Iran

[Confluence]

I agree, the US takes on too large of a financial burden. I also (shockingly) agree with Trump's push to bring members in line with agreed-upon commitments, which has risen from 2% to 5% of GDP last year.

To put it in context:



Also worth looking at from a per capita perspective:



It's also not clear what the US defense budget would look like without NATO commitments. I think there's some confusion about this stateside, as it's become a political talking point.

Now you are an expert on NATO funding. But not really.
At all.

 

[Sarge]

I agree with this, but then we can't automatically expect other countries to jump in. Other countries have a lot more at stake than us. They are in range or much closer in proximity to attacks. The likelihood of iran hitting the USA with a missile is basically non existent whereas many allied countries are at high risk if they get involved. The biggest threat would be sleeper cells in the USA and having a dirty bomb smuggled into our country.

I disagree. I think their problem is that they’ve allowed such a large Muslim population to fester in their own countries that they fear retribution from those same people should they become involved. Look, everyone knows what Islam is whether they actually admit it or not.

 

[Booted]

iran Iran Iran

 

[Troglodyte]

Perhaps. The US Citizenry is the largest army in the world. Regardless, we have a chance. And that's why the framers put in the 2A, for us to be able to protect ourselves from our own Government.

Shame the Iranian people don't also have that fighters chance, agreed?

Perhaps? Dude. This is 2026, not 1826. The military has arms and intelligence gathering that citizens don’t have. Many U.S. gun owners are in poor physical condition and many others would pass on shooting at something that can shoot back.

As far as the Iranians are concerned it’d certainly help if they had arms but they’d need help regardless.

 

[oneforthebus]

View attachment 17067

"Advisers say". If I had a nickel for every piece of liberal propaganda that started off that way the last 10 years...

 

[oneforthebus]

Thank God for that. Most sane Americans understand that NATO is a defensive alliance amongst allied nations, not a standing military force that some head of state can beckon on a whim when they feel like attacking some random country.

Ironically enough, NATO's cornerstone Article 5, which states an armed attack against ANY member state is considered an attack against ALL member states, has been invoked only once in the alliance's history. It was activated on September 12, 2001, in direct response to the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

They need us a lot more than we need them. Trump knows this and knows how much leverage that gives us.

 

[oneforthebus]

Please cite a single instance in this entire thread, or anywhere on this board, where I have said a *single* thing in support of the Iranian regime.

Calling Trump & Hegseth's war of choice reckless and belligerent, or to state that they were bamboozled by Netanyahu into attacking Iran, has exactly ZERO to do with showing any type of empathy or support for the Iranian regime. Well, maybe in your mind it does. But that's another story.

You're so concerned about supporting allies but when we try to help one of our strongest allies, Israel, a modern democracy surrounded by violent radical Islamic maniacs trying to obtain nukes, we've been "bamboozled".

 

[Superman]

Nope, wrong again. Since Trump started this war, I very much hope he can end this war in a favorable way for the United States. Yes, under President Trump. I'll stand and applaud him if he can get out of this quagmire of his own making.

you think I'm new here?

if he ended the "war" in Iran today, you'd ***** and moan that he took too long. if he ended the "war" today, by going over to Iran and choking out a mullah, you'd say he was being too violent and call for an(other) impeachment.

if he cured cancer, you'd whine that he's putting cancer docs out of business.

if he solved world hunger, you'd say he's just trying to get himself and his rich billionaires richer.

if he presented unquestionable evidence that the government was behind JFK's shooting, you'd demand he step down.

no matter what he does, you're going to complain.

even if he stepped down, you'd find a way to ***** and complain. it's what you do. we all know it. it's up to you to accept it.