Why NATO? Economically the US and the EU are deadly enemies!

[Arminius]

Europe has almost twice as many inhabitants as the United States. If the 28 European small armies were under a single command, then Europe had the largest military force in the world. And - of course - the competitors, rivals, enemies of Europe love it to have to deal with a disunited Europe and disunited European nations. The more so-called „refugees“ come to Europe, the more unstable Europe is to the delight of Europe’s rivals (competitors, enemies). Therefore - for example - Obama praises Merkel.

One day you will be able to look up who has steered the refugees.

[Arminius]

Fortress Europe, before it is too late.

Europe will never become the "United States of Europe" as some European idiots say but it will become the most chaotic territory of all time if the Europeans will furthermore do what their rivals (competitors) want them to do.

[Moreno]

The US is actually the model of this chaos. You have cities going bankrupt. Regions without water. Masses of poor people. Deserted towns and cities. More and more homeless. People working harder and harder for less and less. Extreme disagreements about how things should be handled. All under an oligarchy still skimming.

[Arminius]

The US is actually the model of this chaos. You have cities going bankrupt. Regions without water. Masses of poor people. Deserted towns and cities. More and more homeless. People working harder and harder for less and less. Extreme disagreements about how things should be handled. All under an oligarchy still skimming.

This should remind you of - for example - the Great Depression which led to the Second World War.

[Arminius]

The US is actually the model of this chaos. You have cities going bankrupt. Regions without water. Masses of poor people. Deserted towns and cities. More and more homeless. People working harder and harder for less and less. Extreme disagreements about how things should be handled. All under an oligarchy still skimming.

Can you give some examples with numbers and facts - just in order to compare them with the situation in Europe or elsewhere?

[CelineK]

no... when they happen to disagree, it is just a gimmick to stir the pot and polarize opinions for their own ends

[CelineK]

This should remind you of - for example - the Great Depression which led to the Second World War.

do you assume that the great depression happened out of the blue?

[jsmith17]

i think that with all this new technology the future is very dark and scary if we don't cooperate, as we could destroy the planet and make it inhabitable with our pointless conflicts over trivial things

best to just make peace and get along, so no, US and EU are not deadly enemies and should work to solidify their alliance, not break it!

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Europe is a colony of the United States military and financial hegemony. End of the story.

[Arminius]

Do you assume that the great depression happened out of the blue?

No. Of course: No. If you read my other posts, then you will know it.

[Meno_]

Let's take the topic in a backward glance. Why NATO?
Reflect at the second part of the equation , : the US and EU are enemies. Let's analyze the language with the intended meaning structure, in terms of the military alliance.


The need forge an alliance was not merely the result of the expansionist mentality of a Pax Americana, but
the hystorical fact of abiding to the actual needs of
various post war countries with protection. After all, the so called western block of countries were aware of the dubious nature of an alliance with USSR, way
before the war ever started. Hitler's popularity to a
very large degree consisted of
societal fear and distaste for communism. It was an unholy alliance with the allied powers, as well, and a behind the scenes game was played, starting with Ribbenthop's visit to Moscow, with the consequential and infamous signing of the non-aggression pact. It was only a contrived game served to hide the smoke and mirrors perception of uncertainty, to wither the success of war will shift to.

NATO finally saw what was at stake when the eastern and western influences in Europe were finally set down and alliances of NATO and the Warsaw Pact finally mirrored each other in their true form.

As one fell, the other needed justification for it's continued existence, and new enemie had to be found.

That enemy, has become virtual, in line with postmodern reality drawn on more lines then purely ideological. Religious,cultural differences have evolved post modern myths, with the old ones going into the twilight.

The new myths of technologically inspired miraculous forces, effected by daily leaps and bounds into new super technology, have enabled previously insignificant counties to attain super power status. Iran, Isis, North Korea are no longer laughed off as trifles, and one minituarized nuke delivered over a metropolis, can bring a super power to it's knees.

This is the new threat, not to mention that a tremendous power block like NATO with an inertia of its own, a political power of vast military power, within which weaker members feel more secure, would be highly difficult albeit near impossible to deconstruct.

SEATO, similarly stands as a formidable bastion in Asia, and it is no longer only a veritable US
institution, but a mult layered association of intricate political web.

Growing sentiments of recurrent trends toward nationalism, can do not make significant retro grade effects, as blueprints have already been laid down, serving non stoppable trains of developed and processed agendas for the near and far future.

There are only a few hold outs, and looks like, they have become manageable. It's astounding that THE MAJOR communist powerhouse has become not only declawed, but has become a capitalist powerhouse in such a short span of time, as one generation.

Klausowitz has become irrelevant, the days of hundred years' wars have become relics of the past,
and enemies of economic inequality are more often then not, are usually are defanged in a short period of time. North Korea, Syria are purposefully kept alive to feed the idea for a need for enemies, to sustain the myth that NATO has a viable rationale for it's sustenance.

Peace today is unaffordable, for ideological reasons.
The idea of a peaceful world is a contradiction of terms which have not outlived their usefulness.

[Arminius]

SEATO, similarly stands as a formidable bastion in Asia, and it is no longer only a veritable US
institution, but a mult layered association of intricate political web.

The SEATO existed merely from 1954 to 1977.

Klausowitz ....

His name was Clausewitz.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The United States is an enemy to European countries national sovereignty and independence however until the United States stops dominating Europe politically, economically, culturally, or militarily nothing will change.

Europe is essentially an American vassal state under the European Union.

The American Federal Reserve interestingly enough has a heavy influence over the European Central Bank.

[Meno_]

SEATO, similarly stands as a formidable bastion in Asia, and it is no longer only a veritable US
institution, but a mult layered association of intricate political web.

The SEATO existed merely from 1954 to 1977.

Klausowitz ....

His name was Clausewitz.

Minus the above admitted mistakes above, the argument stands on geopolitical grounds. The scenario has changed totally. The disintegration of the Brit Empire, and the foundation of former colonial nations, on supposedly democratic principles, let loose billions of 'emancipated' populations, who had changed the map of political shift toward new horizons. Europe, US, Asia, Africa,Middle East, became trading partners, albeit with familiar unequal flows of liquidity. The past prior to the great wars showed the political economic centers in London, New York , Berlin. This no longer holds true. Other centers are competing, ; Shanghai ,Hong Kong, Tokyo, among the most formidable.

With the rise of a new economic order, the significance of the older ones have relatively diminished. Europe and the US , rather then gaining from dissolving treaties and alliances, would loose, in terms of having the muscle of enforcing them, and overcoming pressure from the new markets. ASEAN replaced SEATO, and it is mostly a regional organization, filling the vacuum.

The opening of hostilities due to economic pressures is nothing new, ww2 is an example, where choking the production of military equipment by the pressure on Japan in it's steel production resulted in open hostilities.


In a capitalistic world, arms guarantee of the flow of manufacture and trade. These are other reasons why, these institutions should not be discontinued.

This is an opposite point of view argument, credible, not necessarily that with which I would be absolutely in agreement with, however, as economy is the main driver in a world dominated by trade, rather then ideology, it would seem, that the new 'democratic'
nations cause the difference in this shift.

Arminius, thanks to pointing to mistakes in the argument, they are helpful, but inessential to the argument as a whole.

[Arminius]

SEATO, similarly stands as a formidable bastion in Asia, and it is no longer only a veritable US
institution, but a mult layered association of intricate political web.

The SEATO existed merely from 1954 to 1977.

Klausowitz ....

His name was Clausewitz.

Minus the above admitted mistakes above, the argument stands on geopolitical grounds. The scenario has changed totally. The disintegration of the Brit Empire, and the foundation of former colonial nations, on supposedly democratic principles, let loose billions of 'emancipated' populations, who had changed the map of political shift toward new horizons.

That is why I am saying not some Euroapean nations but the whole Europe has lost the 31 years lasting World War (I and II). The US and the SU (Soviet Union) have one it, but the latter lost the so-called "Cold War" which the former won also. Now, the problem the US faces is similar to the problem the US faced before the begin of the WW1 and before the begin of the WW2. This similaritie are very obvious. So we will have war pretty soon.

The past prior to the great wars showed the political economic centers in London, New York , Berlin. This no longer holds true. Other centers are competing, ; Shanghai ,Hong Kong, Tokyo, among the most formidable.

With the rise of a new economic order, the significance of the older ones have relatively diminished. Europe and the US , rather then gaining from dissolving treaties and alliances, would loose, in terms of having the muscle of enforcing them, and overcoming pressure from the new markets. ASEAN replaced SEATO, and it is mostly a regional organization, filling the vacuum.

The population of ASEAN is approximately 620 million people and its income is about US $ 2.6 trillion (this income is not very high, because is merely as high as the income of the UK).

The opening of hostilities due to economic pressures is nothing new, ww2 is an example, where choking the production of military equipment by the pressure on Japan in it's steel production resulted in open hostilities.


In a capitalistic world, arms guarantee of the flow of manufacture and trade. These are other reasons why, these institutions should not be discontinued.

This is an opposite point of view argument, credible, not necessarily that with which I would be absolutely in agreement with, however, as economy is the main driver in a world dominated by trade, rather then ideology, it would seem, that the new 'democratic'
nations cause the difference in this shift.

Arminius, thanks to pointing to mistakes in the argument, they are helpful, but inessential to the argument as a whole.

Sorry for beeing late with the response.

[Meno_]

Thanks for that Arminius, . Will reply

Today's events in Brussels will make the case of UE and USA being enemies economically, less convincing.



The economic war during events, such as the
the massacre, become subordinated to issues having to do with 'mutual security'

[Arminius]

Unfortunately, the economical problems, especially those of the US, have become so huge, that it is not possible anymore to hide the fact that the US and the EU are enemies - sometimes one can have the impression that they are alraedy military enemies too. The economical facts have been dominating the military facts for a long time. That is not good and not the reason why all this alleged "partnerships" and "mutual securities" were originally made for. The NATO was built as a defensive alliance, then it changed to an aggressive attacking alliance, now it is a chaotic bunch that still attacks the rest of the world, although more chaotically and sometimes also itself, but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories.

And the Arabs alone did not cause the alleged "Arab Spring" that led to the flood of the alleged "refugees" (young boys willing to conquer Europe with terrible violence).

[Meno_]

Convincing argument!
Yet, the very chaos , according to the view which prevail, in EU and USA is, that the forces at work
to manage the chaos need the combined resources of both economies. The fact remains that the US is the biggest spender in the world for military spending, and the her deterrent absence would encourage the
Immediate destabilization of world peace. For that reason alone, a NATO as a military alliance cannot be suddenly disengaged from being a sort of policeman of the world.

Where did I hear that term before? The joint power of NATO imposes constraints upon the forces which would do Europe harm.

In addition, there are still very staunch and formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding against such fairly recent, and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany. The geopolitical map of Europe, is a fairly recent development, and East and West conflict did not totally erase from the consciousness of former belligerents, not even 2 generations old.

In addition, political expediency and rationale for Capitalism is inherently combative, even within the fabric of an individual society. It is differentiated as an acceptable social psychological element and rationale.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Thanks for that Arminius, . Will reply

Today's events in Brussels will make the case of UE and USA being enemies economically, less convincing.



The economic war during events, such as the
the massacre, become subordinated to issues having to do with 'mutual security'

The events in Europe are being staged by the American CIA and its allies. More specifically Turkey.

The goal of these events is to make Europe more reliant on American power and hegemony so that when the real world war arrives the Europeans will volunteer themselves in the sacrifice of coming to the United States military aid.

It's all an international psyop.

[Arminius]

Convincing argument!
Yet, the very chaos , according to the view which prevail, in EU and USA is, that the forces at work to manage the chaos need the combined resources of both economies. The fact remains that the US is the biggest spender in the world for military spending, and the her deterrent absence would encourage the Immediate destabilization of world peace. For that reason alone, a NATO as a military alliance cannot be suddenly disengaged from being a sort of policeman of the world.

Who said that the United States have to be "the biggest spender in the world for military spending"?

Where did I hear that term before?

What term do you mean? The following sentence?

The joint power of NATO imposes constraints upon the forces which would do Europe harm.

Do you mean this sentence?

In addition, there are still very staunch and formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding against such fairly recent, and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany.

East Germany is now West Poland and West Russia. Middle Germany is now called "East" Germany, and that is incorrect. And there is no peace contract. So the Germany as the German Reich (Deutsches Reich) still exists. All the huge reparations and other productive an monetary payments are paid by Germans because of the existence of the German Reich. And I remember well, when the "Iron Curtain" fell and many Polish and Russian people were willing to give the German territorries back to Germany. So where are those "formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany". I have never met such "enemies".

These "enemies" are produced by Westerners.

The geopolitical map of Europe, is a fairly recent development, and East and West conflict did not totally erase from the consciousness of former belligerents, not even 2 generations old.

No, the West-East-Conflict (Cold War) was a "fairly recent development". The geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict was relatively similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict, but the geopolitical map of Europe during the West-East-Conflict was neither similar to the geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict nor similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict. So the development you are talking about is not "fairly recent" as you said but fairly similar to an older development.

[Meno_]

By the enemies of Germany, I did not mean to single out Germany per se, only to use it as an example of how the major power within the organization of European states may react , albeit through Angela, to enemies, generally.

Of course these are not the old enemies of WW2 infame, but those that are exemplified by the perceived ones behind the recent Brussels bombing.
These are covert enemies, not only of Belgium, but as prescribed by the greater area of the European Union.

NATO is better positioned to be of a defensive posture, not because of the US huge military, as a willful military partner of EU, but as the asked for assistance of military co-operation by EU, due to their underfunding of their share of military spending.

The above may be arguable, but the bottom line is that military alliances are formed and retained are better equipped to fight enemies.

[Arminius]

Again:

A defensive military alliance that attacks the rest of the world but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories is no real military alliance, at least no defensive military alliance.

[Arminius]

You must be capable of defending yourself before you start attacking somebody, unless you want to be attacked.

[Arminius]

NATO means US domination and US global domination and the prospect of an endless war. I am against this megalomania.

us_militaer_in_der_welt.gif (55.98 KiB) Viewed 3944 times

If there were an equitable or at least a democratic structure within the NATO (there is nothing except US dictatorship), then it would be a little bit possible to have a defensive alliance again (but does anybody believe that?).

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The only way Europe will be free of United States influence, control, and its military is if the United States collapses or if a popular resistance in Europe is started to shake off United States hegemony.