NATO: Saviour or Warmonger?

[National_Nord]

Together with parts of Eastern Europe it's one of the few remaining relatively "white" countries. No point ruining it.

I think the current crisis will cause the aggression of NATO military bloc on one of the countries outside Europe, crisis or armed forces (and) fight with anyone. To remove the question of social tensions in Europe in NATO countries will inflate the image of the enemy of the Russians to take people in the military-industrial complex and military service.

The flow of migrants from Eastern Europe, Africa, can cause the decline of wages of workers in Europe, and indirectly, will be one of the factors accelerating the intervention of NATO in a military conflict.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think the current crisis will cause the aggression of NATO military bloc on one of the countries outside Europe, crisis or armed forces (and) fight with anyone. To remove the question of social tensions in Europe in NATO countries will inflate the image of the enemy of the Russians to take people in the military-industrial complex and military service.

The flow of migrants from Eastern Europe, Africa, can cause the decline of wages of workers in Europe, and indirectly, will be one of the factors accelerating the intervention of NATO in a military conflict.

That's a possibility, that European NATO countries could launch a 1930s-style armaments/jobs program to make up for the lost industrial exports to the US and other countries. They have a large social welfare system now though, which they did not have in the 1930s, so they will probably just move the unemployed workers onto this rather than arms production or the military.

The US under Obama won't assist in any NATO war in Europe, it's possible this could happen if the neo-conservatives could regain power in 2012, but this is unlikely due to the enduring unpopularity of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, McCain etc.

[RoyBatty]

The US under Obama won't assist in any NATO war in Europe, it's possible this could happen if the neo-conservatives could regain power in 2012, but this is unlikely due to the enduring unpopularity of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, McCain etc.

They can and they do, both inside and outside Europe. Atm there's nothing much going on because a number of NATO / NWO objectives have been achieved such as the deliberate breakup of Yugoslavia, establishment of bases on its territory and Eastward expansions.

There's a bit of a lul in proceedings in the Caucasus after Saakashbaboon fluffed the "liberation" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia so this is a period of regrouping and re-arming. Ukraine is in limbo due to the ongoing political stalemate in that country, not to mention the general public mood which is against being forced into NATO by the US, EU and Ukraine's own corrupt politicians.

Democratic Party regimes (Clinton, Omabongo etc) are as fond of foreign military adventures as the Republicans, if not even more so. It's amusing how the "Liberals" often tend to out-warmonger the so-called "Conservatives". In reality there isn't much difference between them with regards to foreign policy. The objectives are the same, the approaches differ a bit. Reps tend to play the "bad cop" role while Dems play the "good cop" but in the end, both are fascists.

[SwordoftheVistula]

It's really more the same methods for different objectives.

With the Bush regime, it was mostly neoconservatives aligned with the Likud Party in Israel, and some old line anti-communists turned anti-Islamist (like Rumsfeld) or lingering Russophobes (Condoleeza Rice).

With Obama, there are still some jews in top spots (Axelrod, Emanual) but they seem more aligned with the Labor Party in Israel, and Obama comes from the leftwing pacifist/third-worlder faction of the Democrat Party. For example, he is more conciliatory towards Iran:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200947_pf.html

Georgia was intended to be a staging ground for air attacks on Iran, but the Georgian President made the mistake of thinking the US would back him up in a fight with Russia, and screwed that up. Israel now has a more hard-line regime in place, but Obama administration will be much more reluctant to launch a strike on Iran. McCain/Palin top foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann was a former lobbyist for Georgia, which accounts for McCain's pro-Georgia position, but these guys are all gone now.

Ukraine nobody really cares about anymore, and never really mattered that much in the first place. It was mainly a George Soros operation, assisted by some Russophobes, and apparently on the behalf of Soros' tribesman Boris Berezevsky, a jewish oligarch exiled from Russia by Putin.

With Yugoslavia, there was a perfect storm of Bill Clinton needing a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky situation, also this allowed him to simultaneously pacify the left wing by 'combating racism' and elements of the right wing which had accused Clinton of degrading the nation's combat capicity with his downsizing of the military.

Obama's main goal with foreign policy, at least for his first term, will be to avoid anything which could be perceived as a 'disaster' and damage his reelection prospects. Thus, a slow wind-down rather than an immediate withdrawal in Iraq, sending more troops in an attempt to 'stabilize' Afghanistan, and backing off on plans to close Camp Gitmo in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

His other objective, which will be much more in force if he wins a second term, is to advance the interests of the third world and the left, thus we can expect even more money spent on attempts to eliminate AIDS and poverty, more concern about gays/women, etc.

See this for example:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4968