MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: Laughable misundertanding of Article V. Article V clearly states that if one member of NATO is attacked, it is an attack on all of NATO and is an act of war on all members. Montenegro is a member of NATO. What am I missing 26?
Bray Wyatt Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, The_Dude said: 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. Aren’t the countries treaty bound to pay 2% of GDP towards defense? If the countries aren’t honoring the treaty then why should we? (I don’t know if Montenegro is or not but more in general) 2
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 Just now, Bray Wyatt said: Aren’t the countries treaty bound to pay 2% of GDP towards defense? If the countries aren’t honoring the treaty then why should we? (I don’t know if Montenegro is or not but more in general) My point exactly. NATO offers Europe far more benefits than it does us. We’d be better off scrapping it and negotiating bilateral agreements with select countries. 1
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, The_Dude said: 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. So if the same thing happens between Czechoslovakia and, let's say Switzerland, you would be ok sending your kids into Europe to fight WW3? If I were you, I would read George Washingtons farewell address. "...beware of foreign entanglements..."
/dev/null Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, The_Dude said: 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. 1 1
26CornerBlitz Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: Article V clearly states that if one member of NATO is attacked, it is an attack on all of NATO and is an act of war on all members. Montenegro is a member of NATO. What am I missing 26? We're either in a cooperative defense treaty or we're not. It's not some selective thing as you are suggesting. Stability in Europe is what we and the entire world has benefitted from.
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said: We're either in a cooperative defense treaty or we're not. It's not some selective thing as you are suggesting. Stability in Europe is what we and the entire world has benefitted from. I agree. That is why I am in favor of our president negotiating amendments to our NATO agreement, or walking altogether. We can defend ourself if it came to that. Odds are, since we are the glue keeping NATO together, and they damn well know that, they will make amendments to the agreement. 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 Just now, MILFHUNTER#518 said: Odds are, since we are the glue keeping NATO together, and they damn well know that, they will make amendments to the agreement. I think it’s better if we just ditch it. Let them figure out their own defense.
26CornerBlitz Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 Just now, MILFHUNTER#518 said: I agree. That is why I am in favor of our president negotiating amendments to our NATO agreement, or walking altogether. We can defend ourself if it came to that. Odds are, since we are the glue keeping NATO together, and they damn well know that, they will make amendments to the agreement. They were already committing to paying more before Trump came on the scene mostly due to Putin's aspirations of reconstituting the USSR.
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: They were already committing to paying more before Trump came on the scene mostly due to Putin's aspirations of reconstituting the USSR. From George Washington's farewell address; Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. ... In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ... Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. Edited July 19, 2018 by MILFHUNTER#518
26CornerBlitz Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 1 minute ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: From George Washington's farewell address; Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. ... In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ... Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. I'm sure he was grateful that France was there for his aspiring Nation.
Niagara Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 1 hour ago, The_Dude said: We HONOR our treaties and alliances. Trumps a coward. But I ain’t. The question isn't so much a question as to who is a coward, as it really Is what is best for the United States, not the world. Should the United States act as the world's policeman? The United States has the advantage of being very difficult to attack given its location between two oceans while on the other hand, the United States has a very difficult task to defend countries that are half way around the world from here. The only way Afghan Taliban become a danger on Main Street is if you import them. The domino theory died with the Vietnam war. Trump's theory that our allies have used us as an inexpensive mercenary military has much merit. Perhaps it's time for foreign-policy reflect the reality that we should not guarantee other nations sovereignty or nation build. We cannot be a pure service economy and at the same time expect to be able to defend ourselves, let alone the world. 1
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said: I'm sure he was grateful that France was there for his aspiring Nation. But would he have wanted us to get involved in the french civil war? Or Napolean's war with Britain? Edited July 19, 2018 by MILFHUNTER#518 Correction
Iron Maiden Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 I'm all for pushing the other countries to pay their share for NATO.....they should....but we can't forget that when NATO was 1st formed, it was in part at least, for the USA to show strength in the fear of communism spreading.....we needed NATO then and it served us well.....just because that threat is no longer a priority is not a reason to act like there's no need for it....
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 7 hours ago, Iron Maiden said: I'm all for pushing the other countries to pay their share for NATO.....they should....but we can't forget that when NATO was 1st formed, it was in part at least, for the USA to show strength in the fear of communism spreading.....we needed NATO then and it served us well.....just because that threat is no longer a priority is not a reason to act like there's no need for it.... Then enlighten us about the current benefits of a treaty where our “partners” don’t pull their weight.
The_Dude Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 9 hours ago, Niagara said: The question isn't so much a question as to who is a coward, as it really Is what is best for the United States, not the world. Should the United States act as the world's policeman? The United States has the advantage of being very difficult to attack given its location between two oceans while on the other hand, the United States has a very difficult task to defend countries that are half way around the world from here. The only way Afghan Taliban become a danger on Main Street is if you import them. The domino theory died with the Vietnam war. Trump's theory that our allies have used us as an inexpensive mercenary military has much merit. Perhaps it's time for foreign-policy reflect the reality that we should not guarantee other nations sovereignty or nation build. We cannot be a pure service economy and at the same time expect to be able to defend ourselves, let alone the world. Hows about we’re the United States and we honor our treaties. Hows about isolationism is a failed policy and doesn’t work. Hows about we were sucked into two world wars that we tried to stay out of and it didn’t work because we have interests at stake. Hows about you go read Churchill during the 30’s when nobody would listen to him. He said ‘we gotta stop this now or it’ll be a bigger nightmare when it gets to our door.’ Trump has turned conservatives into cowards is what it’s looking like to me. The best way to prevent a war is by putting divisions in the Ukraine, driving out the “rebels,” and demonstrating that we ain’t scared of commie bitches. And thems some bitches.
The_Dude Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 At the end of the day, Trump is a draft-dodging, peodophile. He’s an unlearned retard who’s degree can only be attributed to daddy’s deep pockets. He’s a white trash Kardashian and nothing more. He ain’t no Winston Churchill. 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 28 minutes ago, The_Dude said: The best way to prevent a war is by putting divisions in the Ukraine, driving out the “rebels,” and demonstrating that we ain’t scared of commie bitches. And thems some bitches. Can you retype that sentence into something that moderately resembles the English language so I can attempt to understand your opinion?
The_Dude Posted July 19, 2018 Posted July 19, 2018 37 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Can you retype that sentence into something that moderately resembles the English language so I can attempt to understand your opinion? I type using my Appalachian accent when angry. However, I’m quite sure you can decipher my meaning.
Recommended Posts