Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
htownbrown

I'm sorry NATO I didn't hear you...

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

shep smith wants to go to cnn so he can be gay, and wear some pink clothes.

He's your hero?

blech.

Yeah, just ignore the first Fox commentator and address Smith's personal life. Very rational response with no emotional prejudices involved.  

And you didn't even take the time to view the full Shep Smith commentary before responding. that is obvious from the response time from posting it to getting your response. I at least go listen to Fox viewpoints whether I agree with them or not, just to see how much longer their conservative views can withstand the assault on their Ronald Reagan defense stance. Trump is 180 degrees away from Ronnie. Sooner or later Fox will finally understand this fools dismantling of what he doesn't even have the education to understand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you guys have overlooked the key phrases Collective effort and all of us together. Not the United States of America doing the heavy lifting while you guys sit back eat sauerkraut and drink wine.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Westside Steve said:

Seems like you guys have overlooked the key phrases Collective effort and all of us together. Not the United States of America doing the heavy lifting while you guys sit back eat sauerkraut and drink wine.

WSS

Listen to what Shep says about the 2% goal and the agreed upon date that it is to be met and also what he says about the most recent combined spending by NATO (excluding the U.S.). It exceeded Russia's and it exceeded China's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s not overlook that huge baby Trump “blimp” that was all over the news. . .

 

1395993E-A574-4619-812A-F792328F986C.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Listen to what Shep says about the 2% goal and the agreed upon date that it is to be met and also what he says about the most recent combined spending by NATO (excluding the U.S.). It exceeded Russia's and it exceeded China's.

Everything is, and has always been negotiable. Do you not think the Europeans should chip in for their own defense at all? Or not at the level that they should? Just because of some jerk off Jihad against Trump?

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Yeah, just ignore the first Fox commentator and address Smith's personal life. Very rational response with no emotional prejudices involved.  

And you didn't even take the time to view the full Shep Smith commentary before responding. that is obvious from the response time from posting it to getting your response. I at least go listen to Fox viewpoints whether I agree with them or not, just to see how much longer their conservative views can withstand the assault on their Ronald Reagan defense stance. Trump is 180 degrees away from Ronnie. Sooner or later Fox will finally understand this fools dismantling of what he doesn't even have the education to understand.

 

It's facts. He's gay. He goes after Trump because it's the in thing with the left, and he seems to have gotten tired of pretending to not be gay.

Just facts, poutyboy.

tenor.gif?itemid=7662854

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

It's facts. He's gay. He goes after Trump because it's the in thing with the left, and he seems to have gotten tired of pretending to not be gay.

Just facts, poutyboy.

tenor.gif?itemid=7662854

Still avoiding the other one from Fox I see. And still afraid to address Shep's lessons on NATO rather than his sexual preferences. 

help

help | I'M SCARED..WHY? NO ONE HAS LIKED, VIEWED, OR COMMENTED ON MY PICTURE! PLEASE DO! | image tagged in scaredy cat | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sissy boy shep smith is also wrong.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/take-it-european-nato-obsolete-19537

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete

The alliance’s members no longer share common goals or interests.
by Tom Sauer

The recent visit by Secretary of Defense James Mattis to NATO allies does not erase the fact that, as a presidential candidate and president-elect, Donald Trump stated on many occasions that NATO is obsolete. It is a bigger problem than just burden sharing. Trump’s key message is that the world has changed to the detriment of the United States, and that NATO no longer fits comfortably into this new world order. Of course, the United States will not withdraw from the organization, but NATO will get less attention from the Oval Office in the coming years. That is for sure.

For those in Europe who care about the alliance, this is a nightmare. But instead of clinging to the past, they should wake up. The world today is indeed fundamentally different from the one we happen to know, and certainly from the times into which NATO was born. It is indeed bizarre that NATO is still alive. Defense alliances are, by definition, temporary. Realists do not believe in long-term structural cooperation between states, and certainly not in the field of security. At most, states can try to cooperate in an alliance on a short-term basis to defeat a common enemy, like during the two world wars and during the Cold War. Once the enemy is gone, alliances have no meaning anymore. It was on this basis that John Mearsheimer and many others predicted the end of the alliance after the end of the Cold War. The implosion of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself should, indeed, have led to the demise of .
did not. The least bad explanation is organizational inertia. NATO tried to adapt to the changed circumstances by finding new enemies: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, “rogue states,” failed states, ethnic conflicts (as in the Balkans) and, later on, terrorism. It is not difficult to come up with real or imagined dangers. But states do not need to be part of a militarily integrated organization to protect oneself against these kind of minor threats. Collective defense organizations, based on the premise of “an attack on one is an attack on all,” are established to defend oneself against an attack by a major power: Germany in 1914, Germany and Japan in the first half of the 1940s, the USSR during the Cold War, and maybe China in the future. Not for peacekeeping.

Collective defense organizations are not the best match for threats like terrorism and ethnic conflicts. For countering terrorism, coalitions of the willing will do. For managing ethnic conflicts, collective security organizations (like the UN and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) should take the lead, both for peacemaking and peacekeeping. Collective security organizations regulate the use of force amongst its member states, and they are—in contrast to collective defense organizations—not meant to serve against an external enemy. Because NATO stepped in for these collective security tasks, organizations like the UN and the OSCE got sidetracked.

NATO’s post–Cold War track record is dismal, which is not surprising, given the nature of the beast. Apart from the Balkans, which are more or less stable (although tensions are flaring up again these days), the NATO military interventions in Afghanistan and Libya are a complete failure. Thirteen and six years after NATO's intervention, respectively, these states have hardly stabilized. On the contrary, Afghanistan and Libya are breeding places for terrorists. Again, this should not come as a surprise, because collective defense organizations are not meant for carrying out peace-building operations.

The biggest mistake, however, was NATO expansion. It is hard to refute the thesis that the Ukraine crisis is the result of interference by NATO and the EU in Russia’s spheres of influence. A red line was crossed, in the eyes of Moscow, and Russia had repeatedly made that position clear in advance. NATO expansion also contradicted Western promises. On the basis of these oral guarantees, in February 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev gave the green light for German reunification talks. And what did the West do? Expand NATO. Not just once, but twice. At the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008, President Bush even pushed through (against the wishes of the Europeans) a third extension, namely the promise to include Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. What did he expect Russia would do? Just take notice and agree?

More fundamentally, the West made the mistake after the end of the Cold War not to include Russia into the Euro-Atlantic security architecture on an equal basis. Contrary to positive examples in 1815 and 1945, the loser of the Cold War was left alone. Instead of replacing NATO with a regional collective security organization, the West kept NATO artificially in existence—and Russia in the dark. Ironically, the Baltic states, which wanted to feel more secure by becoming NATO members, are now feeling less secure. All this was predicted in the 1990s by foreign-policy giants like George Kennan and Paul Nitze.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take It from a European: NATO Is Obsolete

The alliance’s members no longer share common goals or interests.

Currently, there is a major split among the twenty-eight NATO member states: those in the south worry about migration and ISIS, but are relaxed with respect to Russia; those in the east are relaxed about ISIS, but worry about Russia. There is no common threat assessment. In addition, tensions between member states (Turkey and Greece) and within member states (Poland and Hungary) are rising.

It would be shortsighted to keep relying on NATO now because of the worsening relationship with Russia. A fundamental break with the past is needed, and the Trump administration provides an ideal opportunity. Until recently, the Europeans liked to hide behind American leadership, and not only with respect to burden sharing. Although European states spend on average much less on defense than the United States, the combined European defense budget is $250 billion, which is three and a half times more than Russia’s. The difference in defense spending between the United States and Europe says more about the United States than about Europe. More problematic is the lack of shared responsibility. It is indeed strange that the United States had to intervene in the Balkans in the 1990s. The flipside was that the United States was the one that pulled the ropes inside NATO. The Europeans had to live with NATO expansion and U.S. missile defense in Europe, for instance. The Europeans were always skeptical, but when push came to shove, they gave in to the Americans.

Now, for the first time ever, we have an American president who calls NATO obsolete. European leaders should now get their act together and agree with this assessment, for the many reasons mentioned above. There has never been a better external opportunity to strengthen European foreign, security and defense policy. In a world without NATO, the Europeans have no escape from taking up more responsibilities. In addition, NATO should be transformed, or even be replaced by a new Eurasian-Atlantic collective security organization that includes Russia. That will also be in the interest of Ukraine and the Baltic states. The newly built headquarters for NATO in Brussels, which will be inaugurated in the presence of President Trump at the end of May, is large enough to fit them all.

Tom Sauer is Associate Professor in International Politics at the Universiteit Antwerpen, Belgium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

russia will essentially become the EU. That WILL happen if nato dissolves because thats what cold war ussr wanted and putin wants to get the band back together. If ur comgortable with thst then fine, i dont know if i care either way but you guys would have to be comfortsble with the fact putin would become a global shotcaller who vould directly impact the U.S economy. 

and its not like we're endearing people on this side of the atlantic. Its very conceivable all or most of south america would trade wise side with the rooskie EU and canada/mexico? in a heart beat. Canadians already relate better to russians mot in small part due to the hockey thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

russia will essentially become the EU. That WILL happen if nato dissolves because thats what cold war ussr wanted and putin wants to get the band back together. If ur comgortable with thst then fine, i dont know if i care either way but you guys would have to be comfortsble with the fact putin would become a global shotcaller who vould directly impact the U.S economy. 

and its not like we're endearing people on this side of the atlantic. Its very conceivable all or most of south america would trade wise side with the rooskie EU and canada/mexico? in a heart beat. Canadians already relate better to russians mot in small part due to the hockey thing

Yeah some of those Eastern Bloc countries gave that Soviet Union gag a whirl a few years ago. I know a lot of the lefties around here think communism or socialism is great stuff because everybody gets everything for free but it doesn't work that way. The ruskies couldn't afford to carry all the deadbeats and that's why the Empire started cracking apart. Not because anybody wanted Freedom or anything ridiculous like that, they were just broke. 

And bitching about the United States is one of the Europeans favorite hobbies.

WSzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

Yeah some of those Eastern Bloc countries gave that Soviet Union gag a whirl a few years ago. I know a lot of the lefties around here think communism or socialism is great stuff because everybody gets everything for free but it doesn't work that way. The ruskies couldn't afford to carry all the deadbeats and that's why the Empire started cracking apart. Not because anybody wanted Freedom or anything ridiculous like that, they were just broke. 

And bitching about the United States is one of the Europeans favorite hobbies.

WSzs

you dont understand why the ussr went down. people werent getting sht for free thats not how communism works. they werent getting sht period because russia was spending its capital on the arms race with the u.s.  

Their mistake was trying to spend in concurrence with the country printing the worlds reserve. This ties in with the trade imbalances with europe. They were purposely designed that way during the cold war to actually benefit us. Now that we cant print and spend at will like the good ole days thst sht done in the 80's has come back to bite us.

interestingly trump sort of lightly brushed the surface of this by bringing up Reagan at the nato summit and how he too was complicit in the lax commitment from alot of nato countries. Oh, oh i will jerk myself off listening to the conservative outrage if trump ever fully disseminates to the american public the egregious short term short sighted missteps that happened even under the prophet reagan peace and blessings be upon him.

The snap turn on trump will be fun to watch. Trump seems to be libertarian leaning on alot of sht and libertarians have been screaming since the 80's about alot of this sht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

you dont understand why the ussr went down. people werent getting sht for free thats not how communism works. they werent getting sht period because russia was spending its capital on the arms race with the u.s.  

Their mistake was trying to spend in concurrence with the country printing the worlds reserve. This ties in with the trade imbalances with europe. They were purposely designed that way during the cold war to actually benefit us. Now that we cant print and spend at will like the good ole days thst sht done in the 80's has come back to bite us.

interestingly trump sort of lightly brushed the surface of this by bringing up Reagan at the nato summit and how he too was complicit in the lax commitment from alot of nato countries. Oh, oh i will jerk myself off listening to the conservative outrage if trump ever fully disseminates to the american public the egregious short term short sighted missteps that happened even under the prophet reagan peace and blessings be upon him.

The snap turn on trump will be fun to watch. Trump seems to be libertarian leaning on alot of sht and libertarians have been screaming since the 80's about alot of this sht.

Of course I understand why the USSR went down. Of course it's the promise of free stuff for everybody but they can't deliver they had a bunch of countries that wore unproductive. Basically because communism is not productive. And Russia couldn't carry all these bums on their back anymore. Plus they were stupid enough to escalate their defense spending beyond what they could afford. But make no mistake if all the countries that left the Soviet Union were prosperous and happy they wouldn't care if it were a dictatorship or a Jeffersonian democracy. Not saying that the same thing can't happen here. Communism and socialism is just a con game a doorbuster a bait and switch. Hey hey hey look at the rich people they have everything and you're not happy are you? Of course not. We could take their stuff away and give it to you and you'll be happy then. But as we all know they won't.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

Of course I understand why the USSR went down. Of course it's the promise of free stuff for everybody but they can't deliver they had a bunch of countries that wore unproductive. Basically because communism is not productive. And Russia couldn't carry all these bums on their back anymore. Plus they were stupid enough to escalate their defense spending beyond what they could afford. But make no mistake if all the countries that left the Soviet Union were prosperous and happy they wouldn't care if it were a dictatorship or a Jeffersonian democracy. Not saying that the same thing can't happen here. Communism and socialism is just a con game a doorbuster a bait and switch. Hey hey hey look at the rich people they have everything and you're not happy are you? Of course not. We could take their stuff away and give it to you and you'll be happy then. But as we all know they won't.

WSS

people didn't get sht for free steve. They were forced to labor how the "party" told them to. You still retained the childhood explanations of socialism/communism that we were fed as kids. It's far more complicated than "they got free sht". You're conflating contemporary social netting here in the states where at least in the past people could sit at home and get free sht, with what went on in the soviet union and china under Mao. People were not sitting at home watching Oprah. Could they labor as they chose? No..THAT is the main difference. Communism/socialism is simply a division of labor based on collective needs. The entire human race used to function that way thousands of years ago when we lived in much smaller communities. People did the work that needed to be done so that everybody could eat at least on a semi regular basis, or build fortifications or practice war or forge sht etc, etc......then on their free time they could do other things. 

obviously as civilization got more dense and complicated people branched off and wanted to do different sht so the old way of collectivist labor isn't conducive in this new environment. Of course in the old USSR you had a bunch of fat cats at the top directing labor as they saw fit and to further their ends, actually not much different than here we just do it more surrepetitiously with subversive monetary policy, also something libertarians have been screaming about for decades. 

You should probably get a better handle on what socialism, and capitalism for that matter, actually are. The "free Sheet" stuff you keep bringing up is this sort of modern aberration of economic activity that really doesn't have basis in either socialism or capitalism. I have sort of an idea how this came about but it's another rabbit hole im afraid would break Dorothy in half so I'll stop there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Canton Dawg said:

710B7E72-C404-43CF-939B-CD1308C6C496.jpeg

Bahahahaha

 

Yeah, that's the only side just doing things because media tells them too

 

"Ugh, this liberal MSM brainwashing everyone! They can't think for themselves! ... Hey, have you read every article on The Blaze yet?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woodpecker Repellent Analysis - Wildlife Animal Control

www.wildlifeanimalcontrol.com/woodpeckerrepellent.html
 
Many have a red head and a beak that is more like a chisel than a beak and that beak is for more than just for looks. You will also be able to recognize them because of the constant drumming that you will hear outside of your house. The woodpecker will peck at a tree and not just as a way to kill time.
 

Apr 10, 2016 - How do you get rid of woodpeckers when they are damaging your house? ... Another customer came by and suggested that moth balls would ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

people didn't get sht for free steve. They were forced to labor how the "party" told them to. You still retained the childhood explanations of socialism/communism that we were fed as kids. It's far more complicated than "they got free sht". You're conflating contemporary social netting here in the states where at least in the past people could sit at home and get free sht, with what went on in the soviet union and china under Mao. People were not sitting at home watching Oprah. Could they labor as they chose? No..THAT is the main difference. Communism/socialism is simply a division of labor based on collective needs. The entire human race used to function that way thousands of years ago when we lived in much smaller communities. People did the work that needed to be done so that everybody could eat at least on a semi regular basis, or build fortifications or practice war or forge sht etc, etc......then on their free time they could do other things. 

obviously as civilization got more dense and complicated people branched off and wanted to do different sht so the old way of collectivist labor isn't conducive in this new environment. Of course in the old USSR you had a bunch of fat cats at the top directing labor as they saw fit and to further their ends, actually not much different than here we just do it more surrepetitiously with subversive monetary policy, also something libertarians have been screaming about for decades. 

You should probably get a better handle on what socialism, and capitalism for that matter, actually are. The "free Sheet" stuff you keep bringing up is this sort of modern aberration of economic activity that really doesn't have basis in either socialism or capitalism. I have sort of an idea how this came about but it's another rabbit hole im afraid would break Dorothy in half so I'll stop there. 

Since I don't think you are particularly stupid I'm going to assume that you were just being bickersome here. The idea of socialism isn't that tough. The state owns the means of production BFD. Now in certain cases that might work out fine. But if you think the promise of free Sheet is not alluring you're crazy. Economies during down times will always stir up a great deal of class Warfare. Simple reason most people aren't rich at a huge amount of them are bitterly envious of those who are. Politicians will use socialism as the carrot on the stick and let people believe that if we just took away the wealth from the top percent and redistributed everyone will be successful and happy. That's not how socialism works that's not how human nature works but that's how you sell a candidate. And yes you are correct in any socialism the people running the show have bucket loads of money. It might be 50 times more or a hundred times more than your average deadbeat but it's huge.

But back to the free Sheet, look at Bernie Sanders campaign. Hey everybody hey Deadbeats if we just took away the money from the rich people you could all have free healthcare and it would be just as good as it's ever been in the USA. Not only that but no matter what crap job you're able to do will pay you enough to have your own house food utilities entertainment transportation and oh yes, education. Free college for everybody! Of course we are overlooking the fact that just gliding through college with no consequences for failure isn't the reason people with degrees get jobs. If I need somebody to fix my plumbing I do not immediately look toward philosophy majors.

Maybe you can brag about a couple Scandinavian countries who makes socialism work but especially in the case of Norway where they have huge oil reserves and I've decided years ago just to split that profit up you could also look at that list I gave you of the former Soviet charges. Russia could neither afford to carry them nor stop them from leaving. And while you are looking at Norway at Al what's the dependent minority population again? 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i still dont understand the free sht analysis, if u study the ussr and china you'd understand they were putting in to a common pot as a collective and got even distribution of resources...or so the theory went, we all know corruption knows no bounds so as i said earlier. the people running the whole show were the ones getting more than what they put in. common ngrs like u and me werent sitting at home watching soaps and the hsn.

we were talking about socialism in itsbnb pure ideallic state but u keep bringing up people like bernie and conflating american social netting with how the old soviet union and china under mao operated. Im sure there are some people still alive in chi a who remember the compulsory farm camps people would get sent to. and im sure they would be a tad offended at the notion of an american essentially saying chinese people under mao were lazy under employed deadbeats collecting welfare while sitting at home smoking up.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

i still dont understand the free sht analysis, if u study the ussr and china you'd understand they were putting in to a common pot as a collective and got even distribution of resources...or so the theory went, we all know corruption knows no bounds so as i said earlier. the people running the whole show were the ones getting more than what they put in. common ngrs like u and me werent sitting at home watching soaps and the hsn.

we were talking about socialism in itsbnb pure ideallic state but u keep bringing up people like bernie and conflating american social netting with how the old soviet union and china under mao operated. Im sure there are some people still alive in chi a who remember the compulsory farm camps people would get sent to. and im sure they would be a tad offended at the notion of an american essentially saying chinese people under mao were lazy under employed deadbeats collecting welfare while sitting at home smoking up.......

Of course as you should and probably do realize there are many different versions of socialism and communism across the globe. China was destitute. And the Russians are under no obligation to support the Chinese communists unlike the  former members  of the Soviet Union. Germany was destitute when the promise of socialism Grease the skids for Hitler. Like I said you can look to the Bernie Sanders campaign and see what I'm talking about with free shitt. Free shitt enompasses paying somebody lots more than their job is worth by the way. And guaranteeing everyone employment which, if everyone benefits equally, will piss off the people who think their job is more important than the other guy's job. Which, let's be honest, is everybody.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

Of course as you should and probably do realize there are many different versions of socialism and communism across the globe. China was destitute. 

uh yeah i do, ive been patiently explaining the continuum for years here....im glad its taking with at least one person. capitalism is on that same continuum btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×