Post: #1

NATO was originally established to counter the Warsaw Pact, but the latter was disbanded decades ago, while the former keeps expanding.

Pro-NATO fellas (And I know many of them personally), genuinely believe NATO has been vital in stabilizing the world and preventing wars and military chaos in Europe.

I don't agree with them. It's also easy to notice NATO' main priority has never been combatting terrorism, or jihad (In fact the opposite), but rather focusing on "Russian Aggression".

This tweet from NATO' official press account on Twitter from yesterday says it all. It subtly equates RT to ISIS, while read point 4 as well:

I think, NATO is the globalist official army and its job is to provoke and provoke , until the inevitable next big war happens, and it is the globalist' big goal. A huge war full of destruction that gives reason to one-world-government.


- EU has been flirting with idea of establishing their own "European Army". If they go ahead with it, how'd that fit compared to NATO? Do you think it'll happen?

- Do you see NATO succeeding at baiting Russia into war, or do you believe NATO' expansion will be stopped and it'll eventually die out?

Post: #2

Why do you think the goal is to bait Russia into war? Russia is a nuclear power, I doubt that is the goal. Not like we want to invade them or anything.

The goal is to weaken them since they and China are our biggest geopolitical foes. Its not like they even try to hide that though.

Post: #3

(05-10-2017 11:41 AM)Repo Wrote:  Why do you think the goal is to bait Russia into war? Russia is a nuclear power, I doubt that is the goal. Not like we want to invade them or anything.

The goal is to weaken them since they and China are our biggest geopolitical foes. Its not like they even try to hide that though.

Correction: Were [Russia] our biggest geopolitical foes. At least it must be somewhat on Trumps goal table. I don't see him putting his hat in for the EU since they represent a different culture (cultural Marxism) then his and I see that there is much more ideological alignment between the US and RU save a few things like a weakened aristocracy/oligarchy, and a couple of economic practices that are normal in Russia but generally frowned upon in in the US if it is practiced in the open. This is my best guess as to what is going on over there.

NATO will still be around even with a EU Army because the NATO officials will desperately try to keep that organization going despite the writing on the wall. If Western Europe makes the EU Army then NATO will have to change the mission and organization depending on the political situation. Perhaps NATO with merge with OSCE.

I do think that NATO clearly is one of the organizations that help the expansion of the EU empire (America is just duped and EU's attack dog- terrible deal) which is why they are always at odds with RU. Ultimately they would love a EU Eurasian empire with a single EU mono/consumer-culture.

I definitely do know that war between NATO (& US-NATO) and RU will not happen now that Trump is in charge as we make our way not being the lapdogs of EU anymore.

Post: #4

Of course that is the goal of NATO - some kind of global UN army merging into one and being the world police. Also such a future army is highly effective at quelling dissent - you can always use soldiers who are so far away from you that they have no qualms of firing into crowds or napalm-bombing citizens.

Post: #5

The fall of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

Which ended 25 YEARS AGO!

NATO and the EU are the living definitions of mission creep so bureaucrats don't have to lose their jobs.

Post: #6

Sure, please explain how our oil interests do not conflict with Russia.

Post: #7

(05-10-2017 11:41 AM)Repo Wrote:  Why do you think the goal is to bait Russia into war? Russia is a nuclear power, I doubt that is the goal. Not like we want to invade them or anything.

The goal is to weaken them since they and China are our biggest geopolitical foes. Its not like they even try to hide that though.

I don't even think it's possible to hide it.

Here is my reasoning as to why the hopes amongst the membership over rapprochement with Russia may be a long shot and why China is our adversary:

The interesting thing about Russia and China is if you look at where they are on a map, then you look up where the highest population density is in each respective country, the reasons why they continue to be in an adversarial position to the United States becomes clear.

Russia's population is clumped up towards Eastern Europe, which leads them to want to project power over Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The direction in which they want to project power is diametrically opposed to the direction with which the United States wants to project power. This is why even if you attempt rapprochement with Russia it would not last long because our geopolitical interests are diametrically opposed to each other by virtue of sheer geography.

The same could be said of China whose population is clumped up towards the eastern part of the country. This leads China to wanting to project power over South East Asia as the regional hegemon. This again is diametrically opposed to United States geo-political interests once again by sheer virtue of geography.

Post: #8

(05-10-2017 07:45 PM)Repo Wrote:  Sure, please explain how our oil interests do not conflict with Russia.

Both the US and Russia are self-sufficient in oil. So "oil interest" here refers to control over oil and gas reserves in places like the middle east order to get a piece of the oil trade (petrodollars), and to exert influence over countries like China, Japan and Europe that depend on this oil.

Post: #9

(05-10-2017 11:17 AM)AManLikePutin Wrote:  - EU has been flirting with idea of establishing their own "European Army". If they go ahead with it, how'd that fit compared to NATO? Do you think it'll happen?

NATO is the globalist military arm and might eventually be renamed into "UN Armed Forces" or something like that.

"European Army" is a globalist police force despite the deceptive name, a new-generation Gestapo meant to quell internal arrest in Europe.

These are not conflicting ideas.

Post: #10

Pat Buchanan Wrote:We have lost control of our destiny. We have lost the freedom our Founding Fathers implored us to maintain – the freedom to stay out of wars of foreign counties on faraway continents.

Like the British and French empires, the American imperium is not sustainable. We have issued so many war guarantees it is almost assured that we will be dragged into every future great crisis and conflict on the planet.

If we do not review and discard some of these war guarantees, we shall never know peace. Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?

http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/05/what-is-u-...1EWxsCj.99

Post: #11

The UN Armed Forces would require all veto nations to be officially broken to the globalist will. That's not the case yet, unless you believe that Russia and China have alerady been co-opted and are merely fake adversaries.

Post: #12

Question I ask myself, is it really global army needed in Brave New World? Where whole world operates as giving you every pleasure with simultaneously making you dumb, is army really needed to quell uprising?

Of course, this is all viable in scenario where we enter BNW instead of NWO.

Post: #13

(05-12-2017 03:25 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  Question I ask myself, is it really global army needed in Brave New World? Where whole world operates as giving you every pleasure with simultaneously making you dumb, is army really needed to quell uprising?

Of course, this is all viable in scenario where we enter BNW instead of NWO.

In a fully operational Brave New World of total control a global army is hardly necessary anymore - that is their goal, but before that goal is reached they need boots on the ground because many people are not going into the Brave New World system without resistance.

Post: #14

Ah, ok, that makes sense. But with the WWIII and destruction of islam, I don't know how much new violence would be needed to establish this new order (whatever it might be).
Seems to me that enough people will say "ok", so the small minority that rebels would be so insignificant that they don't even bother to use army against them. But I may be wrong, it is too far of a future for now to say that we have all answers.

Post: #15

(05-10-2017 11:41 AM)Repo Wrote:  Why do you think the goal is to bait Russia into war? Russia is a nuclear power, I doubt that is the goal. Not like we want to invade them or anything.

The goal is to weaken them since they and China are our biggest geopolitical foes. Its not like they even try to hide that though.

Our biggest foes are not identifiable as nations. You can't think in terms of "Russia" or "China" as the enemy. You have to think in terms of differing factions that make up every nation, some of which are international. Up until the most recent presidential election, the biggest enemy of the US was in complete control of the US government and working on destroying us from within. They still control a great deal of the government, as well as the news media, entertainment media, and education system. Geopolitical battles at this point are mainly being fought with media and elections and fights for economic power. It's all 4th generational warfare, and the state level posturing or fighting is mainly a reflection of the real struggles.

Post: #16

They are also being fought by proxy wars in the Middle East right now. Ok, so the factions in control of the US have conflicting interests with the factions in control of Russia. Kind of arguing semantics here I think.

Post: #17

NATO should be disbanded, all we're doing is funding the defense of Europe's Islamization.

Merkel and the other Eurocrat faggots all claim that they meet NATO's 2% target because they spend it on "development aid."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/merkel-...id/788451/

Quote:Chancellor Angela Merkel sharpened her tone against President Donald Trump’s demands that Germany spend more on defense, saying she’ll keep insisting that targets on development aid are just as important.

The U.S. administration has ruled out counting foreign aid toward the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product in member states on defense. Trump has said Germany owes “vast sums of money” on security.

“As much as the U.S. government demands meeting NATO’s 2 percent defense spending goal by 2024, we will stand just as much by our 0.7 percent spending on development aid,” Merkel told an industry club in Hamburg on Friday. Germany spends about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense.

Merkel has said Germany will live up to its commitment to NATO burden-sharing, though she’s stuck to the language in a 2014 pledge that alliance members will “move towards” the 2 percent goal over a decade.

“Germany has always made clear that diplomacy and development aid have to be deployed in addition to defense expenditures,” Merkel said in Hamburg. “So I want to make it very clear, Germany stands by what we call our comprehensive approach, which is not confined to military deployments.”

Germany spent 0.5 percent of GDP on development in 2015, compared with 0.17 percent by the U.S., Germany’s Ministry for Economic Cooperation said in data published in January. The United Nations has set a target of 0.7 percent for member countries.

So get this fellas - Germany considers paying for the importation of millions of rapeugees as meeting it's NATO commitments. America is being used by NATO to transform Europe into a Caliphate - we pay for the soldiers and lives lost on the battlefield, while Western Europe pays for the Muslims to come in and live for free.

It couldn't be more outrageous if you imagined it. This is the real story that is barely ever mentioned by the press - and Trump himself should be talking about it - NATO has been co-opted and is used to fund Islamic colonization of Europe.

Lots of people have been thinking that (((special interest))) groups like George Soros's Open Society and such have been funding Islamic migration to Europe, but in reality these groups are a drop in the bucket compared to .7% of Germany's GDP or all the other countries using "development aid" as an excuse to abuse NATO:



And this is from 2013! Can anyone imagine how much worse it has gotten since the Muslim invasion started?

We need to GTFO out of NATO, especially after Macroni's win. I think the dissolution of NATO will happen during Trump. It is extremely unlikely the Western Europeans will pay up, and Trump will just tell them to fuck off.

I could care less if Russia invades - Western Europeans are insane cuckolds hell bent on suicide. There is no way to help such mentally ill patients.

Trump is saying NATO is no longer obsolete now, but he's celebrating preemptively. They aren't going to pay and Trump will go back to calling NATO obsolete.

Post: #18

Good post Samseau. Realistically though, I doubt Trump will dissolve NATO, but I would gladly settle for just an adjustment into its mission, with the emphasis on stepping back from aggressive postures against Russia like proxy wars in Ukraine and Georgia.

What Edmund has implied (correctly so) is that Russia is the enemy of people like Clinton or McCain and the narrow interests they represent.

Putin is supported by ~85% of Russians, because there is plnty of evidence that he has been working for the best interest of his people, having stabilized their country. Russia's GDP after the country was pillaged and raped by the globalists under that stooge Yeltsin was smaller than that of Holland, a country with less than 1/10th the population and something like 1/40th the size. Now it's on the path to pass Canada and Italy to break into the top 9.

The issue is, do we keep looking at Russia as the archrival the way the Soviets were, or do we move on and acknowledge that there are many important mutual benefits in collaborating with them, like killing ISIS and radical salafists in Asia, as well as using the enormous peace dividend brought by a detente towards improving living conditions for both peoples?

The other underlying factor in the PR thrust against Russia is that they have become the main resistance against the globalist social/religious agenda. They are the only major Christian power that are actively advocating true family values and rejecting the subversive filth that the Globalists have been pushing across the West and beyond.

There is also a deep-rooted tribal hatred for Russia which is one of the main reasons Wall Street has funded the Bolsheviks for over a century in order to crush that nation and rot it from inside. This is the real European genocide, with a death toll of 65 million people over a few decades. This ancestral hatred for Orthodox Russia is what still drives neocons like Kagan, Kristol or Nuland and minions like McCain towards a hostile policy against Russia, they want to settle scores for 19th century pogroms.

There is a Realpolitik angle to this Russian antagonism, lead by Brzezinski, who advocated the dismantling of Russia into 4-5 parts (with Kalingrad merged back into Poland/Germany, a greater Finland including St Petersburg, a smaller European Russia and an eastern Siberian republic -or two- under Sino-Japanese influence -see map below-), but at some point we have to stop and think whether we want to spend trillions and risk a live nuclear war in order to play that kind of Risk game... Brzezinski as a Pole also shares the neocons' ancestral enmity towards Russia, but to his credit, he is more of a moderate/pragmatist who realizes the stakes involved in pushing such an aggressive agenda. The neocons though, not so much.



/thread-48360...pid1512630

Post: #19

(05-12-2017 03:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  NATO should be disbanded, all we're doing is funding the defense of Europe's Islamization.

It would be in the US interest to help Europe, since it is primarily responsible for this Muslim invasion of the last 1-2 years.

If you don't want Muslims broaching the gates of the First World, don't bomb the shit out of their nations. It's really quite simple.

Post: #20

(05-12-2017 03:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  NATO should be disbanded, all we're doing is funding the defense of Europe's Islamization.
....
We need to GTFO out of NATO, especially after Macroni's win. I think the dissolution of NATO will happen during Trump. It is extremely unlikely the Western Europeans will pay up, and Trump will just tell them to fuck off.

I could care less if Russia invades - Western Europeans are insane cuckolds hell bent on suicide. There is no way to help such mentally ill patients.

Trump is saying NATO is no longer obsolete now, but he's celebrating preemptively. They aren't going to pay and Trump will go back to calling NATO obsolete.

And pigs will fly, honey and chocolate rivers will flow and we will all hold hands in unity.....

NATO will stay - it will be expanded in fact or one day merge with the only allowed international fighting force under auspices of the UN. The UN by the way is a private organization created by the very same bunch who rule this world.

Post: #21

(05-11-2017 03:19 PM)911 Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 07:45 PM)Repo Wrote:  Sure, please explain how our oil interests do not conflict with Russia.

Both the US and Russia are self-sufficient in oil. So "oil interest" here refers to control over oil and gas reserves in places like the middle east order to get a piece of the oil trade (petrodollars), and to exert influence over countries like China, Japan and Europe that depend on this oil.

Yep. And you have to delineate how much "our oil interests" are actually "ours" and not globalists and others using us for their own agendas.

Post: #22

There is no reason to disband NATO, just make it ineffective. For example, the US can reduce its spending to 1.2% GDP, and the remainder it can use for development aid to the United States and its territories. Dump some of that cash on Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands.

Post: #23

(05-12-2017 04:05 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 03:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  NATO should be disbanded, all we're doing is funding the defense of Europe's Islamization.

It would be in the US interest to help Europe, since it is primarily responsible for this Muslim invasion of the last 1-2 years.

If you don't want Muslims broaching the gates of the First World, don't bomb the shit out of their nations. It's really quite simple.

You can't help people who don't want to help themselves.

We're doing our part in America by getting Trump elected. He's already scaled way back on the wars since taking office. He is not, however, stopping it altogether and I'm sure the US Military continues to regularly bomb military targets based on something know one knows.

Trump did do the disturbing decision of allowing his generals to launch shelling and bombing attacks whenever needed without his authorization, and who knows how these generals base their decisions.

Still - sadly - this is the best the USA will be capable of for the time being. But neither party offers an antiwar candidate. At least Trump isn't into massive military interventions, but the routine skirmishes the USA participates in seems immoral and unwise.

That said, Europe if they were actually serious about giving development aid would be sending soldiers and rebuilding safe zones for refugees instead of transporting them tens of thousands of miles away by the millions. Pretty obvious Europe is more fucked politically than American is, which says a lot.

Post: #24

US has a double edged sword to deal with NATO and the EU countries. If you break up NATO and disolve most of the European military unity you're just creating a vacuum for other entities to take its place, either to counter US or RU perceived or actual aggression.

Eastern Europe see's NATO as a world of good and protects them. Western Europe see's NATO as a burden but Britain likes NATO because we do not think like the Europeans and we are a long standing ally.

Its ok to think why should we finance a military which does not protect us from internal strife and self-delusions of suicidal tendencies. I'm sure adding heavily armed and trained killers to that equation in a democracy would work wonders for national pride.

It would not have the desired effect because the people will soon become sick of the military and the soldiers will get fat, lazy and vulnerable as a result.

The answer is to change. Sticking 1000 MBTs near the Russian border is stupid and a sign of old WW2 tactics. What does even a hundred tanks represent to the Russians?

A threat or a very good target for a nuke? We need to move past this RU v US v China perspective and adapt to the current enemies.

Post: #25

During both WW1 and WW2, a fully militarized Germany taking on Russia 1 on 1 was able to crush it. Throughout most of history (correct me if I'm wrong) Russia was just one among the various great powers of Europe (Germany/Prussia, France, UK, etc) so it makes no sense that there is a permanent alliance structure in place to thwart the supposed Russian threat.

Plus with the rise of electric cars and alternative energy, oil prices, and later gas prices will remain low, starving Russia of its main source of income.

Even if the U.S. never existed, the states of Western Europe could easily defend themselves against Russia if they actually put effort into defending themselves and weren't dealing with the immigration crisis.

So other than protecting the small states just on Russia's periphery, NATO as a defense against Russia doesn't make sense.