Boligdebatten.dk

Boligdebatten.dk (/)
-   Politik (http://www.boligdebatten.dk/politik/)
-   -   Hvad Per Stig Møller & Co ikke fortæller om NATO (http://www.boligdebatten.dk/politik/29333-hvad-per-stig-moller-co-ikke-fortaeller-om-nato.html)

Vymer 1st August 2018 08:03 AM

Hvad Per Stig Møller & Co ikke fortæller om NATO
 
NATO har ingen berettigelse og et rent europæisk forsvar er ønskværdigt. Især med tilhørende europæisk våbenproduktion. Ud med amerikanske våben og ind med europæiske. Ellers ligger vi vores nationale sikkerhed i amerikanske hænder. Ikke ligefrem de bedste ej heller med langsigtede garantier.

https://www.traditionalright.com/the...-cost-of-nato/

Citer:

President Trump is right to raise the issue of Europe’s NATO members not spending enough on defense. For decades, those countries have been NATO’s welfare queens, expecting the U.S. to defend them when they have been entirely capable of defending themselves. They’ve had the ships, they’ve had the men, they’ve had the money, too. Since the 1960s they have also had their own nuclear umbrella in the form of France’s nuclear weapons. Quite apart from the American deterrent, the Soviet Union could not risk invading Western Europe because a nuclear exchange with France would have reduced the USSR to a tenth-rate power, unable to compete with America or even China. But why should Europe’s welfare queens go off the dole so long as America is dumb enough to keep paying the bill? President Trump is doing what earlier American presidents should have done but didn’t, mainly because the Washington Military-Industrial-Congressional complex feeds richly off the NATO game.
...

NATO was formed for only one purpose: containing Communism. After World War II, Europe was exhausted. It lacked the military, financial, or industrial strength to take on the Red Army or even Soviet attempts at subversion such as that in Greece. The U.S. made what was intended to be a temporary commitment to defend Europe, a commitment that was intended to last only until Europe could again defend itself. When NATO was founded, then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower said that if we were still defending Europe after ten years, NATO would have proven a mistake. That was seventy years ago.

When Communism fell, NATO’s purpose fell with it. There was no threat from the east for NATO to defend against. At that point NATO should have been dissolved. Failing such a dissolution, the U.S. should have pulled out, leaving Europe to defend itself against—what?

Vymer 10th August 2018 02:35 PM

Interessant om der sker noget over de næste 50 år.

Why America’s Allies Should Develop Nuclear Weapons: American Conservative

Vymer 6th November 2018 07:02 PM

Fransk klarsyn.

https://borsen.dk/nyheder/politik/ar...nd_og_usa.html

Citer:

Macron har siden, han kom til magten i Frankrig, talt for en fælles europæisk styrke. I interviewet advarer han om, at Europa må gøre sig mindre afhængig af USA's magt.

Ikke mindst efter præsident Donald Trump for nylig meddelte, at han trækker USA ud af en nedrustningsaftale med Rusland, som er særlig vigtig for Europa.

- Vi er nødt til at forsvare os selv over for Kina, Rusland og selv USA.


Al tidssætning er GMT +1. Klokken er nu 01:57 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.