Arguing with a Euro about this is like arguing with a literal child. Insofar as NATO is a defensive alliance, it ceases to be an alliance with any serious deterrent without the United States. The competency of European militaries - again with the notable exception of the French - is dismal, and I personally witnessed this in Afghanistan. There is no substitute for actual combat and most NATO partners managed to participate without actually participating.

>You love nuclear proliferation now? You think we don't have nukes or we can't build more nukes? You think it is in the USA's best interest to have more countries with nukes everywhere? Are you dumb or do you have a death wish?

I'm talking about Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs), which don't always have nuclear payloads, and which Iran, Russia, and others are desperate to produce at scale and for which Europe has no defense against without the United States. Maybe you mean that Europe would simply launch their own strategic weapons in response? Perhaps, though given the completely schizophrenic political situation there I doubt any government would approve the launch of nuclear weapons.

I'm happy to read any particular you quote you think was specifically offensive, though all I've been able to find has been something I'd book as "true, but perhaps touches a nerve with our friends across the pond". We can yell at each other back and forth but that doesn't change the reality that Europe cannot defend itself in current state without the United States, and policy makers in my country are a) acknowledging this fact and b) wanting that to change.