Who needs friends when you're this awesome on your own?

A quick google search for "NATO commitment" will get you dozens upon dozens of stories questioning the value of NATO, even if you constrain the search to just the last 24 hours. Not only do Americans question it when we contribute 75% of the resources, but even other NATO members question why they need to be involved at all.  For the most stark perspective, I've picked The Communist Party of Great Britain's opinion piece.

As we look to make budget cuts to get back from the deficit, the military has the most meat to skin from its bones. If you are able to successfully wrangle threads off stupid nonsense stories like the media does cover, you'll need to be informed so you can keep tossing in fresh points to trigger reactions. There is a lot to cover within what, why, and how we contribute to NATO. There's a lot of valid commentary to either keep or discard the organization.

Essentially, if you're against war in all its forms, you can naturally be for America stepping out of NATO and saving some money. If you're for just-cause wars, then the question becomes complicated as NATO needs to be assessed to see if it meets your personal metrics of effectiveness. Some key points to consider are:

• An alliance obligates other nations to "rubber stamp" our missions as needed. For good or bad, this creates an institutionalized bandwagoning effect, and means more freedom to take actions without causing diplomatic problems.
• But, the disparities in contributions between allies are stark enough that the American flag is all people see when a NATO mission passes through. It's not obvious that it's widely supported, so the "rubber stamp" effect is weakened.
• When left to its largely non-American devices, NATO can't even flip a divided, under-manned and under-equipped Libya. Allegedly, some contributor nations are literally "out of ammo".
• It's not that NATO is full of peaceniks, it's that most NATO nations are worse off financially than we are.
• A dissolution of NATO means a weaker US sphere of influence and less international mobility of forces. We would lose easy treaty-obligated access to European military bases, such as the Italian ones used now for Libya.

So, if you do support us remaining in NATO, and working with our current allies to make it meet its own ideals, you can try adapt some statements such as these to hijack threads via the methodology in the eBook:

• Rick Perry for President: "Wouldn't a Gulf Stater only really understand Mexico and Cuba? Who knows how he would plan for and react to something European, like everyone in NATO quitting as an austerity measure and kicking us out of their countries."
• Weak GOP Candidates: "Could this trend be why other NATO nations don't invest in our ideas anymore? If they don't even strongly speak to their own base, can any of these guys stop the exits other nations are taking?"
• Weiner, Post-Resignation Plans: "If he needs something to do, and his only real skill is baiting the ladies with cock shots, maybe we can get him to entice German Chancellor Angela Merkel with some sweet peen to keep Germany in NATO and get it contributing."