>>3984444

Nice quints anon. I am a British Anon and I am no fan of the European Union. I want Brexit to happen. I got a lot of inspiration from this Tucker Carlson speech that I watched last night. In the video he says that one thing Trump does is ask the obvious questions, like a 5 year old child does so I am going to do that now, a la God Emperor Trump…

1. What is the point of NATO now?

2. As an American do you still want to pay for NATO?

3. Imagine that you were a European and you knew that NATO was going away (and US funding) Would you want an army to protect you?

4. Is that wrong?

I'd be interested in feedback on this question from an American point of view.

>>3984620

>Protect you from what?

All kinds of threats anon. If you don't have an army then other powers and nations will just walk all over you and potentially invade your territory.

>What is the threat, exactly?

Full on invasion by foreign powers

Annexation of clay by foreign powers (Russia in European mindset)

Invasion by foreign peoples / unchecked migration

Vassalage like the Vikings. Pay us gold or we will invade and burn up your territory

To control existing population from civil disobedience and outright revolt

Is that enough. I can't believe I'm having to explain why you would need an army to an American (presuming you are US) when you spend so much on your own army compared to the rest of the world.

>>3984671

>>3984702

Anon. Not to be rude but I'm going to leave the Biblical prophecy aspect out of this just because it is a huge rabbit hole. I can feel it's important you and I don't want to offend but I I do want to keep the discussion limited. I hope you don't mind?

Whether we go off the Q idea of countering the 16 year plan for America or just plain old 'America First' then you anons (USA) want to pull back from the world (not leave it entirely) and make various regions more independent and make them pay their own way more. Correct? So, that is what Putin calls the Multi-Polar world where you accept that Russia is a stable territory that should be a world power and doesn't need to be bombed or traded back into the stone age. You would have to accept China as a world power in the East and India.

In that case, it makes sense for Europe to have army of it's own does it not?

Loving this discussion by the way.

>>3984770

Sorry, if I was a bit rude anon. I was just giving examples of why you need an army I guess. Just to make it clear that realistically the people of Europe will need an army(unless their is some kind of flash in the sky, Jordan Sather, Wilcox, 'event' type thing that I know some on these boards are hoping for). So, it's fine to say we (America) want to spend less on NATO and you (Europe) should pay more (2%). That makes sense. However, there is a bit of cognitive dissonance in saying, we (America) want to pull out NATO and you (Europe) should continue to pay into it rather than setting up your own unified army with it's own priorities.

I hope that makes sense. It's a big question that has implications because regardless of the Qanon narrative with 5 eyes, Britain has always sat right in the middle of Europe and USA. So, if we move more towards Europe as our political class wants us to, that could also affect our relationship with you, my American frens. I feel like Jean Claude at the moment. Still, comfy though.