Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Nothing except shows our European allies what a pussy he is. He ( the fat orange draft dodging cowardly douche-bag) shows why he wants out of NATO. He's a tough guy againt unarmed Central American refugees but a total pussy against someone armed with a pee tape. Anybody who supports him is just like him. A bully and a coward.
|
Why should the US still be in NATO? it's been 73 years since WWII ended and the Cold War ended in 1991.
Trump called them out for not putting in the resources they should and you are angry about that .. why?
i've seen a quote attributed to Eisenhower.......
"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed."
this means that the concept of NATO FAILED. by the late 1950's. i'll be generous and give you up to the early 1960's.
bahahaaaaa
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...263-story.html
IT'S TIME TO CONSIGN NATO TO HISTORY, AND LOOK TO FUTURE
note the date of this Chicago Times article? 1994. BAHAA
By Eugene Carroll and Pat Schroeder.Retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll is director of the Center for Defense Information. Pat Schroeder is a congresswoman from ColoradoCHICAGO TRIBUNE
As he assumed command of
NATO forces in Europe in 1951, General of the Armies Dwight D. Eisenhower uttered prophetic words of caution: "
If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed." One can only speculate about his response if he were to learn now that almost 150,000 American troops are still in Europe 43 years later, and we are planning to keep 100,000 troops there into the 21st Century.
His first question might well be, "Who are we defending Europe against now? I thought that the Soviet Union had disappeared three years ago." The answer would certainly astound him, particularly when he learned that NATO's former adversaries, including Russia, are now all aligned with NATO in a "Partnership for Peace."
Not even the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can find an enemy today to justify continuing a massive, very expensive military alliance. They tried very hard in Rome in November 1991: "In contrast with the predominant threat of the past, the risks to Allied security that remain are multifaceted in nature and multidirectional, which makes them hard to predict and assess." In more comprehensible words, no identifiable enemy exists and NATO doesn't know how to plan to meet a non-existent threat.
The Partnership For Peace program itself is a contrived, expedient effort to rationalize a new role for NATO now that all external military threats to Europe have disappeared. No defense alliance can legitimately develop plans to protect its members from each other. What then does the North Atlantic Council and its 23 groups and committees (making work for more than 2,600 bureaucrats in Brussels) do to occupy their time now? Prepare plans to defend NATO against aggression by Switzerland, Sweden and Austria, the only nations in Europe which are neither NATO members nor their "partners"?
NATO, led by the United States, provided an essential shield against Soviet aggression while Western Europe recovered from the ravages of World War II. Why is NATO now being kept alive by inventing imaginary "multifaceted, multidirectional" threats which are "hard to predict and assess"?
A large part of the answer to that question is explained by what can be described as institutional imperatives. The first priority of any bureaucratic institution is to perpetuate its existence. The second is to expand its functions. These imperatives are particularly active in NATO, which truly has been a boon to the senior military and civilian officials of member nations.
The rank structures of all participating military services have been inflated by NATO because each nation wants to ensure that its representatives are not outranked on the myriad of international administrative and operational staffs which abound in NATO. Nowhere in the world is there such a wealth of flag and general officers, a top-heavy structure totally out of balance with the forces they control. The United States alone has eight four-star admirals and generals who owe their rank to NATO assignments.
These senior officers live very well in villas, chateaus and mansions supplied by host nations. And what is true for the senior military in NATO is equally true for senior civilians from all NATO nations. Ambassadors abound and compensation for civil servants posted to NATO is much inflated above their pay at home. Brussels is one of the most expensive cities in the world because of United Nations and NATO functionaries living there on the munificence of the governments they happily represent.
Certainly the United States must continue to be actively engaged in Europe, politically, economically and culturally. But the time has long since passed when that engagement should be in the form of an unneeded and outrageously expensive military bureaucracy. Furthermore, in spite of contrivances such as the Partnership For Peace, NATO will always symbolize the confrontation between East and West for 40 years. Because of its history, the continued existence of NATO is a bar to new security relationships in Europe rather than a means of forging constructive new ties. It is time to recall Ike's words of wisdom and allow NATO to disappear gracefully, with thanks for a job well done 40 years ago.
Russia makes a move, trump does nothing
