Well, we got rid of ISIS. I guess there's probably a few guys driving around the desert still waving their flag, but they are basically dead. I think the same can be done with Hamas and Hezbollah in time. We can wear them down. They are far less of a threat now than they were a few years ago.
The terrorists of Oct 7 2023 killed a bunch of civilians and then ran home and hid among other civilians. So we either reward the terrorists here by letting that be a winning strategy, or we do what needs to be done and punish them. The collateral damage is on the terrorists for their cowardly behavior.
Trump never undermined the NATO alliance, he actually pressured Europe to start taking control of their own defense instead of relying on America to do everything for them. Trump made NATO stronger. "Allies" who are all take and no give are not allies at all, no need to appease them.
Trump was pretty rough with Zelensky, but he secured us a better deal. Now in exchange for helping Ukraine, we gain access to all their drone tech and some of their rare earth minerals. So we have skin in the game now.
Greenland is crucial for America's defense. It's the perfect place to set up defense against nuclear warheads coming from Russia. I'm sure Trump would be happy to write Greenland or Denmark a check, but of course Europe wants to be a pain in the ass over this, like they are with basically everything...
Even without territorial control, ISIS still exists through a hidden network of cells. They have adapted and survived, operating through lone wolves and decentralized networks. Wasn't it just a week ago that Jessica Bowie allegedly tried to blow up the New York State Capitol? Collateral damage works both ways, but I guess it matters more to you when Americans are involved? For me, European lives matter more than American lives, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. It all depends on your perspective.
You have to understand the mechanisms behind NATO, why it was created, and what purpose it was intended to serve. NATO was also designed to strengthen America's position and influence. You can read up on the Marshall Plan and the Mutual Security Act and draw your own conclusions.
One consequence of this arrangement was that European countries did not have to invest as heavily in their own defense because they had a security guarantor: the United States. Trump has now made it clear that America's allies may have to stand on their own. I have no problem with that. In fact, the stronger the EU becomes militarily, the less military dominance and influence the US will have over Europe.
It's funny how you try to turn a war against the free world into a business calculation. Ukraine is now a world leader in modern warfare, developing ways to maximize enemy casualties while minimizing costs. You should ask yourself how much the war against Iran has cost American taxpayers, and to what end?
Europeans don't give a damn about whether Greenland is strategically important to the defense of the United States. Trump has made his position clear, and he has repeatedly shown far more sympathy toward Putin than many Europeans find acceptable. We hate Putin and would take every opportunity to see him brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, while your president invited him, sat down with him, and treated him to a nice meal (maybe even sucked his balls?).
Europe is now militarily stronger than it has been in decades, and ironically, partly because of Trump. The Nordic countries and other European nations are increasingly prepared to defend Greenland. If Trump were to threaten an invasion of Greenlandic territory, they would not simply stand by and watch.
The US can use its own territory to station its nuclear weapons. An alliance goes both ways. Why should Europe accept US nuclear warheads being stationed on European soil while the US tells Europe that it has to stand on its own? Find your own space and make it work on your own, just as Europe is now being forced to do.