[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
And why does the US need to be part of NATO? How has this helped us as a nation?[/quote]
We get to bomb Libya for no apparent reason
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Romney is a fake.[/quote]
Yep but you know I miss him as Govenor of Ma vs Obama lite we have here now
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Some governments with power MUST use it to defeat their enemies…[/quote]
You don’t understand that the US government’s enemies are not my enemies.
Governments are evil because they attempt to turn us all into enemies of each other in order to maintain power by fear.
I have no enemies.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
And why does the US need to be part of NATO? How has this helped us as a nation?[/quote]
Oil, security, global stability where do I start?[/quote]
Let’s start with Qaddafi. Seriously, NATO served a role, since the fall of Communism and the creation of the EU that role is diminished twice over. The best NATO can do now is fight third-world dictators to a stalemate.
Ron Paul is a kook when it comes to foreign policy, non-viable as a political entity. That doesn’t make him entirely or even mostly wrong.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
And why does the US need to be part of NATO? How has this helped us as a nation?[/quote]
Oil, security, global stability where do I start?
[/quote]
I’ll let you pick since you seem to think it’s so important.
[/quote]
Okay, global security. Basically NATO is an alliance of the most powerful nations of the free world …[/quote]
Bahahahahahahaha!
You just became irrelevant.[/quote]
What he posted is spot on. When you withdraw and try going into a cocoon you will bring more, not less, havoc. Not interacting and communication with other world powers is a recipe for disaster.
I never thought I’d say this but based on Ron Paul’s crazy foreign policy I think at this point in time I might just vote for Obama over Paul, or stay home. Thank the Lord I will never have to make that choice.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Some governments with power MUST use it to defeat their enemies…[/quote]
You don’t understand that the US government’s enemies are not my enemies.
Governments are evil because they attempt to turn us all into enemies of each other in order to maintain power by fear.
I have no enemies.[/quote]
See a doctor.
NATO was designed to balance against the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. The countries you mention are nowhere near as powerful as the USSR was. For example, South Korea are our allies and as such we would defend them against any aggressive behavior. Other nations could choose to support us or not in this hypothetical situation. South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are not a part of NATO, but we would still defend them. Being part of NATO ensures that we have to enter into conflict if one of the member states is attacked. So for example, when Russia attacked Georgia, if Georgia was a part of NATO we would have to go to war with Russia. This goes back to my original point, how does this benefit the US as a nation?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Some governments with power MUST use it to defeat their enemies…[/quote]
You don’t understand that the US government’s enemies are not my enemies.
Governments are evil because they attempt to turn us all into enemies of each other in order to maintain power by fear.
I have no enemies.[/quote]
See a doctor.[/quote]
How do you sleep at night?
You love murder. You love inflation. You love welfare. You love government.
As does anyone who thinks Ron Paul is a “kook”.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
And why does the US need to be part of NATO? How has this helped us as a nation?[/quote]
Oil, security, global stability where do I start?
[/quote]
I’ll let you pick since you seem to think it’s so important.
[/quote]
Okay, global security. Basically NATO is an alliance of the most powerful nations of the free world …[/quote]
Bahahahahahahaha!
You just became irrelevant.[/quote]
You mean Australia? Australia is a NATO ‘contact country’ as are New Zealand, South Korea and Japan.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
And why does the US need to be part of NATO? How has this helped us as a nation?[/quote]
Oil, security, global stability where do I start?
[/quote]
I’ll let you pick since you seem to think it’s so important.
[/quote]
Okay, global security. Basically NATO is an alliance of the most powerful nations of the free world …[/quote]
Bahahahahahahaha!
You just became irrelevant.[/quote]
You mean Australia? Australia is a NATO ‘contact country’ as are New Zealand, South Korea and Japan.[/quote]
What does that have to do with me and where I live in Saint Paul, MN?
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
NATO was designed to balance against the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.
[/quote]
No, but Russia does. And Russia is now a KGB oligarchy and is as hostile to the west as the Soviet Union was in the 1980’s.
Wrong.
Ron Paul wouldn’t. He’d sit back and watch WWIII erupt.
That’s the whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty. Deterrence.
[quote]
This goes back to my original point, how does this benefit the US as a nation?[/quote]
Global stability, world economy, oil, security etc - My original point.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What does that have to do with me and where I live in Saint Paul, MN?[/quote]
Australia’s connection to NATO? Not much.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
NATO was designed to balance against the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.
[/quote]
No, but Russia does. And Russia is now a KGB oligarchy and is as hostile to the west as the Soviet Union was in the 1980’s.
Wrong.
Ron Paul wouldn’t. He’d sit back and watch WWIII erupt.
That’s the whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty. Deterrence.
[quote]
This goes back to my original point, how does this benefit the US as a nation?[/quote]
Global stability, world economy, oil, security etc - My original point.[/quote]
My opposition was to our inclusion in NATO, not how Ron Paul would react to an armed conflict. You missed my point. How could getting dragged into a war against Russia over Georgia benefit the US? Russia used that as a deterrent towards us because we were including former soviet republics into NATO and Georgia was being considered. Basically my point is, if we were not a part of NATO we could choose which conflicts to involve ourselves in. As a NATO member we are obligated to enter into conflicts even if they are unfavorable for us as a country. And did you honestly argue that modern day Russia, China or North Korea are as powerful as the Soviet Union. I’m not saying “Oh if China and the Soviet Union had a war who would win?” I’m saying their power compared to other countries at the time. China nor Russia is anywhere near as powerful militarily as the USSR was. I’m not even going to include North Korea in that discussion.
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
NATO was designed to balance against the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.
[/quote]
No, but Russia does. And Russia is now a KGB oligarchy and is as hostile to the west as the Soviet Union was in the 1980’s.
Wrong.
Ron Paul wouldn’t. He’d sit back and watch WWIII erupt.
That’s the whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty. Deterrence.
No nation that goes bankrupt is militarily powerful. Russia today could put up a much better conventional fight than the Soviet Union of the 1980’s. Mostly because it can afford to expand its armed services whereas in the 1980’s it couldn’t even afford to pay them.
And if Georgia had been a NATO member state Russia never would’ve invaded South Ossetia/Abkhazia. Again, deterrence. The whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty.
The Soviet Union right before the fall is your argument? NATO was created in the 40’s to combat the Soviets. So Russia is more powerful that the Soviet Union right before they fell, how about the 40 some odd years before then? Again, how does this deterrence benefit the US?
The power of the US military deters our enemies and is being used (or abused) overseas to secure US interests. Russia, China or anyone else is deterred only by the threat of US retaliation. The US sees South Korea as strategically important for example. That’s the only reason we care about South Korea. NATO is obsolete. It doesn’t need to exist for balance to exist.
If the US falls, then the world becomes unstable. I don’t support really any US action overseas but our military alone is deterrent enough. We don’t need to be dragged into foreign wars. And I still have yet to see how being in NATO benefits the US as a nation. Stability can be achieved without NATO.
@SM,
Pieces of paper do not deter anyone from doing anything. Economic prosperity is the best deterrent to warfare.
What keeps people safe – i.e., free and prosperous – theoretically speaking, is a government that allows for economic sustainability (a contradiction in terms, really).
If a government is not economically sustainable (which I argue it can never remain so) it cannot protect anyone with its military.
Every government in NATO has the same problems the US is facing – albeit, to a lesser degree.
If every government were economically sustainable there would be no need for militarism – and in fact, the only way to keep governments economically sustainable are to reduce their foreign military presence along with the welfarism that militarism breeds – that is to say, to reduce government to the size of essentially nothing.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If every government were economically sustainable there would be no need for militarism [/quote]
If I shit diamonds and skittles I’d be rich and never go hungry.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If every government were economically sustainable there would be no need for militarism [/quote]
If I shit diamonds and skittles I’d be rich and never go hungry.
[/quote]
So you agree that it’s impossible for government to be economically sustainable. Great. Half the battle has been won.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If every government were economically sustainable there would be no need for militarism [/quote]
If I shit diamonds and skittles I’d be rich and never go hungry.
[/quote]
So you agree that it’s impossible for government to be economically sustainable. Great. Half the battle has been won.[/quote]
That’s not what I said. What does “every” mean on your planet?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Some governments with power MUST use it to defeat their enemies…[/quote]
You don’t understand that the US government’s enemies are not my enemies.
Governments are evil because they attempt to turn us all into enemies of each other in order to maintain power by fear.
I have no enemies.[/quote]
See a doctor.[/quote]
How do you sleep at night?
You love murder. You love inflation. You love welfare. You love government.
As does anyone who thinks Ron Paul is a “kook”.
[/quote]
I sleep at night knowing that I am a citizen of the United States of America. And whatever happens to the country that I live in effects ME either directly or indirectly. And as a rational adult I also understand that while my government is far from perfect it is far better than any other in the world. I also know that if it were not for America dictators and tyrants would virtually rule the landscape. As for you, you live in a la la land judging my your previous posts on this topic.
I reiterate, go see a doctor. You may very well have something organically wrong with you which causes such bizzarre thoughts.
I’m not trying to irritate you in any way, I am being sincere. Get a check up.