Snowygerry
Deity
I like @Birdjaguar, no drama queen at all 

I have heavily condemned my country on a number of occasions (not just trump being a bully toward greenland and Panama). The Iraq war for example had no justification whatsoever which I have consistently criticized. If you want to get in an argument with a "USA NUMBER ONE WE ARE PERFECT BLAH BLAH BLAH" look elsewhere. But as far as useless as allies? Let's look at what the USA has spent in terms of their GDP for the defense of Europe compared to what most other nato countries have spent. European countries generally have better social programs than America (healthcare, education infrastructure retirement etc). American taxpayers pay for not only our defense but also yours. Nobody has attacked you in the first place but that's because no one is stupid enough to, specifically because America has your back. There are plenty of valid criticism you can make of our foreign policy but saying being under our security umbrella is irrelevant is nonsense.Trump wanting to attack another nato member has me furious but he is the exception and not the norm to any other us president in that way. The examples you all have given are so weak. Ukraine? Ukraine was never a nato country to begin with, thus article five didn't apply. America has helped Ukriane to a limited extent because it wanted to, not because of a commitment or a promise. They'd have fallen to the kremlin long ago without our help. I expect the war to end with Russia holding onto some of the territory it conquered, but far from a collapse of the Ukranian government which was clearly Putin's objective. But I've met too many people on the internet who are seriously convinced helping the ukranians defend their homeland from a dictator is just as morally reprehensible as supporting Israel occupy Palestine, which proves some people hate what the USA does no matter what. These are the kind of people who see Scott Ritter and Noam Chomsky as heroes, rather than the traitors they are who should be behind bars for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.That’s a strange conclusion to draw, I tjust hink US Americans are drama queens.and useless as allies.
I’m not paying for that, get out of here.
Let's look at what the USA has spent in terms of their GDP for the defense of Europe compared to what most other nato countries have spent.
The Belgian-U.S. trade and investment relationship is one of the largest and most balanced in the world, with annual trade in goods and services of around $74 billion each year. The United States is Belgium’s largest foreign investor outside of the EU, with more than 900 U.S. businesses employing nearly 130,000 people in Belgium. Belgium is the fourteenth-largest source of foreign direct investment in the United States, with $71 billion in total stock. Over 500 Belgian companies employ about 70,000 American workers, and Belgium is the fourteenth-largest importer of U.S. goods in the world. Belgian-U.S. research partnerships are driving advancements in biotechnology, semiconductors, and other future forward sectors.
So do the mooches. As this argument would go.In return you get a hugely profitable alliance.
But we all live in Amerika, and it's wunderbar.I get to make fun of America the hardest since I am from here!
It's poor scifi to think that something which isn't a country, will have a common army. And no one should hold their breath for a federal Eu.
Nato has never been to war with any side that could even put one of the Nato countries at risk. The army of a country, on the other hand, will obviously try to defend its own country. France has tried - nominally or not - to push for a pan-Eu army, but since the Eu is in no way a federation, the idea would be doomed in practice if not (as is currently) in principle. Of course only in fantasy land, with the austerity crisis only a few years ago, would anyone think a pan-EUro army will be defending them - yet with great worries comes great imagination.NATO already does that with a multinational integrated command
Nato has never been to war with any side that could even put one of the Nato countries at risk. The army of a country, on the other hand, will obviously try to defend its own country. France has tried - nominally or not - to push for an pan-Eu army, but since the Eu is in no way a federation, the idea would be doomed in practice if not (as is currently) in principle. Of course only in fantasy land, with the austerity crisis only a few years ago, would anyone think a pan-EUro army will be defending them - yet with great worries comes great imagination.
Then again, likely even a pan-Eu army is less of a fantasy (though very fantastical) than thinking the Eu will antagonize the US, when the US now controls the energy flow to the EU. I think some here haven't quite realized that.
Yes, but this seems to presuppose that Donald Trump is capable of such reasoning instead of just being a moron and a bully who won't back down because he feels safe.Regarding Greenland, perhaps the worry for most - not for Denmark or Greenland - is that the US wishing to outright annex parts of it, if anything, signifies how little trust they have in most of the european continent being defensible in the long run.