Can NATO deadbeats stop being deadbeats even if they wanted to?

[paxamericana]

No they lack the economic strength with too many retiree and welfare programs to fund a military industrial complex. They are perpetual deadbeats. 

Edited April 13 by paxamericana

[herbie]

Sure calling people names, threatening and taunting them really makes them do what you want, right?
F-cking MAGA warmonger m0ron, it's a defence organization, it comes to your aid if you're attacked, not if you start a war without even consulting them.

Didn't clue in renaming the pig boy Hegseth to the Secretary of War? Didn't elect an oaf that's done nothing but f-ck over every ally economically? Didn't clue in how he defends other democracies with that shemess treatment of Zelensky and repeated threats to vut off aid to Ukraine?

Your entire administration can go pi55 up a rope if it expects anything from any other country on  the planet.

Be happy they're deadbeats or you'd already be glowing in the dark.

 

BTW if you trolling is intent on making people dislike Americans, you're doing a good job. Unfortunately though the normal common sense ones get smeared with the same shit.

[User]

Speaking of deadbeats… here comes @herbie who is one of the deadbeat freeloaders. 

[John Stone]

 

Throughout the Cold War (1945-91) NATO's purpose was to deter and counter Russia and  it's satellite countries which together made up the Warsaw Pact. 

Although  Article 5 has only been  invoked once,  following 9/11, there has been occasion where arguably,  the mere existence of NATO  had the  intimidating effect of preventing an all-out nuke exchange  between the 2 superpowers of the time. (Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962)

NATO was designed for defending North America,  Europe and Turkey and article 5 is  invoked with any attack against member countries within those continents. (Bosnia notwithstanding - UN)

With the collapse of the USSR (Warsaw Pact) and the resulting much diminished Russia (nukes notwithstanding) has the need for NATO been removed?

There is no question, that today, Europe, with it's combined economies,  could not put on it's big girl panties (gear up) and deter any Russian aggression - Russia is only a ghost of what it was during the Cold  War - it could be argued that it is not even  a global power, look ma .................. no money, dated equipment,  low morale, poor leadership.  ideological malaise. 

NATO on the other hand is a global power in every calculus - money, equipment, allies, bases, training, influence, political clout, etc.

Who does NATO benefit, today?

Could NATO be a deterring effect in the future as it has in  the past?

 

Edited April 13 by John Stone

[Nationalist]

24 minutes ago, John Stone said:

 

Throughout the Cold War (1945-91) NATO's purpose was to deter and counter Russia and  it's satellite countries which together made up the Warsaw Pact. 

Although  Article 5 has only been  invoked once,  following 9/11, there has been occasion where arguably,  the mere existence of NATO  had the  intimidating effect of preventing an all-out nuke exchange  between the 2 superpowers of the time. (Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962)

NATO was designed for defending North America,  Europe and Turkey and article 5 is  invoked with any attack against member countries within those continents. (Bosnia notwithstanding - UN)

With the collapse of the USSR (Warsaw Pact) and the resulting much diminished Soviet Union (nukes notwithstanding) has the need for NATO been removed?

There is no question, that today, Europe, with it's combined economies,  could not put on it's big girl panties (gear up) and deter any Russian aggression - Russia is only a ghost of what it was during the Cold  War - it could be argued that it is not even  a global power, look ma .................. no money, dated equipment,  low morale, poor leadership.  ideological malaise. 

NATO on the other hand is a global power in every calculus - money, equipment, allies, bases, training, influence, political clout, etc.

Who does NATO benefit, today?

Could NATO be a deterring effect in the future as it has in  the past?

 

Interesting. So you think russia is weak and Europe is strong?

Man...you sure do dream big. Been listening to General Jack Keane?

[User]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Interesting. So you think russia is weak and Europe is strong?

Man...you sure do dream big. Been listening to General Jack Keane?

Russia hasn’t been able to conquer Ukraine for years now… 

Yeah, they are weak.

It doesn’t mean Europe is all that, but they certainly are stronger than Ukraine.

 

[LinkSoul60]

14 hours ago, paxamericana said:

No they lack the economic strength with too many retiree and welfare programs to fund a military industrial complex. They are perpetual deadbeats. 

Serious question GI Joe...  Do you think the US would have spent any less on your military even if NATO countries had met the GDP spend targets?

Another question...  What additional spending has the US done because of NATO countries lack of, and where was it spent?  Best I can tell in recent memory is that NATO countries supported the US after 9/11 in the skies above the US and in Afghanistan.  I don't recall a security issue that involved the US having to protect us.... was there?

[User]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Serious question GI Joe...  Do you think the US would have spent any less on your military even if NATO countries had met the GDP spend targets?

Another question...  What additional spending has the US done because of NATO countries lack of, and where was it spent?  Best I can tell in recent memory is that NATO countries supported the US after 9/11 in the skies above the US and in Afghanistan.  I don't recall a security issue that involved the US having to protect us.... was there?

Serious question… 

Does your being a deadbeat have anything to do with someone spending as much as they would have anyhow that you are taking advantage of?

No.

 

[robosmith]

16 hours ago, paxamericana said:

No they lack the economic strength with too many retiree and welfare programs to fund a military industrial complex. They are perpetual deadbeats. 

And they don't get the producer country discount of economic stimulus like the US gets with greater employment and income taxes paid.

There's a reason why the US spends so much more than any other country on defense.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Interesting. So you think russia is weak and Europe is strong?

You believe communism creates strong economies? LMAO

[WestCanMan]

If they were just being deadbeats it would honestly be a massive improvement.

They're mostly pro-Iran cucks (Dems included) who are speaking in favour of the ayatollah, denying the US access to airspace, etc. 

Edited April 13 by WestCanMan

[Nationalist]

41 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You believe communism creates strong economies? LMAO

Dweebles...do you really think Russia is still communist?

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Dweebles...do you really think Russia is still communist?

Do you really believe that a kleptocratic oligarchy is better than communism?

Neither has real competition.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Do you really believe that a kleptocratic oligarchy is better than communism?

Neither has real competition.

Good gravey but you're shallow.

[robosmith]

31 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Good gravey but you're shallow.

You're shallower than a gravy boat. LMAO