US tanks arrive in Germany to help Nato defences

Well I will say they need to meet their 2% GDP defense spending obligations. Most are not.

 

This I promises to do Trump to top 3 best by Eisenhower, Nixon and Trump in America's history.

 

They have to keep it on their end - if they cross the bridge, it gets reduced to a platoon of Boy Scouts in soap box derby cars.
That exchange rate is murder!

 

And if Putin was more like Gorbachev and not Brezhnev, you'd have a point.

 

They were never invited in. The Russians there are from the days when they were invaded and occupied by the USSR.

- - - Updated - - -

Not saying that. You said the Russians were not in Japan. I was just pointing out they actually are, on a few islands.

 

There has been an agenda to "contain" Russia for about 75 years. It was suppose to end with the Cold War but NATO ended up surrounding Russia with bases. The west has been on the offensive. If Russia/China/Iran did this to the USA you can best believe we'd be pretty upset:

 

Yeah, but we got all the cheap gas.

 

You're the one who brought up Russia's invasion of Germany as it proved something about the former's aggressive tendencies. So which one is it? Was Russia's invasion an act of aggression or was it in response to German aggression? You can't seem to make up your mind.

If "every country in the world" thought slavery was legitimate, would that make it so?

I never said it was legitimate. I said we have to care about what they say if for no other reason than pure pragmatism.

Just stop erecting strawmen and twisting my positions and maybe things will be less confusing for you.

It was binding on the USA and NATO. They broke the agreement. No amount of obtuse questions will change that.

 

Count me out. I'm on the Right and still maintain my resolve to oppose Russia on all fronts. I'm not opposed to working with them when our interests coincide, but on the whole they are most definitely our enemy.

 

You took what I said out of context. Read what I responded to.

Unless of course you're just being literal for the sake of being literal.

- - - Updated - - -

I was responding to someone who claimed they fought with us.

 

Really. AFAIK the extent of foreign help consisted of Mexico sending some police to help secure property in the disaster area.

 

And this changes the fact that Washington did not intervene on France's behalf how...?

I never claimed that.

Which they never acted on despite France being in a war and which they repealed in 1800.

 

1. No no no.

You do not get to turn this around.

YOU WERE THE ONE who claimed "Europe invaded Russia twice". Are you now going to back down from that lie?

2. How does that have anything to do with legitimate governments? Why are you trying to deflect?

3. Until you put forward a concise definition of what does and does not constitute a legitimate government, I will not continue any debate with you on the topic.

4. How was it binding to NATO? Did the majority of NATO powers ratify it?

- - - Updated - - -

1. How could he intervene when the government he signed the treaty with no longer existed?

2. So the Founders were okay with mutual defense treaties with European powers?

 

Is this supposed to mean something?

Most of the ethnic Russians living in those countries were born there.

 

Gorbachev was a peacemaker who opposed Aggression and wanted peace.

Brezhnev and Putin are both nationalists who favor wars of expansion (Afghanistan for Brezhnev, Georgia, Crimea, and the Ukraine for Putin).

 

I am well aware of that. Nevertheless Russia considers itself their defender, though.

 

He ended the Afghanistan war in 1985. Well.

 

What a bizarre concept. Borders of countries in the world have perpetually changed thru all of known world history. Now, the USA - which is 20 TRILLION in debt, is going to perpetually be the FREE world police assuring that no borders on earth will ever change again - unless we change it.

Eisenhower was right in his final "beware of the military industrial complex." TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars of profit for this absurd claim that the USA will enforce every border on earth and police every country and their governments on earth.

Curiously, it is now the Democratic Party that has become radically pro-war neocons, interventionists and nation-builders. Then again, it was the Democratic Party that was the party of WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam - and Obama has likely bombed and attacked more countries otherwise not at war than any US president in history - racking up the greatest national debt in USA history at the same time.

The USA urged the breakup of the Russian Federation after the collapse of the USSR - for which we then declared democratic Russia is still our enemy and vowed to defend all those micro countries that can not possibly defend themselves for which they rely on the USA to be THEIR FREE military force. What a MASSIVE military industrial complex scam.

 

What?(6 chars)

 

Soviet-Afghanistan war in the 1980's.

 

What I said was true. Once in 1918 and once in 1941. You tried to counter this fact by citing Russia's invasion of Germany in WWI, as if proved something.

You seem to think the legitimacy of a practice or institution is determined by how many countries approve of it. I'm merely demonstrating why that logic is flawed.

I honestly don't care. You are incredibly obnoxious and dishonest so if you never said another word to me it wouldn't bother me at all.

It was binding on the USA, who is the de facto head of NATO. So either the US negotiated in bad faith or it broke an agreement that was made in good faith. Either way, it's a betrayal which evinces an aggressive intent.

Yes, that was Washington's rationale. He was looking for a way around the treaty because it conflicted with his avowed desire for neutrality.

I never said they weren't. I merely said they favored neutrality and independence with regards to European affairs, which is true. You cited one temporary, limited exception as if it disproved the rule because you are desperate to maintain some semblance of historical backing for your interventionist ideology.

 

Yeah, what about it?

 

Yet Gorbachev blames the US for reigniting the cold war.

The USA and NATO have become so belligerent and aggressive that even a "peacemaker" like Gobachev condemns them.

Okay, so my question is: If those ethnic Russians declared their independence and invited the Russians in, would that be an invasion?

 

NATO in USA and Europe is a deal between Americanism and Europeans in cold war after Soviets re build their nuclear arsenal to biggest arsenal ever. At least 60,000 nuclear bomb. America have less in arsenal. Around 20,000 nuclear bomb. America have today over 6000. Russia haved dubble sizes over America's capability.

 

Yes, of course. The Baltic's are sovereign nations and the crossing of the border is an invasion by a foreign power.