US tanks arrive in Germany to help Nato defences

The only reason we had to fight for our independence in the first place is because European powers were oppressing us.

In any case, receiving assistance from France was never contingent upon becoming enthralled by European intrigues. The first five US Presidents all expressly stated that we ought to remain independent with regards to European affairs. There was zero ambiguity about their desire for a neutral and independent foreign policy.

 

We signed a treaty with France agreeing to mutual defense.

 

Way to ignore every point I made. Until you acknowledge the fact that European powers have invaded Russia and are presently encircling their country in violation of previous good faith agreements, your position will remain decidedly myopic and self-serving.

 

Most of the countries in NATO have never held up their end of the bargain.

Let them pay for their own defense, we've been doing it long enough.

 

Russia invaded Germany first in WW1. European DICTATORSHIPS invaded Russia. How many dictatorships are part of NATO?

How do mutual defense agreements "encircle" you unless you were planning on attacking someone?

 

That treaty ended in 1800. And it applied only to France, not all of Europe.

 

Yeah, the economies of America and the nations of Europe are identical.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how either of those statements counter my point. You tried to claim we weren't obligated to defend France, except we signed a treaty exactly to that effect.

Were you lying or just extremely ignorant?

 

indeed, it's very stupid to talk about "europe" when you in fact only mean one country. like when you say the USA was to be freed of european tyrrany, except it was only british tyranny. Like when you say europe invaded russia, when it was actually just germany. very stupid, i agree, so stop doing it.

 

Yet the USA sided with Russia over Germany, just like they did in WWII.

The UK and The USA were dictatorships in 1918? Who knew?

How many dictatorships are part of NATO?

NATO only existed to contain the Soviet Union which dissolved in the early 1990's. It was agreed upon by both sides that NATO would not expand any further towards Russia's borders. That agreement was not honored. Therefore, it is a clear case of encirclement and aggression.

 

I must admit Obama's end-of-mandate frantics cast a shadow on his presidency.

 

1. I don't see how that changes anything.

2. Intervention in the civil war was on behalf of the legitimate government. Is Russia invading Syria?

3. Again, how does mutual defense encircle or act as aggression against anyone unless that person was planning on attacking?

 

he's vindicating himself after years of failures. If he'd only grown some balls eight years earlier, his presidency might have turned out fine. Obama is the sad tale of a liberal gone conservative, but once he understand his mistakes he longer has the time to correct them. very sad. He'll be remembered as the fool who turned wise, but too late. "atleast he tried at the end" will be his judgement.

 

I think percentages work the same way in all countries.

 

Yes, and many of them can't afford those percentages anymore.

 

You seem to think the founding fathers were favorably disposed towards defending Europe. You cited one treaty that applied only to France and which was repealed in 1800. What about this confuses you?

Where did I say "we weren't obligated to defend France"?

What an ironic question.

 

Alas, the truth may be even worse, as far as he is concerned: Sour grapes from Trump's victory, a thing I thought was beneath him.

Too bad - I think he has been a good President.

 

1. I guess France is not in Europe in the fantasy world you live in.

2. Why blatantly lie?

Quote from you: receiving assistance from France was never contingent upon becoming enthralled by European intrigues.

Yes it did. The treaty bound us to France's defense. Any "European intrigue" that included France would include us.

3. It would be nice to see you be intellectually consistent.

 

And Germans, too. The British House of Hanover enlisted many German mercenaries in their cause. One consequence of Europe's incestuous aristocracies who effectively ruled the entire continent.

That was in WWII. After WWI, the British, Americans, French, Italians, Estonians, and Romanians all contributed forces to an invasion of Russia.

 

could be that he's just mad about trump, trying to undermine trump's agenda.. or, it could be, very possibly, that he genuinely sees trumps agenda as dangerous and wants to do everything he can to mitigate it. set things rolling, which prevents trump from screwing up everything. I believe that is what he's doing, and it is good. What obama can do is limited though, but he tries, and i appriciate that.

 

I don't think it counts as an invasion when you're helping the legitimate government in a civil war.

 

I just find it ironic that the Dems are now the ones who attack Russia, while Reps tend to defend them. I would have mention this a few years ago, and I would have been laughed off the board. And that's just an exemple. There are no more idealogical solid ground in US politics.

 

If Russia was the aggressor, then why did the USA side with Russia? Are we to conclude that the USA approves of aggression?

You think a monarchy is a "legitimate government"?

NATO existed to contain the Soviet Union which dissolved in the early 1990's. The agreement was that NATO would not expand towards Russia's borders. This agreement was not honored. I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.

 

Why are we spending money to send tanks to Germany? Germany has massive industrial capabilities. This non-stop sucking hundreds of billions to spend on other country's defense so they don't have to spend their own money on their own defense is absurd and just outright graft.

How much $$ does Germany spend defending the continental USA? ZERO.

It also is absurd in that there is no possibility that the USA and Russia are going to get into a tank war. If the USA and Russia go to war it will be nuclear war, not cannons and tanks war. This is just the militarists and military industrial complex sucking money for exactly nothing but their own massive profits.

 

1. Or it could be that international relations are more complex than your idiotic "aggressor vs defender".

2. Yes. Especially when compared with the communist dictatorship.

3. Did the nations of Eastern Europe agree to that?

 

Cite, please.