Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you understand what “ power through strength” means? The whole point of having an allowance like NATO is to detour war. There won’t be a war or invasion in Estonia because that means whoever is attacking would have to face the wrath of NATO and that is suicide, no country in their right mind will escalate it to that level. So instead of war there is dimplomacy.Trump wants to pull U.S. out of NATO: NYT
President Donald Trump has discussed pulling the United States out of NATO — a move that, if executed, would diminish America's world stature and embolden Russia to make advances against Europe, according to a new New York Times report.
"Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," the paper reported on Monday.
----------------
So what do you think? Trump can't pull us out of NATO without help from the Senate.
Will the GOP Senate help Trump isolate us, finish off our agriculture and beef industries and isolate us from business around the world?
It is utter madness that we are treaty bound to fight a war over Estonia.
Only people who are trying to fear monger bring up this threat of war over Estonia. Tucker Carlson tried it on his show last night and sounded like a fool. We have an advantage with every alliance we hold around the world. It enables us to position military assets in strategic places, better gather intelligence and to promote and protect our democratic values. It also doesn’t cost us anything despite what is being painted by our president. With or without NATO we would be spending a buttload on defense.Do you understand what “ power through strength” means? The whole point of having an allowance like NATO is to detour war. There won’t be a war or invasion in Estonia because that means whoever is attacking would have to face the wrath of NATO and that is suicide, no country in their right mind will escalate it to that level. So instead of war there is dimplomacy.Trump wants to pull U.S. out of NATO: NYT
President Donald Trump has discussed pulling the United States out of NATO — a move that, if executed, would diminish America's world stature and embolden Russia to make advances against Europe, according to a new New York Times report.
"Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," the paper reported on Monday.
----------------
So what do you think? Trump can't pull us out of NATO without help from the Senate.
Will the GOP Senate help Trump isolate us, finish off our agriculture and beef industries and isolate us from business around the world?
It is utter madness that we are treaty bound to fight a war over Estonia.
I understand that.
It made sense when the country in question was West Germany.
Flipping West Germany to the Soviets would have upset the global balance of power, possibly leading to a Commie dominated world, or a WWIII, with US at a disadvantage.
Being prepared to fight over that, made sense.
Flipping Estonia, to Russia, would mean nothing to anyone, other than the poor Estonians.
It does NOT make sense to be prepared to go to war over that.
Only people who are trying to fear monger bring up this threat of war over Estonia. Tucker Carlson tried it on his show last night and sounded like a fool. We have an advantage with every alliance we hold around the world. It enables us to position military assets in strategic places, better gather intelligence and to promote and protect our democratic values. It also doesn’t cost us anything despite what is being painted by our president. With or without NATO we would be spending a buttload on defense.Do you understand what “ power through strength” means? The whole point of having an allowance like NATO is to detour war. There won’t be a war or invasion in Estonia because that means whoever is attacking would have to face the wrath of NATO and that is suicide, no country in their right mind will escalate it to that level. So instead of war there is dimplomacy.Trump wants to pull U.S. out of NATO: NYT
President Donald Trump has discussed pulling the United States out of NATO — a move that, if executed, would diminish America's world stature and embolden Russia to make advances against Europe, according to a new New York Times report.
"Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," the paper reported on Monday.
----------------
So what do you think? Trump can't pull us out of NATO without help from the Senate.
Will the GOP Senate help Trump isolate us, finish off our agriculture and beef industries and isolate us from business around the world?
It is utter madness that we are treaty bound to fight a war over Estonia.
I understand that.
It made sense when the country in question was West Germany.
Flipping West Germany to the Soviets would have upset the global balance of power, possibly leading to a Commie dominated world, or a WWIII, with US at a disadvantage.
Being prepared to fight over that, made sense.
Flipping Estonia, to Russia, would mean nothing to anyone, other than the poor Estonians.
It does NOT make sense to be prepared to go to war over that.
Are you thinking that if we dropped out of NATO we would then drastically cut our military budget? Is that what you think Trump is trying to do?
Well we aren’t going to have to fight a war because Russia isn’t going to attack Estonia and risk a nuclear war against the worlds superpowers. It won’t happen. And for us to be allied with a country in close proximity to a foe like Russia can only help us gather intelligence and position military assets to better protect ourselves of the need was ever there.Only people who are trying to fear monger bring up this threat of war over Estonia. Tucker Carlson tried it on his show last night and sounded like a fool. We have an advantage with every alliance we hold around the world. It enables us to position military assets in strategic places, better gather intelligence and to promote and protect our democratic values. It also doesn’t cost us anything despite what is being painted by our president. With or without NATO we would be spending a buttload on defense.Do you understand what “ power through strength” means? The whole point of having an allowance like NATO is to detour war. There won’t be a war or invasion in Estonia because that means whoever is attacking would have to face the wrath of NATO and that is suicide, no country in their right mind will escalate it to that level. So instead of war there is dimplomacy.Trump wants to pull U.S. out of NATO: NYT
President Donald Trump has discussed pulling the United States out of NATO — a move that, if executed, would diminish America's world stature and embolden Russia to make advances against Europe, according to a new New York Times report.
"Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," the paper reported on Monday.
----------------
So what do you think? Trump can't pull us out of NATO without help from the Senate.
Will the GOP Senate help Trump isolate us, finish off our agriculture and beef industries and isolate us from business around the world?
It is utter madness that we are treaty bound to fight a war over Estonia.
I understand that.
It made sense when the country in question was West Germany.
Flipping West Germany to the Soviets would have upset the global balance of power, possibly leading to a Commie dominated world, or a WWIII, with US at a disadvantage.
Being prepared to fight over that, made sense.
Flipping Estonia, to Russia, would mean nothing to anyone, other than the poor Estonians.
It does NOT make sense to be prepared to go to war over that.
Are you thinking that if we dropped out of NATO we would then drastically cut our military budget? Is that what you think Trump is trying to do?
It is not fearmongering to ask if Estonia is worth a major war with Russia, one fought, literally on their border, and on the other side of the world from US.
Indeed, it is a major failure of our political system, that we did not have a serious discussion about this before NATO expanded to include Estonia.
We should not be committed to fighting a war over anyone or anything, that is not important to the US or US interests.
Well we aren’t going to have to fight a war because Russia isn’t going to attack Estonia and risk a nuclear war against the worlds superpowers. It won’t happen. And for us to be allied with a country in close proximity to a foe like Russia can only help us gather intelligence and position military assets to better protect ourselves of the need was ever there.Only people who are trying to fear monger bring up this threat of war over Estonia. Tucker Carlson tried it on his show last night and sounded like a fool. We have an advantage with every alliance we hold around the world. It enables us to position military assets in strategic places, better gather intelligence and to promote and protect our democratic values. It also doesn’t cost us anything despite what is being painted by our president. With or without NATO we would be spending a buttload on defense.Do you understand what “ power through strength” means? The whole point of having an allowance like NATO is to detour war. There won’t be a war or invasion in Estonia because that means whoever is attacking would have to face the wrath of NATO and that is suicide, no country in their right mind will escalate it to that level. So instead of war there is dimplomacy.It is utter madness that we are treaty bound to fight a war over Estonia.
I understand that.
It made sense when the country in question was West Germany.
Flipping West Germany to the Soviets would have upset the global balance of power, possibly leading to a Commie dominated world, or a WWIII, with US at a disadvantage.
Being prepared to fight over that, made sense.
Flipping Estonia, to Russia, would mean nothing to anyone, other than the poor Estonians.
It does NOT make sense to be prepared to go to war over that.
Are you thinking that if we dropped out of NATO we would then drastically cut our military budget? Is that what you think Trump is trying to do?
It is not fearmongering to ask if Estonia is worth a major war with Russia, one fought, literally on their border, and on the other side of the world from US.
Indeed, it is a major failure of our political system, that we did not have a serious discussion about this before NATO expanded to include Estonia.
We should not be committed to fighting a war over anyone or anything, that is not important to the US or US interests.
Fair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?Well we aren’t going to have to fight a war because Russia isn’t going to attack Estonia and risk a nuclear war against the worlds superpowers. It won’t happen. And for us to be allied with a country in close proximity to a foe like Russia can only help us gather intelligence and position military assets to better protect ourselves of the need was ever there.Only people who are trying to fear monger bring up this threat of war over Estonia. Tucker Carlson tried it on his show last night and sounded like a fool. We have an advantage with every alliance we hold around the world. It enables us to position military assets in strategic places, better gather intelligence and to promote and protect our democratic values. It also doesn’t cost us anything despite what is being painted by our president. With or without NATO we would be spending a buttload on defense.Do you understand what “ power through strength” means? The whole point of having an allowance like NATO is to detour war. There won’t be a war or invasion in Estonia because that means whoever is attacking would have to face the wrath of NATO and that is suicide, no country in their right mind will escalate it to that level. So instead of war there is dimplomacy.
I understand that.
It made sense when the country in question was West Germany.
Flipping West Germany to the Soviets would have upset the global balance of power, possibly leading to a Commie dominated world, or a WWIII, with US at a disadvantage.
Being prepared to fight over that, made sense.
Flipping Estonia, to Russia, would mean nothing to anyone, other than the poor Estonians.
It does NOT make sense to be prepared to go to war over that.
Are you thinking that if we dropped out of NATO we would then drastically cut our military budget? Is that what you think Trump is trying to do?
It is not fearmongering to ask if Estonia is worth a major war with Russia, one fought, literally on their border, and on the other side of the world from US.
Indeed, it is a major failure of our political system, that we did not have a serious discussion about this before NATO expanded to include Estonia.
We should not be committed to fighting a war over anyone or anything, that is not important to the US or US interests.
And that's part of the problem.
We are committed to fighting a war to defend Estonia.
I asked if it was worth fighting a war.
Your response should have been to argue that it is.
Instead you assure me that we will not have to fight a war over Estonia, because Russia would not dare to attack.
That type of response raises the possibility that our commitment to Estonia, is a bluff.
And that's where things get really dangerous.
Fair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?Well we aren’t going to have to fight a war because Russia isn’t going to attack Estonia and risk a nuclear war against the worlds superpowers. It won’t happen. And for us to be allied with a country in close proximity to a foe like Russia can only help us gather intelligence and position military assets to better protect ourselves of the need was ever there.Only people who are trying to fear monger bring up this threat of war over Estonia. Tucker Carlson tried it on his show last night and sounded like a fool. We have an advantage with every alliance we hold around the world. It enables us to position military assets in strategic places, better gather intelligence and to promote and protect our democratic values. It also doesn’t cost us anything despite what is being painted by our president. With or without NATO we would be spending a buttload on defense.I understand that.
It made sense when the country in question was West Germany.
Flipping West Germany to the Soviets would have upset the global balance of power, possibly leading to a Commie dominated world, or a WWIII, with US at a disadvantage.
Being prepared to fight over that, made sense.
Flipping Estonia, to Russia, would mean nothing to anyone, other than the poor Estonians.
It does NOT make sense to be prepared to go to war over that.
Are you thinking that if we dropped out of NATO we would then drastically cut our military budget? Is that what you think Trump is trying to do?
It is not fearmongering to ask if Estonia is worth a major war with Russia, one fought, literally on their border, and on the other side of the world from US.
Indeed, it is a major failure of our political system, that we did not have a serious discussion about this before NATO expanded to include Estonia.
We should not be committed to fighting a war over anyone or anything, that is not important to the US or US interests.
And that's part of the problem.
We are committed to fighting a war to defend Estonia.
I asked if it was worth fighting a war.
Your response should have been to argue that it is.
Instead you assure me that we will not have to fight a war over Estonia, because Russia would not dare to attack.
That type of response raises the possibility that our commitment to Estonia, is a bluff.
And that's where things get really dangerous.
Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsFair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?Well we aren’t going to have to fight a war because Russia isn’t going to attack Estonia and risk a nuclear war against the worlds superpowers. It won’t happen. And for us to be allied with a country in close proximity to a foe like Russia can only help us gather intelligence and position military assets to better protect ourselves of the need was ever there.Only people who are trying to fear monger bring up this threat of war over Estonia. Tucker Carlson tried it on his show last night and sounded like a fool. We have an advantage with every alliance we hold around the world. It enables us to position military assets in strategic places, better gather intelligence and to promote and protect our democratic values. It also doesn’t cost us anything despite what is being painted by our president. With or without NATO we would be spending a buttload on defense.
Are you thinking that if we dropped out of NATO we would then drastically cut our military budget? Is that what you think Trump is trying to do?
It is not fearmongering to ask if Estonia is worth a major war with Russia, one fought, literally on their border, and on the other side of the world from US.
Indeed, it is a major failure of our political system, that we did not have a serious discussion about this before NATO expanded to include Estonia.
We should not be committed to fighting a war over anyone or anything, that is not important to the US or US interests.
And that's part of the problem.
We are committed to fighting a war to defend Estonia.
I asked if it was worth fighting a war.
Your response should have been to argue that it is.
Instead you assure me that we will not have to fight a war over Estonia, because Russia would not dare to attack.
That type of response raises the possibility that our commitment to Estonia, is a bluff.
And that's where things get really dangerous.
I would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsFair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?Well we aren’t going to have to fight a war because Russia isn’t going to attack Estonia and risk a nuclear war against the worlds superpowers. It won’t happen. And for us to be allied with a country in close proximity to a foe like Russia can only help us gather intelligence and position military assets to better protect ourselves of the need was ever there.It is not fearmongering to ask if Estonia is worth a major war with Russia, one fought, literally on their border, and on the other side of the world from US.
Indeed, it is a major failure of our political system, that we did not have a serious discussion about this before NATO expanded to include Estonia.
We should not be committed to fighting a war over anyone or anything, that is not important to the US or US interests.
And that's part of the problem.
We are committed to fighting a war to defend Estonia.
I asked if it was worth fighting a war.
Your response should have been to argue that it is.
Instead you assure me that we will not have to fight a war over Estonia, because Russia would not dare to attack.
That type of response raises the possibility that our commitment to Estonia, is a bluff.
And that's where things get really dangerous.
I would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsFair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?Well we aren’t going to have to fight a war because Russia isn’t going to attack Estonia and risk a nuclear war against the worlds superpowers. It won’t happen. And for us to be allied with a country in close proximity to a foe like Russia can only help us gather intelligence and position military assets to better protect ourselves of the need was ever there.
And that's part of the problem.
We are committed to fighting a war to defend Estonia.
I asked if it was worth fighting a war.
Your response should have been to argue that it is.
Instead you assure me that we will not have to fight a war over Estonia, because Russia would not dare to attack.
That type of response raises the possibility that our commitment to Estonia, is a bluff.
And that's where things get really dangerous.
I would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
I'd like to see any report they might have generated with those arguments, specifically what American Interests, and if that report detailed how extremely difficult it would be for US to defend Estonia.
Really!Really?It's because of NATO we don't have to die dum dum. Try to figure out why?Somebody want to tell me why American boys should die for other countries?
How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsFair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?And that's part of the problem.
We are committed to fighting a war to defend Estonia.
I asked if it was worth fighting a war.
Your response should have been to argue that it is.
Instead you assure me that we will not have to fight a war over Estonia, because Russia would not dare to attack.
That type of response raises the possibility that our commitment to Estonia, is a bluff.
And that's where things get really dangerous.
I would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
I'd like to see any report they might have generated with those arguments, specifically what American Interests, and if that report detailed how extremely difficult it would be for US to defend Estonia.
Prove it dumbass!What is so strange about Republicans is how they go on about how they hate communism. But they love Vladimir Putin who is the former head of the KGB and now controls Russia as a despot dictator.
I think they love communism, but they hate the word.
It’s the same way with Obamacare. They love Obamacare, but they hate the fact that it has but Obama’s name in it.
Prove it dumbass!What is so strange about Republicans is how they go on about how they hate communism. But they love Vladimir Putin who is the former head of the KGB and now controls Russia as a despot dictator.
I think they love communism, but they hate the word.
It’s the same way with Obamacare. They love Obamacare, but they hate the fact that it has but Obama’s name in it.
So the only reason that justifies our presence in South Korea is because we owe them protection from China because of the Vietnam war? That’s an interesting take. If it weren’t for Vietnam do you think we shouldn’t have a military presence over there?How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsFair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?
I would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
I'd like to see any report they might have generated with those arguments, specifically what American Interests, and if that report detailed how extremely difficult it would be for US to defend Estonia.
Cold War is over. The reason for our alliance with them is long gone.
There is a debt of honor to those South Koreans who fought along side US in Korea and Vietnam, but those guys are old and fading away while the young South Koreans, from everything I hear are just as poisoned with anti-American liberalism as our own.
And the risk is not from North Korean, but from China.
South Korea by itself could defend itself from North Korea easily. China? Not so much.
Those Progressive Socialists and Islam friendly Euro-Democrats had better figure out how to protect themselves without our help.Trump wants to pull U.S. out of NATO: NYT
President Donald Trump has discussed pulling the United States out of NATO — a move that, if executed, would diminish America's world stature and embolden Russia to make advances against Europe, according to a new New York Times report.
"Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization," the paper reported on Monday.
----------------
So what do you think? Trump can't pull us out of NATO without help from the Senate.
Will the GOP Senate help Trump isolate us, finish off our agriculture and beef industries and isolate us from business around the world?
Beautiful.If the President wants us out of NATO, there's probably a pretty good reason for it. .
So the only reason that justifies our presence in South Korea is because we owe them protection from China because of the Vietnam war? That’s an interesting take. If it weren’t for Vietnam do you think we shouldn’t have a military presence over there?How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsI would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
I'd like to see any report they might have generated with those arguments, specifically what American Interests, and if that report detailed how extremely difficult it would be for US to defend Estonia.
Cold War is over. The reason for our alliance with them is long gone.
There is a debt of honor to those South Koreans who fought along side US in Korea and Vietnam, but those guys are old and fading away while the young South Koreans, from everything I hear are just as poisoned with anti-American liberalism as our own.
And the risk is not from North Korean, but from China.
South Korea by itself could defend itself from North Korea easily. China? Not so much.
I fail to see the problem.
