On Post-Cold War NATO

[NobleHunter]

In an effort to prevent an on-going hijacking of a thread that will likely continue to be contentious and the subject of innumerable news bulletins, a thread on NATO and what it's for now that USSR isn't poised to invade Western Europe.

I think NATO was preserved following the end of the Cold War to keep The West on the same page as far as military and defense issues are concerned; like the G7 but with tanks. It's a convenient way to keep everyone on the same side and channel voices into unison whenever non-Western powers get up to something. It hasn't worked perfectly but it's allowed the West to get everyone pulling in the same direction a number of times.

The hostility to Russia is historical and because a resurgent Russia is a natural pole for power to coalesce around. That also makes it a good candidate for a common enemy or op force to use to define "Us."

[Grant]

In an effort to prevent an on-going hijacking of a thread that will likely continue to be contentious and the subject of innumerable news bulletins, a thread on NATO and what it's for now that USSR isn't poised to invade Western Europe.

That's all good, but it appeared to me that the view of the arms sale to Ukraine was critical to the understanding of the phone call between Trump and Zalenskyy, which is the number one point of evidence in the question of Trump impeachment and the question of wrongdoing.  Was it the United States that just wanted to sell some weapons to the Ukraine because Raytheon and JP Morgan wanted it that way? Or did the Ukrainians really really want those weapons for other reasons?  Like half their country was occupied by Russians, from Russia, armed with weapons from Russia?  It is the link showing a possible quid pro quo.  If Ukraine buying US weapons was nothing more than a favor for the United States, then there is no quid pro quo.  It goes like this:

Z:  Hey, I'm doing this for you.
T:  Hey, can you do me something else?

or is it:

Z:  Hey, can I buy some of your weapons?
T:  Can you do something else for me? 

All this is wrapped in your view (apparently) of NATO, Russia, foreign affairs, and global business interests including banking, oil production, and arms sales. Was Ukraine doing the US a favor by buying weapons, or was the Ukraine asking the US to do them a favor by allowing them to buy arms? 

So you can continue in the other thread to discuss new news bulletins, but it will probably always come down to the differing views above. 

OR, I could be completely wrong and the next round of news bulletins will completely shift the underlying stasis to something completely different.  Like views on nationalism vs globalism, or whether the Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles.   

[Wayward Son]

Beatles.  No question. 

[Grant]

Beatles.  No question. 

Dirty hippie.

[NobleHunter]

All this is wrapped in your view (apparently) of NATO, Russia, foreign affairs, and global business interests including banking, oil production, and arms sales. Was Ukraine doing the US a favor by buying weapons, or was the Ukraine asking the US to do them a favor by allowing them to buy arms? 

I think Ukraine needs weapons more than the US needs to sell them.

[Grant]

I think Ukraine needs weapons more than the US needs to sell them.

I feel full disclosure is required. 

NH, do you now, or have you ever....

1.  Worked for JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, or RIT Capital Partners?
2.  Worked for Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, McDonnel Douglas, BAE, or Boeing?
3.  Worked for Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, or Saudi Aramco? 
4.  Worked for the governments of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, or Ukraine? 

Do any of your relatives now, or have in the past, worked for any of the above entities? 

Have you ever recieved payment or gifts from any of the above industries?

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, Shriners, Lion's Club, Civitan, Skull and Bones, or the 501st Legion?

Have you ever voted for any member of the Bush family, Mitt Romney, or John McCain? 

[TheDeamon]

The answer is yes to three of the posed questions and "sort of" to at least one more. I won't say which ones at it amuses me more at this time.

[NobleHunter]

Technically yes to two of the questions, depending on how broadly certain terms are interpreted.

[Grant]

The answer is yes to three of the posed questions and "sort of" to at least one more. I won't say which ones at it amuses me more at this time.

Pfah!  I'm at 8.  Come talk to me when you've been initiated into the higher mysteries. 

And say hello to George for me and tell him I'm sorry I missed him in Zurich and that I'm still waiting for my new card. 

[Grant]

Technically yes to two of the questions, depending on how broadly certain terms are interpreted.

Globalist

[NobleHunter]

Are you sure you don't mean (((globalist)))?

[DJQuag]

The corporate welfare given to the military companies - the very same military industrial complex Eisenhower warned against - I feel needs to be examined, but never is.

This country will complain about welfare payments or the cost of the immigrants, or whatever. Whatever scapegoat is there.

Can we all acknowledge that when Trump was withholding 400 mil or whatever in military aid to the Ukraine, he was actually talking about welfare.

In that scenario, the US government would pay privately owned companies to provide weapons to third party countries.

It's hypocrisy, is what it is.