Trump wants to pull U.S. out of NATO

[RandomPoster]

We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.

We did. It was right before the end of WWII.

Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.

 

[Correll]

To be honest, I think he wants to stay in, but only if other countries pick up their share.

No he wants out because of Putin.

Just like when he made a decision to withdraw from Syria. Putin congratulate him. The rest of the world are crying including his own buddies.

What US interests is served by US being in Syria?

To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.

Neither is an US interest. Please try again.

Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.

We cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world. The only way to protect ourselves is to keep the problem as distant as possible. Nothing in gained by overthrowing Assad and replacing him with radical islamo- fascists.

 

[Correll]

If the President wants us out of NATO, there's probably a pretty good reason for it. .

That pretty good reason is for his puppet master Putin to give an edge if there is a war in Europe.

The bill was unanimously passed to protect NATO from our moron POTUS.

What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?

To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.

Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?

Try again, loser.


Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.


What was the intent of NATO?

I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?

The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.


The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.


Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.

 

[gipper]

That pretty good reason is for his puppet master Putin to give an edge if there is a war in Europe.

The bill was unanimously passed to protect NATO from our moron POTUS.

What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?

To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.

Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?

Try again, loser.


Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.


What was the intent of NATO?

I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?

The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.


The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.


Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.

Trump isn’t right on a lot of issues, but he is right about terminating NATO, bugging out of Syria, and getting along with Russia and NK.

I believe he won’t accomplish any of these things, because nothing in our government is more entrenched and powerful than the MIC. The MIC owns and controls the federal government.

 

[Correll]

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.

How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?

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.

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?

You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.


That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?

I think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?

It was a good reason, when the trip line was in the middle of Europe. The strong united front deterred war.


Now, the trip line is a thousand miles to the East.



Entangling alliances have caused just as many World Wars as appeasement.


Both are dangers to be avoided.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.

We did. It was right before the end of WWII.

Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.

Your knowledge of history is equivalent to that of a preschooler.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No he wants out because of Putin.

Just like when he made a decision to withdraw from Syria. Putin congratulate him. The rest of the world are crying including his own buddies.

What US interests is served by US being in Syria?

To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.

Neither is an US interest. Please try again.

Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.

We cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world. The only way to protect ourselves is to keep the problem as distant as possible. Nothing in gained by overthrowing Assad and replacing him with radical islamo- fascists.

That was never the purpose of having our troops in Syria. If it was, it would have happened a long time ago. That is why we are pulling our troops out.

 

[charwin95]

That pretty good reason is for his puppet master Putin to give an edge if there is a war in Europe.

The bill was unanimously passed to protect NATO from our moron POTUS.

What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?

To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.

Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?

Try again, loser.


Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.


What was the intent of NATO?

I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?

1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.


The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.


2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.

1. From your post. Soviet Union is gone but Putin interest of de stabilization of western countries is very well alive. Invasion of his neighboring countries are evidence. Invading my country USA democracy is not acceptable.
Supporting countries and selling arms that sponsors terrorism like Iran and Syria. Etc etc etc etc.

2. You started it jerk. You just called me ........ red baiting fucker.
So I retaliated calling you ...... dog shit Putin lover.

Why don’t you just stick with the topic instead of calling people other names?
When people like you started this kind insulting calling other names..... Is an indications that you are losing or a loser.

 

[deanrd]

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?

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 interests

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.

How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?

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.

Wow, and somehow, you forgot to mention Russia attacking it's neighbors and stealing land.

Glad that doesn't happen anymore.

Or does it?

 

[charwin95]

No he wants out because of Putin.

Just like when he made a decision to withdraw from Syria. Putin congratulate him. The rest of the world are crying including his own buddies.

What US interests is served by US being in Syria?

To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.

Neither is an US interest. Please try again.

Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.

We cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world. The only way to protect ourselves is to keep the problem as distant as possible. Nothing in gained by overthrowing Assad and replacing him with radical islamo- fascists.

True we cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world but distancing ourselves do not solve the problem either.
Because.
1. With the presence of US troops in Syria helps or somehow stabilize the region. Turkey is ready to invade PKK territory as soon as US troops leave.

2. Prevent Syria, Iran and Russia taking over ME.

3. What do you think is going to happen if and when Iran takes over the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman?

4. What do you think is going to happen to US interest in that region?

5. The only one that supports your opinion is Tucker or Fox News. So far I have not heard or seen any military personnel or law makers both republicans or democrat support the idea of withdrawing from NATO or Syria.

 

[Slade3200]

How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?

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.

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?

You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.


That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?

I think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?

It was a good reason, when the trip line was in the middle of Europe. The strong united front deterred war.


Now, the trip line is a thousand miles to the East.



Entangling alliances have caused just as many World Wars as appeasement.


Both are dangers to be avoided.

True, but as the worlds superpower it is best for us to be smart with how we lead and engage with our allies and enemies through strong diplomacy rather than retreat and let somebody else fill the power vacuum

 

[Correll]

What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?

To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.

Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?

Try again, loser.


Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.


What was the intent of NATO?

I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?

1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.


The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.


2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.

1. From your post. Soviet Union is gone but Putin interest of de stabilization of western countries is very well alive. Invasion of his neighboring countries are evidence. Invading my country USA democracy is not acceptable.
Supporting countries and selling arms that sponsors terrorism like Iran and Syria. Etc etc etc etc.

2. You started it jerk. You just called me ........ red baiting fucker.
So I retaliated calling you ...... dog shit Putin lover.

Why don’t you just stick with the topic instead of calling people other names?
When people like you started this kind insulting calling other names..... Is an indications that you are losing or a loser.

1. Soviet Union is gone. Russia is a pale shadow of that real threat. Putin dreams of someday controlling the Ukraine, a nation that has been part of the Russian empire for centuries. That is not something that America needs to be involved in.

2. Your attempt to conflate some internet trolls with "invasion" is noted and laughed at. lol!

3. I took your insults to my President somewhat personally, as a supporter. So, I responded appropriately. And that fact that you were red baiting and it is absurd to do so at this late date, is completely fair.

 

[Correll]

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 interests

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.

How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?

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.

Wow, and somehow, you forgot to mention Russia attacking it's neighbors and stealing land.

Glad that doesn't happen anymore.

Or does it?

Is it America's job to ensure and protect every border on the planet?

 

[Correll]

What US interests is served by US being in Syria?

To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.

Neither is an US interest. Please try again.

Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.

We cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world. The only way to protect ourselves is to keep the problem as distant as possible. Nothing in gained by overthrowing Assad and replacing him with radical islamo- fascists.

True we cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world but distancing ourselves do not solve the problem either.
Because.
1. With the presence of US troops in Syria helps or somehow stabilize the region. Turkey is ready to invade PKK territory as soon as US troops leave.

2. Prevent Syria, Iran and Russia taking over ME.

3. What do you think is going to happen if and when Iran takes over the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman?

4. What do you think is going to happen to US interest in that region?

5. The only one that supports your opinion is Tucker or Fox News. So far I have not heard or seen any military personnel or law makers both republicans or democrat support the idea of withdrawing from NATO or Syria.

Distancing would certainly reduce the problem. They cannot kill US, if they cannot get to US or our people.


1. We are not going to keep troops there forever. So, if Turkey is just waiting for US to leave to invade, then stabilization is a fantasy.

2. If Putin wants to spend Russia lives and treasure fighting Islamo-fascists, I wish him well.

3. No idea.

4. US interests in the region is that the oil continues to flow. As long as shitty Third World government there need money to pay off their population, that will occur.

5. Your Appeal to Authority is noted and dismissed. Even though the use of a logical fallacy like that is an admission that you know your position is wrong, I am willing to hear your responses to points 1 though 4.

 

[Correll]

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.

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?

You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.


That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?

I think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?

It was a good reason, when the trip line was in the middle of Europe. The strong united front deterred war.


Now, the trip line is a thousand miles to the East.



Entangling alliances have caused just as many World Wars as appeasement.


Both are dangers to be avoided.

True, but as the worlds superpower it is best for us to be smart with how we lead and engage with our allies and enemies through strong diplomacy rather than retreat and let somebody else fill the power vacuum

Pushing the trip line to the Russian border was not smart.


Putting military forces into the black sea in support of people fighting Russia, was not smart.


Wanting to set up a no fly zone, that would have required US pilots to possibly fire on Russia planes to enforce, was the exact opposite of smart.


Smart left the building a long time ago. We now have to deal with the situation that stupid gave us.


De-escalation of tension is the smart thing to do now.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.


That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?

I think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?

It was a good reason, when the trip line was in the middle of Europe. The strong united front deterred war.


Now, the trip line is a thousand miles to the East.



Entangling alliances have caused just as many World Wars as appeasement.


Both are dangers to be avoided.

True, but as the worlds superpower it is best for us to be smart with how we lead and engage with our allies and enemies through strong diplomacy rather than retreat and let somebody else fill the power vacuum

Pushing the trip line to the Russian border was not smart.


Putting military forces into the black sea in support of people fighting Russia, was not smart.


Wanting to set up a no fly zone, that would have required US pilots to possibly fire on Russia planes to enforce, was the exact opposite of smart.


Smart left the building a long time ago. We now have to deal with the situation that stupid gave us.


De-escalation of tension is the smart thing to do now.

You could be right. Without knowing all the intel that influenced those decisions I can’t really pass judgement.

 

[RandomPoster]

We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.

We did. It was right before the end of WWII.

Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.

Your knowledge of history is equivalent to that of a preschooler.

I know enough about history to know that the current state of our NATO allies is sad. More importantly, I know enough of our current situation to decide that it is best to give up on them and start looking for new allies.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.

We did. It was right before the end of WWII.

Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.

Your knowledge of history is equivalent to that of a preschooler.

I know enough about history to know that the current state of our NATO allies is sad. More importantly, I know enough of our current situation to decide that it is best to give up on them and start looking for new allies.

You apparently don't know anything. Our current deadbeat NATO allies are in western Europe. The eastern Europeans need us to prevent Russia from rolling over them like they have done since WWII and the end of the Cold War.

 

[charwin95]

To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.

Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?

Try again, loser.


Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.


What was the intent of NATO?

I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?

1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.


The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.


2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.

1. From your post. Soviet Union is gone but Putin interest of de stabilization of western countries is very well alive. Invasion of his neighboring countries are evidence. Invading my country USA democracy is not acceptable.
Supporting countries and selling arms that sponsors terrorism like Iran and Syria. Etc etc etc etc.

2. You started it jerk. You just called me ........ red baiting fucker.
So I retaliated calling you ...... dog shit Putin lover.

Why don’t you just stick with the topic instead of calling people other names?
When people like you started this kind insulting calling other names..... Is an indications that you are losing or a loser.

1. Soviet Union is gone. Russia is a pale shadow of that real threat. Putin dreams of someday controlling the Ukraine, a nation that has been part of the Russian empire for centuries. That is not something that America needs to be involved in.

2. Your attempt to conflate some internet trolls with "invasion" is noted and laughed at. lol!

3. I took your insults to my President somewhat personally, as a supporter. So, I responded appropriately. And that fact that you were red baiting and it is absurd to do so at this late date, is completely fair.

1. Soviet is gone but Russia’s interest are the same. You may want to ask Putin’s neighboring countries how nervous they are from Putin invasion.
That’s the only reason why US military are presence in those eastern block countries. Putin could have invaded them. That is why they joined NATO.

2. You started it dude. I only retaliated. You may want to go back and read your previous post.

3. You may want to look how they insult Obama. What comes around goes around.
Trump is fucking hypocrite moron. He made this country a racist, Ignorant bully and laughingstock around the world.

 

[deanrd]

To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.

Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?

Try again, loser.


Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.


What was the intent of NATO?

I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?

1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.


The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.


2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.

1. From your post. Soviet Union is gone but Putin interest of de stabilization of western countries is very well alive. Invasion of his neighboring countries are evidence. Invading my country USA democracy is not acceptable.
Supporting countries and selling arms that sponsors terrorism like Iran and Syria. Etc etc etc etc.

2. You started it jerk. You just called me ........ red baiting fucker.
So I retaliated calling you ...... dog shit Putin lover.

Why don’t you just stick with the topic instead of calling people other names?
When people like you started this kind insulting calling other names..... Is an indications that you are losing or a loser.

1. Soviet Union is gone. Russia is a pale shadow of that real threat. Putin dreams of someday controlling the Ukraine, a nation that has been part of the Russian empire for centuries. That is not something that America needs to be involved in.

2. Your attempt to conflate some internet trolls with "invasion" is noted and laughed at. lol!

3. I took your insults to my President somewhat personally, as a supporter. So, I responded appropriately. And that fact that you were red baiting and it is absurd to do so at this late date, is completely fair.

Pale threat?

Hilarious!

Our president works for Putin.