Gå tilbage leveret af  Boliga logo    
Boligdebatten.dk   Boligdebatten.dk > Politik og Økonomi > Politik
Opret bruger OSS Søgning Dagens indlæg Marker alt som læst


Svar
 
Emne værktøjer Visningsmåde
  #1 (permalink)  
Gammel 1st August 2018, 07:03 AM
Senior Member
 
Registreringsdato: Nov 2008
Indlæg: 8,281
Standard 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?
Besvar med citat
  #2 (permalink)  
Gammel 10th August 2018, 01:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Registreringsdato: Nov 2008
Indlæg: 8,281
Standard

Interessant om der sker noget over de næste 50 år.

Why America’s Allies Should Develop Nuclear Weapons: American Conservative
Besvar med citat
Svar


Emne værktøjer
Visningsmåde

Regler for indlæg
Du kan ikke starte nye emner
Du kan ikke svare på indlæg
Du kan ikke vedhæfte filer
Du kan ikke rette dine indlæg

vB code er aktiv
Smilies er aktiv
[IMG] kode er aktiv
HTML kode er ikke aktiv
Trackbacks are aktiv
Pingbacks are aktiv
Refbacks are ikke aktiv

Lignende emner
Emne Startet af Forum Svar Nyeste indlæg
NATO og central/østeuropa Vymer Politik 7 28th July 2017 07:07 AM
Når udlejer ikke fortæller sandheden Chrisgreen Generelt lejeboliger 0 2nd June 2013 07:16 PM
Nyt boligsite fortæller hvad boligen er værd Nyheder Udvalgte Bolig nyheder 8 8th June 2011 10:56 AM
Hr Møller er ikke uenig. Thomas Generelt 4 3rd September 2009 10:25 PM
Fogh til Nato førstekøber Generelt 57 8th April 2009 08:36 PM



Al tidssætning er GMT +1. Klokken er nu 06:09 PM.



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