Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: NATO nonsense (Read 50315 times)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #200 –
We might, indeed! The old term "plebiscite" comes to mind — but, there, its legitimacy is definitional. Devolution or Brexit do perhaps qualify… The Dutch referendum on a trade deal with another country seems an unlikely example. (Isn't it the job of the government to handle such things? Hm. Are the Dutch preparing the way for their own "exit" from the EU?)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #201 –
This auto-referendum law is stupid, and allegedly the Dutch politicians are too cowardly to admit it, in fear of losing to right- and left-wing populists in the forthcoming election.

As is, it is merely a tool for mischief, which anyone with the resources can come and play with.



Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #202 –
Damn it they look vaguely familiar.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #203 –
You probably diddled them, back in the day… :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #204 –
One has already improved his country and personal rating and well maybe the other one may be a surprise??
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #205 –
Yay, Estonia in the news.
Quote from: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-russia-belarus-idUSKBN17T1DQ
Estonia says Russia may put troops in Belarus to challenge NATO

Defence Minister Margus Tsahkna said Estonia and other NATO governments had intelligence suggesting Moscow may leave Russian soldiers in Belarus once the so-called Zapad 2017 exercises are over, also pointing to public data of Russian railway traffic to Belarus.

Tsahkna cited plans to send 4,000 railway carriages to Belarus to transport Russian troops and gear there, possibly to set up a military outpost in its closest ally.

"For Russian troops going to Belarus, it is a one-way ticket," Tsahkna told Reuters in an interview in Malta.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #206 –
Sorry my ignorance, are Estonia, Latvia and the other Baltic state I don't remember part of NATO?
A matter of attitude.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #207 –
How could you miss the Lithuanian Empire? Shame on you.
Of course, all of them are important members of the NATO. They are the spearhead of the alliance, so to speak.
BTW, you probably know which the most exposed part of a lance is.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #208 –
There really is an awful lot of damn nonsense going on from the Baltic states and especially Estonia that they may be invaded??  utter nonsense but the West via this NAT lot are rubbing hands on glee at a chance to put pressure on Russia. On a lesser note must make the Kremlin shake it's head and smile at the nonsense. It is just another damn nonsense for NATO to over justify it's continued existence.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #209 –
Mr. Trump, stop tweeting! (Oh? It was Howie? Never mind.) :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #210 –
Quote from: krake on
How could you miss the Lithuanian Empire? Shame on you.
Of course, all of them are important members of the NATO. They are the spearhead of the alliance, so to speak.
BTW, you probably know which the most exposed part of a lance is.
My excuses for the brave Lithuans, I hope they understand my lack of memory, imperialist Estonians have occupied their space at this world representative forum... :)

As for you Krake, I'm tired of excuses from the Finnish so I have to accept also the Baltic states to pretend that they are the "victims". If not satisfied they can always return to Comrade Putin. Like the Finnish always did with the Soviets. Double game for the Finnish, always.
A matter of attitude.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #211 –
Returning to NATO.
I defend that European countries have no other option but to defend themselves together.

It will cost sovereignty and proudness, but an European Army will be the only way to protect us from Americans, Russians and Chinese. Those are our enemies, better to fight them whem they are still divided.

Europeans have all the best scientifical, military, economical and "need to do it" factors to assure a long lastull domination of the world. At this time, we need an Army for just ourselves.

After winning we can return to fight between us. Not before.
Simple as that.
A matter of attitude.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #212 –
Trump complains that 23 out 28 Nato members don't spend 2% of GDP for the supposed "mutual defense organization".
He adds that's not fair for the American tax payers.

It seems that one of those members that pays it's Estonia. Also Greece.
This is a world of lunatics. Meanwhile, American tax payers can thanks to Estonia and Greece.
And some other three I don't remember.
A matter of attitude.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #213 –
It is a lot worse for American taxpayers due to their morphed imperialistic nonsense. America spends what is it - just over half the total world expenditure on military?  How ridiculous is that?

And trump was against NATO now like other issues he is doing something different from his vocal rampages in the election campaign. Anyway, NATO was created to be a bulwark against the USSR and the eastern block in red controlled Europe. When the Soviet Union collapsed along with the red eastern Europe block that should have been the end of NATO.Instead it is just another tool by America to have everyone as a vassal State under it and so on. If all that stuff wasn't bad enough they built a big new NATO HQ at a billion dollars. Utterly head shaking and I have no time for the organisation whatsoever.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #214 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
Trump complains that 23 out 28 Nato members don't spend 2% of GDP for the supposed "mutual defense organization".
He adds that's not fair for the American tax payers.
As a consequence NATO should move its ass out of countries reluctant to spend 2% of their GDP.
It would make tax payers happy - both, Europeans and Americans. Simply as that.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #215 –
It's of the past and when the Warsaw Pact went which was the opposition the damn thing should have been dumped.  :irked:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #216 –
What matters is the actual security and defense capabilities as outlined at http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49202.htm Assuming that the US is paying more therefore getting more is stupid, cf. health care and infrastructure. Obama/Trump is therefore wrong by definition even if they might in some circumstances be right in the sense that a country may not be meeting a particular goal such as always having a brigade ready to go. Buy a few extra expensive airplanes (hello JSF) and up goes the budget without increasing actual capabilities in any meaningful way.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #217 –
By that measure the world should be a NATO member, spending 2.3% of the GDP on the military, down from 3.4% in 1988.



Source: SIPRI/World Bank Military expenditure (% of GDP)

So, for that matter, should Ukraine (expenditure 4.0%).


To make an excerpt from the list, %GDP expenditures in 2015 (1988)

Saudi Arabia 13.5 (15.2)
Israel 5.4 (17.1)
Russia: 4.9
Ukraine: 4.0
USA: 3.3 (5.6)
Greece: 2.6 (3.6)
India: 2.4 (3.6)
Poland: 2.2
Turkey: 2.1 (2.9)
France: 2.1 (3.5)
Estonia: 2.0
China: 1.9
UK: 1.9 (3.8 )
Portugal: 1.9 (2.4)
Norway: 1.5 (2.8 )
Netherland: 1.2 (2.6)
Germany: 1.2 (2.5)
Canada: 1.0 (2.0)
Japan: 0.9 (0.9)
Hungary: 0.8
Luxembourg: 0.5 (0.9)
Iceland: 0.1

Back when the Soviet Union ruled the roost, getting 2% wasn't an issue. Though the peace dividend may have been followed by a Putin penalty (the numbers are from 2015, generally up in the NATO area since), it's not quite the same opponent.


The NATO target is that, a target. So is the 1.0% of GDP development aid target, which in 2015 was fulfilled by just three countries: Sweden 1.40%, UAE 1.09%, Norway 1.05%.


Rationally the two targets should be switched outside conflict zones (2% of GDP on development, 1% on defence), far more rational would be targets for results, not for expenditure.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #218 –
It is the actual hard cost of military and as I have previously pointed out the US spends half the world's armament total. But they have to keep the military corporates industry up there. NATO should have been scrapped instead of the members just being toadies to the corporates mindset.

Now they conjure up all sorts of rubbish about Russia invading eastern Europe and such. What an insult to intelligence because it is a load of damn rubbish but the imperial military mindset is working.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #219 –
The Atlantic it's an European sea, so the EUA should be expulsed from Nato. They can always create the Pato, Pacific Treaty Organization.
Pacific suits America well.
A matter of attitude.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #220 –
A European Sea?? The North Sea might be but not that one!
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #221 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
Pacific suits America well.
Well well... they sunk navies, they face the Dear Lider and don't know what to do... China laughs about them... roses everywhere.

While American strategy is this complete stupidity I really don't know what to expect.
A matter of attitude.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #222 –
Well NATO is only a damn excuse for America to continue the modern imperialism of the place.

It was started as a defence against Communism in Europe and of course the old USSR. That side of things are all gone but instead of scrapping the damn waste of money all it does is find alternative excuses to exist. The Baltic states corner is typical of the nonsense and politicians insulting intelligence by bleating that Russia wants to invade them. NATO also spreads it's wings as part of the excuse I state. When the old situation completely changed in Europe  the excuse for NATO was no longer needed but those that gripe about old imperialism long vanished are supporting it in hard ways today with that organisation.
"Quit you like men:be strong"
 

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #223 –
NATO is falling apart around Cyprus
Quote from: https://time.com/5884397/turkey-greece-tensions/
Since it began in mid-August, Turkey’s drilling program, and the gunboat diplomacy that has followed, has contributed to a situation so volatile German foreign minister Heiko Maas on Tuesday warned: “any small spark could lead to catastrophe.” It has prompted Turkey to announce new live-fire military drills to be held off Cyprus’s northern coast next week, with Greece planning rival navy exercises with France, Cyprus, and Italy. The dispute has divided E.U. leaders over how to manage Turkey and drawn in states as far-flung as Egypt and the UAE.
In my opinion, Turkey was always a wrong inclusion in NATO. Also, it is false to pretend that it has any hopes to enter the EU. If it enters, it will be a wrong inclusion.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #224 –
Quote from: ersi on
In my opinion, Turkey was always a wrong inclusion in NATO
I disagree, in my opinion it is extremely important that NATO supports an Islamic country ( I don't know if they still have the secular regime Ata Turk has founded).
The mistake was Europe to rely so much in the USA for defense but it had no other option after WWII. It had plenty of time to change it and did nothing.

As for the EU, I think Turkey should have a privileged status of relationship, not a full right membership.
A matter of attitude.