Does the USA need NATO?

[rupol2000]

Initially, NATO was created as a legal pretext for the occupation of Europe, the presence of the American military there. Europe was extremely limited in its arms buildup and played no independent role. After Eisenhower was overthrown by the left, the situation began to change, Europe began to strengthen and eventually it got out of control of the United States. Now Europe is openly playing against the United States. Therefore, this block does not make any sense. Europeans will be able to use US military forces against US interests. America must either subjugate Europe back (which, of course, the left-wing fagots will not do), or leave NATO.

If the US leaves NATO, it will be immediately clear who is the boss in the world, since the main forces of NATO are still US troops.

Europe will immediately shut up its filthy mouth

 

[gipper]

A better question is, why does the US need a massive military with imperialist motives constantly interfering in foreign nations, solely for the benefit of a few big war making corporations?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

After Eisenhower was overthrown by the left,

When did that happen?

 

[rupol2000]

A better question is, why does the US need a massive military with imperialist motives constantly interfering in foreign nations, solely for the benefit of a few big war making corporations?

The right intervenes for freedom. These are the Aryans of modernity, Great Babylon against Assyrian slavery

 

[rupol2000]

When did that happen?

It happened gradually. After Eisenhower left, there was a series of left-wing coups, the USSR broke away, Khrushchev was deprived of power, then De Gaulle brought ships with dollars to the USA, Europe refused to cover its currencies with dollars, the Bretton Woods system collapsed. In the US, the coup was behind the scenes, in the USSR openly.

Since then, the European Union has been growing stronger. But it still uses the US

 

[22lcidw]

A better question is, why does the US need a massive military with imperialist motives constantly interfering in foreign nations, solely for the benefit of a few big war making corporations?

When the Soviet Union fell, we could have been better at repairing the relationship.

 

[rupol2000]

When the Soviet Union fell, we could have been better at repairing the relationship.

The US had good relations with Russia during the Bush Jr.

 

[Lesh]

Initially, NATO was created as a legal pretext for the occupation of Europe, the presence of the American military there. Europe was extremely limited in its arms buildup and played no independent role. After Eisenhower was overthrown by the left, the situation began to change, Europe began to strengthen and eventually it got out of control of the United States. Now Europe is openly playing against the United States. Therefore, this block does not make any sense. Europeans will be able to use US military forces against US interests. America must either subjugate Europe back (which, of course, the left-wing fagots will not do), or leave NATO.

If the US leaves NATO, it will be immediately clear who is the boss in the world, since the main forces of NATO are still US troops.

Europe will immediately shut up its filthy mouth

Ya know who hates NATO more than anyone?

Yes Putin. It stands in the way of reconstituting the old Soviet Union

 

[gipper]

Ya know who hates NATO more than anyone?

Yes Putin. It stands in the way of reconstituting the old Soviet Union

Foolishness. Putin isn’t trying to reconstitute the USSR, but that is the talking point the war profiteers love to promote.

 

[rupol2000]

Ya know who hates NATO more than anyone?

Yes Putin. It stands in the way of reconstituting the old Soviet Union

This is an illusion. In fact, Moscow is strengthening Germany against the US.
The USSR was also never homogeneous. The USSR of Khrushchev and Gorbachev was loyal to the USA.

If they wanted to recreate the USSR, they would not provoke conflicts in Ukraine

 

[rupol2000]

Foolishness. Putin isn’t trying to reconstitute the USSR, but that is the talking point the war profiteers love to promote.

Putin generally has no real power, in 2012 he left the post of united Russia, and the presidential power in Russia is weak.

The Kremlin is not recreating the USSR but they are playing on the side of Europe and Europe can beat the USA

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It happened gradually. After Eisenhower left, there was a series of left-wing coups, the USSR broke away, Khrushchev was deprived of power, then De Gaulle brought ships with dollars to the USA, Europe refused to cover its currencies with dollars, the Bretton Woods system collapsed. In the US, the coup was behind the scenes, in the USSR openly.

Since then, the European Union has been growing stronger. But it still uses the US

Eisenhower was overthrown by the left, gradually, after he left?

 

[candycorn]

Does the USA need NATO?​

yes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is an illusion. In fact, Moscow is strengthening Germany against the US.
The USSR was also never homogeneous. The USSR of Khrushchev and Gorbachev was loyal to the USA.

If they wanted to recreate the USSR, they would not provoke conflicts in Ukraine

In fact, Moscow is strengthening Germany against the US.

Moscow is a bunch of great guys. They still love Germany, eh tovarish?

 

[rupol2000]

Toddsterpatriot You are kind of clueless

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot You are kind of clueless

Da, comrade.

Tell me more about the overthrow of Ike. DURR

 

[rupol2000]

Da, comrade.

Tell me more about the overthrow of Ike. DURR

You don't need it, you're too stupid for that

 

[Meathead]

Foolishness. Putin isn’t trying to reconstitute the USSR, but that is the talking point the war profiteers love to promote.

Putin is not trying to restore the USSR, but he's dead serious about consolidating Russia's sphere of influence which includes the Ukraine, in his mind.

He has been able to push weak US leaders like Obama and Biden, knowing they only have the fortitude and conviction to respond impotently.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't need it, you're too stupid for that

I'm too stupid to believe Ike was overthrown.

 

[rupol2000]

I'm too stupid to believe Ike was overthrown.

Elections are not such a simple thing as it seems to the layman. Any change of power is accompanied by behind-the-scenes struggle and political events.
I didn't express myself exactly, but that doesn't matter. Yes, formally Eisenhower left legally. Khrushchev - no.