Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

When I asked its purpose, I asked in the present tense. This is not to agree with your history, but to say that the history is not worth arguing about in the present. In MY view of NATO's history, it was always intended to make vassals of Europe's nations.

Every nation that joins NATO must immediately gear up, as a condition of membership, to NATO's military standards.

That means buying a ton of weapons from America's MIC. Which is owned by blackrock.

Follow the money.

I only brought that old **** up because it was taught that way long ago.
When I learned it, much time had passed and the war reasons were long gone.
I can't say I ever got the "vassal" thing as an overt cause to create that org. way back then.
I mean, who would join such a group? "Join us and be second class crap."

Making a country gear up to meet standards doesn't seem like a vassal.
They theoretically have to join the battle should it come to pass.
It is a "defensive" org after all. Can't have a bunch of defenseless pussies.   

So, this line of crap is what they seem to want us to buy into.
Meanwhile following the money tells a bit different story.

I think NATO has overplayed, overstayed, over reached, etc.