How the West Brought War to Ukraine

[Thumbpicker]

@Thumbpicker one can only imagine what he picks with his thumb downunder.

I'm not the one with the pointy guitar mate

 

[rsm]

I'm not the one with the pointy guitar mate

those pointy guitars get more women then you'll ever see. if you were around in the '80s, you'd know.

now thumbpicking may work better in your area:

 

[JackTheBear]

You can say what you like but at least I'm not some whacko Yank conspiracy theory nut job that is a traitor to his own country promoting Russia.

‘Dumbest Post of the Week Award’,

Right there

 

[YabbaDabbaDoo]

 

[ccn]

U.S. Army Info War Division Wants Social Media Surveillance to Protect “NATO Brand”​

An Army Cyber Command official sought military contractors that could help “attack, defend, influence, and operate” on global social media.​

https://www.globalresearch.ca/amy-i...media-surveillance-protect-nato-brand/5817894

Facebook (Meta) Confirms It Has Ties to a U.S. Military Propaganda Campaign​

The U.S. ruling class has been trying to control and brainwash the public into compliance with their enslavement for decades. This isn’t news, except, Meta is now admitting it.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/faceb...urce=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

 

[pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr]

The idea of the NATO “brand” needing “protection” is idiotic.

NATO is a military alliance whose sole purpose is to deter Russian (and theoretically, other state actors’) incursion into Europe.
Full stop.

Anyone who doesn’t think that sounds like a good idea, would benefit from reading up on some 20th and 21st century history.

NATO is not a moneymaking operation, it is a military alliance.

NATO is not a roundtable of equals, it is a few big dogs and one huge dog who benefit from the insulating properties of some little dogs.

It’s pretty simple:

NATO COUNTRIES DONT GET INVADED

If you support territorial sovereignty of European states, support of NATO follows from that.

 

[JackTheBear]

U.S. Army Info War Division Wants Social Media Surveillance to Protect “NATO Brand”​

https://www.globalresearch.ca/amy-i...media-surveillance-protect-nato-brand/5817894

Facebook (Meta) Confirms It Has Ties to a U.S. Military Propaganda Campaign​

https://www.globalresearch.ca/faceb...urce=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

Very interesting Dude.
Thanks for posting.?

 

[ccn]

The idea of the NATO “brand” needing “protection” is idiotic.

NATO is a military alliance whose sole purpose is to deter Russian (and theoretically, other state actors’) incursion into Europe.
Full stop.

Anyone who doesn’t think that sounds like a good idea, would benefit from reading up on some 20th and 21st century history.

NATO is not a moneymaking operation, it is a military alliance.

NATO is not a roundtable of equals, it is a few big dogs and one huge dog who benefit from the insulating properties of some little dogs.

It’s pretty simple:

NATO COUNTRIES DONT GET INVADED

If you support territorial sovereignty of European states, support of NATO follows from that.

NATO is a military alliance whose sole purpose is to deter Russian (and theoretically, other state actors’) incursion into Europe.
Full stop.



Things have changed a great deal over the years , NATO who's mission was once noble is now using the alliance to force countries to go against their best interests . NATO countries are a part of the WEF's agenda . Europe is controlled by globalists and is no longer a sovereign country , the same with the USA with Biden at the helm .

 

[pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr]

NATO is a military alliance whose sole purpose is to deter Russian (and theoretically, other state actors’) incursion into Europe.
Full stop.



Things have changed a great deal over the years , NATO who's mission was once noble is now using the alliance to force countries to go against their best interests . NATO countries are a part of the WEF's agenda . Europe is controlled by globalists and is no longer a sovereign country , the same with the USA with Biden at the helm .

I disagree with many of the above assertions

but I would be interested to hear:

what do you believe European countries ought to do, to discourage nearby states with vastly larger military forces, from making territorial incursions (or other means of war e.g blockades, etc) against them?

 

[Floyd Eye]

I disagree with many of the above assertions

but I would be interested to hear:

what do you believe European countries ought to do, to discourage nearby states with vastly larger military forces, from making territorial incursions (or other means of war e.g blockades, etc) against them?

Here's an idea. Let the EU take care of it. We don't have any European countries paying for defense of N. America.

 

[pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr]

Here's an idea. Let the EU take care of it. We don't have any European countries paying for defense of N. America.

That thinking is incomplete

1. There is no credible conventional external military threat to North America or the United States specifically

2. The United States benefits directly, both from a military strategic standpoint and in other ways, from a stable and non-adversarial Europe.




the line of reasoning that has been often repeated over the past several years, that NATO costs the USA too much, does not hold up, because
the principal beneficiary of NATO, is the USA.

Another way to put that is, it makes no sense from a USA perspective, to put a price tag on a stable and non-adversarial Europe.

 

[Floyd Eye]

That thinking is incomplete

1. There is no credible conventional external military threat to North America or the United States specifically

2. The United States benefits directly, both from a military strategic standpoint and in other ways, from a stable and non-adversarial Europe.




the line of reasoning that has been often repeated over the past several years, that NATO costs the USA too much, does not hold up, because
the principal beneficiary of NATO, is the USA.

Another way to put that is, it makes no sense from a USA perspective, to put a price tag on a stable and non-adversarial Europe.

I'll give you number one, but the principal beneficiary of NATO is definitely not the USA.

Even if it were, and considering the strategic and military aspect, I would argue that it shouldn't be. We should let Europe worry about Europe and quit interfering in other countries' political and military conflicts.

 

[pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr]

I'll give you number one, but the principal beneficiary of NATO is definitely not the USA.

Even if it were, and considering the strategic and military aspect, I would argue that it shouldn't be. We should let Europe worry about Europe and quit interfering in other countries' political and military conflicts.

The approach you recommend above (for the US to withdraw from, or not directly engage, European affairs) was popular in the early part of the 20th century as well

The result was a continuation of the typical (for the time) European pattern of nearly constant war between the various European states

The problem was, an unstable and constantly-warring Europe hurts American interests (economically and militarily)

NATO has been successful in stopping war in Europe; that is plain.
Fact is, to date, NATO countries simply do not get invaded.

The human, economic, and military costs of war in Europe were and are monstrous. The money price of maintaining NATO which prevents war in Europe, is a bargain.

 

[Picasso]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ncluding-air-defense-systems-and-ammunitions/

 

[Floyd Eye]

The approach you recommend above (for the US to withdraw from, or not directly engage, European affairs) was popular in the early part of the 20th century as well

The result was a continuation of the typical (for the time) European pattern of nearly constant war between the various European states

The problem was, an unstable and constantly-warring Europe hurts American interests (economically and militarily)

NATO has been successful in stopping war in Europe; that is plain.
Fact is, to date, NATO countries simply do not get invaded.

The human, economic, and military costs of war in Europe were and are monstrous. The money price of maintaining NATO which prevents war in Europe, is a bargain.

Disagree.

 

[JackTheBear]

The approach you recommend above (for the US to withdraw from, or not directly engage, European affairs) was popular in the early part of the 20th century as well

The result was a continuation of the typical (for the time) European pattern of nearly constant war between the various European states

The problem was, an unstable and constantly-warring Europe hurts American interests (economically and militarily)

NATO has been successful in stopping war in Europe; that is plain.
Fact is, to date, NATO countries simply do not get invaded.

The human, economic, and military costs of war in Europe were and are monstrous. The money price of maintaining NATO which prevents war in Europe, is a bargain.

Nope.

 

[pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr]

Nope.

Let’s hear your informed historical interpretation, I’m all ears

Edit: and in particular, maybe you can inform us of the last time a NATO country was invaded while it was a NATO member

Let’s hear it

 

[Ben Waylin]

Let’s hear your informed historical interpretation, I’m all ears

Edit: and in particular, maybe you can inform us of the last time a NATO country was invaded while it was a NATO member

Let’s hear it

America is being invaded right now.

?‍

 

[pazuzu-bootsy-baphomet-jr]

America is being invaded right now.

?‍

By a state actor, is what we’re talking about, friendo

Christ

 

[Ben Waylin]

By a state actor, is what we’re talking about, friendo

Christ

Well, America is a NATO country, and it's being invaded right now.

The "state actor" is whoever is pulling Biden's strings.