PDA

View Full Version : Pro-Nato or Against-Nato?



Su
12-24-2012, 03:26 PM
Are you pro or against NATO? Please explain also the reason why you are pro/against NATO?

Also select the right poll option.

Partizan
12-24-2012, 03:28 PM
Against NATO but against any kind of Eurasianism(Russian imperialism) or Chinese Imperialism as well. I would call myself as a Third Worldist.

Su
12-24-2012, 03:30 PM
List of NATO countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

Stefan
12-24-2012, 03:35 PM
I think by having my country obliged in a long-lasting treaty with others, it has certain obligations to these nations that supersede that of the people within the United States. This means certain political powers of the U.S Government are not being derived by the people. Hence, I disagree with anything like NATO, but not specifically NATO itself. Basically, I find other countries of the world too dependent on the United States military, and I feel as if Americans are paying a bill that others should pay for their own self-defense. Yeah, I'm selfish, but the United States isn't in a good position and we can't really afford nor is it reliable to act as the police of the world.

Geni
12-24-2012, 03:49 PM
I am pro NATO.. Europians must have 1 strength army...NATO allows States to reduce the absurds budgets for army..

Damião de Góis
12-24-2012, 03:58 PM
The cold war is over, i don't see the need for its existance.

Siberian Cold Breeze
12-24-2012, 04:00 PM
My native country is a NATO country and I'm against NATO

sevruk
12-24-2012, 04:03 PM
NATO sucks

Vesuvian Sky
12-24-2012, 04:05 PM
These days, I'm only pro-Kurgan culture.

Way of the horse and bow.:cool:

SKYNET
12-27-2012, 08:27 PM
we need to protect ourselves from terrorists.

Fortis in Arduis
12-27-2012, 09:29 PM
It is another supranational organisation weakening British sovereignty.

Britain should have an independent nuclear capability, like France, then we could be "terrorists". :naughty2:

Adrian
12-27-2012, 10:12 PM
Europe is a continent whose history is written by blood. Hatred, hostility, war, intimidation etc, between the neighboring countries has been present throughout the history of Europe.

Since the creation of the NATO organization (and EU), animosities between European countries have been replaced by cooperation with each other. Europe has never been more relaxed, in terms of wars and hatreds, than in last 50 years.

Despite the end of the Cold War, potential external threats toward European countries have not disappeared. The situation is likely to deteriorate even more in the case of a beginning of war in Iran.
Iran is an Russian and Chinese ally, and positions/plans of Russia and China are unpredictable.

Therefore, I think that NATO should continue and strengthen its presence/existence in Europe and elsewhere.

Fortis in Arduis
12-27-2012, 11:31 PM
^ lol

Svipdag
12-27-2012, 11:49 PM
we need to protect ourselves from terrorists.

What has the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation got to do with terrorism ?


"MALVM EST CONSILIVM QVOD MVTARI NON POTEST" - PVBLILIVS SYRVS

Svipdag
12-28-2012, 12:02 AM
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created to counter Soviet-bloc power in northern and western Europe during the "Cold War". That threat is negligible today. Therefore, NATO has outlived its usefulness. Apparently the
North Atlantic Treaty did not have a "sunset" clause.

Like so many of the "alphabet soup" agencies in the US government, it no longer has any reason to exist, but we go on paying for it. NATO has served its purpose. It is time that it was disbanded.


"QVAM PARVA SAPIENTIA MVNDVS REGITVR" - Anon Y. Mous

SKYNET
12-28-2012, 12:26 AM
What has the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation got to do with terrorism ?


"MALVM EST CONSILIVM QVOD MVTARI NON POTEST" - PVBLILIVS SYRVS


North Korea(aka communism), Iran, China(totalitarianism, aka sister of Korea), Pakistan, the Islamic world(hello Mohamed), Russia(hello chauvinism). I guess you need a bit of time to think ;)

Virtuous
12-28-2012, 12:26 AM
Pro Warsaw Pact.

Stefan
12-28-2012, 12:30 AM
North Korea(aka communism), Iran, China(totalitarianism, aka sister of Korea), Pakistan, the Islamic world(hello Mohamed), Russia(hello chauvinism). I guess you need a bit of time to think ;)

Not a single one of these countries is interested in expansionism, at least not anywhere near the level of the U.S. Let them have their "communism" and "totalitarianism" and how about we fix our own over-powered state. The U.S, in order to prevent these "totalitarians" from growing, is becoming more totalitarian itself. How many civil liberties and violations of our 4th amendment have we had because of the "War on Terrorism"? Congress was given the ability to indefinitely detain U.S citizens with NDAA 2012, for example. The Patriot act allows the U.S government to monitor us how they wish, without a warrant, nor our permission. All of this, because of U.S expansionism.

Anglojew
12-28-2012, 12:43 AM
Natos only mistake was attacking Serbia. Possibly the worst decision of the postwar era.

Adrian
12-28-2012, 09:02 AM
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created to counter Soviet-bloc power in northern and western Europe during the "Cold War". That threat is negligible today. Therefore, NATO has outlived its usefulness. Apparently the
North Atlantic Treaty did not have a "sunset" clause.

Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, during the election campaign, said that Russia continues to be the number one enemy of the U.S.
That does not mean that Russia would militarily attack the U.S. or any European country. That statement has to do with the Russian influence upon oil-rich countries.


Like so many of the "alphabet soup" agencies in the US government, it no longer has any reason to exist, but we go on paying for it. NATO has served its purpose. It is time that it was disbanded.

Do you believe that in case of termination of existence of NATO, you will have to pay less than you have paid so far?!

Minesweeper
12-28-2012, 09:05 AM
Therefore, I think that NATO should continue and strengthen its presence/existence in Europe and elsewhere.

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Out of 6 current pro-NATO apricians, 3 are already Albanians. :D

Adrian
12-28-2012, 09:11 AM
Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Out of 6 current pro-NATO apricians, 3 are already Albanians. :D

You, Serbs, are the black sheep of Europe. Russian version of the Trojan horse.

Your body is in Europe, while your mind is in Russia :rolleyes:

Methmatician
12-28-2012, 09:20 AM
Your body is in Europe, while your mind is in Russia :rolleyes:

Russia is in Europe as well.

Stefan
12-28-2012, 09:21 AM
Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney, during the election campaign, said that Russia continues to be the number one enemy of the U.S.
That does not mean that Russia would militarily attack the U.S. or any European country. That statement has to do with the Russian influence upon oil-rich countries.

55% of our oil is domestic, of the foreign oil - 29% comes from Canada. (http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm) Over half of our imports come from the Western Hemisphere. Do we really need oil from the Middle East? Or do countries in Asia and Europe? Europe has very few oil reserves. Romney is quite deluded, and wouldn't have made much of a better president on this matter than Obama is.



Do you believe that in case of termination of existence of NATO, you will have to pay less than you have paid so far?!

It would certainly be one of many things they should cut with this current "fiscal cliff" incident. Maybe not less, but it is quite clear to any sensible person that the money the federal government gets is not being put to good use.

Adrian
12-28-2012, 09:22 AM
Russia is in Europe as well.

Yeah, in football and Eurovision.

Minesweeper
12-28-2012, 09:25 AM
You, Serbs, are the black sheep of Europe. Russian version of the Trojan horse.

Your body is in Europe, while your mind is in Russia :rolleyes:


Europe ≠ Western Europe

Anyway, supporting NATO makes you an American collaborator in Europe. Unlike America, Russia is an European country. Not to mention how European it is compared to semi-Asiatic Albania.

Adrian
12-28-2012, 09:36 AM
Europe ≠ Western Europe

Read my previous post.


Anyway, supporting NATO makes you an American collaborator in Europe. Unlike America, Russia is an European country. Not to mention how European it is compared to semi-Asiatic Albania.

U.S. and Europe share the same values​​, unlike Russia which has always been a threat to Europe. Even in the Kosovo war proved which countries share common values. USA and EU on one side, Russia, China, Iran, Cuba in the other side.

Serbia is a Russian base in Europe.

Minesweeper
12-28-2012, 09:45 AM
U.S. and Europe share the same values​​, unlike Russia which has always been a threat to Europe. Even in the Kosovo war proved which countries share common values. USA and EU on one side, Russia, China, Iran, Cuba in the other side.

Serbia is a Russian base in Europe.

Aren't we opposed to those liberal ''values'', you know, gay rights, race mixing and similar stuff that good old West is serving us here as the most positive achievements in human society so far.

Trun
12-28-2012, 10:12 AM
As usual, any thread regarding NATO turns into Shumado-Siptar flame war.

I'm against any kind of large military organisations, though the existence of NATO may be a good reason for moderate tolerance between neighbor countries who would probably have much worse relationship otherwise (like Greece and Turkey).


Aren't we opposed to those liberal ''values'', you know, gay rights, race mixing and similar stuff that good old West is serving us here as the most positive achievements in human society so far.

Values are personal. Nobody is forcing you to support gays or marry an African woman.

Adrian
12-28-2012, 12:20 PM
55% of our oil is domestic, of the foreign oil - 29% comes from Canada. (http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm) Over half of our imports come from the Western Hemisphere. Do we really need oil from the Middle East? Or do countries in Asia and Europe? Europe has very few oil reserves. Romney is quite deluded, and wouldn't have made much of a better president on this matter than Obama is.

U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world. In long-term needs USA necessarily will depend on the oil of Middle East. A mere thirty years ago, 28% of the oil consumed in the United States was imported. Today nearly 60% of the oil utilized and consumed in the United States is imported from other countries.

The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011.

The largest reserves of oil (http://www.quoteoil.com/oil-imports.html) in the world:

Middle East - 727 billion barrels
Central and South America - 99 billion barrels
Africa - 87 billion barrels
Nations of the former Soviet Union - 78 billion barrels
Western Europe and China - 18 billion barrels
Mexico - 16 billion barrels
India - 5 billion barrels

U.S. has no reason to feel comfortable regarding the fulfillment of its oil needs.


It would certainly be one of many things they should cut with this current "fiscal cliff" incident. Maybe not less, but it is quite clear to any sensible person that the money the federal government gets is not being put to good use.

I am aware about the concerns of American taxpayers, but I also think that the existence of NATO is in the good of your country and nation.
Strength of its influence in the world is vital for your existence.

I also think that U.S. foreign policy is the same, regardless of who is president.

Stefan
12-28-2012, 12:54 PM
U.S. is the largest consumer of oil in the world. In long-term needs USA necessarily will depend on the oil of Middle East. A mere thirty years ago, 28% of the oil consumed in the United States was imported. Today nearly 60% of the oil utilized and consumed in the United States is imported from other countries.

The United States consumed a total of 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011.

The largest reserves of oil (http://www.quoteoil.com/oil-imports.html) in the world:

Middle East - 727 billion barrels
Central and South America - 99 billion barrels
Africa - 87 billion barrels
Nations of the former Soviet Union - 78 billion barrels
Western Europe and China - 18 billion barrels
Mexico - 16 billion barrels
India - 5 billion barrels

U.S. has no reason to feel comfortable regarding the fulfillment of its oil needs.

In the long-term we better not be thinking about oil. It's far too devastating on the environment, and it's still limited. However; you might just be right that most will go that way, unfortunately.




I am aware about the concerns of American taxpayers, but I also think that the existence of NATO is in the good of your country and nation.
Strength of its influence in the world is vital for your existence.

I also think that U.S. foreign policy is the same, regardless of who is president.

Not necessarily. We have 270 million guns in our country, the most powerful military in the world with the most money in it, and various militias. It's good for the government though, yeah. Unfortunately the government has not always been working ,or at least hasn't in 100 years, in the best interest of the people. I am a noninterventionalist, but also believe that permanent treaties conflict with the sovereignty of the people and their ability to allocate power. Hence, it is an external conflict which damages the internal dynamics of our country at the expense of helping other countries and enabling their own complacency. If we were to cut NATO it would essentially force the EU constituents to actually put money into their militaries at the expense of their own people. Why is it the job of the United States to secure this oil and to fight these wars? No thank you! We have internal matters to think about.


'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Adrian
12-29-2012, 11:03 PM
In the long-term we better not be thinking about oil. It's far too devastating on the environment, and it's still limited. However; you might just be right that most will go that way, unfortunately.

In the future the needs for oil will be even greater. As long as greater oil resources are in the Middle East, the eyes of the customers will be concentrated there. Sometimes arrangements with those countries are made with the understanding and mutual economic interest, and sometimes through violence. This is the reason of the current existence of NATO.

Let's be clear in one thing. I am taking oil as an example.
Sometimes aims are opium, uranium, diamonds, etc.


Not necessarily. We have 270 million guns in our country, the most powerful military in the world with the most money in it, and various militias. It's good for the government though, yeah. Unfortunately the government has not always been working ,or at least hasn't in 100 years, in the best interest of the people. I am a noninterventionalist, but also believe that permanent treaties conflict with the sovereignty of the people and their ability to allocate power.
Hence, it is an external conflict which damages the internal dynamics of our country at the expense of helping other countries and enabling their own complacency. If we were to cut NATO it would essentially force the EU constituents to actually put money into their militaries at the expense of their own people. Why is it the job of the United States to secure this oil and to fight these wars? No thank you! We have internal matters to think about.

NATO is financed based on the participation of its members. All members of NATO share a certain % of GDP proportionally. U.S. pays more, since its GDP is higher, but this does not mean that other countries remain at the expense of the U.S.

The way you have understood the role of NATO and its interventions in different countries is much different from the way how an European citizen understands that. Usually they are Europeans who oppose the idea to follow each U.S. initiative, when it comes to the military interventions. Not the opposite.
There are cases when European countries have not shown interest to participate in any mission/war, and in some other cases, certain European countries have left in the half of the mission. This is because they think that the US is exploiting them through NATO.

Regarding the internal problems of U.S.
I think that the withdrawal of your country from the current position (military presence in different countries of the world) would cause more/and grater internal problems in U.S. than any other problem.
We can discuss this more widely.

Fortis in Arduis
12-29-2012, 11:39 PM
NATO perpetuates the endless Orwellian war of the rich against the poor, and so support for this supranational body, which is surely the military expression of the policies of other entities such as the World Trade Organisation, implies a lack of social conscience in addition to a disregard for national sovereignty.

NATO = Bending Over :o

Stefan
12-30-2012, 05:59 AM
In the future the needs for oil will be even greater. As long as greater oil resources are in the Middle East, the eyes of the customers will be concentrated there. Sometimes arrangements with those countries are made with the understanding and mutual economic interest, and sometimes through violence. This is the reason of the current existence of NATO.

Let's be clear in one thing. I am taking oil as an example.
Sometimes aims are opium, uranium, diamonds, etc.

My point was that even these reserves are limited. We need to look at other options than fossil fuels.




NATO is financed based on the participation of its members. All members of NATO share a certain % of GDP proportionally. U.S. pays more, since its GDP is higher, but this does not mean that other countries remain at the expense of the U.S.

The way you have understood the role of NATO and its interventions in different countries is much different from the way how an European citizen understands that. Usually they are Europeans who oppose the idea to follow each U.S. initiative, when it comes to the military interventions. Not the opposite.
There are cases when European countries have not shown interest to participate in any mission/war, and in some other cases, certain European countries have left in the half of the mission. This is because they think that the US is exploiting them through NATO.

Regarding the internal problems of U.S.
I think that the withdrawal of your country from the current position (military presence in different countries of the world) would cause more/and grater internal problems in U.S. than any other problem.
We can discuss this more widely.

The issue is, by having NATO we [Americans] have an obligation to protect these Europeans. Europeans are by far more vulnerable than Americans. Furthermore, NATO enables my government to utilize it as an excuse to not derive its power from the people of the United States. No matter how you put it, it's parasitical to expect Americans to put in the only effort to maintain these resources, when the largest consumers of these resources are Europeans and Asians. And no, the internal problems of the U.S would be immensely better if we didn't spend as much on the military as we do and our government didn't have a means to crush our individual rights in the name of "terrorism." Of course, it would be devastating for Europe if the U.S left.

Dacul
12-30-2012, 06:58 AM
Lol how people voted here is really comforting my heart.

Adrian
12-30-2012, 11:08 AM
My point was that even these reserves are limited. We need to look at other options than fossil fuels.

This is how we wish to be. The reality is that fossil oil can not be substituted for a very long time.


The issue is, by having NATO we [Americans] have an obligation to protect these Europeans. Europeans are by far more vulnerable than Americans. Furthermore, NATO enables my government to utilize it as an excuse to not derive its power from the people of the United States. No matter how you put it, it's parasitical to expect Americans to put in the only effort to maintain these resources, when the largest consumers of these resources are Europeans and Asians. And no, the internal problems of the U.S would be immensely better if we didn't spend as much on the military as we do and our government didn't have a means to crush our individual rights in the name of "terrorism." Of course, it would be devastating for Europe if the U.S left.

We are talking about Europe and USA, not Asia. Except Turkey, which is Eurasian country, there's not any other Asian country in NATO. And if we talk about consumption, not Europe but the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world -
United States 19,150,000 bbl/day
European Union 13,680,000 bbl/day

Stefan, after the end of the Cold War, the external threat for Europe is significantly lower. I think the last ten years of military interventions have not occurred because of any external threat against Europe, but due to the removal of dictatorships on some countries.

Removal of dictatorships was necessary because they were more likely to cooperate with Russia and China than with U.S. or EU.

Regarding expenses, the U.S. has different ways to cover the costs of military missions. U.S. is the biggest arms exporter of the world with 30%. Russia is second with 24%.

http://www.sipri.org/googlemaps/2012_of_top10_exp_pie.jpg

In case of withdrawal or changes in foreign policy, the U.S. will lose the primacy in arms export.
Thanks to 'Arab Spring', the U.S. has achieved to get some new customers. Before the intervention, they were Russia's traditional customers
So, the enemies have become consumer.

Stefan
12-30-2012, 11:55 AM
This is how we wish to be. The reality is that fossil oil can not be substituted for a very long time.



We are talking about Europe and USA, not Asia. Except Turkey, which is Eurasian country, there's not any other Asian country in NATO. And if we talk about consumption, not Europe but the U.S. is the largest consumer in the world -
United States 19,150,000 bbl/day
European Union 13,680,000 bbl/day

Europe (along with Asian countries) benefit more from oil that is in the Middle East, was my point. The United States does not.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

Only 12.9% of U.S oil comes from the Persian Gulf.

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/04/gr-oilprod-300.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Oilimportsus2010.svg/776px-Oilimportsus2010.svg.png

Meanwhile the top buyers of say, Iran's oil, include Italy, Spain, Greece and France, but no United States.

http://www.kippreport.com/2012/01/top-10-buyers-of-irans-oil/

Furthermore, while we're the top consumer we're also the top producer of oil, besting Saudi Arabia. Europe is dependent on the Middle East and Russia to offer oil. The U.S has 88% of its oil gained elsewhere and we have a lot of potential to cut back.

If we went to war with Iran who would it be for? Certainly not Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/europe/iran-says-it-will-cut-oil-supplies-to-6-european-nations.html?_r=0




Stefan, after the end of the Cold War, the external threat for Europe is significantly lower. I think the last ten years of military interventions have not occurred because of any external threat against Europe, but due to the removal of dictatorships on some countries.

Then what's the point of NATO?


Removal of dictatorships was necessary because they were more likely to cooperate with Russia and China than with U.S. or EU.


Why must we {Americans} be enemies of Russia and China? They can do their stuff and we can do our own. They're nowhere near as bad as they were, and like I said we just can't afford these military activities as a population anymore. I'm not even worried about it. As soon as these countries become totalitarian they always collapse internally. It happened during the cold war, and they've learned their lesson.


Regarding expenses, the U.S. has different ways to cover the costs of military missions. U.S. is the biggest arms exporter of the world with 30%. Russia is second with 24%.
http://www.sipri.org/googlemaps/2012_of_top10_exp_pie.jpg

In case of withdrawal or changes in foreign policy, the U.S. will lose the primacy in arms export.

Why is that? We'll still be economically active. Russia sells weapons fine without the need to inhabit other countries, so can we. And costs are much more than just money. There are causalities and emotional damage as well.



Thanks to 'Arab Spring', the U.S. has achieved to get some new customers. Before the intervention, they were Russia's traditional customers
So, the enemies have become consumer.

Yes, this is good for the government, but bad for the people. Our economy is 80% a service economy and much (if not the the vast majority) of the weapons produce go to Americans. We'll survive any lost potential costumers, but we wouldn't survive a Permanent War Economy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_war_economy)

Just so you get an idea how much we spend on our military, AND we're in debt.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

Now let's compare this with Britain, which is the most likely European country to have a larger military.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/UKExpenditure.svg


Now imagine if we cut the budget and we started to make our economy more independent, akin to the American school of economics. We'd be able to sustain ourselves and we'd be on the path to greatness as we were. When we rely on war, there's no good out of it. The infrastructure of the U.S is decaying while the government puts more and more money into war and weapons research. How is that a good thing for Americans?

King Claus
12-30-2012, 02:24 PM
tbh, fuckem!
Germany should rule this world alone;)

RussiaPrussia
01-03-2013, 01:12 PM
Yeah, in football and Eurovision.

youre not even a country and you never will so forget about eu or anything europe lol

Gospodine
01-05-2013, 04:27 PM
The UN and NATO need to be dismantled along with the the EU.

Basically all globalist, supra-national, power centralizing entities should take a friggin' hike because we've tried an entire century of it their way and all it got us was narrowly avoiding an all-out nuclear war on about a dozen occasions.

Berrocscir
01-27-2013, 04:43 PM
Totally against NATO. It's an imperialist, anti-nationalist organisation.

GodAmongMen
03-07-2013, 01:43 AM
I am pro NATO.. Europians must have 1 strength army...NATO allows States to reduce the absurds budgets for army..

Cause the interests of every European country match right?

Rudel
10-21-2013, 05:38 AM
Europians must have 1 strength army...
Agreed. :cool:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8uCTCvn9hfM/UU1x2KMLO2I/AAAAAAAAGRM/8LP4ooxt8Gs/s640/SHternberg-Vasiliy-Ivanovich-Vozvrashhenie-Napoleona-s-ostrova-E`lba.jpg

But seriously, I'm against any organization that binds us to actions we're not involved in (as NATO forces us to attack any nation that attacks another NATO nation) or any organization that pretends to be superior to the French nation.

Crn Volk
10-21-2013, 05:42 AM
The cold war is over, i don't see the need for its existance.

This

alfieb
10-21-2013, 05:44 AM
I'm neither pro-nor-anti NATO, and both of the countries which I hold citizenship in are NATO founding members.

NATO serves a purpose. That said, not every conflict they get involved with is justified. I did not support the war in Iraq, or the war in Libya, or the war in Syria, etc.

However, the enemies of the West have traditionally worked together, so it's only logical that the West would do the same.

armenianbodyhair
10-21-2013, 05:47 AM
Guess.

LightHouse89
10-21-2013, 09:47 PM
Anti- Nato. Nato is a treaty that allowed and currently allows America to put their troops in your lands and in a way ensure you do nothing to anyone unless you have their approval. Not to mention as a result of this American culture has poisoned Europe. In a way I am completely anti American foreign policy period.

LightHouse89
10-21-2013, 09:48 PM
more like the interest of American banks and Free masonic world order.

blogen
10-21-2013, 09:53 PM
The NATO is the only functioning Western institution.

LightHouse89
10-21-2013, 09:55 PM
I am shocked right wing groups in Europe are not protesting to have America leave Europe period. Cold war is over they have no reason to be there so they should leave.

Baluarte
10-28-2013, 02:42 PM
Anti- Nato. Nato is a treaty that allowed and currently allows America to put their troops in your lands and in a way ensure you do nothing to anyone unless you have their approval. Not to mention as a result of this American culture has poisoned Europe. In a way I am completely anti American foreign policy period.

Pretty much this.

Don't know why blogen supports it though. An incredibly dumb position from a seemingly smart person.

Han Cholo
10-29-2013, 01:04 AM
Pretty much this.

Don't know why blogen supports it though. An incredibly dumb position from a seemingly smart person.

His position is similar to that of the intelligence he shows in his posts. I do not know in what you base your bolded statement.

LightHouse89
11-01-2013, 12:33 AM
You really do not need large American Armies in western Europe to do this. Western Europe is fine on its own. Now maybe American Navy to me is fine because which countries have the money to have a large fleet all over the place? No one really and judging by the economy no one would want to. Plus American Navy to me are more better at protecting the seas and maritime business theatre other wise every country would have to pay to have mercenaries protecting their ships from piracy and other issues. I think that is okay but the US Army n Germany I mean come on the cold war is over.

LightHouse89
11-01-2013, 12:36 AM
basically bending the knee to foreign support [occupation]. I am fine with America patrolling the seas because no other nations are really doing that. But foreign troops on European soil is not right!

Freeroostah
11-01-2013, 12:39 AM
F*ck NATO

LightHouse89
11-01-2013, 12:43 AM
Europe ≠ Western Europe

Anyway, supporting NATO makes you an American collaborator in Europe. Unlike America, Russia is an European country. Not to mention how European it is compared to semi-Asiatic Albania.

In a way I agree. Russia is the last European power. I had a big laugh when the homosexuals in America got upset with Putin for not allowing homosexual behavior in public during the Olympic games. I rejoiced. I said at least some decent minded Europeans exist! The fags on tv were pouring Russian vodka down the drain and telling the public to boycott anything Russian. What did I do? Had a Russian gourmet meal [Beef Stroganoff] and enjoyed some Hammer and Sickle IMPORTED Russian vodka. I said screw you homosexuals! I generally only buy imported alcohol because anything American is watered down and 'Americanized'. Irish whiskey=smooth and not bad in taste, American whiskey= rough and must mix with coke or it will burn out your taste buds. Beer =anything German or Belgian is good. Wine=Italian, French and Spanish. I do not mind spending more for superior quality [except with cars-I will stick with my redneck chevy].

LightHouse89
11-01-2013, 12:49 AM
How so they could breathe. The cold war is over and how are they endangered? Liberate Europe!

Stefan_Dusan
11-01-2013, 03:11 PM
Well I was bombed by NATO when I was 12 years old. Even though it was "precision" bombing, every night you tried to sleep hearing distant and sometimes not so distant explosions you couldn't help but feel if one of those bombs would miss and hit you. When I lived in Southern California, I slept through every earthquake, even ones that were as strong as 6+ that knocked things off shelves and cause mass evacuations of buildings. I think it's because of all those nights I had to sleep, simply to exhaustion, those nights in 1999.

Anyways to say I'm anti-NATO sounds like I'm against someone who beat me up. It sounds whiney. I'm against Serbia ever joining NATO (or EU) and if that ever happens I will tear up my Serbian citizenship like I know many Kosovo Serbs will.

LightHouse89
11-02-2013, 06:52 PM
Well I was bombed by NATO when I was 12 years old. Even though it was "precision" bombing, every night you tried to sleep hearing distant and sometimes not so distant explosions you couldn't help but feel if one of those bombs would miss and hit you. When I lived in Southern California, I slept through every earthquake, even ones that were as strong as 6+ that knocked things off shelves and cause mass evacuations of buildings. I think it's because of all those nights I had to sleep, simply to exhaustion, those nights in 1999.

Anyways to say I'm anti-NATO sounds like I'm against someone who beat me up. It sounds whiney. I'm against Serbia ever joining NATO (or EU) and if that ever happens I will tear up my Serbian citizenship like I know many Kosovo Serbs will.

I am personally sorry for this. America had no business bombing over there but that is corporate democracy for you. I am thankful I never at experience that but my grandparents from Ireland had too. They told how you would get shot walking to the store in broad day light trying to buy groceries for your family. Or worse a car bomb would go off randomly. That was the IRA and UVF pricks killing their own people over artificial Judaism and socialism vs unionism. It made no sense the war but nationalist on both sides would disagree. I have o laugh when you meet white power people from both sides because they still have the same nationalism and blame the other over the nations overall problems. Anyway not to go off topic but its a shame Bosnians and Serbs and Albanians do not get along. I blame the Abrahamic religions.....they did the same thing in the British Islands and throughout the world. Even today look at Syria and what Abrahamic religions are doing there. America promotes it by taking sides which to me is the greatest evil they do it for financial reasons and not to mention our politicians are in bed with the Israeli lobby which has no loyalty to any other group in this world. Not to mention we have a communist for a leader and a bunch of leftist heathens running our country over here. They are international swindlers and fraudulent money launderers.

Learning_Genetics
01-13-2014, 02:12 PM
My country is a NATO member but I am against us being a part of it.

The only reason a state would be a part of NATO is to maintain defense links with the United States. Another reason is to be be officially allied with them and have close political ties.

In my opinion my country does not need to have defense ties to the United States. It can function independently of the US and defend its own borders adequately without needing to be a part of NATO. We also have no particular need to be allies of America. We can maintain good and cordial relations without being allies or having any obligation to them.

Something else to consider is that being a part of NATO means we are obliged to some extent to cooperate with the US in its military adventures abroad. I do not agree with these military adventures and in my opinion the end result of them compromises the security of my own country. For example the confrontations with countries like Iran and Russia which do not have to happen and bring my country no benefit are issues I oppose the US on. Furthermore I have no interest in seeing the continuation of American hegemony.

Being a part of NATO also means that my country is associated with the negative actions of America. It therefore causes us to be disliked abroad.

NATO was established in the Cold War era as a means of countering Soviet influence. Now that the USSR is gone there is absolutely no excuse for my country to be a member of this body. It does not benefit us and in my opinion our membership damages our security.

Porn Master
08-28-2017, 12:38 PM
this is the same thread as this https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?66142-Pro-Nato-or-Against-Nato/page3&styleid=74

Root
08-28-2017, 01:18 PM
being a NATO member means you slowly lose your property, your life and your country, you don't belong to yourself anymore because they own you, they want you to be their obedient bitch, you don't do whatever you desire whenever you want unless these guys allow you, not to mention the fact that they commited crimes in Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan and the rest corners of the world, now they attempt to do the same in Ukraine and Caucasus. NATO is the kind of the ruthless machine of dictatorship to enslave small, weak and vulnerable countries and exploit their reserves of natural resources

Porn Master
08-28-2017, 02:03 PM
Centum = NATO and Satem = anti-NATO



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Centum_Satem_map.png

http://www.tuninst.net/BEPS/SED-vow-a1/a1fric-sa1/PIX/Centum-Satem-wiki3.gif


we need rethel here

Arduti
08-28-2017, 06:36 PM
It's retarded to secede into self-determined nation-states, just to realign with each other. Disruptive.

I would support a Western imperial system, but not in its current disjointed and disgruntled NATO form. I don't trust Europe unless they are loyal to this "empire". Self-determined states are not loyal to anyone unless they're already hegemonic and seek loyalty in return (like America). I also don't think it's fair to put targets on the backs of former Soviet states by making them NATO members. Lastly, I don't think it's wise to put guns in the hands of people who've never felt power. They get carried away.

Rob31
01-29-2018, 10:05 PM
NATO needs to fuck off.

JohnSmith
01-29-2018, 10:20 PM
NATO is obsolete.

Massagetae
01-29-2018, 10:32 PM
Against.

Bornoz
01-29-2018, 10:35 PM
North Atlantic Terror Organization
Of course I am opposed to a terrorist organization based on the sufferings of millions of people.

Jule
07-31-2018, 08:31 PM
Against. The soviet union is defeated, its purpose has been fulfilled. (Yet for some reason, the poles still build commieblocks even while tearing down commie statues.) Now it's just a method for Israel to impose its will and Europe to leech off the USA.

MysteriousWays
07-31-2018, 08:33 PM
Neutral really, but its purpose for existing is done.

Ülev
07-31-2018, 08:34 PM
pro-PESCO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Structured_Cooperation

jingorex
07-31-2018, 08:46 PM
I dont like NATO.

It amounts to USA paying for euro-pee-on cucks to be prepared for war.

I dont think we should be in the business of saving europe from anything. The last 2 times we did all we got from it was bitter insecure spite and backstabbing from our 'allies'.

Let europe fight its own battle and sort out its own problems. Its not worth a single dollar from US taxpayers, or more importantly, a single American soldiers life.

That said if europe wants to PAY the USA for protection...we can talk.

Trilecce
07-31-2018, 08:50 PM
Are you pro or against NATO? Please explain also the reason why you are pro/against NATO?

Also select the right poll option.

Being a NATO member is essentially a promise from USA that no one will ever fuck with you. NATO members have untill recently diverted their military spendings into other areas just because they dont need it. USA has enough firepower to take on all the worlds military at once.

Dragoon
07-31-2018, 09:05 PM
NATO

+they havent harmed me, and no one attacked a NATO nation.
-the purpose of NATO is to keep Europe as dependent terroritory of US (Germans down, Russians out, America in).
-its obsolete (see fall of Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact), dont like its influence on the Middle East, which floods Europe with nonEuropeans.
-the US pays too much, Europe to little, NATO has troops in Europe for decades and decades occupying places like Germany.

PESCO

If Europe can turn more Christian Democrat, more right wing, more traditional, maybe PESCO is the way to go but still...
there is language differences, Europe armies are still weak compared to US/Russia/China.
Europe would need more nukes, independent of US nuclear sharing. Its still a long way.

EU

If the EU is to remain expand it to include East Slavs to counter balance the more liberal West.
Atm the EU is crap outside of money benefits for some nations.

Dragoon
07-31-2018, 09:21 PM
For USA (2017):

78% of Democrats see NATO positively
47% of Republicans.

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) had a favorable opinion of NATO.

Óttar
07-31-2018, 09:31 PM
Pro-NATO, but they should kick Turkey out. Not trolling. :coffee:

I also think they should burn Saudi Arabia to the ground.

GreentheViper
08-01-2018, 12:49 AM
Canada is in NATO but I don't really have an opinion. I think the Western countries should have an alliance, or sort of agreement to make sure Russia, China or any of the Eastern countries don't attack, which I don't really think they will. The US pays a lot of money into NATO which is idiotic considering how many countries are in the alliance.

Armenian Bishop
08-01-2018, 01:15 AM
NATO should've been dissolved within a few years after the collapse of the USSR, in 1991. It's a Cold War relic, and it outlived it's usefulness.

Boris Yeltsin has been disliked by a lot of people, but I liked him. Yeltsin risked his own reputation in an endeavor to establish more friendly relations between Russia and the USA, and President Clinton befriended the Russian leader; unfortunately, Yeltsin's power in Russia was undermined by the USA when Clinton decided to retain NATO, and keep it armed to the teeth.

Now, Vladimir Putin isn't so nice to Western Countries, and he's throwing his weight around, so NATO has again become a more acceptable alliance force. And, I agree with Trump's attempts to build rapport between the two countries. It helps to try to build dialogue between opposing parties, for the resolution of disagreements. That kind of relationship can again make NATO obsolete.

Colonel Frank Grimes
08-01-2018, 01:59 AM
Being a NATO member is essentially a promise from USA that no one will ever fuck with you. NATO members have untill recently diverted their military spendings into other areas just because they dont need it. USA has enough firepower to take on all the worlds military at once.

It also means you do what the US government tells you to do cuz you can't do anything on your own militarily.

Anyway, as Jingorex pointed out. No American blood should be spilled for foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with us. No money should be spent when that money can be used to aid Americans in need.

The rest of you can put on your big boy pants and handle your own affairs. I don't want any American to die for foreigners or for corrupt war hawks in Washington, D.C. American lives matter.

Trilecce
08-05-2018, 11:09 AM
It also means you do what the US government tells you to do cuz you can't do anything on your own militarily.

Anyway, as Jingorex pointed out. No American blood should be spilled for foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with us. No money should be spent when that money can be used to aid Americans in need.

The rest of you can put on your big boy pants and handle your own affairs. I don't want any American to die for foreigners or for corrupt war hawks in Washington, D.C. American lives matter.

While you leave your foreign affairs, China hurries to turn your allies toward themselves. China is taking over the world, and you are leaving the world stage. Thats the reality here, then when you are stuck with only yourselves you will realize the mistakes that you make today.

Ive always respected american ideals, but seeing what a bunch of retards you are I have lost all but some ideological respect. May the Chinese rape of you be light, God bless America.

Papastratosels26
03-04-2019, 12:21 PM
Pro-NATO

Bosniensis
03-04-2019, 12:27 PM
Against-NATO

Blondie
03-04-2019, 12:36 PM
I'm anti Nato, i belive only european military alliance we don't need americans.

ixulescu
03-04-2019, 12:49 PM
I'm anti Nato, i belive only european military alliance we don't need americans.

You're naive. Eastern Europeans' security interests diverge from those of the Western Europeans.
Western Europeans have always been inclined to trade us for a deal with Russia.

Blondie
03-04-2019, 12:53 PM
You're naive. Eastern Europeans' security interests diverge from those of the Western Europeans.
Western Europeans have always been inclined to trade us for a deal with Russia.

Because this EU is a joke, we need closer military and political cooperation without neo-marxism.

The Lawspeaker
10-14-2019, 01:39 PM
I used to be pro-NATO but then I found out that it was just an American protection racket and a way to line the coffers of American arms manufacturers by manufacturing threats to America's allies and then having them pay up for their "defence". ANTI-NATO.

ixulescu
10-14-2019, 01:53 PM
I'm pro-NATO from a NATO country.

Who's European and against NATO is terribly naive and needs a lesson in European history.

The Lawspeaker
10-14-2019, 02:06 PM
^ Whoever is European and still in favour of NATO lacks self-confidence and rather sees his country emasculated and extorted than to grow some balls and work with his neighbours as citizens of a free, sovereign and independent nation deserve: in other words, whoever is European and still in favour of NATO is either a fool or a traitor.

TheForeigner
10-14-2019, 02:09 PM
I wish NATO would be dissolved and that US troops left Europe.

MustafaTekin
10-14-2019, 02:11 PM
Nato is a useless alliance for turkey. but it has still importance for belgium and other small states. without us protection these countries have to invest in their military. which is very expensive. germany has a huge export surplus, i think small states like belgium, netherlands will beg germany to raise a large army. which can eventually lead to fourth reich in the end, tho.

it will be very hot in eastern europe too.

The Lawspeaker
10-14-2019, 02:15 PM
Nato is a useless alliance for turkey. but it has still importance for belgium and other small states. without us protection these countries have to invest in their military. which is very expensive. germany has a huge export surplus, i think small states like belgium, netherlands will beg germany to raise a large army. which can eventually lead to fourth reich in the end, tho.

it will be very hot in eastern europe.

^Not so much. It's useful for Turkey because America works as its shield there, protecting it from the outcome of its actions. Had it taken down that Russian plane while not being in NATO, it would have been turned into a smouldering crater. As for this attack on Syria ? Bombs would already have started to rain down on Ankara and Istanbul hours after the first Turk crossed the Syrian border.

As for the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium ? They would very likely be like they were before 1940 (together with Scandinavia and Switzerland): neutral. Maybe even working more with the Brits.

TheForeigner
10-14-2019, 02:15 PM
You're naive. Eastern Europeans' security interests diverge from those of the Western Europeans.
Western Europeans have always been inclined to trade us for a deal with Russia.

But historically Roosevelt, his successor Truman and half American premier of Britain, Churchill sold us to Stalin for a deal with him.

Tristy100
02-12-2020, 01:08 AM
I'm wholeheartedly for NATO. People can say that 'the cold war is over' and that may be true, but Russia is still an aggressive country. Just because our main threat is gone, doesn't mean we can just abandon our allies?

The existence of NATO itself helps fend off possible attacks, we're stronger together. NATO doesn't just exist purely to buttfuck Russia, there's lots of other purposes it serves. For example, we fight terrorism and stabilize bad situations around the world.

I know my current leader, Trump, thinks NATO is like a big police force, but no. He's just mad none of the leaders like him. We help to address the refugee crisis in Europe (that a lot of right-wingers seem to fear). We also work with poorer, partner countries in order to foster stability.

NATO has strong cyberdefense capabilities, essential to our modern warfare, and we also have a strong command structure which is essential for defense.

NATO has Article 5, which claims that if any nation attacks one, all of them declare war. Again, war deterrent.

Any country that wants to, can join as long as they meet the geographic and membership requirements.

The existence of NATO also stops other nations from producing nuclear weapons. Europe would be entirely nuclearized by now if it weren't for NATO itself.

NATO also improves diplomacy and opinions of the member countries, and our opinions of one another.

I'd love to have my mind changed, but I can't think of any real cons except money? However, dont try to change my mind with any nationalistic bullshit. We live in a different world. Give me a real reason.

Marmara
02-12-2020, 01:28 AM
Mixed feelings. Turkey is a NATO country yet we've seen in recent years that NATO doesn't care about Turkey's security, they armed and trained YPG/SDF despite warnings from Turkey.

But since USA has changed his policy, and YPG is out of the way, there can be a possibility to restore the alliance.

Ryujin
11-25-2020, 06:45 PM
I'm pro-NATO.

https://devilofhistory.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/nato-2.jpg

Armenian Bishop
11-26-2020, 06:10 PM
I'll be against NATO, until it has the wherewithal to kick Turkey out of the organization. As far as I'm concerned, Turkey can go into the orbit of Putin's Russia. Judas Putin and War Criminal Erdogan might enjoy each other's company until they get into the inevitable fight; meanwhile, NATO will be rid of that snake in the grass. That's right: Turkey is a snake in the grass, and a fifth column loose cannon. I'm opposed to NATO; seeing that NATO is incapable of purging Turkey; and, it's best to dismantle NATO, seeing that it's a lame animal (best to be shot).

Armenian Bishop
11-26-2020, 06:14 PM
^Not so much. It's useful for Turkey because America works as its shield there, protecting it from the outcome of its actions. Had it taken down that Russian plane while not being in NATO, it would have been turned into a smouldering crater. As for this attack on Syria ? Bombs would already have started to rain down on Ankara and Istanbul hours after the first Turk crossed the Syrian border.

As for the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium ? They would very likely be like they were before 1940 (together with Scandinavia and Switzerland): neutral. Maybe even working more with the Brits.

Well said, and you're 100% right about it. Are you okay, Lawspeaker? We haven't seen you here since last September, and it's nearly December now.

The Lawspeaker
12-22-2020, 09:28 AM
Well said, and you're 100% right about it. Are you okay, Lawspeaker? We haven't seen you here since last September, and it's nearly December now.
Yeah. My laptop had died.. But I'm back !

Crn Volk
12-22-2020, 10:06 AM
Yeah. My laptop had died.. But I'm back !

Welcome back!

The Lawspeaker
12-22-2020, 10:07 AM
Welcome back!

Thank you !

PaleoEuropean
12-22-2020, 10:59 AM
Yeah. My laptop had died.. But I'm back !

Welcome back

The Lawspeaker
12-22-2020, 11:00 AM
Welcome back

Thank you !

Tooting Carmen
12-22-2020, 11:03 AM
NATO may (to an extent) protect us from the Russians and the Chinese, but at the same time it most definitely makes us subservient to the Americans. At least my heart if not my head would very much prefer neutrality.

ClanStewart
12-31-2020, 02:46 PM
Pro NATO that serves the interests of Europeans including the likes of Russia and Serbia. Anti NATO that is merely an attack dog of the great Zionist dog USA.

sekhmet777
01-01-2021, 11:21 AM
The NATO is basically made up from 4 blocks:
(1) the Zionist block: USA, Canada, UK
(2) The Western block: Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Iceland
(3) Eastern block: Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia
(4) Turkey

All these blocks haev conflicting ambitions and goals and cannot possibly be united into a single alliance. To ask from a German to fight for US interests or Hungarian interests is unreasonable.

The Lawspeaker
01-01-2021, 02:05 PM
My feelings towards NATO and all the others summed up in a 1939 song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT3_uAmQKBA):

Neutraliteit onz’ grootste schat
blijft oorlogsramp verbannen
In forten en in kazemat
daar waken onze mannen

Neutrality, our greatest treasure
Keeps out the disaster of war
In fortress and in casemate
Our men stand guard.

Ülev
01-01-2021, 02:16 PM
Majority in Swedish Parliament Backs 'NATO Option' After Sweden Democrats Shift
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-12-09/majority-in-swedish-parliament-backs-nato-option-after-sweden-democrats-shift
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6064600

The Lawspeaker
01-01-2021, 02:17 PM
Majority in Swedish Parliament Backs 'NATO Option' After Sweden Democrats Shift
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-12-09/majority-in-swedish-parliament-backs-nato-option-after-sweden-democrats-shift
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6064600

They can have our seat then.

Lemminkäinen
01-01-2021, 03:00 PM
I think by having my country obliged in a long-lasting treaty with others, it has certain obligations to these nations that supersede that of the people within the United States. This means certain political powers of the U.S Government are not being derived by the people. Hence, I disagree with anything like NATO, but not specifically NATO itself. Basically, I find other countries of the world too dependent on the United States military, and I feel as if Americans are paying a bill that others should pay for their own self-defense. Yeah, I'm selfish, but the United States isn't in a good position and we can't really afford nor is it reliable to act as the police of the world.

Ameracans pay for the nuclear treaties. While Amercans don't want to give nuclear weapons other countries, they are obliged to pay for it by larger military budgets of ordinary weapons to can have this privilege of keeping nuclear weapons. It is a moral obligation. Trump didn't understand this, because moral things are not close his abilities. If it is hard to understand this way, as an equality thing, think it as an option to keep other nuclear nations, China and Russia away.

Laly
02-19-2021, 01:01 PM
NATO is an unholy alliance which doesn't bring anything good for Europe. It should be dismantled.

Demis
04-05-2021, 08:28 PM
I accept the fact that Turkey's being a NATO member (and allowing American soldiers on her soil) ultimately saved her from a Russian onslaught in the hands of Stalin.
But, as a nationalist, I think my people shouldn't die for Warsaw or Athens, and others should not die for Ankara - although, that would have minor importance in a scenario of a full-blown war between Russia and the USA.

Armenian Bishop
04-06-2021, 08:07 PM
I accept the fact that Turkey's being a NATO member (and allowing American soldiers on her soil) ultimately saved her from a Russian onslaught in the hands of Stalin.
But, as a nationalist, I think my people shouldn't die for Warsaw or Athens, and others should not die for Ankara - although, that would have minor importance in a scenario of a full-blown war between Russia and the USA.

You should thank Stalin: In the 1920s, he was kissing up to Ataturk.

Hektor12
04-06-2021, 08:28 PM
You should thank Stalin: In the 1920s, he was kissing up to Ataturk.

Later he claimed parts of Turkey, and forced us to join NATO though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_territorial_claims_against_Turkey

Ayetooey
04-19-2021, 06:33 AM
Not fond of many of its actions but I’m “pro” NATO out of necessity.

Lemminkäinen
04-19-2021, 09:17 AM
I am pro Nato. Nato keeps Russia busy and watching something instead of neighbors. Ukraine is an exception as a "Slavic mother land", bad luck, conversely to Sweden, Finland and Baltic countries. We spend more money to the defence than most Nato countries. Joining to Nato means actually to be dependable on USA. Not a good idea.

Alexandro
04-19-2021, 03:27 PM
Hmm, well. I think in the interest of the EU we should form our own defensive pact and get rid of NATO and the US troops on EU soil. Because, in actuality, NATO was intended to be a single command, not what it currently is, which is Americans installing puppet military forces. Once the axis of command and structure moves into Europe, it will likely fold into the preexisting European systems of collective security, most notably the CSDP.

Megadorian
04-19-2021, 03:38 PM
Pro NATO definitely.

Jaromir
04-19-2021, 04:35 PM
I am a "Russophobe" (at least according to Rumata) so the answer is obvious

Lemminkäinen
04-19-2021, 04:56 PM
Hmm, well. I think in the interest of the EU we should form our own defensive pact and get rid of NATO and the US troops on EU soil. Because, in actuality, NATO was intended to be a single command, not what it currently is, which is Americans installing puppet military forces. Once the axis of command and structure moves into Europe, it will likely fold into the preexisting European systems of collective security, most notably the CSDP.

This is s good idea. Europe should have a defence pact and its own quick operation forces. After being under European command Europe could make a new deal with USA. I know this is not possible because Europe is a bunch of quarrelling countries, but now French and Italy are seeking for a new practice of income redistributions between coutries, it would be logical to be like a federation in all terms, not only in case some countries like to pretend it.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 05:33 AM
A necessary evil. Thank you, Mr. Putin. We could have got rid of it years ago. But, no, you just had to invade your neighbours and threaten Europe's collective security. I guess there is no way one could now call for its dissolution. Nobody in the right mind would support that now.

alnortedelsur
07-11-2023, 05:35 AM
AGAINST NATO!

I voted for option 1.

Though I didn't was born in Spain is the European country that I hold citizenship from, and where my mom was from, and where most of my ancestry comes from.

Spain has nothing to get from being a NATO member, when that multinational military alliance is an instrument of aggression against Russia (a country that Spain should be no against, when Russians aren't enemies of Spain), and Spain is on the other end of Europe, and should not be another puppet of the multinational globalist interests from the despicable and criminal anti-western elites. Fuck NATO!

Lisyonok
07-11-2023, 06:21 AM
NATO is a military tool for US imperialism in Europe. It also defends American values like multiculturalism and destruction of national identities. I am strictly against NATO.

Loki
07-11-2023, 06:56 AM
A necessary evil. Thank you, Mr. Putin. We could have got rid of it years ago. But, no, you just had to invade your neighbours and threaten Europe's collective security. I guess there is no way one could now call for its dissolution. Nobody in the right mind would support that now.

Oh dear my old friend, you still hating on Putin? Some things never change heh? :)

Welcome back, by the way ;)

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 07:06 AM
Oh dear my old friend, you still hating on Putin? Some things never change heh? :)

Welcome back, by the way ;)

Thank you ! :) I don't see American troops invading Ukraine. The only country responsible for the war, is the one that launched the invasion.

Loki
07-11-2023, 07:14 AM
Thank you ! :) I don't see American troops invading Ukraine. The only country responsible for the war, is the one that launched the invasion.

Sometimes invasions are necessary. As in Normandy, remember?

By the way, I'm happy to hear that one of the worst leaders in Europe is resigning -- Rutte. I feel sorry for your farmers.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 07:23 AM
Sometimes invasions are necessary. As in Normandy, remember?

By the way, I'm happy to hear that one of the worst leaders in Europe is resigning -- Rutte. I feel sorry for your farmers.

I'd say that the comparison falls flat on its face: D-Day was a military action against a countries that had already been in a declared state of war (UK - 3 September 1939, Canada, 10 September 1939 and the US (declared on by Germany on 11 December 1941), while this invasion may be more comparable to the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939.

And, yes, thank God, Rutte is gone.

Lemminkäinen
07-11-2023, 07:25 AM
I am pro-Nato, but only because our country was forced to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Without that we could nuke Moscow and Washington. It would be a great presentation. We have all necessary to do it. Uranium mines and technology.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 07:27 AM
I am pro-Nato, but only because our country was forced to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Without that we could nuke Moscow and Washington. It would be a great presentation. We have all necessary to do it. Uranium mines and technology.

That, pretty much, is my own stance too. It's more that Mr. Putin has forced Europe's and America's hands. Nobody was waiting for Ukraine to join the West, but it seems that Mr. Putin has driven them into our camp. Same for Sweden and Finland. Thanks to Mr. Putin, this is now a fait accompli, and no longer a subject for political debate. Moscow has decided this for us.

Loki
07-11-2023, 07:46 AM
I'd say that the comparison falls flat on its face: D-Day was a military action against a countries that had already been in a declared state of war (UK - 3 September 1939, Canada, 10 September 1939 and the US (declared on by Germany on 11 December 1941), while this invasion may be more comparable to the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939.

And, yes, thank God, Rutte is gone.

Ukraine was already in a civil war since 2014, so the comparison is actually valid. Russia got in to stop the war, stop the slaughter of civilians by the Nazi regime in Kiev.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 07:47 AM
Ukraine was already in a civil war since 2014, so the comparison is actually valid. Russia got in to stop the war, stop the slaughter of civilians by the Nazi regime in Kiev.

Not exactly a civil war when they had been under a covert attack by Russia since 2014. Funny how there was no problem between Russia and Ukraine, while they were still under the thumb from one of Putin's stooges. ;)

Loki
07-11-2023, 07:50 AM
That, pretty much, is my own stance too. It's more that Mr. Putin has forced Europe's and America's hands. Nobody was waiting for Ukraine to join the West, but it seems that Mr. Putin has driven them into our camp. Same for Sweden and Finland. Thanks to Mr. Putin, this is now a fait accompli, and no longer a subject for political debate. Moscow has decided this for us.

If you can't see what an evil the Zelensky regime is, you're not looking hard enough. Ukraine will be the end of the EU and of NATO. The process has already started. The US and many European countries are already almost out of weapons. They're being destroyed in Ukraine by the Russians.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 07:51 AM
If you can't see what an evil the Zelensky regime is, you're not looking hard enough. Ukraine will be the end of the EU and of NATO. The process has already started. The US and many European countries are already almost out of weapons. They're being destroyed in Ukraine by the Russians.

The only thing that is being currently destroyed is the myth of Russian power. I feel sorry for those poor soldiers that have to de for an imperialist dictator in Moscow.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 07:52 AM
If you can't see what an evil the Zelensky regime is, you're not looking hard enough. Ukraine will be the end of the EU and of NATO. The process has already started. The US and many European countries are already almost out of weapons. They're being destroyed in Ukraine by the Russians.

The only thing that is being currently destroyed is the myth of Russian power. I feel sorry for those poor soldiers that have to de for an imperialist dictator in Moscow.

Loki
07-11-2023, 07:56 AM
I am pro-Nato, but only because our country was forced to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Without that we could nuke Moscow and Washington. It would be a great presentation. We have all necessary to do it. Uranium mines and technology.

That's why you Finns, Balts and Poles will never be trusted to have nuclear weapons. Even the Americans won't allow you. And Russia certainly won't.

Russki
07-11-2023, 07:58 AM
Funny how there was no problem between Russia and Ukraine, while they were still under the thumb from one of Putin's stooges. ;)


There was. The territorial claims towards Ukraine were voiced in Russia since 1990s, but the general consensus was that as long as Ukraine is a friendly nation, it is not particularly important.

Loki
07-11-2023, 08:01 AM
The only thing that is being currently destroyed is the myth of Russian power. I feel sorry for those poor soldiers that have to de for an imperialist dictator in Moscow.

Pity you don't seem to have access to the real news, because the Russians are winning on the battlefield, and winning big.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 08:02 AM
There was. The territorial claims towards Ukraine were voiced in Russia since 1990s, but the general consensus was that as long as Ukraine is a friendly nation, it is not particularly important.

Either way: it is unlikely since the start of the 2014 invasion that Ukraine will ever be a "friendly" nation again. One doesn't need to have a stooge for a president to have friendship on a diplomatic or interpersonal basis. Mr. Putin blew that one, and any option of reconciliation, is now very likely out of the window. Even between the Netherlands and West Germany, both belonging to NATO, that friendship wouldn't be repaired fully until well in the 1990s. That was the work of one Austrian. As this will be the work of one fool from St. Petersburg and his ilk.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 08:02 AM
Pity you don't seem to have access to the real news, because the Russians are winning on the battlefield, and winning big.

RT is not real news.

Loki
07-11-2023, 08:06 AM
RT is not real news.

It is, but I'm not even talking about RT. I follow real reports from the battlefield, from the Russian and Ukrainian ministries of defense. I use various sources. You only use the same source, masquerading as different ones, but it's the censored Western media. That's why you don't know what's really going on.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 08:09 AM
It is, but I'm not even talking about RT. I follow real reports from the battlefield, from the Russian and Ukrainian ministries of defense. I use various sources. You only use the same source, masquerading as different ones, but it's the censored Western media. That's why you don't know what's really going on.

I highly doubt that, because I don't watch Western media when it comes to the war. But what you suffer from, my dear friend, is that the delusion that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. I don't suffer from that delusion: they are both as bad as the other and until the devil (Russia) that is doing the attacking, keeps causing mayhem and destruction, we will have no choice but to stick to the other devil (NATO) while rearming ourselves to the hilt.

Barba
07-11-2023, 10:33 AM
Strongly against

Loki
07-11-2023, 12:04 PM
I highly doubt that, because I don't watch Western media when it comes to the war. But what you suffer from, my dear friend, is that the delusion that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. I don't suffer from that delusion: they are both as bad as the other and until the devil (Russia) that is doing the attacking, keeps causing mayhem and destruction, we will have no choice but to stick to the other devil (NATO) while rearming ourselves to the hilt.

Russia is not my enemy, and it won't be in the future. I'm thinking of moving to Russia if I'm able to. I support Russia's rightful actions in Ukraine.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 12:07 PM
Russia is not my enemy, and it won't be in the future. I'm thinking of moving to Russia if I'm able to. I support Russia's rightful actions in Ukraine.

You may. But how can we defend the principle of self-determination for all peoples, when we don't defend that of the Ukrainian ? In other words: it would be blatant hypocrisy not to.

ugochaves
07-11-2023, 12:10 PM
Russia is not my enemy, and it won't be in the future. I'm thinking of moving to Russia if I'm able to. I support Russia's rightful actions in Ukraine.
Moving to Russia is a good idea for all adequate residents of Europe. Because the migration collapse is coming. Every European is expected in Russia. This American pioneer lives in my hometown of Krasnogorsk near Moscow and my friend saw him riding a bike in the park.
https://i.ibb.co/ts5HJvD/scale-1200-1.webp (https://ibb.co/3NHTCjc)

Loki
07-11-2023, 12:13 PM
You may. But how can we defend the principle of self-determination for all peoples, when we don't defend that of the Ukrainian ? In other words: it would be blatant hypocrisy not to.

Aha! But some of those Ukrainians chose themselves to be part of Russia -- that's why Donetsk and Crimea are now in Russia. You want to deny their right to self determination? The Kiev regime wants to keep them captive in a failed state that discriminates against them and their language and religion.

Loki
07-11-2023, 12:15 PM
Moving to Russia is a good idea for all adequate residents of Europe. Because the migration collapse is coming. Every European is expected in Russia. This American pioneer lives in my hometown of Krasnogorsk near Moscow and my friend saw him riding a bike in the park.
https://i.ibb.co/ts5HJvD/scale-1200-1.webp (https://ibb.co/3NHTCjc)

Thank you for your hospitality, Russians are very generous and kind people.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 12:16 PM
Aha! But some of those Ukrainians chose themselves to be part of Russia -- that's why Donetsk and Crimea are now in Russia. You want to deny their right to self determination? The Kiev regime wants to keep them captive in a failed state that discriminates against them and their language and religion.

Says Putin. Using your logic, we cannot protest against mass migration and the take-overs of our own ancestral nations (those Russians who live there were brought there by the Czars and the Soviets to colonise lands that were not their own), and we cannot protest about the take-over and potential genocide of the Afrikaner people. If we cannot stand up for the integrity of one, then we cannot stand up for the integrity of another.

Loki
07-11-2023, 12:20 PM
Says Putin. Using your logic, we cannot protest against mass migration and the take-overs, and we cannot protest about the take-over and potential genocide of the Afrikaner people. If we cannot stand up for the integrity of one, then we cannot stand up for the integrity of another,

But you think the genocide of Russian speakers in Donbass is okay? Kiev has been shelling civilians in Donetsk for 9 years until today. Thousands of people have died already. And if they did not take up arms against the regime, many more would have died.

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 12:22 PM
But you think the genocide of Russian speakers in Donbass is okay? Kiev has been shelling civilians in Donetsk for 9 years until today. Thousands of people have died already. And if they did not take up arms against the regime, many more would have died.

A genocide claimed by Putin and his propagandists alone. If there is one, where is the evidence ? It kinda reminds of the claims made about the ill-treatment and genocide of Germans in 1930s Czechoslovakia and Poland. The source at the time ? The Nazi German media.

Dušan
07-11-2023, 01:07 PM
Says Putin. Using your logic, we cannot protest against mass migration and the take-overs of our own ancestral nations (those Russians who live there were brought there by the Czars and the Soviets to colonise lands that were not their own), and we cannot protest about the take-over and potential genocide of the Afrikaner people. If we cannot stand up for the integrity of one, then we cannot stand up for the integrity of another.

Actually, Russian emperors settled both Ukrainians and Russians in what is now known eastern Ukraine.

Russia cultivated that land previously known as Wild Fields, and built all cities there. Russia gave prosperity to all people there.



After a series of Russo-Turkish wars waged by Catherine the Great, the area formerly controlled by the Ottomans and the Crimean Tatars was incorporated into the Russian Empire in the 1780s. The Russian Empire built many of the cities in the Wild Fields, including Odessa, Sevastopol, Yekaterinoslav, and Nikolaev. Most of Kiev was also built during this time. The area was filled with Russian and Ukrainian settlers and the name "Wild Fields" became outdated; it was instead referred as New Russia (Novorossiya).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Fields




By the way, what is your opinion about territorial integrity of Serbia and forcely seceded Kosovo province, are you concerned about it in the same way as for Ukraine, or there are double standards, and integrity of Serbia is irrelevant???

Your Old Comrade
07-11-2023, 01:14 PM
Actually, Russian emperors settled both Ukrainians and Russians in what is now known eastern Ukraine.

Russia cultivated that land previously known as Wild Fields, and built all cities there. Russia gave prosperity to all people there.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Fields




By the way, what is your opinion about territorial integrity of Serbia and forcely seceded Kosovo province, are you concerned about it in the same way as for Ukraine, or there are double standards, and integrity of Serbia is irrelevant???

In regards to Kosovo I feel the same as I do towards Ukraine. Kosovo is Serbian land, as Ukraine is Ukrainian land. The Albanians and Russians are both guilty of imperialism.

Loki
07-11-2023, 10:43 PM
A genocide claimed by Putin and his propagandists alone. If there is one, where is the evidence ? It kinda reminds of the claims made about the ill-treatment and genocide of Germans in 1930s Czechoslovakia and Poland. The source at the time ? The Nazi German media.

Plenty of evidence available, and widely published even to the UN. That's why the Minsk Agreements were made, to try and stop it. But of course, Ukraine didn't keep their side of the deal and the West (Merkel and Macron, etc) turned a blind eye to Kiev's crimes. And Western media anti Russian narratives deliberately buried the real facts, and kept pushing lies. That's why we are where we are today. Our governments are incredibly corrupt and evil.

Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas
07-11-2023, 10:53 PM
My country is one of the founding members from 1949 and I am in favor of the Alliance.

axel.aleman
07-11-2023, 11:29 PM
I don't care

Your Old Comrade
07-12-2023, 01:18 AM
Plenty of evidence available, and widely published even to the UN. That's why the Minsk Agreements were made, to try and stop it. But of course, Ukraine didn't keep their side of the deal and the West (Merkel and Macron, etc) turned a blind eye to Kiev's crimes. And Western media anti Russian narratives deliberately buried the real facts, and kept pushing lies. That's why we are where we are today. Our governments are incredibly corrupt and evil.

Again, says Putin. I don't believe anything that comes out of Moscow these days, and what I despise Puttin most for is the fact that we in Europe can't withdraw from NATO at this point. Had he not been aggressive towards his neighbours since 2008 (Georgia), NATO might well have been a dead letter by the 2010s and a democratic Ukraine, doing as it wants and making its own choices as a free and democratic country would not have been a "risk" for them - but something tells me that he can't accept anyone in his area not doing as he wishes, because it would pose a risk to him: what if the Russian population would see a free, democratic country on his doorstep, that is actually doing well ? That's the whole reason why he invaded Ukraine: so he could stay in power himself by destabilising Europe.

Your Old Comrade
07-12-2023, 01:24 AM
My country is one of the founding members from 1949 and I am in favor of the Alliance.

I used to be in favour of the Netherlands leaving NATO. Still no fan of it, but Putin managed to make NATO viable again. Some folks in Brussels will be mightily pleased. Still, this Norwegian song sums up my feelings:

Det kviskrar frå oljeog stålprodusentar.
Det kviskar i Pentagons fredskanselli.
På fem kontinet kviskar Moskvas agentar;
"Gløym vårt krigsmaskineri!"


And:

Dei rustar og mobliserer
Atter kanonar for smør!
I aust står dei klar til å hærta Europa,
I vest trugar NATO med verdspolti
Dei rivialserer!
Snart høyer du ropa;
"Krig for verdshemgemoni!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_GBfiKjJZ8

When push comes to shove, they are both the same. But Putin is the more urgent problem. If he had been a smarter man, he would have convinced Europe to take in Ukraine, leave NATO and form a neutral zone. But he just couldn't help himself but invade his neighbours. Claiming all sorts of nonsense - like that Austrian painter back in 1939.