost of that benefit is that we don't get to be quite as influential in Europe. Turning a loyal supplicant into a militarily strong competitor doesn't seem like it's the most beneficial thing for the U.S. to do....but there you are.

Again, no. Europe as a whole is a joke in terms of its ability to defend itself. This has zero to do with us asking them to be able to stand on their own and everything to do with Trump telling Starmer his deal for the Chagos Islands is a horrible idea. Which it is. Unquestionably.

I expect this won't be the last time that we start running into our erstwhile allies saying "no" to us more often. The less dependent they are on us, the less they have to cooperate with us when their own interests - or their own domestic politics - point them in the other direction.

You're reaching here. The Europeans don't want to play that game.

"We've changed that. We get the benefit of spending less on military support for Europe."

Have only read a couple of posts in this thread, so apologies if this has been covered.

I agree that there were benefits to the USA being Daddy Warbucks in regards to Europe and NATO. So Trump is slashing spending, cutting USA contributions to NATO. If that is so, why is Trump asking for the US Military budget to be increased to $1.5 Trillion, or whatever pie in the sky BS he is spewing ???? Shouldn't US Military spending decrease if we are no longer are backing Europe and NATO ??

Shouldn't US Military spending decrease if we are no longer are backing Europe and NATO ??

Rational thinking. However, that also means FAR fewer bucks for Spankee to "allocate" as HE chooses (without Congressional approval).

Again, no. Europe as a whole is a joke in terms of its ability to defend itself. This has zero to do with us asking them to be able to stand on their own and everything to do with Trump telling Starmer his deal for the Chagos Islands is a horrible idea. Which it is. Unquestionably.

You might have the timing backwards. Guardian reports that Trump reversed course on Chagos because the UK didn't let the US use the airbases, rather than the other way 'round. Trump had decided to support the Chagos deal as "the best the UK could get," more or less - but retracted that support in response to the UK not letting us launch against Iran from UK bases:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/19/dona...

I agree that there were benefits to the USA being Daddy Warbucks in regards to Europe and NATO. So Trump is slashing spending, cutting USA contributions to NATO. If that is so, why is Trump asking for the US Military budget to be increased to $1.5 Trillion, or whatever pie in the sky BS he is spewing ???? Shouldn't US Military spending decrease if we are no longer are backing Europe and NATO ??

I suppose the simple answer is that we haven't reduced NATO spending all that much yet - certainly not enough for a peace dividend.

The longer answer is that China hawks advocate shifting resources out of Europe not to reduce military spending, but because they need to be marshalled against China - which is the bigger threat to the U.S. than anything in the European theater.

"I suppose the simple answer is that we haven't reduced NATO spending all that much yet"

lol, no shit. You do bend over backwards to sane wash Trump's bs.

suppose the simple answer is that we haven't reduced NATO spending all that much yet - certainly not enough for a peace dividend.

There is no “peace dividend”. Exactly the opposite; the US is gearing up for a Pacific conflict.

Doesn’t matter.
Starmer is either in China’s pocket or someone else’s.

"We've made it abundantly clear that we really aren't going to be the "World Cop" protecting them from the bad guys anymore. That we fully expect them to massively, and rapidly, increase their own defense capabilities and start operating as a strong military power commensurate with their economic strength. That we regarded the historic collective security arrangement under NATO as Europe "free riding" on our coattails. After all, we weren't getting anything out of it.

Well, one of the consequences of forcing Europe to be stronger on their own is that they have more leeway to say "no" to us on things. We benefited from them being dependent on us militarily. We benefited from being the oversized contributor to NATO. It meant that we were the ones that were completely in charge of most security decisions - that if we wanted to engage in military exercises, everyone would have little option but to go along with it.

We've changed that. We get the benefit of spending less on military support for Europe. But the cost of that benefit is that we don't get to be quite as influential in Europe. Turning a loyal supplicant into a militarily strong competitor doesn't seem like it's the most beneficial thing for the U.S. to do....but there you are." - Albaby

While all of this is certainly true and definitely enough to demonstrate why the Trump administration backing away from being the "tentpole" of NATO is utterly stupid, there is also a more subtle reason as well.

Basically, countries with large powerful armies find reasons to use them. That is just basic human nature. Forcing the European countries to increase their military spending to build their nations military might will encourage them to use their military might. This is a bad idea when there are dozens of European countries with centuries worth of bad blood between them. Especially when there is Putin in Russia willing to use information warfare and sabotage to agitate those sore spots between countries.

Having lots of countries in Europe with more powerful armies has never worked out well for the world and actively threatens the security of the U.S.

Doesn’t matter.
Starmer is either in China’s pocket or someone else’s.

Why? Other countries have domestic politics, too.

We've created a situation where the U.S. is unpopular in Europe. Which makes it more painful in their domestic politics to be helpful to the U.S. It's not a binary - European nations won't be telling us to pound sand at every turn - but at the margins it just imposes a domestic political cost to be cooperating with the U.S. on things.

Weird how if you stop treating Europe like allies, and more like rivals, then they start treating us less like allies and more like rivals.

Another excellent illustration of why it might not be entirely in our interests for Europe stop being a supplicant, dependent on collective security with the U.S. serving as the tentpole, and go back to being a globally relevant military power in its own right.

Trump sure is making Europe great again - MEGA

All while making Americans worse off - MAWO

And continuing to reveal the true meaning of MAGA - Manipulating All Gullible Americans

Why?

Are you following this issue? Some things aren the fault of the US, believe it or not.

Are you following this issue? Some things aren the fault of the US, believe it or not.

I am following this issue. But it seems vastly more likely that Starmer's decision was based on domestic UK politics, rather than him being secretly on the payroll of a foreign power. Because, you know, Occam's razor.

If Starmer has decided he doesn't want to be seen as helping the U.S. do this, it's almost certainly because it's bad politics within the UK for him to be seen as doing this. Not because he's been bribed.

I am following this issue. But it seems vastly more likely that Starmer's decision was based on domestic UK politics, rather than him being secretly on the payroll of a foreign power. Because, you know, Occam's razor.

Do you think the US should notify China every time it wants to use Diego Garcia?

Do you think the US should notify China every time it wants to use Diego Garcia?

No. Why would they?

Do you think the US should notify China every time it wants to use Diego Garcia?

Where--in the many countries south of the US--would he be found? Deported by ICE, so....

Okay, homie. If that's how you want things to be:

Wake up Dope, you made them into - not a "homie". If you're using that term, you aren't recognizing what you did.

AL: suppose the simple answer is that we haven't reduced NATO spending all that much yet - certainly not enough for a peace dividend.

Dope: There is no “peace dividend”. Exactly the opposite; the US is gearing up for a Pacific conflict.

Dope, Al says that in the very next sentence after the one you copied above.

Doesn’t matter.
Starmer is either in China’s pocket or someone else’s

Dope, you have a bad read on this one. No pocket needed. Perhaps you don't realize how you have made the US less popular not only in Europe, but most of the world.

"Why? Other countries have domestic politics, too.

We've created a situation where the U.S. is unpopular in Europe. Which makes it more painful in their domestic politics to be helpful to the U.S. It's not a binary - European nations won't be telling us to pound sand at every turn - but at the margins it just imposes a domestic political cost to be cooperating with the U.S. on things." - Albaby

While I am sure there is a huge domestic political aspect to Starmer denying the U.S. access to its bases to bomb Iran, I am also sure that there is a NATO aspect to this as well. After spending the past decade constantly berating other members of NATO and complaining how it is a one-way street, I am sure there have been discussions among other NATO countries to look for opportunities to tweak the nose of Trump and show him that the U.S. needs the other member countries as well if he wants to do certain things.

"Doesn’t matter.
Starmer is either in China’s pocket or someone else’s." - Dumbass Dope

Trump: repeatedly harasses and insults our NATO allies and refuses to act like an ally to them

Dumbass Dope: Yeah!!! Finally someone putting America first.

Everyone with an IQ higher than room temperature: You know, we shouldn't treat our allies so badly. If we continue, they will stop being our allies and stop working with us. Furthermore, they will stop doing what the U.S. wants and start working more in their own best interests.

Trump: Continues to harass, insult our NATO allies and refuses to act like an ally to them.

Dumbass Dope: See, it is about time someone put NATO in their place and showed them they needed to stop leeching off of the U.S.

Trump: We are going to attack Iran for reasons I cannot articulate consistently. We are sending all sorts of military hardware to the Middle East.

NATO ally UK: No, you cannot use our bases to attack Iran. We know in the past it was a routine thing that never would have been in doubt, but you wanted us to become more independent of the U.S. so we are now doing what we think is in our own best interests. We don't think it is in our own best interests to get caught up in an American war with Iran.

Everyone with an IQ higher than room temperature: See Dumbass, we told you.

Dumbass Dope: The reason the UK is saying "No" to the U.S. cannot be because of what you "libruls" said, it must be because China or someone else got to Starmer.

What a fucking Dumbass. It is because of people like Dumbass Dope that the U.S. can no longer have nice things.

Do you think the US should notify China every time it wants to use Diego Garcia? - Dope

--------------

Good point. We don't have Gen Miley around any more to reliably keep the Chicoms informed of important developments.

Good point. We don't have Gen Miley around any more to reliably keep the Chicoms informed of important developments.

It's remarkable how literally everything just boils down to "Orange Man, bad". Overarching issues don't matter, US national security, fiscal continence or anything else - all that matters is that we're "popular" as if "popularity" fixes everything.

The logic behind that is so bad I don't know where to start. It was "popular" to pay for Europe's defense while they contributed nothing and we took on all the expenditures and risk. It was "popular" to allow other countries to embargo/tariff/tax/restrict US goods and have our manufacturing sectors be hollowed out.

As I said. It's not unlike the high school cheerleader who thinks she needs to run through the senior class so that people like her.

It's remarkable how literally everything just boils down to "Orange Man, bad".

You have problems with facts. No surprise.

As I said. It's not unlike the high school cheerleader who thinks she needs to run through the senior class so that people like her.

Yes, it is unlike that. We have had good, solid reciprocal economic and military relationships with our allies that vastly inured to our benefit for decades. We got to set up the entire world economy, and to design it to our benefit. We got to assume unparalleled dominance in military affairs, and therefore got to the be the guiding hand in international relations for decades. Being "The Leader of the Free World" came with massive benefits for the United States, not just costs.

Mutually beneficial relationships - not "running through" the senior class so that people will like you. That's not what our 80-year economic and military alliances with the other western democratic advanced economies have been like. In your metaphor, it would be like having a lot of good, close friends that you had been close to ever since you were in kindergarten....and then deciding that your friends are holding you back, so you start shaking them off. That can be either a good move or a bad move, depending on whether these were in fact good friends or not. But there's pros and cons to ditching your longtime friends.

One of the consequences is that once you start shaking them off and treating them like rivals rather than friends, they're far less likely to do favors for you. So if you call them up and ask them for something, they might tell you to buzz off.

We have had good, solid reciprocal economic and military relationships with our allies that vastly inured to our benefit for decades. We got to set up the entire world economy, and to design it to our benefit. We got to assume unparalleled dominance in military affairs, and therefore got to the be the guiding hand in international relations for decades. Being "The Leader of the Free World" came with massive benefits for the United States, not just costs.

You make a number of assertions as fact in this statement. But that's the thing, they're assertions. Not facts.

You're also ignoring a large chunk of Post-WWII history, specifically the part where the in immediate aftermath the American economy was literally the only one standing in the world. You think that might have contributed just a teensy bit to our economic and technological advantages?

What is Europe doing?

1. Europe more or less quit funding their defense in 1990.
2. Europe is moving towards de-industrialization.
3. Europe chooses to buy energy from the people they claim to oppose.
4. Europe has repeatedly levied administrative barriers against US goods over the years.
5. Europe has regulated their economies to such an extent that they're falling far behind the US in economic growth. If you doubt that I invite you to compare various European countries' per capita GDP to, say, Mississippi. Tell me what you find.
6. Europe routinely censors its own citizens and now wants to extend that to American platforms. Real champions of human rights.

I could go on.

One would think that somebody with half a brain in Whitehall would be telling Starmer that the Iranian regime is teetering on the brink and that if the Americans think they can tip the balance, maybe it's in Britain's interest to let them do it. Or that somebody over in Thames House is reminding 10 Downing Street that the Iranians are actively plotting mayhem inside the UK.

You'd think. But then again perhaps our "unpopularity" outweighs rational policy making. You know...like a high school cheerleader would.

Our "European allies" take far more from our alliance than they put in. That's not an assertion, that's a fact. That arrangement puts the US economy under pressure and forces us to defend a group of people unwilling to defend themselves.

If "unpopularity" - very much a transient thing - is the driving function behind European decision making, then one must ask: How good of allies were they, ever? Disallowing US use of bases or transit isn't anything new, btw.

Here's the question. How far are you willing to bend over to earn more "popularity" when a democrat retakes the White House?

You willing to let Europe just buy more oil from Russia, or all the solar cells they want from China?
How about we station 150,000 troops in Germany again? Would that make them feel better about themselves?

One would think that somebody with half a brain in Whitehall would be telling Starmer that the Iranian regime is teetering on the brink and that if the Americans think they can tip the balance, maybe it's in Britain's interest to let them do it.

But maybe it's not. It probably isn't. "Tipping the balance" through direct military intervention is an incredibly risky proposition, and one that can have enormous destabilizing impacts throughout the Middle East. I can't imagine that the Administration has given Britain much confidence in thinking that they've got a plan for the aftermath of "tipping the balance," much less given Britain any role in shaping a plan for the region. That's not their style.

Nor would Britain benefit from the larger implications of doing this, which were the reasons they publicly cited. The U.S. has no justification for taking military action against Iran. Other than the Thucydidean rationale, that is. There's no legal basis for attacking Iran under the existing international rules-based order, and there's been no effort to obtain such a justification.

U.S. policy is now to disdain international rules-based systems, since all they do is restrain the big countries in service of the small countries. And since we're a big countries, that's not "America First." But Britain is a small country, not a big one. They're far worse off in a world where the big do as they will and the small suffer as they must, rather than an international community where all the small gather together and try to enforce a legal structure against the big. The "middle powers" team, as Canada might put it.

So it's not really a smart move for them to actively enable the U.S. to attack a sovereign nation with no inciting incident to warrant that invasion. And given that the U.S. doesn't appear to have shown their work on why an attack is either justified or is likely to lead to a good outcome for Britain (or anyone in particular), there's not a whole lot of reason why they would say "yes" to such a request.

One reason they might have said "yes" in the past is a spirit of cooperation and mutual trust. But those are things that the current Administration disdains and has discarded.

Hence, we get told "no" when we might have been told "yes." Because, if we decide that Britain's contribution of the use of their military facilities and mutual cooperation - and subordination of their military strategy to the direction of the U.S. by taking a subordinating role in national security measures - doesn't add much to the alliance to be worth acknowledging by treating them better, it's no surprise those things might not be on offer any more.

But maybe it's not. It probably isn't. "Tipping the balance" through direct military intervention is an incredibly risky proposition, and one that can have enormous destabilizing impacts throughout the Middle East. I can't imagine that the Administration has given Britain much confidence in thinking that they've got a plan for the aftermath of "tipping the balance," much less given Britain any role in shaping a plan for the region. That's not their style.

Right, because the Mullahs in Iran have been a beacon of hope, freedom and light for the entire world since 1979.
Dude. Seriously?

The U.S. has no justification for taking military action against Iran. Other than the Thucydidean rationale, that is. There's no legal basis for attacking Iran under the existing international rules-based order, and there's been no effort to obtain such a justification.


The US has thousands of reasons to eliminate the Ayatollah and his entire regime. To say otherwise is to ignore our shared history since 1979.

U.S. policy is now to disdain international rules-based systems,

Yeah. No. This is another refrain that gets posted, but isn't right. For one thing, what "rules" are those? Even Mark Carney had to admit that the "rules" were kinda loose

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false — that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

(From his famous Seinfeldian speech where he said he wanted to team up with China, but knows damn well that's the end of his economy if he does. But it sounds good to people who don't actually know the "rules").

But Britain is a small country, not a big one. They're far worse off in a world where the big do as they will and the small suffer as they must, rather than an international community where all the small gather together and try to enforce a legal structure against the big. The "middle powers" team, as Canada might put it.

Not sure where to begin with this. First, see what Carney said. I suppose if one takes the view that the US is an irrational actor this makes sense. But we're not, so it doesn't.

The Bad Orange Man that is leading the rest of the world to support Iran and ignore, oh, pretty much everything else is now basing its decisions on "popularity".

Cool. What are you willing to do to restore "popularity"? How far are you willing to bend over to be "popular"?

Right, because the Mullahs in Iran have been a beacon of hope, freedom and light for the entire world since 1979.
Dude. Seriously?

Dude. Seriously? You think that the issue is just whether the existing regime in Iran is good or bad or downright evil? Before we go blowing things up, we need to have a plan for what follows - and "anything is better than the current system" is not a plan.

The US has thousands of reasons to eliminate the Ayatollah and his entire regime. To say otherwise is to ignore our shared history since 1979.

Really? Other than metaphor, what is the legal justification for an invasion of a sovereign state without any sanction by international body?

I suppose if one takes the view that the US is an irrational actor this makes sense. But we're not, so it doesn't.

Except it can make sense, because the US being an irrational actor is not the only way this makes sense. The U.S. has made it abundantly clear that it will no longer act in Britain's interests. Or any other country's interests. It will act in the U.S.' interests. We have always prioritized our own interests, of course - but we have now signaled very clearly to the rest of the world that whatever importance we used to place on the interests of our allies and fellow liberal democracies has now been downgraded, close to near-zero.

So now it is entirely rational for other countries to question supporting the U.S. in ways that they did not need to when it could be assumed that we would at least be cognizant of other countries' situation.

The Bad Orange Man that is leading the rest of the world to support Iran and ignore, oh, pretty much everything else is now basing its decisions on "popularity".

It's not basing those decisions on "popularity" in the same sense as "high school" popular. Trump has alienated the electorate of many (most?) European countries by dismissing their interests and criticizing their nations. He has signaled to them that the U.S. no longer is going to concern itself with their well-being, and indeed no longer regards them as allies but something closer to parasitic rivals. Going forward, we are now perfectly willing to damage their economies, injure their domestic industries, impose punitive measures against their trade, because we have the power to do so and because it benefits us to disregard their well-being. So those electorates are rationally assessing whether it is in their interests for their nations to closely cooperate with the U.S. - which gets expressed to their leaders in the form of support for such cooperation or not.

They used to be more unreservedly willing to be part of Team U.S.A. - Leader of the Free World and all that - because they could count on us to be a good Leader and look out for their interests as well as our own. But we've spent the last year demonstrating that's over - our interests are the only ones that count. America First. Well, these sorts of things will start happening a lot more frequently....

And on the relationship with our European friends:

https://statedept.substack.com/p/the-need-for-civi...

The Need for Civilizational Allies in Europe
StateDept
May 27, 2025
Author: Samuel Samson
Senior Advisor for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL)

The close relationship between the United States and Europe transcends geographic proximity and transactional politics. It represents a unique bond forged in common culture, faith, familial ties, mutual assistance in times of strife, and above all, a shared Western civilizational heritage.

Yes it does. But...

The suppression of speech, facilitation of mass migration, targeting of religious expression, and undermining of electoral choice threatens the very foundation of the transatlantic partnership. A Europe that replaces its spiritual and cultural roots, that treats traditional values as dangerous relics, and that centralizes power in unaccountable institutions is a Europe less capable of standing firm against external threats and internal decay. To this end, achieving peace in Europe and around the world requires not a rejection of our shared cultural heritage, but a renewal of it.

Secretary Rubio has made clear that the State Department will always act in America’s national interest. Europe’s democratic backsliding not only impacts European citizens but increasingly affects American security and economic ties, along with the free speech rights of American citizens and companies.

You think that the issue is just whether the existing regime in Iran is good or bad or downright evil? Before we go blowing things up, we need to have a plan for what follows - and "anything is better than the current system" is not a plan.

You have the same knowledge of the existence of a plan or the nonexistence of a plan as I do, which is zero.

Really? Other than metaphor, what is the legal justification for an invasion of a sovereign state without any sanction by international body?

Did someone call for an invasion by us?
No, they didn't.

Except it can make sense, because the US being an irrational actor is not the only way this makes sense. The U.S. has made it abundantly clear that it will no longer act in Britain's interests. Or any other country's interests. It will act in the U.S.' interests. We have always prioritized our own interests, of course - but we have now signaled very clearly to the rest of the world that whatever importance we used to place on the interests of our allies and fellow liberal democracies has now been downgraded, close to near-zero.

More assertions as facts. Wrong.
First, let's define "Britain's interests". Is it in their interest to be weak, dependent on everyone else, have a crap economy and act against all that stuff that they wrote down in the Magna Carta? I'd say it's not.

Is it in their interest to more or less hand over one of the most strategic pieces of real estate on the planet to the Chinese? Nah, bruv.

Your yourself keep mentioning how the Europeans being complete weaklings is a boon to *us*. That's fascinating. I'm arguing that they rediscover their spirit and their ability to stand on their own two feet while you want them on their knees...which one of our visions is in their "Best interest"?

but we have now signaled very clearly to the rest of the world that whatever importance we used to place on the interests of our allies and fellow liberal democracies has now been downgraded, close to near-zero.

And this is still wrong. What Trump is doing is saying that the United States needs to look out for our own interests and not simply be a pass-through of cash or military support to countries that want our protection but don't want to contribute. Literally no one doesn't understand that.

It's not basing those decisions on "popularity" in the same sense as "high school" popular. Trump has alienated the electorate of many (most?) European countries by dismissing their interests and criticizing their nations.

Has he, now. I suspect it depends on whom you speak with. In the leftwingoverse only "Nazis" would agree with anything Trump says but I'll refer you to this statement

“There is a legitimate reason to have a debate about things like migration...[migration] has been disruptive and destabilizing...It needs to be fixed in a humane way with secure borders that don’t torture and kill people."

As far as "dismissing their interests", that's also quite wrong. How is it in Germany's real interest to build pipelines to Russia and make them the sole supplier of their energy? How is in their "interests" to de-induitrialize?

It's funny how arguments tend to get more complicated once definitions are questioned...

Going forward, we are now perfectly willing to damage their economies, injure their domestic industries, impose punitive measures against their trade, because we have the power to do so and because it benefits us to disregard their well-being. So those electorates are rationally assessing whether it is in their interests for their nations to closely cooperate with the U.S. - which gets expressed to their leaders in the form of support for such cooperation or not.

Yet more assertions masquerading as facts.
Did we tell them to stop producing energy? No.
Did we tell them to buy critical products from their enemies? No.
Did we tell them to stop funding their militaries? No.

What are we telling them? The exact opposite of all that stuff.
It's kind of funny that all the things you describe as "harming" Europe that we want them to do...actually make them stronger economically and militarily.

So who really has their best interests at heart? The people who put Europe in the position it's in now?

They used to be more unreservedly willing to be part of Team U.S.A. - Leader of the Free World and all that - because they could count on us to be a good Leader and look out for their interests as well as our own. But we've spent the last year demonstrating that's over - our interests are the only ones that count. America First. Well, these sorts of things will start happening a lot more frequently....

Lulz. I really think you don't understand how the Continentals + the UK view the United States historically. Like, at all. They've had a love/hate relationship with us for literally decades.

Did someone call for an invasion by us?

Why do we need our planes to use their airbases, if we aren't going to invade Iran's airspace and conduct military attacks within their country? This isn't some big secret. You can't engage in even limited airstrikes without invading their airspace.

How is it in Germany's real interest to build pipelines to Russia and make them the sole supplier of their energy? How is in their "interests" to de-induitrialize?

How is it in Germany's real interests for us to impose punitive tariffs on their goods? How is it in their interests to disrupt longstanding trade patterns that entire industries within their economy have been based on for decades? How is it in their real interests for us to signal that we won't support them if they're attacked? How is it in their interests for us to tell them that domestic policy matters that are normally the purview of the electorate of Germany instead must be aligned to what our government decides they should be? Etc.

It's the old "this is for your own good" claim - which has been used to justify things that are both good and bad for time immemorial. But I don't understand how you can make it in good faith, because the whole point of Trump's changes to the global economic system was to change them so that they were better for us and worse for them. That's the stated purpose! He claimed that the then-existing system favored them, so that it had to be changed so that it stopped favoring them. By definition, he's acting against their interests in favor of our own. And so it's not at all surprising that other countries will respond by no longer cooperating with the U.S. on things we want.

Why do we need our planes to use their airbases, if we aren't going to invade Iran's airspace and conduct military attacks within their country? This isn't some big secret. You can't engage in even limited airstrikes without invading their airspace.

Nice try here. Really nice try. But you said
Really? Other than metaphor, what is the legal justification for an invasion of a sovereign state without any sanction by international body?

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here that you weren't trying to conflate ground invasion. Hmmm, okay.
Tell me. When Barack Obama was droning everyone he could find, was that a part of the "Rules based international order?" How about US airstrikes in Yemen or other places?

That's not very international rules based-y.

How is it in Germany's real interests for us to impose punitive tariffs on their goods? How is it in their interests to disrupt longstanding trade patterns that entire industries within their economy have been based on for decades? How is it in their real interests for us to signal that we won't support them if they're attacked? How is it in their interests for us to tell them that domestic policy matters that are normally the purview of the electorate of Germany instead must be aligned to what our government decides they should be? Etc.

Hmmm. According to the above, the Germans and others have been sterling partners for years, always treating US goods fairly. Is that it? Only since the Bad Orange Man has come along have things changed.

Let's ask Boeing about that. https://www.ft.com/content/985ae1d6-89eb-46d6-b06c...

Yeah, the Europeans never act in their own interest. They always follow the rules-based international order. One subsidy to Airbus at a time!

LOL.

On this one: How is it in their real interests for us to signal that we won't support them if they're attacked?

If they won't fight for themselves, why should we? You really don't get the longstanding joke that the defense posture in London, Paris, Brussels and Berlin is to defend the continent down to the last American. You can add "Pole" to that now, I suppose.

How is it in their interests for us to tell them that domestic policy matters that are normally the purview of the electorate of Germany instead must be aligned to what our government decides they should be? Etc.

Because if they don't support basic human rights like, I don't know, free speech - then whose side are they on?

But I don't understand how you can make it in good faith, because the whole point of Trump's changes to the global economic system was to change them so that they were better for us and worse for them.

I was reading a great quote the other day about how when someone removes your privilege it looks like discrimination. The Europeans have done all the things I've mentioned to their benefit and our detriment for decades. Redressing the balance is just that, redressing a balance.

By definition, he's acting against their interests in favor of our own. And so it's not at all surprising that other countries will respond by no longer cooperating with the U.S. on things we want.</iI>

Your argument vis a vis Iran is basically the Europeans cutting off their noses to spite their face. Which is the same kind of thing they'll do when they all run over in the most effeminate, butthurt way possible to sign trade deals with China. In 10 years they'll be looking at being unable to pay for their welfare states because they shipped all their jobs to China, wondering how things went so wrong.

You have the same knowledge of the existence of a plan or the nonexistence of a plan as I do, which is zero.

Spankee never has a plan. Everybody knows that. Next question?

You think that the issue is just whether the existing regime in Iran is good or bad or downright evil? Before we go blowing things up, we need to have a plan for what follows - and "anything is better than the current system" is not a plan.

You have the same knowledge of the existence of a plan or the nonexistence of a plan as I do, which is zero

No. We have the example of Venezuela, for which there was no real plan. China is getting Venezuelan oil, and cutting out China was originally touted. This admin is a bunch of stumble fucks as far as plans.

No. We have the example of Venezuela, for which there was no real plan.

There was a plan. The left wanted a giant invasion or some other such thing so as to criticize Trump. He didn't deliver for you.

There was a plan. The left wanted a giant invasion or some other such thing so as to criticize Trump.

There was no plan. Y'all just fired from the hip. The oil companies had already expressed no interest in Venezuelan oil to Trump. You came out here touting the plan was to cut off the Chinese from the oil.

Net Sifter:

As of early 2026, during the second Trump administration, American oil company executives expressed a cautious, mixed, and largely hesitant outlook regarding immediate, large-scale investment in Venezuela, despite President Trump’s push for a $100 billion investment to revitalize the nation's oil sector. While Chevron indicated they would expand, others, led by Exxon Mobil, described the country as "uninvestable" in its current state, citing past asset seizures and the need for significant legal and financial restructuring.

Now we're asking China to buy the oil at a higher price.

Whoops.
Looks like Starmer’s lawyers didn’t read the legal paperwork closely enough with respect to Diego Garcia.

We just have to tell them we’re doing a thing. We don’t need their permission to do the thing.

So that just leaves RAF Fairford, which they retain the right to deny us use of.

Okay, fine.

Kier just made a huge political mistake. The Tories don’t like Farage and Reform but you know what they hate more?

Stains in England’s national honor. Which is what this is.

Starmer; in his quest to Be A Cool Kid may have just sealed Labour’s fate.

Hahahahahahaha.

But it seems vastly more likely that Starmer's decision was based on domestic UK politics, rather than him being secretly on the payroll of a foreign power. Because, you know, Occam's razor.

If we don't act like an ally, why would we expect to be treated like an ally?

The Felon is reviled around the globe. Nobody wants to be seen playing nice with us.

Dope1,

As all the leftists understand, just saying "No" to Trump is a huge win for someone like Starmer.

Even if it hurts his own country and the West in general.

Whoops.
Looks like Starmer’s lawyers didn’t read the legal paperwork closely enough with respect to Diego Garcia.

Link? Not in the MSN.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/19/dona...

This seems to imply that the US can stop the turn over of the island to Mauritius.

Pucksfool.

It doesn't seem to support what Dope is saying, and yes, I do see it puts a flag on the deal:

Dope: Looks like Starmer’s lawyers didn’t read the legal paperwork closely enough with respect to Diego Garcia.

We just have to tell them we’re doing a thing. We don’t need their permission to do the thing.

Notice how putting an end to the Iranian regime isn't a concern here. Nor is US national security.

None of it. Just hatred for Trump, and cheering for every setback the US the faces.

liberals. They really hate it when you mention they're not on the side of the United States...but then they go and demonstrate it every chance they get.

Notice how putting an end to the Iranian regime isn't a concern here.

Promises, promises, and no plan.

Nor is US national security

Yes, I think Trump is a danger to National Security now that you ask.

Promises, promises, and no plan.

And when is King Donald going to make his case to us citizens? When is he going to make his case to Congress?

And when is King Donald going to make his case to us citizens? When is he going to make his case to Congress?

He makes his case to citizens by gauging their reaction to rhetoric before it and their reaction after he's done it. Congress is to be avoided it seems and if Dems gain seats we can hold that. I'm just hoping he doesn't do too much damage, and we could get lucky and some of his moves actually work out by accident. I'll take serendipity.

Iran Against Israel? I don't care.


Iran Against USA? For now, I still am weak - USA.


Iran against Europe? I wish I could help Iran. I'd work for free to help them develop whatever they needed an all I'd ask is a free lunch a day (nice and hot and tasty---like in Asia and Middle East....the QR -code toting always in a hurry wolf down lukewarm food Americans are not aware of that life )

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.