So that was in 1944. Yeah, that late, I agree with the argument. But not with the comparison to the topic at hand.
Thanks for addressing all my points. I have a feeling we largely agree anyhow. If your Green party is right the new alliance will probably repurpose parts of NATO anyhow, I don’t think these two can exist side-by-side.
The entire foundation stone of NATO is that member nations rely on the US
I’m uncomfortable with the phrasing, it’s unclear whther it refers to NATO historically (where such a statement was probably more valid) or the present. The way I see it, it is structured in a way that does not require one member state to be the boss, so even if that was effectively the case, it doesn’t have to.
But it makes me think if the USA can even still be a member of NATO, since it’s threatening other NATO memebers almost routinely, and how unlikely it is that they leave by some other means than because they want to.
Yeah, it was late-war, when he was making all sorts of blunders. Of course you’re welcome to disagree and I respect your opinions, but I think it’s a pretty apt comparison, with how much Trump is fucking up with the Iran war, completely torpedoing oil shipping, plunging the Gulf states and Asia into instability, the way that GCC allies have been treated - basically as bullet sponges - while the US pulls missile interceptors from all over the world (incl. South Korea)… all for the benefit of Israel. With that and the US threatening to invade Greenland, I think will really cause NATO members to start reconsidering whether it’s such a good idea to have the hundreds of US military bases within their borders.
Trump talks a big game about leaving NATO, but there’s no shot he actually does it, and I don’t think there’s any chance of kicking the US out of NATO, so I think that just leaves the alternative of creating a new defensive military alliance with member states having their own nuclear stockpiles.
Of course, I could be wrong about everything, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
So that was in 1944. Yeah, that late, I agree with the argument. But not with the comparison to the topic at hand.
Thanks for addressing all my points. I have a feeling we largely agree anyhow. If your Green party is right the new alliance will probably repurpose parts of NATO anyhow, I don’t think these two can exist side-by-side.
I’m uncomfortable with the phrasing, it’s unclear whther it refers to NATO historically (where such a statement was probably more valid) or the present. The way I see it, it is structured in a way that does not require one member state to be the boss, so even if that was effectively the case, it doesn’t have to.
But it makes me think if the USA can even still be a member of NATO, since it’s threatening other NATO memebers almost routinely, and how unlikely it is that they leave by some other means than because they want to.
Yeah, it was late-war, when he was making all sorts of blunders. Of course you’re welcome to disagree and I respect your opinions, but I think it’s a pretty apt comparison, with how much Trump is fucking up with the Iran war, completely torpedoing oil shipping, plunging the Gulf states and Asia into instability, the way that GCC allies have been treated - basically as bullet sponges - while the US pulls missile interceptors from all over the world (incl. South Korea)… all for the benefit of Israel. With that and the US threatening to invade Greenland, I think will really cause NATO members to start reconsidering whether it’s such a good idea to have the hundreds of US military bases within their borders.
Trump talks a big game about leaving NATO, but there’s no shot he actually does it, and I don’t think there’s any chance of kicking the US out of NATO, so I think that just leaves the alternative of creating a new defensive military alliance with member states having their own nuclear stockpiles.
Of course, I could be wrong about everything, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.