70 years NATO birthday ...

What coverup?

 

And you still believe in Santa Claus ?

 

No. But I do believe in facts and reality.

 

Your fact and reality made in the USA.

 

Well you keep talking about a cover up but don't explain or source it. It's out of the bounds of this topic but maybe you should start a new thread about it.

 

The facts made in the USA concerns the bombings, too.

 

If Russia does not behave itself it will be destroyed ? Who are you ****ing off to decide who behaves in which way? The way you are talking shows you as asssshole. Better stay away from Russia.

 

I think something definitely dropped on your head. Only an idiot can write such things.

 

Do you want to pay more taxes than you pay now to fulfill the demands of the US? Or you prefer that your tax money went to kindergeld or other social programs, pensions etc in the country?

 

vis, I live at the present in Colorado and pay taxes here.
No I do not want Germany to give in to the stupid demands of the US. As I stated in this thread 2% will not happen and should not happen.
If Germany does 1.5% it will have one of the largest defense budgets in the world.
The case in Germany, the military has been neglected for such a long time and is in such a dismal state, that before more money gets thrown at it, it needs some serious re-organization and house cleaning.
First fix what is there and than talk about more money.

 

Says who? You? I had no idea that a user on this board, namely you, works for the Pentagon, the State Departement, and/or the White House and has the authority to make such decisions. Impressive. No, not really, idiotic is the better word.
face palm

 

Facts and reality are not made. They make themselves.

 

Look at the way that church roof burned in Paris with all of that old dry wood. All those old wooden buildings in Leningrad will make for a nice hot fire when a thermonuclear explosion smashes them into kindling. I bet a classic firestorm will form. The only thing that will be left of Leningrad after a nuclear war will be ashes and occasional melted globs of unidentifiable slag.

That pales compared to what's in store for Moscow though. Hundreds of thermonuclear warheads will have to hit Moscow simultaneously in order to overwhelm their ABM system. The resulting devastation of so many thermonuclear warheads striking the same city at the same time will leave the ruins of Moscow a huge blackened scar on the planet that will be visible from space for centuries.

 

You are clearly an idiote.

 

Not at all. A huge nuclear attack will reduce Russia to ashes. There will be nothing left.

 

NATO is a military alliance of 29 states and was founded in 1949. The starting point was the Cold War and the confrontation with the Warsaw Pact. All member states commit themselves in the so-called "alliance case" - an armed attack against one or more member states - "to take measures that they deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". This is the main task of NATO, enshrined in Article five of the NATO Treaty.
This is still the main task of NATO today, even though the Warsaw Pact no longer exists and most members of the Warsaw Pact midwile belong to NATO.
The clear "message" is still out there today: "If you attack one of our 29 members, then you have to deal with all 29 members as opponents (if the attacked member asks for help, which did not always happen, eg UK and Falklands War with Argentina).
Article 5 has entered into force only once, after 9/11 when the US has asked NATO's allies for assistance and assistance in accordance with Article 5. All the other 28 members have complied with this duty of assistance, until today!

Even though the threat posed by the Warsaw Pact no longer exists, there are other threats where NATO, as an alliance, can and needs to respond well, and thus has a right to exist.
But there are also other tasks, most of them with a UN mandate, which NATO can assume as a functioning alliance and can also share tasks and duties within or work together with others. An example has been and still is the fight against piracy in the Horn of Africa with its equivalent naval forces.

So much for the essence ...

But now we have the reality that the US, as the largest and strongest NATO member since the end of the Cold War, but again quite intimately since 2003, has drastically reduced its commitment to NATO. What is left of US forces in Europe is ridiculously low. But this has the positive consequence that Europeans have started to work very closely and closely within NATO together, for example with bilateral or multilateral organizations. As a small example, let's take the Netherlands, which has challenged the deeper sense of battle tanks nowadays and therefore only has 14 or 16 pieces in total (Leopard 2A6). This Dutch tank company is now part of a German tank battalion and also has its administrative home in terms of training, deployment and care.
Or, in the past, air refueling was just a US domain, but the US is neither willing nor able to carry out this task and its own assigned duty within the NATO anymore. So the Europeans now have their own tank aircraft fleet based on the Airbus A310, in the future, new tankers based on the A330. And again, multinational use of all tankers under one command in the Netherlands ... (almost) without US participation in Europe.

But another thing is that Russia is being made more and more of an enemy because of US actions and that is unacceptable.

Anyway, is NATO superfluous?
It is so superfluous if it is only made a plaything for US interests that have nothing to do with the tasks or reasonable missions. That's just happening, and the US adventure in Iraq has also brought US resources to the brink of exhaustion, which is why the US has simply withdrawn from responsibility within NATO.

Therefore, the question is whether the European NATO members really need the USA as an ally, if the US does not do much for NATO and in NATO anyway.

 

Take your medication, poor soul.

 

But you know that Russia can do this the same way too?

 

The US entered WW2 because ...

They tried to force Japan and its expansion to an embargo on December 7, 1941, which triggered the well-known Japanese attack and ended in the bloody war in the Pacific ...
Later, Hitler also declared war on the US, which is why the US went to war in Europe as well ...

And without massive US aid with money and material, the Communists in the USSR would at least have a hard time winning against Germany ... some even say it's impossible to win, but I see it differently.

 

Apparently you do not realize that in that case nothing will be left from the US as well, including you.

 

We disagree.
Reads like a lot of excuses to me.
Reminds me of "Domino Effect"
and such lies we were spoon fed to support the Cold War.

Time for European nations to stand on their hind legs like real countries.

The fact is the reason for NATO no longer exists
so a new one gets fabricated.
Easier than "standing down" from a war posture.


Moi

​

 

Let's wait and see if Saint Paisios is right or wrong about the EU breaking up. I think a lot of what you wrote is just wishful thinking.

 

@gnoib


The cover of 3 Mile Island
so you don't see it Glow In The Dark

 

So you diagree that <europeans shall make their own alliance? Nice ... and why?

 

Fine with me. Better dead than red.