Good to hear it.I don’t see anything wrong with a European Defence Force
Not sure I understand that. Or it's a misunderstanding somewhere.If a unified European defense force can be organized, why wouldn’t it cooperate with NATO?. Are there other “friendly” forces I’m not aware of? If the Europeans are chafing under American leadership of NATO, fine, disband NATO, but do so at your own peril.If suddenly you find yourself under a serous Russian (or Chinese) threat and you all have quit NATO, fine. Deal with it.
Hillbilly ways, is it? What “hillbillies”? Where are the hill billies from, exactly? Do you know anything about Americans to call anyone a hillbilly? No? I didn’t think so.And havoc for the rest of the world.
An united Europe including Russia would have been far more beneficial for Europe as well as rest of the world. Americans would been better off too with their isolationist, play boyish, 'hillybilly' ways.
More importantly, they didn't need to carry the 'burden' of Europe's defense in that scenario.
Proud to be one. I'd say the most important hillbilly way is self sufficiency. Whether it's shooting something for supper, building a house, or fixing a truck. Hillbillies get the job done. Oh almost forgot, they excelled at sending thousands of America's Muslim enemies too meet Allah in person after 9/11.Hillbilly ways, is it? What “hillbillies”? Where are the hill billies from, exactly? Do you know anything about Americans to call anyone a hillbilly? No? I didn’t think so.
No, the questioning of NATO was something everyone with any knowledge of NATO in the US and other more heavily contributing nations have been wanting to be brought up for over a decade but hasn't because past POTUS wont.The questioning of NATO begun with the current USA administration, and with declarations (or tweets) of the current USA president, not in Europe or Canada. The reactions that we saw in Europe were reactions to this new USA “attitude”.
Oh!!! Old the nukes, don’t send the Special Forces yet! That kind of aggressively is not needed. You are talking about an issue and I am talking about other. Related and yet distinct.No, the questioning of NATO was something everyone with any knowledge of NATO in the US and other more heavily contributing nations have been wanting to be brought up for over a decade but hasn't because past POTUS wont.
You think Trump made up the problems of most of the nations involved not giving a crap? That it's fake? Its not made up, and too many nations don't give a crap, which is a problem since NATO largely exists now to check Russian expansion.
When one of the most important members doesn't take it seriously, worse, cozying up to Russia instead because cheap natural resources, that's a problem past POTUS should have brought up but didn't have the guts to. Its sad that it takes an orange nut job to bring him up, but if that is what it takes to get someone to be actually presidential, then so be it.
Weighing by hand.
Appearing statesmanlike by not making a peep, not rockingrockingboat, even to detriment of all involved down the road?
Causing butthurt by addressing a global security threat?
Not a hard choice...
ESPECIALLY if you are UNARMED at the time.Lying down next to the Russian bear, may get one eaten when it wakes up.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|International Roads||Ancient History|
|International relations between the U.S. and Iran||History Homework Help|
|International Relationships Status Quo, economical versus anthropological approach||Philosophy / Sociology|
|People who have done International relations||History Homework Help|