Thurisaz

Drumpf, NATO, and the "obligations" of NATO members

Recommended Posts

Yeah found this here on my fav political blog (link goes directly to English version by auntie google):

 

Linky

 

Quoting the most relevant part:

 

Quote

Such an interpretation [that no one is obliged to increase military spending to at least 2 %] also corresponds to the spirit of the NATO Treaty. Article 5 does not oblige Member States to spend a certain proportion of their GDP on defense. On the contrary, in the case of an armed attack, each member of the Alliance provides "assistance" through measures that it deems necessary. Concrete military contributions or even obligations to upgrade are not agreed.

 

Just as food for thought, for those who say that drumpf is right bashing member states for supposedly not spending enough on new killing toys. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



1 hour ago, Thurisaz said:

Yeah found this here on my fav political blog (link goes directly to English version by auntie google):

 

Linky

 

Quoting the most relevant part:

 

 

Just as food for thought, for those who say that drumpf is right bashing member states for supposedly not spending enough on new killing toys. ;)

 

They are bending over backwards these days trying to create justifications for NATO's existence. The USSR no longer exists and they are doing everything they can to scare Europeans into keeping it alive by demonizing Russia against all evidence that they are a threat. 

 

This is a case of the machine taking over the humans. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 3:32 AM, Thurisaz said:

Yeah found this here on my fav political blog (link goes directly to English version by auntie google):

 

Linky

 

Quoting the most relevant part:

 

 

Just as food for thought, for those who say that drumpf is right bashing member states for supposedly not spending enough on new killing toys. ;)

 

You lose me at "drumpf". I told you that my German grandfather's parents changed the spelling of their family name from "Bloch" to "Block" when they moved to the States. I remember saying, "It happens, Thur". 

 

If you are going to continue with the ignorant and silly demeaning of a person's historical name, I don't see too much reason to continue any discussions with you.  Maybe I'll just leave you and Virgil to your mutual circle jerk of hating the country that gave you freedom from the Nazi party, the Soviets, gave you the internet and gave you "Auntie Google"; that evil capitalist beast that you seem to like.

 

It's always easy to bash the United States from a free united Germany, isn't it? Maybe you'd have been happier in the old East Germany where you wouldn't have access to the internet and auntie Google or this forum. Maybe you'd have been happier being trapped in a system where the famous 1% owned everything, but you had no hope of ever becoming one of them because they would starve you to death like Stalin did in your pal's wonderful Russia.

 

And speaking of Russia, your pal Vigile (Hi Vig, I'm not talking behind your back. I know you'll read this) says that no one who participated in the atrocities of the past are still alive today. That's not really so. The USSR and Germany under the Nazi's wasn't so long ago that there aren't still some people that saw it and remember. You brought up the way the United States treated the Indians (feather, not dot) though, and I would wager that there isn't anyone still alive that participated in that part of U.S. history.

 

You don't have to worship or even like my country Thurisaz, but you should at least get your facts straight before you spew bullcrap on a forum that I do believe also comes from the United States. 

 

I only say this because I do believe your post and thread was aimed at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

Maybe I'll just leave you and Virgil to your mutual circle jerk of hating the country that gave you freedom from the Nazi party, the Soviets,.....

Don't you mean, unsolicited self-beneficial regime change? Cuz that's all we do, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fweethawt said:

Don't you mean, unsolicited self-beneficial regime change? Cuz that's all we do, right?

 

Well yeah, but I didn't want to throw that part in.  It could lead to all kinds of ugly facts and stuff.

We all know that Nazi Socialism and Russian oppression was better than what the States brought when they so callously invaded Europe for no good reason. Damn us after the war too. How dare we take affront at Stalin and co. starving millions of Russian people? Hell, I learned from Vigile that just today the United States killed a million people!

 

Don't even get me started on Japan. We all know the world would be so much better if Mitsubishi was still making warplanes for Kamikaze pilots instead of making cars and selling them here. Those poor bastards wouldn't be an economic powerhouse if we hadn't had the audacity to force a new Japanese constitution on them at gunpoint.

 

Evil us. Shame on us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Putin is an altrustic leader looking out for the best interests of the world and Russia is a friend of all nations...what happens when Putin is gone and the next Stalin rises to power?

 

The same goes for Germany.

 

It doesn't even have to happen in Russia or Germany. It could be something that happens anywhere, even in the US.

 

Just for the sake of argument, if we assume we don't need an organization like NATO as much right now, it does not mean that it has no use and may not be essential in the future.

 

The premise of this thread assumes that the state of the world will remain as it is, or only improve, and that's an easily discredited fallacy.

 

Russia not being a current threat is largely irrelevant. They actually are a threat. So is the US and China, or any other major military power in the world. They just aren't an immediate threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Russia not being a current threat is largely irrelevant. They actually are a threat. So is the US and China, or any other major military power in the world. They just aren't an immediate threat.

Again -- you're missing the point, CB...

 

Regardless of who is a threat and when -- U.S.A = BAD, everyone else = Good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

Just for the sake of argument, if we assume we don't need an organization like NATO as much right now, it does not mean that it has no use and may not be essential in the future.

 

Points taken, and I agree that NATO as a defensive alliance is a good thing. It is no longer that though, and that's exactly the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, duderonomy said:

It's always easy to bash the United States from a free united Germany, isn't it? Maybe you'd have been happier in the old East Germany where you wouldn't have access to the internet and auntie Google or this forum. Maybe you'd have been happier being trapped in a system where the famous 1% owned everything, but you had no hope of ever becoming one of them because they would starve you to death like Stalin did in your pal's wonderful Russia.

 

Russia isn't Stalin's Russia any longer, and the ISA aren't WW2-era USA any longer. History is a nice thing but we're not living in that past. Besides, in the GDR people sure lacked luxuries and the like but they were never close to starving. Not all communism, everywhere, all the time, is like Stalin-era Russia.

 

I'm quite okay with the US as they were in WW2. They weren't flawless back then but which nation ever is? That's the entire point. That was back in the day. Back in the day is over. This is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Thurisaz said:

 

Points taken, and I agree that NATO as a defensive alliance is a good thing. It is no longer that though, and that's exactly the problem.

 

Why not just make an alliance with Russia like they want and have been wanting? It's only the US and allied IC that have been undermining it every step of the way. NATO is completely obsolete, if ever justified in the first place, which I believe good arguments can be made that it was not. 

 

Speaking of alliances and treaties, there isn't a US alliance that hasn't been unilaterally broken by the US, starting with the Indian nation treaties all the way down to the promises made to Gorby that NATO wouldn't expand once the Soviet Union was dissolved. 

 

Who is the aggressor in this image? It sure as shit isn't Russia:

 

Just imagine if Russia had a military alliance that expanded to Mexico and Canada and then as recently as 2017 stacked thousands of tanks and artillery on the border across from Texas and then held wide-spread military exercises where they practiced invasion techniques, because that's exactly what happened in Estonia and Latvia. Not to mention the missile barrages set up in Poland against massive protests out of Moscow and which also break another treaty -- they are just paper after all. Then, imagine if just a few years before that, Russia had spent $5B in Alaska to foment a coup, had sent the US-friendly governor packing to DC and installed a Russian friendly nazi regime there and was now supplying weapons to these nazis so that they could kill US friendly Alaskans. 

 

DLoYZeBXcAUQzRc.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. Sad but... true.

 

And just as some food for thought (for those who may need it)... remember the Cuba crisis? You know, when the evil Soviets put nukes on Cuba and the US needed to get rid of that threat? (That is the entire story as told by our official sources and government over here... if it's different in your place, good)

 

You may want to check out what the US did in Turkey, very shortly before all that happened.

 

Oops.

 

But "This is something totally different" if "we" do it right?

 

Right?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fweethawt said:

Again -- you're missing the point, CB...

 

Regardless of who is a threat and when -- U.S.A = BAD, everyone else = Good.

 

Fwee, dude, I'm not against the US. I'm against empires, especially if they show by their demeanor that they want to dominate everything and everyone.

 

In this current age, the ISA happen to be such an empire... the most obscenely powerful empire in Earth's history.

 

You remember the wise words from the era of the French revolution don't you? That power corrupts, and that absolute power...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

 

Fwee, dude, I'm not against the US. I'm against empires, especially if they show by their demeanor that they want to dominate everything and everyone.

 

In this current age, the ISA happen to be such an empire... the most obscenely powerful empire in Earth's history.

 

You remember the wise words from the era of the French revolution don't you? That power corrupts, and that absolute power...?

 

The crazy thing is the US empire is even against the US people, but because they have been conditioned to believe that the system and they are the same, they assume it's team America and not the machine that represents only the interests of the global elite. American tax payers are getting sucked dry as their congress year after year votes in guns for butter budgets. And this isn't the only money being spent. The Pentagon is somehow missing trillions and dog knows where they got it all in the first place given they are missing around $6.5T and their budget is around $700B. Its sons and daughters are being used as tools, not to defend the nation, but to defend the interests of the same global elite; after which they are just spit out and thrown away to deal with their trauma. With 21 suicides per day, they aren't dealing with it well. 

 

It was masterful to tie all this together with the flag and the natural patriotism that every country has to make the American people feel as if they have a role in the US winning. The truth is, those who really benefit don't give two fucks for the American people, if they did, they'd treat them at least as well as the Israeli people are treated. Israel is subsidized by the US tax payers and they have free universities, free healthcare and better public infrastructure and poor slobs in the US working for slave wages without health insurance they can afford to use are funding it all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2018 at 1:56 AM, Vigile said:

 

They are bending over backwards these days trying to create justifications for NATO's existence. The USSR no longer exists and they are doing everything they can to scare Europeans into keeping it alive by demonizing Russia against all evidence that they are a threat. 

 

This is a case of the machine taking over the humans. 

Lies, Russia is a threat just ask Ukraine and the Baltic countries.  Your utter inability to think critically and realistically about Russia in foreign policy terms is really getting old.  Why is Russia using Hybrid war tactics to attack the power grid in the Baltic?  Why did Russia invade Crimea and annex the region if they are not aggressive?  Why are they backing the Ukrainian separatists in Eastern Ukraine through a secret war if the Europeans have nothing to fear?  

 

Vigile would have everyone hear think that Putin is only a good guy, he's just defending himself against NATO encroachment.  Why would the Baltic countries are those previously under the control of the Warsaw Pact want to join NATO?  Might it be because of the well established aggressive and imperial history of Russia who has for centuries terrorized these regions and kept many of them under the control of the tsar.  But they're all peaceful loving folks now per Vigile, the USSR is gone, so why not make some broader alliance with Russia.  Russia had and still has the largest conventional force in Europe, wholly updated since the Cold War under Putin, and the commitment of American forces per NATO is still in high demand as a result.  What stops Putin from finding another reason to annex land in his bordering region?  NATO which would collectively declare war on Russia were they to do that.

 

You've simply absorbed way too much Russian propaganda, and it has now infected this board thoroughly.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

The crazy thing is the US empire is even against the US people, but because they have been conditioned to believe that the system and they are the same, they assume it's team America and not the machine that represents only the interests of the global elite. American tax payers are getting sucked dry as their congress year after year votes in guns for butter budgets. And this isn't the only money being spent. The Pentagon is somehow missing trillions and dog knows where they got it all in the first place given they are missing around $6.5T and their budget is around $700B. Its sons and daughters are being used as tools, not to defend the nation, but to defend the interests of the same global elite; after which they are just spit out and thrown away to deal with their trauma. With 21 suicides per day, they aren't dealing with it well. 

 

It was masterful to tie all this together with the flag and the natural patriotism that every country has to make the American people feel as if they have a role in the US winning. The truth is, those who really benefit don't give two fucks for the American people, if they did, they'd treat them at least as well as the Israeli people are treated. Israel is subsidized by the US tax payers and they have free universities, free healthcare and better public infrastructure and poor slobs in the US working for slave wages without health insurance they can afford to use are funding it all. 

If Russia had the US' stance in the world do you think they would behave better?  One wonders what education you do have of Russian history.  How did they become the largest country in the world?  Not surely through empire...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

This. Sad but... true.

 

And just as some food for thought (for those who may need it)... remember the Cuba crisis? You know, when the evil Soviets put nukes on Cuba and the US needed to get rid of that threat? (That is the entire story as told by our official sources and government over here... if it's different in your place, good)

 

You may want to check out what the US did in Turkey, very shortly before all that happened.

 

Oops.

 

But "This is something totally different" if "we" do it right?

 

Right?

 

The military and the IC community were actually pushing Kennedy to make a unilateral first strike, just taking out the entire USSR in one big attack, hoping they wouldn't get a shot at responding. Kennedy saw it as absolutely insane, which it was, and refused. Some strong arguments are built on the idea that his refusal is why he was killed. Today, there are still those inside the US IC pushing for supremacy and first strike capability. There are a number of papers out there on the subject, which can be googled. The idea is still insane. Not only is it massively immoral, but there is no way to guarantee Russia wouldn't get off a response. In fact, they probably have dead man switches, not to mention a diverse system of boats and subs that would retaliate to the point the world as we know it would just end if the US tried such a ridiculous scheme. 

 

It seems these days the US security community has purged all non-like minded and those left are only sycophants and idiots. How else to explain appointments like Nikki Haley, Samantha Power and stupid ideas like nuclear supremacy, not to mention ISIS? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh...

 

Who+cares+just+embrace+it+man+_60e77d644

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw that I forgot to mention one thing about Vigile's graphic of NATO expansion.

 

GDR fused with FRG into today's Germany, 1990. Negotiated in full with the then-still-USSR.

 

Roughly a decade of NATO actually keeping its promise (at least regarding action, not looking at plans here) to not expand "a single inch" eastward, while Yeltsin is all "Yeah you can buy anything and anyone in my country, just gimme my vodka and I'm fine". Russia falls into a disaster far worse than anything it ever went through under the Soviets (at least since the end of Stalin's reign).

 

1999, Putin rises to power... one who was not sure to play along with the Western buyout of his country. Roughly at the same time NATO says "fuck this shit", breaks one promise after another and takes over one country after another to surround Russia militarily, politically, economically (Putin only got into full power at the end of 1999 but who knows what was known behind the scenes in advance).

 

I'm sure you don't have to see a clear and obvious pattern here. I'm at a loss though how anyone can fail to see one. :scratch:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 5:57 PM, Fweethawt said:

Regardless of who is a threat and when -- U.S.A = BAD, everyone else = Good.

 

How about just everyone with big military weapons = bad?

 

The Roman Empire, the British Empire, the American Empire and a host of successful and failed attempts in between. They all use their position of strength to crush the opposition. Hopefully random chance decides that you are the right side of that strength or else you could find your village sacked by an army, your country invaded or house getting blown up by an unmanned drone. 

 

To quote Carl Sagan: "Think of the rivers of blood, spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they can become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

How about just everyone with big military weapons = bad?

 

I wish it were that easy, but when you have enemies making aggressive moves, having big weapons yourself is the only way to keep your country from becoming the next Libya. Despite the existence of the UN and international law, international relations is mostly a system of anarchy where the strongest survive. It's probably more fair to argue that those countries which fight wars of aggression are bad actors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

Russia falls into a disaster far worse than anything it ever went through under the Soviets (at least since the end of Stalin's reign).

 

For all of his faults, he actually had the back of the Soviets. His death count isn't anywhere near the numbers floating around out there in both academic and media circles in the west. When I was in university, I was told Stalin had purged around 60M people. I've since learned that this number, or anything close to it is completely unsupported by evidence of any kind. The numbers as best I can tell are somewhere around 2 1/2M. Too many, for sure, but how many more would have been lost if he hadn't been able to beat the Germans? As I understand it, the only people the Germans hated more than the Jews were the Slavs. Many, at least over here, argue that the measures Stalin took were what saved Russia from losing to the Germans. I'm still on the fence necessarily as I don't know/understand all the details. What is a fact is Stalin rapidly industrialized the country and standards of living dramatically increased under him and after him. Regression didn't occur until the very end and occurred much more deeply under Yeltsin as you mention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah as much as an asshole as Stalin was, his ruthless measures did save his country from the nazis. Sometimes fate decides that evil must be stopped by another evil. :shrug:

 

As for more "traditional German hatred" for Jews or Slavs, I'm not sure. Antisemitism has a long tradition, just like in many other parts of the world, Slavs in general I think weren't that high on the hate list. That may well have changed during WW1 though, I think the term "Russian steamroller" got created there and then, when the Kaiser's generals were totally shocked at first about how fast the Czar was able to mobilize his army when the war began.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now