Posted on 05/16/2022 10:39:41 AM PDT by JonPreston
While claiming to “preserve peace,” NATO has a history of bombing civilians and committing war crimes.
The three smartest words that Donald Trump uttered during his presidential campaign are “NATO is obsolete.” His adversary, Hillary Clinton, retorted that NATO was “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world.” Now that Trump has been in power, the White House parrots the same worn line that NATO is “the most successful Alliance in history, guaranteeing the security, prosperity, and freedom of its members.” But Trump was right the first time around: Rather than being a strong alliance with a clear purpose, this 70-year-old organization that met in London on December 4 is a stale military holdover from the Cold War days that should have gracefully retired many years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at citizentruth.org ...
More nukes will be better. Neocons have told me so.
“AFA “globalist entanglements”, you know nothing about me. If you did, you would not have engaged in that smear.”
It’s just what he does.
and lack the stones for rugby or its bastard cousin American Football!
Remember Rugby Players Eat Their Dead!
From my perspective, NATO is the Swamp. Ukraine finally explains, for me, the Steele Dossier and the “Russia, Russia, Russia” from Hillary and the four years of Trump impeachment in the House. I remember that Hillary’s bizarre obsession with Russia seemed odd to me, at the time, and could not understand it. Now, I think I do.
As Secretary of State, Hillary used NATO expansion to create the Democrat money laundering and foreign base of operations for the Clinton Crime Syndicate in Ukraine. In 2016, she was supposed to be the beneficiary of this, but the steal that was implemented for her could not overcome her stench.
All of the insane accusations against Trump, with the gleeful support of Brussels, were meant to protect the investment in Ukraine. Vegetable Joe was the best they could do to make use of it as they knew that no amount of stealing could drag Hillary’s bloated carcass across the finish line.
Nothing good comes out of Brussels, or ever has.
Nice summary. I agree.
I’ve been seeing him around, but didn’t engage him in any kind of dialog. Until today.
The n00b thinks he’s funny. He’s not funny. Just rather tiresome.
“Bastard cousin?”
Rubbish! It is mine until your idiot child Vlad leaves Ukraine and Crimea.
An excellent take and I agree completely. Every person, and I mean EVERY PERSON, who crippled this nation with the Russia scam are out selling this monstrosity on a war in the Ukraine 24x7x365. The people on our side learned nothing at all.
Not happening until he grabs the Piano player by the ivories and charges him for high corruption, shake downs and lousy comedy.
“Who do we attack if Greece and Turkey go to war?”
NATO charter does not require any response if one NATO member wars with another NATO nation. NATO only applies if there is an EXTERNAL (i.e., non-NATO) threat to a NATO member.
As for your denigration of the smaller NATO members, although they may not have top shelf militaries, their usefulness is in their physical assets (airports, seaports, staging areas, pre-positioning of materiel, etc.).
And you madam are as tight as a clam's azz.
“Soccer is a game for homosexuals who lack the hand-eye coordination for badminton or pingpong...”
You’ve never played soccer, obviously.
If one enlarges the scope of thought, NATO is adhesive that helps stick the EU together. That is, NATO is no longer the entity it was originally. It is now what amounts to the Euro military that is separate from the Euro governance
That thought begs the question should the USA be Euro glue?
There are pros and cons and the answer is beyond my pay grade.
We occupy Europe. Europe is a convenient staging ground for assets in theaters in Africa and the Mideast.
So, yes, NATO serves the American security purpose that Japan and Korea serve in the Pacific area
However that decision has been made by elected representatives
“Who do we attack if Greece and Turkey go to war?”
We don’t. NATO members are not obligated, and NATO itself is not obligated, to support either side in disputes between two NATO members. What NATO - the organization - would do would be to try to arbitrate a dispute between two NATO members, as it tried to do between the U.S. France in 1967 - unsuccessfully, which resulted in (1) NATO moving its headqaurters from Paris to Brussels, and (2) France leaving the NATO military committee while retaining a military observer seat at the table. In 2009 France officially rejoined the NATO military command structure, after discussions that began in 2004.
“Nato outlived its’ usefulness long ago.”
And the western European countries that have been members for a long time, and the new ones from Eastern Europe that have joined in the last 20 years, and now Finland and Sweden all don’t agree with you becuase????
“and lack the stones for rugby or its bastard cousin American Football!”
Soccer is more finesse and coordination and stamina than power. It’s actually closer to basketball than anything else.
“Remember Rugby Players Eat Their Dead!”
They do indeed!
BTW: I’m still awaiting your thoughts on the Wagner Group.
Have a day.
I will, they left me hanging too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.