this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
341 points (99.1% liked)

World News

55154 readers
4520 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Donald Trump has warned the U.K. and France that the “U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore,” as he vented his frustration over the close allies’ refusal to join military action against Iran.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

So you claim that when a country joins NATO and agrees to its terms, it's a matter of choice whether they oblige to the rules of being in NATO?

Is that how your insurance company works too? The contract you sign states: "If you pay a monthly fee we will cover expenses in case of theft." Case of theft: "Nah mate, go fuck yourself."

Can you at least acknowledge article 5 was used once during the entire existance of NATO, when the US was attacked on 9/11?

And can you acknowledge article 5 states "an attack against one is an attack against all", which is a term countries are to agree with when they join NATO and should follow in case one of it's allies gets attacked?

So when the US was attacked, it was the duty of all NATO members, as stated by the terms of NATO, specifically article 5, to join the war with the US?

Also, I didn't serve in 2001, I was still in high school back then. I did Active Endeavour in 2012 as my country, among many others, were pulled into the American shit show for over 20 years.

Sorry mate, I don't understand why something as simple as this can be so hard for someone to understand. You even provide sources yourself proving my point yet you claim I'm wrong and are pretty rude.

Maybe try to find some joy in life, go out and drink some beer, meet some friends, I think you need it.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 27 minutes ago* (last edited 27 minutes ago)

It's hilarious that someone can seriously think that NATO sloshing around in Mediterranean for a bit and flying around over the US a little constituted any kind of a serious response. The US themselves said they didn't want any more of that silliness.

And, you once again contradict yourself and weasel out of what you said in the first place. The fact, which you just confirmed in the above comment, is that the article 5 response was triggered by NATO. The US didn't ask for it.