Should European countries exit NATO?

[Joe McCarthy]

I figured this would be a fun poll. Predictable, but fun.

[Arne]

European Countries shouldn´t exit the Nato

[Joe McCarthy]

European Countries shouldn´t exit the Nato

Your check is in the mail. My evil ZOG overlords will be much obliged. :thumb001:

[safinator]

Undecided

[Groenewolf]

NATO as an alliance against the USSR should be disbanded and be replaced by something that reflects the new geopolitical realities.

[Äike]

NATO as an alliance against the USSR should be disbanded and be replaced by something that reflects the new geopolitical realities.

No NATO would mean that countries like Estonia would be subjugated to Russian control. Thus I support NATO.

NATO is necessary in Europe, even with the new geopolitical situation.

[Groenewolf]

No NATO would mean that countries like Estonia would be subjugated to Russian control. Thus I support NATO.

I am also a proponent of a more European centered military alliance.;)

[Murphy]

No NATO would mean that countries like Estonia would be subjugated to Russian control. Thus I support NATO.

You would rather have the decadent dominance of the West in your affairs? Either way you're screwed. Estonia is finished whether it's under Russia's thumb of the West's.

Don't worry though.

We're sinking with you.

[poiuytrewq0987]

No NATO would mean that countries like Estonia would be subjugated to Russian control. Thus I support NATO.

NATO is necessary in Europe, even with the new geopolitical situation.

Essentially, you've replaced USSR for USA. The USSR is not here today so all this Russophobia by you is rather pointless. Russia today is not going to seek conquest of Estonia. Just because a controller lives farther away, doesn't mean they are the better choice. :coffee:

[poiuytrewq0987]

I am also a proponent of a more European centered military alliance.;)

Would this "European-centered" military alliance exclude Russia or...? :coffee:

[Albion]

I figured this would be a fun poll. Predictable, but fun.

Lol, I bet you can't wait for Civis to see this. :D

Well I think it should be disbanded and replaced with a Europe-only military alliance, no Turkey, no America or Canada - just Europe.

It would bring in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus too, along with most current European NATO members.
It's purpose would be to protect Europe, maintain the status quo (i.e. no new Third Reich or French First Empire), peace keep in troubled regions and to protect the individual countries and continent from external aggression (that includes China, Russia itself, America or the Arabs).

Although it would be a military alliance it would have no bases on foreign territory (within Europe), so no Russian bases in Britain or Estonia, no British bases in Germany for example. Europe isn't that big that a large proportion of it's military couldn't mobilise to meet an attacker so there is no need for foreign military bases.
The purpose of it would be really to just keep the peace, it'd be called something like the European Defence Alliance, Defence being the key word - not offence like NATO.

The nuclear powers within the organisation would be Russia, France and Britain and these nations would also posses aircraft carriers (Britain once it get's it's new ones in around five years time).
Britain would relaunch it's own nuclear weapons programme which it scrapped (and gave the technology to the US), since America probably wouldn't be too thrilled about being excluded from the organisation and including Russia.

The organisation would work with America and the EU but wouldn't be dominated by either, Russia (in regards to America) and Britain (in regards to the EU) would make sure of that I'm sure.

Russia, the UK and France would be the dominant players in the organisation, Germany and Ukraine would probably be important too.
In regards to overseas territories such as Diego Garcia and Acension, the American leases would be allowed to lapse and then Britain would have to decide whether to allow America to renew them or not. I'd favour renewal with strings attached - a treaty backing Britain's claim to the Falklands.
If my memory serves me correctly they've got until 2015 in Diego Garcia until the lease needs renewing.

[Äike]

You would rather have the decadent dominance of the West in your affairs? Either way you're screwed. Estonia is finished whether it's under Russia's thumb of the West's.

Don't worry though.

We're sinking with you.

Life in this Western country is currently very good, it's way better than suffering under direct genocide.

:rolleyes:


Essentially, you've replaced USSR for USA. The USSR is not here today so all this Russophobia by you is rather pointless. Russia today is not going to seek conquest of Estonia. Just because a controller lives farther away, doesn't mean they are the better choice. :coffee:

You discredited your own post by using ad hominems.

P.S You're a total idiot. Basically, the USSR killed 20% of Estonia's population and colonized our country with Eastern-Europeans. It's like comparing a Jew's life in Nazi Germany with a Jew's life in 2011 Germany and/or Israel. :rolleyes:

[poiuytrewq0987]

Life in this Western country is currently very good, it's way better than suffering under direct genocide.

:rolleyes:



You discredited your own post by using ad hominems.

P.S You're a total idiot. Basically, the USSR killed 20% of Estonia's population and colonized our country with Eastern-Europeans. It's like comparing a Jew's life in Nazi Germany with a Jew's life in 2011 Germany and/or Israel. :rolleyes:

What ad-hominem? My comment about you being a Russophobe? It can't be an ad-hominem when it's a fact, you are a Russophobe. Oh, about that little genocide thingy? That was carried out by the USSR, not Russia. It's just like telling Federal Germany that they are evil for killing 6 million Jews... :thumb001:

Actually, just wait until African immigrants start hearing about oh-so-prosperous Estonia and start flooding the country and you'll get your genocide. :lightbul:

[Murphy]

Life in this Western country is currently very good, it's way better than suffering under direct genocide.

:rolleyes:

Tell that to millions of children butchered in the womb. You think we're not being killed off? We are. But make no mistake.. it is much subtler than the vulgar methods used by man in the past, but it is still happening.

[Äike]

What ad-hominem? My comment about you being a Russophobe? It can't be an ad-hominem when it's a fact, you are a Russophobe. Oh, about that little genocide thingy? That was carried out by the USSR, not Russia.

I'm not a Russophobe. I'm as much of an Russophobe as a random Swede is a Somaliphobe. It's just dislike of immigrants.


It's just like telling Federal Germany that they are evil for killing 6 million Jews... :thumb001:

Contrary to Federal Germany, modern-day Russia is a direct descendant of the USSR, ran by people who were on high places in the USSR. If you made yourself familiar with some of Putin's remarks, then you would know what I am talking about.


Actually, just wait until African immigrants start hearing about oh-so-prosperous Estonia and start flooding the country and you'll get your genocide. :lightbul:

Estonia has strict immigration quotas. The only way for Africans to get to Estonia is to gain EU-citizenship in a different country and then come to Estonia as EU-citizens.


Tell that to millions of children butchered in the womb. You think we're not being killed off? We are. But make no mistake.. it is much subtler than the vulgar methods used by man in the past, but it is still happening.

You might be killed off, if you like to think so, but we aren't.

[Joe McCarthy]

You would rather have the decadent dominance of the West in your affairs? Either way you're screwed. Estonia is finished whether it's under Russia's thumb of the West's.

Don't worry though.

We're sinking with you.

What does a military alliance have to do with decadence? Will the French import less immigrants next year if they pull out of NATO? Will they eat fewer Bigmacs? What pulling out will do is divide Western Civilization and thus embolden outsiders.

[Lurker]

Lol, I bet you can't wait for Civis to see this. :D

Well I think it should be disbanded and replaced with a Europe-only military alliance, no Turkey, no America or Canada - just Europe.

It would bring in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus too, along with most current European NATO members.
It's purpose would be to protect Europe, maintain the status quo (i.e. no new Third Reich or French First Empire), peace keep in troubled regions and to protect the individual countries and continent from external aggression (that includes China, Russia itself, America or the Arabs).

Although it would be a military alliance it would have no bases on foreign territory (within Europe), so no Russian bases in Britain or Estonia, no British bases in Germany for example. Europe isn't that big that a large proportion of it's military couldn't mobilise to meet an attacker so there is no need for foreign military bases.
The purpose of it would be really to just keep the peace, it'd be called something like the European Defence Alliance, Defence being the key word - not offence like NATO.

The nuclear powers within the organisation would be Russia, France and Britain and these nations would also posses aircraft carriers (Britain once it get's it's new ones in around five years time).
Britain would relaunch it's own nuclear weapons programme which it scrapped (and gave the technology to the US), since America probably wouldn't be too thrilled about being excluded from the organisation and including Russia.

The organisation would work with America and the EU but wouldn't be dominated by either, Russia (in regards to America) and Britain (in regards to the EU) would make sure of that I'm sure.

Russia, the UK and France would be the dominant players in the organisation, Germany and Ukraine would probably be important too.
In regards to overseas territories such as Diego Garcia and Acension, the American leases would be allowed to lapse and then Britain would have to decide whether to allow America to renew them or not. I'd favour renewal with strings attached - a treaty backing Britain's claim to the Falklands.
If my memory serves me correctly they've got until 2015 in Diego Garcia until the lease needs renewing.

What would these European Alliance do in case of trouble inside the countries or between countries? Like, how would it react to an independence war in the Balkans (again),in Spain (separate Catalonia), in Italy, in the UK, etc? Would the Alliance ever interfere in these internal affairs, like NATO or the Quintuple Alliance did? How aout if some member became communist, a muslim theocracy or something like that?

[poiuytrewq0987]

What would these European Alliance do in case of trouble inside the countries or between countries? Like, how would it react to an independence war in the Balkans (again),in Spain (separate Catalonia), in Italy, in the UK, etc? Would the Alliance ever interfere in these internal affairs, like NATO or the Quintuple Alliance did? How aout if some member became communist, a muslim theocracy or something like that?

What independence war? All Balkan countries are currently independent. I think you mean secessionism in which the American government supported. Naturally, the European Security Alliance should be against secessionism as per international law.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by celtabria
It would bring in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus too, along with most current European NATO members.


Basically what you'll be doing is trading in US influence for Russian and a newly empowered Germany. Does the history of the last century indicate that's a good idea?

[Murphy]

What does a military alliance have to do with decadence?

The military alliance exists to protect the liberal-marxist governments of the west my friend. It isn't around to protect you and your family. You're nothing but a number to them. Your value is measured by your usefulness to the economy. You're not human to your government. You're simply a resource.

[Joe McCarthy]

Tell that to millions of children butchered in the womb. You think we're not being killed off? We are. But make no mistake.. it is much subtler than the vulgar methods used by man in the past, but it is still happening.

Russia has a massive abortion rate. They're also a decadent booze, drug, and prostitution infested cesspit, since you think any of this is relevant to a military alliance.

[Rachel]

Heres how i see it North and South America should create their own alliance, Europe should create there and then other geographical areas that have an invested interest should also create a NATO like situation.

[Joe McCarthy]

The military alliance exists to protect the liberal-marxist governments of the west my friend. It isn't around to protect you and your family. You're nothing but a number to them. Your value is measured by your usefulness to the economy. You're not human to your government. You're simply a resource.

So then my alternative is no alliance and an emboldened China, Islam, or a rearmed Germany and empowered Russia? You might consider the alternatives before wantonly trashing the status quo.

[Murphy]

Russia has a massive abortion rate. They're also a decadent booze, drug, and prostitution infested cesspit, since you think any of this is relevant to a military alliance.

Did I not make it clear? They're as bad as one another. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Joe McCarthy]

Heres how i see it North and South America should create their own alliance, Europe should create there and then other geographical areas that have an invested interest should also create a NATO like situation.

Military alliances necessarily involve trade in arms and intelligence. The US joining a military alliance with South America would mean it would be obligated to side with them in disputes with European states, including Britain in the Falklands.

What such proposals are offering is effectively the end of Western Civilization.

[Murphy]

Military alliances necessarily involve trade in arms and intelligence. The US joining a military alliance with South America would mean it would be obligated to side with them in disputes with European states, including Britain in the Falklands/.

Not been following the news lately have you?

[Joe McCarthy]

Not been following the news lately have you?

You don't seem to understand. If we join a military alliance comparable to NATO, we will be obligated to arm a/o side militarily with Argentina over Britain. As of now that isn't the case.

[Albion]

What would these European Alliance do in case of trouble inside the countries or between countries? Like, how would it react to an independence war in the Balkans (again),in Spain (separate Catalonia), in Italy, in the UK, etc? Would the Alliance ever interfere in these internal affairs, like NATO or the Quintuple Alliance did? How aout if some member became communist, a muslim theocracy or something like that?

No, these would be regarded as civil wars and unless it turned nasty there'd be no interference.
The alliance would only step in if there was genocide or mass displacement, in this case it would step in, stop the war and force a political settlement.


Basically what you'll be doing is trading in US influence for Russian and a newly empowered Germany.

Nope, France and Britain would be significant too. Russia would be kept at distance by the lack of bases on foreign soil and West European power politics (aka squabbling).


Does the history of the last century indicate that's a good idea?

Yeah, Yeah, Russia will enslave us all like it did the East, we swap one master for the other.
Russia wouldn't be able to dominate it and there'd be limits on the numbers of troops from every country - so that Russia or anyone else can't build up a small army like Russia has in Moldova.
Maybe America could have observer status which would enable it to be a near-equal member, but for symbolic purposes we need you outside of it and for it to have a Europe-only façade, happy now? ;)


The military alliance exists to protect the liberal-marxist governments of the west my friend. It isn't around to protect you and your family. You're nothing but a number to them. Your value is measured by your usefulness to the economy. You're not human to your government. You're simply a resource.

A number which forms part of a collective which is the populace of a nation. Politicians act in their own interests a lot of the time, but they can't ignore the huge majority of the rest of the population which creates the need and sustains them.
Cut off the roots and the flower will die.

[Murphy]

You don't seem to understand. If we join a military alliance comparable to NATO, we will be obligated to arm a/o side militarily with Argentina over Britain. As of now that isn't the case.

American doesn't give a fig about the already existent "special relationship" with Britain.

And for the record I support Britain and it's claim to the Falklands.

[Megrez]

Russia should join NATO :lightbul:

[The Lawspeaker]

Would this "European-centered" military alliance exclude Russia or...? :coffee:
It would include Russia. Russia is a European nation and thus it ought to be one of the Allies.

It's indeed time for an... European alliance and for the sake of symbolism: let's sign the treaty for it's establishment in Warsaw, Poland.. and I think that we can safely use the old name... ;)

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by celtabria
Yeah, Yeah, Russia will enslave us all like it did the East, we swap one master for the other.


Britain wouldn't be enslaved. However, the countries in Russia's near periphery could expect to be pushed around without the US presence.


Maybe America could have observer status which would enable it to be a near-equal member, but for symbolic purposes we need you outside of it and for it to have a Europe-only façade, happy now?

I think the problem is that your idea of 'Europe' is merely symbolic, and ignores the realities of policy. Most of Russia isn't in Europe, anyway, and you'd be trading in the world's strongest power for a mediocre power. And as Rachel's proposal alludes to, a US given its walking papers by Europe wouldn't simply remain in stasis. We might end up joining an alliance with someone else, which could easily cause us to side against Europe's interests. Better to have us as a friend obligated to defend you when necessary. Otherwise you might have us as an enemy. From our perspective Europe would also be ingrates, sending us off while welcoming the Russians - the guys who enslaved much of Europe for decades.

[Svipdag]

Well, of course, it's up to them, but I think they should ask themselves what good NATO is doing for them. In the present world situation, does the North Atlantic Treaty have any meaning ?

[Joe McCarthy]

Well, of course, it's up to them, but I think they should ask themselves what good NATO is doing for them. In the present world situation, does the North Atlantic Treaty have any meaning ?

No NATO =

An annoyed US looking for different partners, many of them with conflicting interests with Europe. In other words, the US goes from being obligated to defend Europe to possibly being obligated to attack as would be the case in the Falklands with a South American alliance.

No NATO =

Russia intimidating countries like Estonia.

No NATO =

Third World countries, not Europe, being given America's state-of-the-art military technology. This is assuming we joined another alliance.

No NATO =

A divided West, which would embolden Muslims and China.

No NATO =

The possibility of a rearmed Germany causing instability in Europe.

I could go on, and one might add that NONE of these problems exist currently. One can criticize certain NATO actions, and work to make it better, but wishing to end it, especially by linking it to Britney Spears or how many immigrants Norway took in last year, is lunacy.

[The Lawspeaker]

In case of an European unification there might even be a good name for a federal army.. just to nag JoeMcCarthy and his fellow neocunts a bit: Европейский Рабоче-Крестьянская Красная Армия. (Yevropyeĭskiĭ Rabočě-Krěst'janskaja Krasnaja Armija) :wink

[poiuytrewq0987]

In case of an European unification there might even be a good name for a federal army.. just to nag JoeMcCarthy and his fellow neocunts a bit: Европейский Рабоче-Крестьянская Красная Армия. (Yevropyeĭskiĭ Rabočě-Krěst'janskaja Krasnaja Armija) :wink

I support this motion. :D

[The Lawspeaker]

I support this motion. :D
Just taking the piss, mate, just taking the piss. :D

T3n0vBcW5fc

[Albion]

Britain wouldn't be enslaved. However, the countries in Russia's near periphery could expect to be pushed around without the US presence.

I thought about this, they already try it, but hopefully France, Britain and Germany could counter it.


I think the problem is that your idea of 'Europe' is merely symbolic, and ignores the realities of policy.

Not really, it's about sustaining Europe for Europeans and not being someone else's spoilt child or victim.


Most of Russia isn't in Europe, anyway,

That's mere geography, for all intents and purposes it is European.


and you'd be trading in the world's strongest power for a mediocre power.

Mediocre yes, but with a large military, many nukes, large reserve and cheap equipment that they can sell to the east. They're good enough.


And as Rachel's proposal alludes to, a US given its walking papers by Europe wouldn't simply remain in stasis. We might end up joining an alliance with someone else, which could easily cause us to side against Europe's interests.

I know, and I doubt America would take it's marching orders very well. Conflicting interests happen though, and South America isn't a threat as much a joke.


Better to have us as a friend obligated to defend you when necessary.

Yeah, I offered you near-equal observer status, you're a friend. :p


Otherwise you might have us as an enemy.

I guessed that, oh well. Unless there's provocation or if America makes something up then we should get along fine.
America won't be top dog forever, all empires rise and fall and America's peak was reached in the 50s and 60s. America has a large military, but I don't think you could subdue a few hundred million Europeans, there's always some thron in the side who'll fight back.


From our perspective Europe would also be ingrates, sending us off while welcoming the Russians - the guys who enslaved much of Europe for decades.

I don't like Russia that much to be honest with you, I just recognise their necessity and the need to bring them to heel. Not so much welcoming the Russians as roping them into the project.


Well, of course, it's up to them, but I think they should ask themselves what good NATO is doing for them. In the present world situation, does the North Atlantic Treaty have any meaning ?

At the moment it is a tool for influence and power. We invaded Libya for oil and to get Gadafi out of our way so that we could get at said oil whilst also being rid of a dangerous Pan-Arabist (Pan-Arabism is the danger).


An annoyed US looking for different partners, many of them with conflicting interests with Europe. In other words, the US goes from being obligated to defend Europe to possibly being obligated to attack as would be the case in the Falklands with a South American alliance.


Who'd you team up with? Japan, India, Brazil?? You might as well just go it alone.
Or it could stay out of the fighting as most of the European Defence Alliance members would and current NATO members do.
It would be between Britain + anyone who backs us and Argentina and anyone who backs them.
So likely that would be Britain on its tod VS Argentina and Venezuela. Britain would still win with or without aircraft carriers.


No NATO =

Russia intimidating countries like Estonia.

Western Europe would ensure their sovereignty.


Third World countries, not Europe, being given America's state-of-the-art military technology. This is assuming we joined another alliance.

Pfft... and what use is that? No of these countries have the will to even form an alliance.


No NATO =

A divided West, which would embolden Muslims and China.

China wishes for a multipolar world with itself dominating Asia, Muslims can only posse a credible threat if they unite.


No NATO =

The possibility of a rearmed Germany causing instability in Europe.

That would never be allowed by any country, they have Britain, France and Russia to ensure that.

[BeerBaron]

I love the lack of European foresight as many want out of NATO, lets see what that would look like.

No NATO= Europe is little more than a speed bump for China in a decade
No NATO= Well sorry eastern europe back to russia at least as far as being pushed around by russia.

No NATO= Don't even think about europe operating in the pacific anymore, that is home to a very large very pissed off US Naval fleet

No NATO= possible china us alliance, now you're really fucked

No NATO= you quickly exhaust your forces in libya, china takes notice of this and ramps up operations in africa

[The Lawspeaker]

LOL. Scare tactics. It's actually funny how mainly the colonials in this thread are crying it out now "Europe.. don't leave.. don't leave." What is it ? Afraid that we would get politicians that would stick up the two fingers and leave ? Leaving you guys all alone in this bad, bad world ?

[BeerBaron]

LOL. Scare tactics. It's actually funny how mainly the colonials in this thread are crying it out now "Europe.. don't leave.. don't leave." What is it ? Afraid that we would get politicians that would stick up the two fingers and leave ? Leaving you guys all alone in this bad, bad world ?

Don't kid yourself, I am merely stating things that are probable. I am in favor of the alliance as a stance against the rising Chinese, who have indicated in every way that they will have aggressive imperial ambitions. I actually think that a stronger North American/Oceania alliance would be favorable, you europeans get along with each other about as well as squabbling children, this whole "united europe" is such a joke, germany won't even go along with the libya issue, without the US eastern europeans will be left with a hard choice as well, places like Romania and Poland who welcome the US will make difficult decisions that will affect the stability of this European pipe dream.

[The Lawspeaker]

Don't kid yourself, I am merely stating things that are probable. I am in favor of the alliance as a stance against the rising Chinese, who have indicated in every way that they will have aggressive imperial ambitions. I actually think that a stronger North American/Oceania alliance would be favorable, you europeans get along with each other about as well as squabbling children, this whole "united europe" is such a joke, germany won't even go along with the libya issue, without the US eastern europeans will be left with a hard choice as well, places like Romania and Poland who welcome the US will make difficult decisions that will affect the stability of this European pipe dream.
When it comes to Libya it's simple: France and Britain had to secure America's interests.

[Joe McCarthy]

LOL. Scare tactics. It's actually funny how mainly the colonials in this thread are crying it out now "Europe.. don't leave.. don't leave." What is it ? Afraid that we would get politicians that would stick up the two fingers and leave ? Leaving you guys all alone in this bad, bad world ?

More like we don't want Europeans destroying Western Civilization. In geopolitical terms Mexico and Brazil will have larger economies than Britain and Germany by 2050. We could anchor ourselves to them, though for obvious reasons I don't want that. Europe would be of little use against China in East Asia. You need us more than we need you.

[poiuytrewq0987]

No NATO =

An annoyed US looking for different partners, many of them with conflicting interests with Europe. In other words, the US goes from being obligated to defend Europe to possibly being obligated to attack as would be the case in the Falklands with a South American alliance.

Sure, ally with South America but in doing so you'd have to face the Royal Navy and French Navy of both which are no laughing matter.


No NATO =

Russia intimidating countries like Estonia.


Why would they be intimidating Estonia? With Russia in the European Union together with Estonia the ties between both countries would actually become better.


No NATO =

Third World countries, not Europe, being given America's state-of-the-art military technology. This is assuming we joined another alliance.


Oh no? We produce plenty of our own state-of-the-art military technology and we certainly won't be on our knees begging you, the USSA to give us your inferior American-made Sherman-esque technology.


No NATO =

A divided West, which would embolden Muslims and China.

Maybe China but realistically, China can't do much outside her home in Asia. Any aggressive move on either Europe or America would just bring massive retaliation down on them.


No NATO =

The possibility of a rearmed Germany causing instability in Europe.

Germany is already rearmed, a slight up in her military forces won't do much to destabilize Europe since in such union we'd only have similar interests... not interests in creating Greater states.


I could go on, and one might add that NONE of these problems exist currently. One can criticize certain NATO actions, and work to make it better, but wishing to end it, especially by linking it to Britney Spears or how many immigrants Norway took in last year, is lunacy.

Joe, go back to your Happy meals and let us do the serious politicking.

[BeerBaron]

When it comes to Libya it's simple: France and Britain had to secure America's interests.


Right, they definitely weren't securing their own interests since libya belonged to them before Gaddafi, and they definitely weren't acting in the interest of the 26 french and who knows how many Uk companies that are operating in Libya, they were just carrying on americas wishes. :rolleyes:

[Fortis in Arduis]

I would prefer more independence for Britain, and the forging of individual and fluid alliances with (other, hopefully) nationalist democracies.

NATO have a track record of operating against the interests of nationalist governments, and for the globalisation agenda, which, after the rise of China, will no longer be in the interests of any nation other than China, and certainly not that of the US.

In the long run, it is doubtful that NATO is for the benefit of any nation on earth, and as I reject 'Western Civilization' for the political construct that it is, there is little appeal.

Globalisation is fuelling the rise of China, and so NATO, as an agent of globalisation, is entrenching its position as defender of the 'West'.

This is the problem with all this gubbins... We will be left as the naive believers in a mythical 'Western Alliance', whilst National Socialist China leaps ahead.

The US should leave NATO. It is a conservative and negative entity which is creating the eventual demise of the US and of nations in general.

[Austin]

-Germany leaves EU

-Germany rebuilds it's own military industrial complex

-Germany leaves NATO

-All other nations will then leave NATO

-Corrupt Mafia State Russia will not be able to dominate region with a strong Germany there in alliance with West Europe

[Joe McCarthy]

-Germany leaves EU

-Germany rebuilds it's own military industrial complex

-Germany leaves NATO

-All other nations will then leave NATO

-Corrupt Mafia State Russia will not be able to dominate region with a strong Germany there in alliance with West Europe

This isn't 1935, dude. Germany is more likely to align with Russia, leaving France and Britain looking stupid wondering why they just kicked the US out. The US leaving opens the way for a Russian-German hegemony on the Continent, and we see how that worked out in the past.

[BeerBaron]

Sure, ally with South America but in doing so you'd have to face the Royal Navy and French Navy of both which are no laughing matter.



This is a joke right, the US navy being worried about the Royal and French Navy? They lack the tonnage to even be in the same class. Your statement is absurd.

Just the US carriers together are over 1 million tons, and have over 700 aircraft combined, thats just the carriers.

heres a quick paste from wiki for you "The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined.[4] The U.S. Navy also has the world's largest carrier fleet, with 11 in service, one under construction (two planned), and one in reserve. The service had 328,516 personnel on active duty and 101,689 in the Navy Reserve in January 2011. It operates 286 ships in active service and more than 3,700 aircraft.[2]

[poiuytrewq0987]

Europe could easily build a federal navy to compete with the US navy but there's no need. Additionally, if the navies of Britain and France were backed by Russia then surely that combined naval force would be pretty much unstoppable.

[BeerBaron]

Europe could easily build a federal navy to compete with the US navy but there's no need. Additionally, if the navies of Britain and France were backed by Russia then surely that combined naval force would be pretty much unstoppable.

:dielaughing:Utter bullshit, did you not read shit, the US navies battle tonnage is greater than the next largest 13 nations navies....... combined.

[Joe McCarthy]

Europe could easily build a federal navy to compete with the US navy but there's no need. Additionally, if the navies of Britain and France were backed by Russia then surely that combined naval force would be pretty much unstoppable.

LOL. Why do you 'Europe' from Dublin to Vladivostock weirdos always assume that the US is this alien, hostile force opposed by those great actors of cultural commonality and common purpose, Britain and Russia? The US has far more in common with Britain than Russia does, and what makes you think Russia is interested in any of this nonsense in the first place? Is Russia going to forego its market in China to team up with Europeans? Is Russia going to help out in Liibya? This makes no sense. It's romantic idiocy devoid of reality.

[Max]

-Germany leaves EU

-Germany rebuilds it's own military industrial complex

-Germany leaves NATO

-All other nations will then leave NATO

-Corrupt Mafia State Russia will not be able to dominate region with a strong Germany there in alliance with West Europe

Well the problem with this theory is that the US,Britain,France and especially Russia will not just sit back and watch as Germany builds up it's military power. A preemptive strike against Germany will be the only outcome.

What German in his right mind would want to sacrifice 60 years of progress and prosperity just to build up an unnecessary military?

[Max]

Russia doesn't have much to gain from this European alliance. The only possible threat to Russia is the US/China so this kind of alliance will only make Russia weaker. It will be forced to limit it's military and share it's technologies with the rest of Europe.

It's an admirable dream but common... It will probably take a martian invasion for Europe to unite militarily :rolleyes:

[poiuytrewq0987]

LOL. Why do you 'Europe' from Dublin to Vladivostock weirdos always assume that the US is this alien, hostile force opposed by those great actors of cultural commonality and common purpose, Britain and Russia? The US has far more in common with Britain than Russia does, and what makes you think Russia is interested in any of this nonsense in the first place? Is Russia going to forego its market in China to team up with Europeans? Is Russia going to help out in Liibya? This makes no sense. It's romantic idiocy devoid of reality.

Because you bombed a sovereign European country? That should give us every right to distance from your terrorist state.

[Joe McCarthy]

Because you bombed a sovereign European country? That should give us every right to distance from your terrorist state.

Both Serbian and German nationalists attempt to project their parochial grievances pertaining to the US as if they are speaking for all of Europe. I have news for you though: people in Poland or Iceland don't much give a shit, and while we're on the subject framing the bombing of Serbia as 'anti-European' is retarded. Every European member of NATO supported it and it was done to help Europeans. Serbia isn't a member of NATO, anyway, and can be safely said to be friendlier to Muammar Qadhafi than much of the West, nevermind being a blind partisan of Russia, NATO's old foe.

[BeerBaron]

Because you bombed a sovereign European country? That should give us every right to distance from your terrorist state.

Bad news for serbia, the first world does not consider you it's equal.

[SwordoftheVistula]

NATO should be disbanded, since it was formed to combat the USSR which has not existed for 20 years. Also, none of these countries have any military to speak of, aside from Britain, which is scrapping their military due to no longer having the money to run it.

Modern threats are pirates and Islamic terrorists, we'd be better off forming alliances with countries like Russia and China which actually have militaries, and have common enemies with pirates and terrorists.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Both Serbian and German nationalists attempt to project their parochial grievances pertaining to the US as if they are speaking for all of Europe. I have news for you though: people in Poland or Iceland don't much give a shit, and while we're on the subject framing the bombing of Serbia as 'anti-European' is retarded. Every European member of NATO supported it and it was done to help Europeans. Serbia isn't a member of NATO, anyway, and can be safely said to be friendlier to Muammar Qadhafi than much of the West, nevermind being a blind partisan of Russia, NATO's old foe.

Made in America.

[Albion]

Okay, I can see what's happening here. Americans, please understand that there is nothing necessarily anti-American with wishing for a Europe-only defence treaty.
It is rather galling to have a whole continent dependent on one or two other countries for it's protection.
For a European Defence Alliance to have any global influence would require individual European nations to build up their individual military.


This isn't 1935, dude. Germany is more likely to align with Russia, leaving France and Britain looking stupid wondering why they just kicked the US out. The US leaving opens the way for a Russian-German hegemony on the Continent, and we see how that worked out in the past.

Germany can't do shit.


Europe could easily build a federal navy to compete with the US navy but there's no need. Additionally, if the navies of Britain and France were backed by Russia then surely that combined naval force would be pretty much unstoppable.

Getting Europeans to agree to a federal navy would be like getting the English to agree to be French. It's never going to happen. :thumb001:


Why do you 'Europe' from Dublin to Vladivostock weirdos always assume that the US is this alien, hostile force opposed by those great actors of cultural commonality and common purpose, Britain and Russia? The US has far more in common with Britain than Russia does, and what makes you think Russia is interested in any of this nonsense in the first place? Is Russia going to forego its market in China to team up with Europeans? Is Russia going to help out in Liibya? This makes no sense. It's romantic idiocy devoid of reality.

Yes, America isn't alien but has a different mindset most of Europe other than Britain and Scandinavia.
Russia doesn't have to abandon China, this is about military treaties, not economics.

America can work with or as a semi-detached part of such a treaty, the desire is to keep America at arms distance than to actually tell you where to go.

[Austin]

This isn't 1935, dude. Germany is more likely to align with Russia, leaving France and Britain looking stupid wondering why they just kicked the US out. The US leaving opens the way for a Russian-German hegemony on the Continent, and we see how that worked out in the past.


Oh no I disagree. Modern Germany is much much closer culturally/civilly/economically to West Europe than it ever will be with Russia save for natural resource/energy deals. Even on economic terms Germany is still much closer to West Europe and the U.S. If Western European and American appetites for German luxury cars dried up modern day Germany would have big troubles.

Germans and their politicians have a very deep mistrust of Russia on a core level as do all West/East European's. It's very obvious, for it literally is the only reason the U.S. is till there. The rest of Europe makes it worth Americas while to stay as a buffer against Russia. If this wasn't so the U.S. would be gone within a few years. Claiming Russia is some great trusted partner of the rest of Europe is more than a little inaccurate though I wish Russia was not such a corrupt place so these fears wouldn't be founded, but I'm afraid they are. Russia is not some tiered democracy, it is the worlds largest institutional mafia state with a nationalistic sycophant at the helm with Soviet delusions. Most Europeans know this.

Business | 26.04.2006

Project Fuels German Fears of Energy Dependency on Russia

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1980615,00.html
Why would a German news site say the word "fears" if they are such great friends with Russia behind closed doors?

You never hear of a German news site saying they have "fears" over an economic reliance on France or America or the UK, yet with Russia there's always this subtle paranoia at any reliance at all.

This is why I think Germany should take it's own destiny in it's hands. It is capable of doing so. It doesn't need the rest of parasitic Europe. It can function on it's own if it will just further develop it's sense of post-war self. One gets the sense Germany is still not where it is going to be mentally for it still bellies up to the whole Israel guilt nonsense and still continues to play soft power broker with it's fake little EU construct.

[Groenewolf]

NATO is necessary in Europe, even with the new geopolitical situation.

The greatest challenge for the USA in the coming decades is more likely to come from China then from Russia. And to deal with China they will have to make deals with Russia. In the same way they have made deals with China to deal with the USSR.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Austin
Oh no I disagree. Modern Germany is much much closer culturally/civilly/economically to West Europe than it ever will be with Russia save for natural resource/energy deals.

That's of course true, but you don't seem to understand the implications of my statement. You're effectively arguing for German hegemony on the Continent, which no one is willingly going to allow, in which case what would be more likely is a German attempt to get itself out of being bottled in by reaching out to Russia. That isn't likely, either, but it's much more likely than what you're suggesting. With the US around though, it's impossible - and that's a good thing.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by celtabria
That's mere geography, for all intents and purposes it is European.


The same could be said for the US. For that matter, some Continentals to this day don't see Britain as European. The only consistency here seems to be to exclude the US.


I know, and I doubt America would take it's marching orders very well. Conflicting interests happen though, and South America isn't a threat as much a joke.


Mexico and Brazil will have large economies in the coming decades. Would you rather us be aligned with them or you?


I guessed that, oh well. Unless there's provocation or if America makes something up then we should get along fine.


It's not likely the US is going to land airborne troops into Nottingham. The point here is that if the US is no longer in close alliance with, say, Britain, it could look for other alliances possibly hostile to Britain. It just isn't a very good idea from your perspective.


Who'd you team up with? Japan, India, Brazil?? You might as well just go it alone.


It's hard to say what we would do. From the perspective of European interests though, it would be neutral for your interests, at best.


Western Europe would ensure their sovereignty.


Why would Estonia take this deal? At present they have Western Europe AND the US safeguarding their sovereignty.


Pfft... and what use is that? No of these countries have the will to even form an alliance.


Maybe, maybe not. At the very least though Europe will no longer be first in line for American arms.


China wishes for a multipolar world with itself dominating Asia

I think that's a mite optimistic.


Muslims can only posse a credible threat if they unite.



They pose a terror threat already. Qadhafi is threatening to launch attacks in NATO countries. If there is no longer an Atlantic Alliance, it should be interesting watching Britain and France try to formulate a credible military response with Germany and Russia, who don't play ball even now.


That would never be allowed by any country, they have Britain, France and Russia to ensure that.


The same could have been said in the 30s. Removing the US from the equation opens doors for all kinds of 'interesting' developments previously impossible.

[Joe McCarthy]

The greatest challenge for the USA in the coming decades is more likely to come from China then from Russia. And to deal with China they will have to make deals with Russia. In the same way they have made deals with China to deal with the USSR.

In which case the US would be selling Estonia out to Russia. How does that make Russia look good though?

[Rachel]

Well heres a laugh for all of you we could scrap NATO and determine alliances by First, Second and Third World catergories :) (very outdated.. but who cares:rolleyes:)

[Comte Arnau]

Well, as a European I'd also frankly prefer a stronger European Army, if needed.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TWe6fNGCnqY/Tf-OYJ_lhrI/AAAAAAAAAR0/BbbFQo-VFi4/s400/eurocorps+-+European+Army.jpg


What would these European Alliance do in case of trouble inside the countries or between countries? Like, how would it react to an independence war in the Balkans (again),in Spain (separate Catalonia),

Catalonia's pursuit of state sovereignty is peaceful, man. Do not compare.

[Joe McCarthy]

Well heres a laugh for all of you we could scrap NATO and determine alliances by First, Second and Third World catergories :) (very outdated.. but who cares:rolleyes:)

We certainly shouldn't welcome closer collaboration between the US and Latin America, and any European move to push us out would tend to move us in that direction.

Ending the Atlantic Alliance, when considered in its full implications and possibilities, is nothing less than racial and civilizational treason.

[Groenewolf]

In which case the US would be selling Estonia out to Russia.

Which makes it more important why Europe should take more care of their own defense instead of staying depended on America whose geopolitical interests may move away from Europe (-Russia) in the long run.

[Joe McCarthy]

Which makes it more important why Europe should take more care of their own defense instead of staying depended on America whose geopolitical interests may move away from Europe (-Russia) in the long run.

Europe can increase its defense expenditures without pulling out of NATO. We're dealing with a hypothetical situation with Estonia - but if the US leaves they'll have less protection than they do now for sure.

[Albion]

The responses from the Americans on here, whilst expected, have made me think about it a little more.
As it stands at the moment most European nations are small nation-states or medium sized countries with small military capabilities. I suppose pacifism has existed for so long that nations have determined that a large military would be little needed and that America (aka NATO) would save them in the case of a invasion.

Only Britain, Russia and France have a sizeable military and all three pale in comparison to America. As China acquires more and more technology, much of it stolen or copied, it may too become a military power.
The English have a saying, one of many - it probably exists in the Anglosphere too - Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don't.
So even if anti-Americans on here oppose America's militarism, if it is to be treated as an enemy by such people then it is still better than China which we have no experience or real understanding of.

I made a point earlier in a reply that Russia whilst being mostly in Asia is European for all intents and purposes, Joe pointed out that the same is true of America and that is true.
I think we need to stop looking at Europe and America as if they are two competing entities and look at how they can continue to co-operate.

A major stumbling block in the Euro-American military relation is neutrality or rather the lack of it.
Countries such as Sweden stayed away from NATO for fear of provoking the USSR and today Russia still decries what it sees as America's proxy at work and encroaching on its back yard in Eastern Europe.
Another way in which neutrality is questionable in NATO is the picking of sides in conflicts and the use of NATO in what are described as wars of aggression by some in areas such as Libya as of recent.

NATO has been described as an organisation without a purpose and whilst false it does highlight the perceived obsolete feel about a treaty organisation designed to protect Europe from the reds.

So what I suggest is that NATO should be reformed from the ground up, it needs to get the new members more involved, encourage nations to have decent sized armies, stop using NATO as a vehicle for interfering in the Middle East and to try and get Russia to co-operate and maybe even join some day.
I'd also suggest cutting back on foreign-soil military bases and changing the name to drop the cold-war association, something like 'the European and North American Defence Treaty' ENADT might be good.

A main issue is how we can encourage military build up, the only way that can really be done easily is if there's a perceived threat which there isn't. That's a tough one.

Canada and America and Europe should just continue to co-operate, Europe needs them more than they need us and North American whites are Europeans. Maybe we can invite Australia and New Zealand too by beefing up the ANZUS and ANZUK treaties, NZ will probably play neutrality though.

[Austin]

That's of course true, but you don't seem to understand the implications of my statement. You're effectively arguing for German hegemony on the Continent, which no one is willingly going to allow, in which case what would be more likely is a German attempt to get itself out of being bottled in by reaching out to Russia. That isn't likely, either, but it's much more likely than what you're suggesting. With the US around though, it's impossible - and that's a good thing.


No No it will happen. The U.S. in the future is going to be busy with China and fighting over territories with it. Europe is going to become an immense non-issue for the U.S. in the future. Future U.S. generations are going to withdraw funding for NATO and for the presence in Europe through economic deals with Russia to undermine China. Russia isn't coming back from it's internal decaying abyss to ever present a true threat to West Europe ever again that much is clear. Germany will have time to re-become itself. France is intent on suicide as usual and Italians are content on going to nightclubs till 30 and the UK is a small little island that is well past it's good years. The U.S. will allow it as the demographics in the U.S. will have changed. WW2 will not be on those generations minds. They won't fund NATO anymore nor will they see why they should. Also many of them won't be white and will have no connection to Europe in sentiment or race.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Europe can increase its defense expenditures without pulling out of NATO. We're dealing with a hypothetical situation with Estonia - but if the US leaves they'll have less protection than they do now for sure.

This is not the cold war, Russia is not going to retake Estonia for teh lulz.

[Joe McCarthy]

No No it will happen. The U.S. in the future is going to be busy with China and fighting over territories with it. Europe is going to become an immense non-issue for the U.S. in the future. Future U.S. generations are going to withdraw funding for NATO and for the presence in Europe through economic deals with Russia to undermine China. Russia isn't coming back from it's internal decaying abyss to ever present a true threat to West Europe ever again that much is clear. Germany will have time to re-become itself. France is intent on suicide as usual and Italians are content on going to nightclubs till 30 and the UK is a small little island that is well past it's good years. The U.S. will allow it as the demographics in the U.S. will have changed. WW2 will not be on those generations minds. They won't fund NATO anymore nor will they see why they should. Also many of them won't be white and will have no connection to Europe in sentiment or race.

Well, let's all hail the Fourth Reich of sodomy, Turkish sex clubs, and national chauvinists who think saving Europe means sticking it to the French, Czechs, Poles, and any others needing got even with.

[Joe McCarthy]

This is not the cold war, Russia is not going to retake Estonia for teh lulz.

Russia is on track to have the 6th largest economy by 2050. Why should its neighbors fear a more powerful Russia less?

Pat Buchanan a few years ago envisioned a scenario of future war, in this case arguing against NATO expansion, where Estonia roughs up its Russian population and Russia sends in the troops with raucous approval from the Russian population. The real danger is actually for the US. We could get wrapped up in a world war for Estonia, and while I like Estonians, I question how wise that is.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Russia is on track to have the 6th largest economy by 2050. Why should its neighbors fear a more powerful Russia less?

Pat Buchanan a few years ago envisioned a scenario of future war, in this case arguing against NATO expansion, where Estonia roughs up its Russian population and Russia sends in the troops with raucous approval from the Russian population. The real danger is actually for the US. We could get wrapped up in a world war for Estonia, and while I like Estonians, I question how wise that is.

A more wealthier Russia is good for Estonia as it'd be able to benefit from having a large market just right on its doorsteps. Stop obsessing about how a war might happen, how it might not happen. A war between Russia and Estonia WILL not happen. Estonia, itself is pretty powerless... not because of its weak military but because it is small population-wise. It's not going to change and fearing Russia won't help. Instead foster good relationship between both countries and that is the best route both countries can take.

[Joe McCarthy]

A war between Russia and Estonia WILL not happen. Estonia, itself is pretty powerless... not because of its weak military but because it is small population-wise. It's not going to change and fearing Russia won't help.

Somewhere some Serbian Russophile was saying 'A war between Russia and Georgia will not happen. Georgia, itself is pretty powerless... not because of its weak military but because it is small population-wise.'

[poiuytrewq0987]

Somewhere some American NATOphile was saying 'A war between Serbia and the USA will not happen. Serbia, itself is pretty powerless... not because of its weak military but because it is small population-wise.'

[BeerBaron]

A more wealthier Russia is good for Estonia as it'd be able to benefit from having a large market just right on its doorsteps. Stop obsessing about how a war might happen, how it might not happen. A war between Russia and Estonia WILL not happen. Estonia, itself is pretty powerless... not because of its weak military but because it is small population-wise. It's not going to change and fearing Russia won't help. Instead foster good relationship between both countries and that is the best route both countries can take.

A wealthy Russia is bad for everyone, especially when you have an ex-KGB agent as basically the emperor there with massive approval from the population. Rampant exportation of advanced arms to china and other BRIC nations and security pacts with them is bad for the west no matter how much you want to gloss it over with estonia benefiting from having a large market next door. Russia much more likely to start subverting the west with its new found wealth than benefit it in even the smallest way. They need to be crashed again with a sharp cut in oil prices.

[poiuytrewq0987]

A wealthy USA is bad for everyone, especially when you have an ex-CIA agent as basically the emperor there with massive approval from the population. Rampant exportation of advanced arms to china and other BRIC nations and security pacts with them is bad for the west no matter how much you want to gloss it over with estonia benefiting from having a large market next door. USA much more likely to start subverting the west with its new found wealth than benefit it in even the smallest way. They need to be crashed again with a sharp cut in oil prices.

[BeerBaron]

^ well aren't we clever, to bad those dont interchange as well as they did the first time you did it.

[poiuytrewq0987]

^ well aren't we clever, to bad those dont interchange as well as they did the first time you did it.

Your crazy crusade of Russia = bad guys, the USA = good guys is just flat out retarded. Instead of fearmongering, we should be looking to fostering good relationship. The NATO is not interested in doing that, instead they want to absorb former Warsaw Pact states and turn them against Russia.

[Birka]

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: Trade with all, alliances with none.n Do away with NATO, SEATO and the UN. Is SEATO still functioning?

[BeerBaron]

Your crazy crusade of Russia = bad guys, the USA = good guys is just flat out retarded. Instead of fearmongering, we should be looking to fostering good relationship. The NATO is not interested in doing that, instead they want to absorb former Warsaw Pact states and turn them against Russia.

I never said russians are bad and the usa is good, i don't draw those kind of moral lines in politics. morals are left at the door in the political arena, and they should be. the reality of it is that good relations are fleeting and don't last. Nato doesn't really need to turn anyone against russia, most former warsaw pact members are pretty solidly anit-russia. russia's current policy is anti west, so until that changes and its leader changes my opinion stands, but it has nothing to do with "good" or "bad"

[BeerBaron]

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: Trade with all, alliances with none.n Do away with NATO, SEATO and the UN. Is SEATO still functioning?

Interesting how he wrote that, then came the Barbary war, hmmm

[poiuytrewq0987]

I never said russians are bad and the usa is good, i don't draw those kind of moral lines in politics. morals are left at the door in the political arena, and they should be. the reality of it is that good relations are fleeting and don't last. Nato doesn't really need to turn anyone against russia, most former warsaw pact members are pretty solidly anit-russia. russia's current policy is anti west, so until that changes and its leader changes my opinion stands, but it has nothing to do with "good" or "bad"

The NATO was formed to unify America's allies against the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ended, the NATO didn't end and continues to absorb former Warsaw Pact states. What kind of message do you think the NATO is sending Russia, genius?

The NATO is inherently hostile against Russia and it is only natural for Russia to respond by playing power politics.

[BeerBaron]

The NATO was formed to unify America's allies against the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ended, the NATO didn't end and continues to absorb former Warsaw Pact states. What kind of message do you think the NATO is sending Russia, genius?

The NATO is inherently hostile against Russia and it is only natural for Russia to respond by playing power politics.

NATO is playing power politics just as EVERYONE in the world is doing. Siding with Russia seems to be a common theme among liberal europe, that is vehemently anti american, kinda like when you see a dog with a broken leg you feel bad for it and want to help it, then the dog gets better and bites you. History has shown the end of those that act weak, power is the only thing respected in this world, this good relations stuff is egalitarian nonsense that few if any subscribe to.

[Joe McCarthy]

Interesting how he wrote that, then came the Barbary war, hmmm

LOL. Jefferson's pipsqueak navy got us bullied for years by both Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. His isolationist fantasies are the last to be citing for proper geostrategy.

[poiuytrewq0987]

NATO is playing power politics just as EVERYONE in the world is doing. Siding with Russia seems to be a common theme among liberal europe, that is vehemently anti american, kinda like when you see a dog with a broken leg you feel bad for it and want to help it, then the dog gets better and bites you. History has shown the end of those that act weak, power is the only thing respected in this world, this good relations stuff is egalitarian nonsense that few if any subscribe to.

The moral of the story is that the NATO needs to go away for peace to reign.

[BeerBaron]

The moral of the story is that the NATO needs to go away for peace to reign.

The moral of the story is that peace is a delusion as long as nation states exist

[BeerBaron]

LOL. Jefferson's pipsqueak navy got us bullied for years by both Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. His isolationist fantasies are the last to be citing for proper geostrategy.

i agree, i just dislike hearing quotes from him talking about "trade with all alliances with none" when no one mentions any of this along with it

[poiuytrewq0987]

The moral of the story is that peace is a delusion as long as nation states exist

We already have the European Union, there is no need for NATO.

[Austin]

Well, let's all hail the Fourth Reich of sodomy, Turkish sex clubs, and national chauvinists who think saving Europe means sticking it to the French, Czechs, Poles, and any others needing got even with.


This is what I mean though. Germany and all of West Europe are sick with cultural Marxism these days. They aren't going to come out of it until the U.S. leaves and Russia starts openly corrupting East Europe and West Europe wakes up from its degeneracy and becomes itself again. Though yes I agree, West Europe in its current form is the equivalent to a delusional drunk asleep in the bathroom whom the bar owner left there as he locked up. You listen to some of these West European social leftists and you just want to vomit out of pure disgust at their sheer delusion. Yet NATO enables this societal decay of West Europe. NATO enables West Europe to play human rights court and pretend that Russia is going to mentally pacify itself any day now in respect to its regional interests.

[BeerBaron]

We already have the European Union, there is no need for NATO.

The eu's ability to conduct military operations without the US is pathetic at best. the eu can't even agree to use its military together in libya and has to run to nato countries for support until they convince the US to intervene.

[Joe McCarthy]

The NATO was formed to unify America's allies against the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ended, the NATO didn't end and continues to absorb former Warsaw Pact states. What kind of message do you think the NATO is sending Russia, genius?

The NATO is inherently hostile against Russia and it is only natural for Russia to respond by playing power politics.

The factor you're leaving out is that these ex-Warsaw Pact countries themselves wanted to join NATO because they don't trust a country like Russia. And who can blame them?

I mean, Russia enslaves Europe for decades, goes broke and implodes, then leaves. Its former slaves want some security against future oppression, and your solution is to blame the West and then rationalize Russia responding by arming China and Third World thugs. Niiiice.

[Birka]

LOL. Jefferson's pipsqueak navy got us bullied for years by both Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. His isolationist fantasies are the last to be citing for proper geostrategy.
When the national debt is $61 TRILLION, the last thing to be thinking about is a geostrategy. When Jefferson sent the Marines to take out the Barbary Pirates, what alliances did he make? Did he waste the US budget rebuilding foreign countries?

[Joe McCarthy]

This is what I mean though. Germany and all of West Europe are sick with cultural Marxism these days. They aren't going to come out of it until the U.S. leaves and Russia starts openly corrupting East Europe and West Europe wakes up from its degeneracy and becomes itself again. Though yes I agree, West Europe in its current form is the equivalent to a delusional drunk asleep in the bathroom whom the bar owner left there as he locked up. You listen to some of these West European social leftists and you just want to vomit out of pure disgust at their sheer delusion. Yet NATO enables this societal decay of West Europe. NATO enables West Europe to play human rights court and pretend that Russia is going to mentally pacify itself any day now in respect to its regional interests.

Why is NATO preventing Europeans from closing their borders or having kids? European birthrates were good for much of NATO's existence. Does Germany need to re-arm and start trying to conquer Europe for Europe to survive? Actually, that's sorta why it's in trouble - Germany's warlike ambitions.

[Groenewolf]

Europe can increase its defense expenditures without pulling out of NATO. We're dealing with a hypothetical situation with Estonia - but if the US leaves they'll have less protection than they do now for sure.

That is indeed possible. And it certainly needed, because being depended on an other nation for your defense is not good thing. Alto there is still the possibility for military alliances between some European countries and the USA without NATO.

[Joe McCarthy]

That is indeed possible. And it certainly needed, because being depended on an other nation for your defense is not good thing. Alto there is still the possibility for military alliances between some European countries and the USA without NATO.

Gates has suggested Europe up its defense budget. Regardless though, in any such defense arrangement various countries will be dependent on others. The Netherlands for example could be increasingly dependent on Germany. I know you don't mind that idea but it worries me a bit. Collective defense or the good will of large states is all that can protect small countries.

[Tel Errant]

Of course we should.

[Albion]

Of course we should.

France, Britain and Russia aren't really the problem - the rest of Europe is. These three are probably the most militaristic in modern Europe, although the British have suffered from cutbacks.
But we get our new aircraft carriers in 2015 and most of the deficit should be cut back and a significant part of the debt paid if the coalition's plan works (I seriously hope so).:thumb001:

[CommonSense]

NATO shouldn't even exist. It's a complete abomination and serves only to further America's interests.