Well there's a delicate line between "being independent" and then "accepting help when it's needed." There's nothing wrong with either of these and you can be both dependent and independent quite harmoniously even though it's a delicate balance.
Once that line or balance is thrown off then you have a new set of problems. Over-dependence where a country/culture/people depend *too* much on the "government" to: bail them out of a political tight spot, a military quandary or a financial pit. A slog in which there are too many conflicting views and no one can really decide what's right and what's wrong and tensions only grow and fester. And a revolt in which the presence of the "back up" force is unwelcome and citizens express that.
However, I don't feel that Europe as a whole is really bad off (as in - we're not stepping in to quell the unruly crowds and settle disputes whenever they arise, much unlike our involvement in the Middle East). Some countries are quite solid on their own, thus, we're involved with them less. Other countries do need/want us to be involved more and thus, we're there when they need us. Our presence and involvement in all the European countries (Union or otherwise) are on a case by case basis - what works in France doesn't work in Hungary . . . and so on.
I see nothing wrong with having an ally present - if something tragic DOES happen then we'll be there to help. Beyond that state of caution we really are serving no purpose with our presence. If something does happen we're there.
It worries me, when Americas discuss the actual use of nuclear weapons. Who should I fear more iran, or the United States?
Haha - I understand that but there really is no need to worry.
Politically: We're dismantling, slowly, our arsenals and taking nuclear weapons out of our loop. Our country is becoming more liberal (slowly but surely) in basic policies and currently the Democratic Party holds full sway - whether people like it or not. The use of nuclear power (weapons, even energy) is against the Democratic Party Platform - and even a growing number of Republicans and Conservatives are turning against this type of weaponry.
Socially: The notion of using nuclear weapons is far less socially acceptable and this "humanity" in our military conflicts will continue to grow in importance - constantly urging Washington to be considerate of the culture and people which we war against.A lot of people, now, see that the use of nuclear weapons in WWII didn't just alter the political direction and focus of the war (which was a good thing) but it annihilated innocent people who never should have been harmed. A lot of people really feel that and connect to it, a lot of people (like me) in our own country are against the very idea.
If our country was to drop a nuke or atom bomb on someone - how do you think we, here, would react? Believe it or not the notion is sickening and the majority of people in this country would be outraged and horrified. In fact, I think if something like that were to happen it would divide our country completely and whoever called for a nuclear strike wouldn't make it much further in life.
I know that it's hard to understand or imagine what us, here, might think or feel - you and I both see a lot of "yeah! Let's nuke em!" tripe coming from people, but those people are still in the minority on the issue and talk is cheap.
Strategically: I'd worry more about Iran if I were you. Iran doesn't approve of your country anymore than they approve of ours. Your view of our political-strategies and ties to your country aside - we are on the same side of the scale and support and uphold the basic values of life and liberty. Iran, well, not so much.