Talk:Major non-NATO ally

message: Why is ,  and  not a MNNA?
:Why should they be? State your argument rather than asking a surfaceless question, and sign your posts. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs  03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MNNAs have to be designated as such by the President. 98.218.229.58 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabia, India and Ethiopia

message: On the titles (Initial MNNAs, Subsequent ,etc) would be nice to have also the US President who name them. --Jor70 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Nice work!  — Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of MNNAs

message: The map needs to be updated to reflect addition of Afghanistan. Doyna Yar (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map update 

message: has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Major non-NATO ally}}

message: I think the name is not neutral, I propose to change it to MNNA of U.S. --Cheol (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:COMMONNAME, it seems that we should name the article after the actual name being used.  For example, there are 138,000 Ghits for "Major non-NATO ally" versus 8 Ghits for "MNNA of U.S."  Likewise, WP:PRECISION states that, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that," and adding "of U.S." to the end of the title would appear to be unnecessary preemptive disambiguation.  19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the inclusion in the title that the article is entirely about the US allies, it defines neither "precisely enough" nor "unambiguously" the "topical scope" of the article. At the very least there should be something along the lines of "US defense policy" in parentheses after the current title, since the article does not consider the non-NATO allies of any other country. Wikipedia isn't US-specific so resorting to appeals to ghits on US-specific resources is biased, intellectually dishonest and dickish. 84.250.167.255 (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming biased toward USA 

message: This section is just getting silly. According to Wikipedia, 'U.S. Armed Forces troops were stationed in 150 countries'. Where does all this speculation end? Doyna Yar (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to include it. Speculation has no place on wikipedia. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other speculated MNNAs 

message: India is now a part of the MNNA, the map must be updated. Caleb KG (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: Does DJT saying Brazil should be an MNNA make it so? There is specific legislation for this status - Brazil has not been added to that list, at least not yet. Therefore, the material benefits and political meaning don't exist yet. I would think specify as such, and remove from map.
128.164.22.78 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil

message: Brunei and Colombia are not MNNAs per the U.S. Department of State website: state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status.
The same site addresses Taiwan: "Pub. L. 107-228 provides Taiwan shall be treated as an MNNA without formal designation as such." Andrew1444 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "major non-NATO ally" is a formal designation by the US government, neither Brunei nor Colombia belong.  For that to change, the US government would need to award them that status. --Darth Occulus (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

text: WP:CRYSTALBALL. CowHouse (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brunei, Colombia and Taiwan 

message: Argentina no longer is an Major Non-NATO ally, as they lost this status one decade ago: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/eeuu-cree-que-la-argentina-ya-no-es-aliado-estrategico-nid1392668/. 190.183.247.137 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the United States Department of State disagrees with you. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another sources, like this, confirms that Argentina lost their status in the year 2012: https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-221895-2013-06-09.html?mobile=1... And following too many tensions with USA and UK, Argentina cannot be still considered ally of them. It's more, it never was.---190.183.247.210 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the US Department of State government disagrees with you just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not true. DiSantis19 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

text:  I'm not saying that the US government agrees or disagrees with me. I only say that Argentina should be removed from this list, because it has never had good relations with NATO countries and they had even requested the expulsion of Argentina. --190.183.247.210 (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What does NATO have to do with this? This is about non-NATO allies. As in: not NATO. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina no longer is MNNA 

message: (Today: 2023, May 2nd) Argentina is still on the list:
https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacApps (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentina is still a MNNA 

message: The term "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership" is the top foreign relations level of the Vietnamese Government. Awarding it puts the US relationship on par with Russia and China. However I don't believe it in any way relates to an alliance of any form. Doyna Yar (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: Do we really need a speculation section? Doyna Yar (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a bill before the US congress, or some other concrete indication they may become a MNNA, backed by RS's, then I don't see why not. We have sections on possible future expansion in many articles. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential MNNA