1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NATO

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Arc, Jul 18, 2018.

  1. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    NATO is a pretty serious topic. It's existence and our membership in it has potentially the most serious consequences one could imagine. Unfortunately, most Americans and most visitors in America haven't a clue what NATO is all about and what role we have with it and as a member.

    We should absolutely positively without any qualifications withdraw from NATO. The benefits to belonging are outweighed by the potential disasters that come with being associated with it.

    Someone, please get us out of NATO! If after leaving NATO we want to make a treaty of some sort with individual countries on a country by country basis then we can consider it and weigh the pros and cons--one treaty per one country at a time. The treaty must be in our national interest or security as much as the country we might make it with.
     
  2. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    We should not withdraw from NATO. If we did, that power vacuum would be filled by Russia. It would almost be a "Warsaw Pact 2" stretching from France Eastward.
     
  3. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Mark your retort featuring a premise of a "power vacuum" is a vague abstract non-existent term or reason.

    Our membership in NATO carries more liabilities than benefits. Those liabilities expand as NATO morphs and continually expands itself into something not even close to the original reasons for its origin. In fact, the single foundational reason for its creation no longer seriously exists.
     
    Allene likes this.
  4. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    You mean that country that spreads across 11 time zones, that has militaristic tendencies to expand so it can have defensive buffer zones if/when it's invaded? Think Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall on the escalator, holding the body of a bystander as a bullet shield.

    I hate to tell you this, they're still there, they just changed their name.
     
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Mark, have you seen the state of Russia's army? Their vehicles, machinery, and their guns?

    Again, I agree with Arc. Not only should we withdraw but it should have been done decades ago.

    UN as well.
     
    Biker, Allene and Arc like this.
  6. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 produced the beginning of the greatest mass sale of modern contemporary weaponry to third world thug governments and arms dealers in the history of mankind.

    The breakup also was the beginning of the growth of mass Islamic extremist terrorism as numerous countries no longer were dependent upon the support and weaponry of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union unknown to many people kept a clamp on Islamic extremist terrorism through their business partnership with the Middle Eastern countries.

    In fact, even today, Putin literally hates terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism and that is THE main reason he backed Assad. Putin views the people trying to overthrow Assad as Islamic extremists. In that context, he favors having a murderous dictatorial secular thug like Assad in Syria rather than a Muslim religious government.

    We need to stay involved in the UN though, but for one reason only. To cover our asses politically with the UN "community" against the majority of the countries that are against us and are also in the UN. Related to that is the power of the Security Council vote.

    I would, however, be in favor of moving their asses out of NYC and for that matter, I don't want them anyplace in the United States.

    Finally, we aren't obligated to be the military enforcer or policeman of the UN and we should stop doing so.
     
    ethics and Allene like this.
  7. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    If a good thing can be said about any brutal dictator, it is that they kept order.

    Saddam Hussein had the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish Muslims within the borders of Iraq. He kept the Shiites and Kurds from killing each other, however his Sunnis did take delight in brutalizing the other groups.

    It was after we "whipped some freedom" on Iraq that all of the sectarian violence erupted. For those of you who weren't around in the 60's and 70's with the IRA, street curbs in Ireland were printed in different colors to show Catholic or Protestant neighborhoods. Woe be to the person who strayed into an area where they didn't belong.

    I am sorry to say that more people have died in the name of God than for any other cause. It is very disheartening to me when one person is willing to kill others of their own basic religion because of what really are minor differences in philosophy.
     
  8. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    IMO a more precise and accurate statement than what you have written would be:

    In the history of modern man bad people under the guise of invoking the name of God to falsely validated their true motives, have killed and hurt more people than any other evil and social or cultural group.
     
    Allene likes this.
  9. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

Share This Page