House approves bill warning against U.S. NATO pullout

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Sure... Estonia not Latvia, though, but still a Baltic nation, much like Poland, which is also located in/at the geographical center of Europe.

 

of more relevance would be mentioning that Lake Ladoga, which is now completely within the land borders of Russia, was once bounded by Finland.

Im sorry you are losing me. Finland was formerly an autonomous part of Russia (1810 to 1917). Whats the point? Would we go to war to protect Finland?

[farcanell]

7 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Ok, you dont have an answer LOL. The articles philosophy is the same as yours, America as the world policeman protecting peace and democracy. Back to the Bush years.

 

Im still curious as to how Trumps policy towards Russia and Nato differs from Obamas.

 

 

 

What do you mean, I don’t have an answer?

 

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

But hey, Ill play, how does defending Europe from the Russians help our national interests? 

There’s your question.... the material in the link, answers your question.... you might not like the answer, which is of no surprise, because your dear leader seems unable to comprehend geopolitical issues and the need for alliances as well, but it’s an answer, none the less.

 

and...  if your really that curious about how trumps policy differ from Obama’s, then I’m sure you can google it just as effectively as I can.... but I suspect that your just trolling, or amazingly lazy

 

personally, I can’t understand why you have to try and excuse trumps dim witted twittering, by trying to equate things to presidents past.... because if using other presidents as bench marks, then trump is sitting at the bottom of list, with an average 39%, well below every other president who’s had an approval rate recorded.... so it’s rather stupid to continue with the what aboutism

 

its time trump stands or falls on his own achievements, vs continually trying to excuse his actions because of another’s, in another time, with other geopolitical considerations, which may or may not be similar.

 

gee...  I slammed my finger in the car door...  again, but I’m not stupid, because Johno did it too... sshheesh.

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Im sorry you are losing me. Finland was formerly an autonomous part of Russia (1810 to 1917). Whats the point? Would we go to war to protect Finland?

You just don't seem to get it. The days of one ethnic group ruling over others is largely over. Certainly the days of reasserting rulership are over. Especially when the country doing the reasserting is such a relatively backwards one.

And of course, this talk about the reasons the Russians are concerned is over security is just nonsense. All this revanchism is just Putin's way of distracting Russians from the terrible state of their welfare and their economy. The money Putin is spending on weaponry, and the money he and his cronies are stealing, could be far better spend improving the lot of Russians. But that kind of governance is difficult, particularly for a kleptocracy on the scale of of the one in Russia. In fact, impossible for such a corrupt lot. Much easier to work up the masses over the days of Russia's glorious empire. 

[Nyezhov]

18 minutes ago, farcanell said:

and...  if your really that curious about how trumps policy differ from Obama’s, then I’m sure you can google it just as effectively as I can.... but I suspect that your just trolling, or amazingly lazy

In other words you dont know, but would just rather turn the serious discussion about Americas role in Nato in to the usual Trump bash fest.

 

Looks like another one I wont be responding to.

 

Anyone else want to discuss whether we should fight and die for the Baltics?

[farcanell]

18 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Im sorry you are losing me. Finland was formerly an autonomous part of Russia (1810 to 1917). Whats the point? Would we go to war to protect Finland?

Losing you?.... damn that wasn’t hard.

 

yes, Finland was under Russian control during the period you mention... prior to that, it was part of the greater Swedish kingdom.

 

so... we have a prior (Swedish rule)... and lo... an after (independence) During the “after” period, it’s border was on Lake Ladoga, but this area was again taken by Russia, and is still a part of Russia now.

 

but what’s the point? As I said, the point was that it’s more relevant than a 14th battle at Lake Peipus.

 

so to your question above... would you go to war to protect Finland?

 

I would expect the answer would be yes.... but Finland is not a NATO country, and it doesn’t have a miliatary alliance with the US, so maybe it would not... that would be up to your government of the day, when that day arrives

 

 

 

[rgraham]

We should stop bleeding dollars into NATO and should approach France or the UK about moving the UN to a European location. We have hosted the world association of spies long enough.

[Benmart]

Hate, name calling and juvenile comments cloud this issue worthy of intelligent debate.

[bristolboy]

26 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Im sorry you are losing me. Finland was formerly an autonomous part of Russia (1810 to 1917). Whats the point? Would we go to war to protect Finland?

America should go to war to protect genuinely democratic and advanced nations. It's quite one thing to try and impose democracy on nations that have no experience of anything but dictatorial rue, but decent governments deserve the support of American and all their democratic allies. 

[farcanell]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

In other words you dont know, but would just rather turn the serious discussion about Americas role in Nato in to the usual Trump bash fest.

 

Looks like another one I wont be responding to.

 

Anyone else want to discuss whether we should fight and die for the Baltics?

Wow!.... this topic is about NATO, and possibly, if you want to discuss fighting and dieing, then doing it in support of NATO member countries.

 

Alternatively, as you seem to want to do, why not start at the beginning of the alphabet, and ask the question of each country on the planet

 

in discussing this, the points in the article, are the salient points to be discussed.... if that’s beyond your comprehension, then sure, stick me on your ignore list, because your obviously not up to a discussion, that doesn’t include obsfugation and misinformation

 

conventional wisdom would be that you commit forces in the defense of allied countries.... yes you support allied countries, no you don’t need to support non allied countries... there’s your answer... why? Because you agreed to, as a start... move forward from there.

[farcanell]

8 minutes ago, rgraham said:

We should stop bleeding dollars into NATO and should approach France or the UK about moving the UN to a European location. We have hosted the world association of spies long enough.

Um... nato is in a European country... but has agreed to move its main headquarters to the US

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, rgraham said:

We should stop bleeding dollars into NATO and should approach France or the UK about moving the UN to a European location. We have hosted the world association of spies long enough.

I don't think basing one's foreign policy on a plan designed to appease paranoiacs is necessarily a wise policy.

[attrayant]

45 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Conversely then, Putin should be permitted to base tropps and weapons in Cuba, to defend his ally?

 

 

He's certainly allowed to give that a try, although it didn't work very well the last time.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

I dont quite understand the Marcher reference. 

 

Regardless, your position is that Nato should be interested in protecting historically Russian territory, on a Russian border, and we should go to war over it?

 

Again, how do the Baltics affect American security?

 

Conversely then, Putin should be permitted to base tropps and weapons in Cuba, to defend his ally?

It seems you fail to understand quite a lot about foreign policy.

 

the marcher areas of old, were border lands that were intensely patrolled to contain and neutralize a threat from neighboring lands, before the threat entered the kingdom proper. Border countries in modern terms, can be used as buffer zones.... full of missiles pointed at your enemy... it’s an anology, from a medieval period, much like you referencing a crusader battle, only more applicable.

 

Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Estonia are not historically Russian.... (unlike Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California which are historically Mexican.????????????????) they were independent pagan nations, influenced firstly by the other Baltic states of Denmark, Sweden, Poland and Germany.

 

My position is not that NATO should protect historically Russian countries, far from it, and I don’t know how you got to that conclusion... it is that it should protect NATO member states... (and other allies) which is very different

 

gee whizz... alliances 101... you go to war, if threats don’t work, to support military allies, regardless of who once ruled those countries when... you support your allies, wether they are on the border of Russia, or just across your northern border, in Canada.

 

 

the Baltic’s effect American security by being NATO allies (well, most of them) which would allow NATO activity within its borders, such as close intelligence gathering or other spy craft, and military disposition in need.... another Baltic state, which more properly demonstrates how Baltic states effect NATO, via military disposition, is Germany, which hosts a bunch of American air bases.... American air bases allow for a better, faster response in case of Russian aggression (surely that’s understandable) the same goes for Poland, another Baltic nation, and a Russian border country.

 

not only that, by being a part of a broader alliance, which can be called upon by the US, as has been pointed out (the US being the only NATO country to cry for help), if the US does not fulfill its obligation by treaty, the greater security of the US will be threatened, if it’s major allies turn their back on the US as a repercussion

 

as to Putin putting nukes in Cuba....well...  Russia has the same right by alligence, as America does to stage missiles in Europe... theoretically.... However, NATO membership enabled the US to build an Arsenal on European soil, whereas Russia has no larger alliance that enables it to do the same in Cuba.... right there is an example of a benefit of NATO, which I assume you must understand, having formed that question.

 

now.. how does Obama policy differ to trump policy?... don’t care... and it’s irrelevant.... but if you need to, go ahead and tell me... or tell me how it’s relevant, if you don’t actually know the difference.

 

 

[IAMHERE]

Europe is pretty much Socialist, why wouldn't Pelosi and friends want to spend American money and lives to defend it.

[Nyezhov]

@farcanall

Im not going to quote your post, because it simply is too disjointed, intellectually vacuous,  and riddled with misinterpretations of history and international politics to warrant a response.

 

However, to help you out for future engagements on the issue of Nato vis a vis the Russians, May I suggest the following reading list:

 

Hans Morganthau, Politics Among Nations

John Julius Norwich, History of Byzantium

Robert Service, Penguin History of Modern Russia

Orlando Figes, Natashans Dance.

Michael North, The Baltic

Ambrosio, Thomas, Challenging America’s Global Preeminence: Russia’s quest for multipolarity

Peter Hopkirk, The Great Game

Yaroslav Bilinsky, Endgame in NATO’s Enlargement: the Baltic States and Ukraine

 

One should never rely on some siimplisitc writers opinion on the way of the world, one is far better exploring things oneself and forming ones own opinion.

 

Good luck. Let me know when you want to debate in an educated fashion.

[Nyezhov]

9 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

He's certainly allowed to give that a try, although it didn't work very well the last time.

So its OK for us, but not for them?

[Tug]

I wouldn’t put it past him but if he does he will use it as an distraction ploy like when the muller report comes out or something like that or he is dumb enough to do it to piss off nancy

[Kasset Tak]

18 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

what friends are those precisely?

Well companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the 2 largest arms producers in the world!!! In 2017 US had about 55% (in value) of the arms market and Russia had about 10%... Lockheed Martin had sales for almost $45billion, compared to $38billion for all Russian arms exports!
Why do you think US keeps being at war and rattle the cages all over the world... to keep companies like Lockheed Martin happy!!!
Just look at F-35 (Lockheed Martin), it's really a failure as it's too expensive, not agile enough, not fast enough, and not stealthy enough... but it would be a political suicide to pull the plug on it for any American politician, as so many factories and workers would be affected and so much American tax $$$ are already invested in the project!
Why do you think US are looking at propeller aircrafts to replace the A-10... because they are way, WAY more affordable than a F-35!

[zydeco]

17 hours ago, bristolboy said:

America should go to war to protect genuinely democratic and advanced nations. It's quite one thing to try and impose democracy on nations that have no experience of anything but dictatorial rue, but decent governments deserve the support of American and all their democratic allies. 

And how exactly will you contribute to this effort? Are you an American taxpayer funding it? Are you serving in the US military, where your life will be on the line? Why shouldn't the EU do this, especially in Eastern Europe? It's "their" territory. The EU has a bigger population and more money. America should go to war? But the Germans and French and most of the others will not, because they cannot. Their equipment doesn't work, they are undermanned, undertrained, and unprepared. Easy to see who Europeans plan to have die for them, isn't it?

[attrayant]

8 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

So its OK for us, but not for them?

 

He's certainly allowed to try to stop us, but that didn't work very well the last time.

[farcanell]

8 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

@farcanall

Im not going to quote your post, because it simply is too disjointed, intellectually vacuous,  and riddled with misinterpretations of history and international politics to warrant a response.

 

However, to help you out for future engagements on the issue of Nato vis a vis the Russians, May I suggest the following reading list:

 

Hans Morganthau, Politics Among Nations

John Julius Norwich, History of Byzantium

Robert Service, Penguin History of Modern Russia

Orlando Figes, Natashans Dance.

Michael North, The Baltic

Ambrosio, Thomas, Challenging America’s Global Preeminence: Russia’s quest for multipolarity

Peter Hopkirk, The Great Game

Yaroslav Bilinsky, Endgame in NATO’s Enlargement: the Baltic States and Ukraine

 

One should never rely on some siimplisitc writers opinion on the way of the world, one is far better exploring things oneself and forming ones own opinion.

 

Good luck. Let me know when you want to debate in an educated fashion.

Right.... so as usual, no worthwhile or coherent debating points

 

if you have a counterpoint, make it, instead of waffle, deflect, going off on tangents, blame others for tangents that you started, loading the post and generally confusing the issue, whilst obviously confusing yourself.

 

break it down, point by point, if that help.... because so far, over several threads, your input has been misleading or demonstrably false, in the main... backed up with personal attacks about the character of whomever your attacking, be it myself, or just about any other poster who has a different point of view, especially when that point of view is one that you can’t reasonably counter

 

the post above is a nothing post, perhaps intended to demonstrate your level of education or intelligence, but in reality, it demonstrates your  arrogance.... and that, old chap, is your problem. Arrogance. On a number of levels

 

now... when you wish to debate the issue rationally, I again suggest starting point by point, vs setting out in an attempt to confuse... and I will be happy to engage.

 

lol... a reading list? Really?.... when you don’t even bother reading links supporting other people’s views... as I said... arrogance.

Edited January 24, 2019 by farcanell

[Gene1960]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-withdrawal-from-nato-would-benefit-americans-most-of-all/5665869

“And while the division or dissolving of NATO most certainly would benefit Russia – removing a malignant and aggressive rogue institution from its borders and the toxic atmosphere of perpetual confrontation it creates – it would also most certainly benefit each and every NATO member many times more.

Despite the many myths surrounding NATO’s role in “protecting” its individual members, nothing has undermined the security of NATO member states more than NATO itself.”

[farcanell]

10 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

John Julius Norwich, History of Byzantium

Oh dear.... a history lesson on the golden years of the eastern Roman Empire.... I don’t need to read this particular rendition to be able to converse about Byzantine history... nor a pychology degree to discuss byzantine thinking, which is famous for being Byzantine.... lol

Edited January 24, 2019 by farcanell

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Gene1960 said:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-withdrawal-from-nato-would-benefit-americans-most-of-all/5665869

“And while the division or dissolving of NATO most certainly would benefit Russia – removing a malignant and aggressive rogue institution from its borders and the toxic atmosphere of perpetual confrontation it creates – it would also most certainly benefit each and every NATO member many times more.

Despite the many myths surrounding NATO’s role in “protecting” its individual members, nothing has undermined the security of NATO member states more than NATO itself.”
 

Linking to a nutter conspiracy theory website gives you and your opinions less than stellar credibility (note that I am being EXTREMELY polite here).

Edited January 24, 2019 by Becker

[JimGant]

Gosh, what a lot of rhetoric about the question at hand: Should the US be pumping so many of its resources -- needed to rebuild US bridges and education systems -- into defending Europe from Russia? Well, no -- especially if our European buddies don't seem fit to contribute to their own defense (but, of course, why not -- let those suckers in the US pay for their defense). So many articles about how our Nato allies are completely incapable -- here's just one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/24/afraid-of-a-major-conflict-the-german-military-is-currently-unavailable/?utm_term=.e1e7f8411924

 

Trump may be a bozo, but he is certainly right about our being suckered into keeping Nato afloat. That the Democrats can't see the truth through their dislike for Trump is saddening.

 

Yeah, Nato was probably needed immediately post WWII, as we were the only capable military to thwart the Soviets. As a tripwire, I guess we succeeded (not that I would have lost much sleep if Western Europe now wrote in cyrillic -- especially France, who abandoned Nato early on -- typical uber French nationalistic hubris).

 

And why in the world is the US so set on spending resources for a continent who never has gotten its house in order? World War I: A non US ship gets sunk, a few Americans die, and we get involved in a conflict that has absolutely no effect on us! 100,000 Americans die. Meanwhile, Holland loses no one -- as somehow they managed to stay out of the war, somehow figuring they didn't have a dog in the fight. What's wrong with this picture? Did American politicians feel so much pull from their European DNA that they couldn't realize that, the reason they now lived in America, was because their ancestors left a losing cause.....

 

World War II: Ok, Germany declared war on us. But our politicians were tickled pink that the US was once again involved in shedding blood in Europe (400,000 eventually). Why didn't we just flip the bird at Hitler, and tell him to give us his best shot with his submarines. The Atlantic would have kept Germany's war on the European side -- and allowed the US to use its resources to deal with Tojo.

 

Ok, already discussed, the immediate need for US tripwire assistance immediately following WWII. But, after billions spent by the US with the Marshall plan, to put Europe back on its feet -- and provide for their own defense -- why are we still over there? Because the Europeans know they don't have to spend enough for their defense -- as long as those US suckers stay put with their soldiers and airplanes on European soil. The Democrats apparently get the same drift.

 

No, let's bring our soldiers and airplanes back to the US -- and put those resources into the reserves and national guard -- up to the new reduced numbers needed solely for US defense. Meanwhile, Europe can strictly handle whatever boots on the ground are now needed with the US gone. The US can still belong to Nato, of course. But its part of any Nato ops plan will now only involve cruise missiles and B2 strike missions. If this makes Europe nervous, best provide the needed resources to bring your defenses up to suitable levels.

 

And here I thought the Democrats had a clue.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, JimGant said:

Gosh, what a lot of rhetoric about the question at hand: Should the US be pumping so many of its resources -- needed to rebuild US bridges and education systems -- into defending Europe from Russia? Well, no -- especially if our European buddies don't seem fit to contribute to their own defense (but, of course, why not -- let those suckers in the US pay for their defense). So many articles about how our Nato allies are completely incapable -- here's just one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/24/afraid-of-a-major-conflict-the-german-military-is-currently-unavailable/?utm_term=.e1e7f8411924

 

Trump may be a bozo, but he is certainly right about our being suckered into keeping Nato afloat. That the Democrats can't see the truth through their dislike for Trump is saddening.

 

Yeah, Nato was probably needed immediately post WWII, as we were the only capable military to thwart the Soviets. As a tripwire, I guess we succeeded (not that I would have lost much sleep if Western Europe now wrote in cyrillic -- especially France, who abandoned Nato early on -- typical uber French nationalistic hubris).

 

And why in the world is the US so set on spending resources for a continent who never has gotten its house in order? World War I: A non US ship gets sunk, a few Americans die, and we get involved in a conflict that has absolutely no effect on us! 100,000 Americans die. Meanwhile, Holland loses no one -- as somehow they managed to stay out of the war, somehow figuring they didn't have a dog in the fight. What's wrong with this picture? Did American politicians feel so much pull from their European DNA that they couldn't realize that, the reason they now lived in America, was because their ancestors left a losing cause.....

 

World War II: Ok, Germany declared war on us. But our politicians were tickled pink that the US was once again involved in shedding blood in Europe (400,000 eventually). Why didn't we just flip the bird at Hitler, and tell him to give us his best shot with his submarines. The Atlantic would have kept Germany's war on the European side -- and allowed the US to use its resources to deal with Tojo.

 

Ok, already discussed, the immediate need for US tripwire assistance immediately following WWII. But, after billions spent by the US with the Marshall plan, to put Europe back on its feet -- and provide for their own defense -- why are we still over there? Because the Europeans know they don't have to spend enough for their defense -- as long as those US suckers stay put with their soldiers and airplanes on European soil. The Democrats apparently get the same drift.

 

No, let's bring our soldiers and airplanes back to the US -- and put those resources into the reserves and national guard -- up to the new reduced numbers needed solely for US defense. Meanwhile, Europe can strictly handle whatever boots on the ground are now needed with the US gone. The US can still belong to Nato, of course. But its part of any Nato ops plan will now only involve cruise missiles and B2 strike missions. If this makes Europe nervous, best provide the needed resources to bring your defenses up to suitable levels.

 

And here I thought the Democrats had a clue.....

And yet Trump and the Republicans has pushed for and gotten huge increases to the military budget. And you say Democrats are clueless?

[Becker]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

Trump may be a bozo, but he is certainly right about our being suckered into keeping Nato afloat. That the Democrats can't see the truth through their dislike for Trump is saddening.

 

Well, since most Republicans apparently agree with the Dems on this I guess you must be not only sad but devastated? 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Becker

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts removed along with replies.