The_Dude Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 I must say I’m giving some SERIOUS sideye to Trumps comments on Montenegro. AN ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL. If Trump thinks he’s gonna change that staple of our foreign policy then it’s time for the pitchforks and torches.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I must say I’m giving some SERIOUS sideye to Trumps comments on Montenegro. AN ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL. If Trump thinks he’s gonna change that staple of our foreign policy then it’s time for the pitchforks and torches. Do you think the Europeans would go to bat for Montenegro?
26CornerBlitz Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I must say I’m giving some SERIOUS sideye to Trumps comments on Montenegro. AN ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL. If Trump thinks he’s gonna change that staple of our foreign policy then it’s time for the pitchforks and torches. You should. They have troops in Afghanistan under Article 5.
/dev/null Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I must say I’m giving some SERIOUS sideye to Trumps comments on Montenegro. AN ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL. If Trump thinks he’s gonna change that staple of our foreign policy then it’s time for the pitchforks and torches. How long til somebody reports that Trump called somebody named Monty "Negro" 3
3rdnlng Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 13 minutes ago, /dev/null said: How long til somebody reports that Trump called somebody named Monty "Negro" Oh, about as quick as "corpse man" was reported.
The_Dude Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 26 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Do you think the Europeans would go to bat for Montenegro? An attack on you is an attack on all.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: An attack on you is an attack on all. Again, do you think the Europeans would abide by that?
The_Dude Posted July 18, 2018 Posted July 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Again, do you think the Europeans would abide by that? Yes. Yes I do. I also think your question is immaterial and cowardly (not to imply you are). We HONOR our treaties and alliances. Trumps a coward. But I ain’t.
3rdnlng Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Yes. Yes I do. I also think your question is immaterial and cowardly (not to imply you are). We HONOR our treaties and alliances. Trumps a coward. But I ain’t. What if Turkey, who is a NATO member harbors terrorists who attack Israel and Israel in turn attacks the terrorist stronghold in Turkey? Do we go to war with Israel? Edited July 19, 2018 by 3rdnlng 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: What if Turkey, who is a NATO member harbors terrorists who attack Israel and Israel in turn attacks the terrorist stronghold in Turkey? Do we go to war with Israel? An excellent question. I question the value of nato.
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: An attack on you is an attack on all. If Montenegro, a country with a population of less than half that of Rhode Island, got into a trade dispute with, oh, let's say Congo, and Congo attacked Montenegro, would you be willing to send your son or daughter to defend them for their utter stupidity? Just because some bureaucrats and crooked politicians in Washington and Europe said you have to? Edited July 19, 2018 by MILFHUNTER#518
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said: You should. They have troops in Afghanistan under Article 5. They have 20 non-combatants. In other words, jeep drivers and yoga instructors. POGUES.
26CornerBlitz Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: They have 20 non-combatants. In other words, jeep drivers and yoga instructors. POGUES. Are they not in harms way subject to ambush or IEDs? Silly point.
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Are they not in harms way subject to ambush or IEDs? Silly point. No. No, they are not. They are in highly fortified bases, called FOBS, doing clerical work. Work YOU could do with zero military training or experience. They will only leave the base to leave the country to go home. They would be in more danger going to a movie in downtown Albany, NY or Chicago. Edited July 19, 2018 by MILFHUNTER#518 Added content 1
26CornerBlitz Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: No. No, they are not. They are in highly fortified bases, called FOBS, doing clerical work. Work you could do with zero military training or experience. They would be in more danger going to a movie in downtown Albany, NY or Chicago. They have actually supported the mission in a variety of capacities since 2010.
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 Good for them, and we appreciate it very much. Doesn't erase the fact that we should be extremely selective about where, why and how we deploy our sons and daughters into harms way. Just because they send a couple clerks to one of our FOBS in a country we occupy that we should be on the hook to start WW3 on their behalf. 15 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: They have actually supported the mission in a variety of capacities since 2010.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: Yes. Yes I do. I also think your question is immaterial and cowardly (not to imply you are). We HONOR our treaties and alliances. Trumps a coward. But I ain’t. We need to re-evaluate those treaties and alliances if they don’t meet our needs. Tell me: who benefits more from Nato? Us or Europe?
boyst Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: They have actually supported the mission in a variety of capacities since 2010. Link? Source? Too lazy to look it up.
26CornerBlitz Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 Just now, MILFHUNTER#518 said: Good for them, and we appreciate it very much. Doesn't erase the fact that we should be extremely selective about where, why and how we deploy our sons and daughters into harms way. Just because they send a couple clerks to one of our FOBS in a country we occupy that we should be on the hook to start WW3 on their behalf. Laughable misundertanding of Article V.
The_Dude Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 45 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: If Montenegro, a country with a population of less than half that of Rhode Island, got into a trade dispute with, oh, let's say Congo, and Congo attacked Montenegro, would you be willing to send your son or daughter to defend them for their utter stupidity? Just because some bureaucrats and crooked politicians in Washington and Europe said you have to? If we’re treaty bound, yes. Also, Czechoslovakia is how these things start. Yes. You draw a line in the sand. You fight them in the air and on the beaches and all that.
Recommended Posts