Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Unicorny]

In more detail: NATO's terror exporting mechanics:


Link to video.

 

[red_elk]

Why not? Too psychologically overwhelming? There's no reason to doubt that the USA government is capable of terrorizing its own populace as previous plans were proposed to the Kennedy during the 1960's as a pre-text for war on Cuba; including but limited to blowing up painted civilian airplanes and blaming the act on Cuba.

No, it's not psychologically overwhelming for me to think that U.S. government is capable to do different sorts of atrocities. In fact, on these forums I usually argue for this point of view, not against it. Just in 9/11 case, all assumptions about what benefit U.S. government may take from organizing these acts, for me doesn't seem worth the risks. But I admit I didn't study this issue in depth and I respect your point of view.

And I hardly fall under definition of an "average Joe" here, since I was born in Soviet Union

 

[Borachio]

Oh right?

Operation Gladio (Italian: Operazione Gladio) is the codename for a clandestine North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) "stay-behind" operation in Europe during the Cold War. Its purpose was to continue armed resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion and conquest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

As far as I know, this was just a follow-on from WW2. How far, if at all, it involved clandestine forces in Warsaw pact countries themselves is probably something no one will ever know.

 

[Agent327]

No, that's not what happened - though you spend quite a lot of effort to represent it this way.

Then you would have no trouble quoting me wrong, wouldn't you.

You came here attacking my argument about NATO, by bashing Russia's internal policies. While can't answer simple questions and openly admit any wrongdoings of NATO countries. Anyone who followed the thread should be able to understand my point.

I did not. Your 'argument' about NATO fell through by it's own accord. Yet you continue harping on about it. (Apparently a common procedure for you: argument refuted, simply repeat the same argument. Over and over again. And yes: anyone folowing your posts can notice this - and has.)

I wouldn't go as far as to suspect U.S. government in organizing 9/11 event, but for example the things like existence of secret CIA prisons outside of USA territory has been confirmed. Which clearly indicates that covert activity of secret services spreads far beyond public awareness about it. No need even to start talking about Snowden reports.

You are aware that everything you just said is from public records? And, of course, the minute detail that secret CIA prisons were set up after 9/11.

 

[red_elk]

I did not. Your 'argument' about NATO fell through by it's own accord.

No, it worked as intended. You just didn't get it.

And, of course, the minute detail that secret CIA prisons were set up after 9/11.

How it's relevant to my argument?

 

[Agent327]

No, it worked as intended.

By diverting attention from any real issue? Pray tell, what exactly was this point that supposedly did not fall through?

How it's relevant to my argument?

Again missing the point, which was that your argument about 'lacking public awareness' falls through on its own accord when all you mention is from widely publicized public records. So basically, it shows you don't actually have a point.

 

[red_elk]

By diverting attention from any real issue? Pray tell, what exactly was this point that supposedly did not fall through?

If you didn't get it on your own, it's better to leave it as it is.

Again missing the point, which was that your argument about 'lacking public awareness' falls through on its own accord when all you mention is from widely publicized public records.

For example, the data about secret governmental programs published by Snowden, indicates lacking of public awareness about these programs before publishing took place. You are welcome to demonstrate how this argument is invalid.

 

[Agent327]

If you didn't get it on your own, it's better to leave it as it is.

I wasn't asking for myself, but agreed on the latter.

For example, the data about secret governmental programs published by Snowden, indicates lacking of public awareness about these programs before publishing took place. You are welcome to demonstrate how this argument is invalid.

Logical fallacy. You can't have public awareness without public knowledge. (As already mentioned in my first comment, but apparently you missed that as usual.)

 

[red_elk]

Logical fallacy. You can't have public awareness without public knowledge. (As already mentioned in my first comment, but apparently you missed that as usual.)

Attention to details, grasping at straws and inability to get the general idea usually indicates lack of intelligence. If you want to answer to my critics of covert governmental programs in USA, answer to it, instead of searching for missing commas in my texts.

 

[Godwynn]

Would America collectively crap their pants if all of Europe was made part of the Russian Federation?

Given current military spending in Europe, Europe will need the United States to send troops over for a third time.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Given current military spending in Europe, Europe will need the United States to send troops over for a third time.

The less Europe spends on military the less chance US will need to get involved. Its not like Russia with population of over 100 mil. and huge territory to defend can swallow up the rest of Europe with population half a billion. Regardless of other factors only insane brain can entertain such a fantasy.

 

[Commodore]

The less Europe spends on military the less chance US will need to get involved. Its not like Russia with population of over 100 mil. and huge territory to defend can swallow up the rest of Europe with population half a billion. Regardless of other factors only insane brain can entertain such a fantasy.

Exactly. This is why I roll my eyes and laugh every time someone starts trying to paint Russia as some great military threat. I blame Tom Clancy novels and CoD for putting the idea of the "great Russian threat" in people's heads. The only real threat they present comes in the form of their nuclear arsenal, but in terms of being able to take and successfully occupy foreign territory they present a very negligible threat to the EU and the US.

 

[Flying Pig]

Exactly. This is why I roll my eyes and laugh every time someone starts trying to paint Russia as some great military threat. I blame Tom Clancy novels and CoD for putting the idea of the "great Russian threat" in people's heads. The only real threat they present comes in the form of their nuclear arsenal, but in terms of being able to take and successfully occupy foreign territory they present a very negligible threat to the EU and the US.

I think it rather depends which part of the EU you're in - the fact that Russia probably couldn't occupy France isn't all that much comfort to people living in Estonia.

 

[Commodore]

I think it rather depends which part of the EU you're in - the fact that Russia probably couldn't occupy France isn't all that much comfort to people living in Estonia.

But how long would that occupation last though? Given how undermanned the Russian military is in proportion to the territory the must defend, I would say a Russian occupation of Estonia would last, at the most, about as long as Saddam's occupation of Kuwait.

 

[Flying Pig]

Which itself made a general mess of the place, including killing 1000 Kuwaitis.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But how long would that occupation last though? Given how undermanned the Russian military is in proportion to the territory the must defend, I would say a Russian occupation of Estonia would last, at the most, about as long as Saddam's occupation of Kuwait.

But honestly, who could stop a Russian occupation of Estonia? There aren't many feasible options for doing so given how things could quickly escalate to MAD if the Russians were dead set on occupying Estonia.

 

[Commodore]

Which itself made a general mess of the place, including killing 1000 Kuwaitis.

True, but that's beside the point. The point is, in a conventional conflict, Russia really couldn't do anymore than the equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum by throwing their toys everywhere and trying to punch and kick you. Sure, there is a mess to clean up afterwards and you might have a few bruises, but ultimately to permanent harm is done and it's over just as quickly as it started.

Also, since Russia wouldn't have the manpower to both wage an offensive war and defend their territory, they risk having damage done to their infrastructure that could put them in a perpetual state of poverty and weakness.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I do think they have capability to brutally invade, pacify and occupy some smaller eastern European countries though and no one would be in a good position to stop it.

 

[Flying Pig]

True, but that's beside the point. The point is, in a conventional conflict, Russia really couldn't do anymore than the equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum by throwing their toys everywhere and trying to punch and kick you. Sure, there is a mess to clean up afterwards and you might have a few bruises, but ultimately no permanent harm is done and it's over just as quickly as it started.

Also, since Russia wouldn't have the manpower to both wage an offensive war and defend their territory, they risk having damage done to their infrastructure that could put them in a perpetual state of poverty and weakness.

For the people involved it's absolutely the point, and for those 1000 Kuwaitis there was definitely permanent harm done! That's not counting the major economic damage, lost homes, lost jobs, and so on - all of which would make people understandably keen to prevent such an invasion in the first place.

 

[warpus]

Right now they're doing the exact same thing in eastern Ukraine and nobody is doing anything about it.. so..