Cold War Gone Hot

[Kruska]

Hello JugBR,

NATO has very clear defined statutes’, and Afghanistan therefore was never a NATO mission or NATO response. Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned mission and NATO took over the peacekeeping role after the initial US 911 retaliation.

During the Falkland war, not a single non British soldier was in action supporting the UK up front, merely logistical and weapons delivery assistance and over flight permissions were handed out. NATO did not act accordingly to its Statutes and the British were rightfully darn outraged and upset about this NATO buddy buddy talk alliance.

It just proves that including the Cold War enemy Russia (Who never attacked because of the US ABC arsenal), NATO was and is a totally ineffective organization.

Regards
Kruska

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello JugBR,

NATO has very clear defined statutes’, and Afghanistan therefore was never a NATO mission or NATO response. Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned mission and NATO took over the peacekeeping role after the initial US 911 retaliation.

During the Falkland war, not a single non British soldier was in action supporting the UK up front, merely logistical and weapons delivery assistance and over flight permissions were handed out. NATO did not act accordingly to its Statutes and the British were rightfully darn outraged and upset about this NATO buddy buddy talk alliance.

It just proves that including the Cold War enemy Russia (Who never attacked because of the US ABC arsenal), NATO was and is a totally ineffective organization.

Regards
Kruska

thats due to some really lame members

you really should visit these folks and tell them it was all for naught i can find lots more if you want
Lahr

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

thats due to some really lame members

you really should visit these folks and tell them it was all for naught i can find lots more if you want
Lahr

Take a look into history,

Hundreds of German army personal died since NATO's founding, and they died whilst performing their duty, upkeeping Germany's defense, contributing to UN missions. It would have been Germany that needed to be defended against a possible red anslaught - take a look on a map.

Since the other European countries would not have been able to stop a Russian attack based on their individual account they formed NATO, and Germany being the front state was asked to join, since the others didn't want to take the brunt by themselfs - which in turn is logical.

So did Germany join NATO to help out, or did NATO allow Germany to create a new army to join in so as to help NATO? Would the Europeans and the US have helped Germany if Stalin had attacked presumably in 1941-42?

NATO was nothing else but to fill the gap of the Wehrmacht after 1945, since only Germany and its allies had fought against Stalin and the reds. Englands and France's decleration of war against Germany in regards to Poland caused Hitler to go west instead of east as he always planed.

Since Hitler couldn't finish his job, NATO had to be put in place instead.

These are historical facts, they do not excuse Hitlers madness and him starting the war. If Germany had been sucessfull against Russia (and not engaging against the West at first), another NATO would have been formed - against Hitler Germany.

NATO had one very significant advantage though, it forced the Western Europeans to abandon their everlasting brawls and wars and unite them to a common goal – prosperity and coexistence without further wars amongst themselves under US supervision. A longer lasting Napoleonic Empire or even a united Hitler Europe would have resulted in the same effect.

Regards
Kruska

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Take a look into history,

Hundreds of German army personal died since NATO's founding, and they died whilst performing their duty, upkeeping Germany's defense, contributing to UN missions. It would have been Germany that needed to be defended against a possible red anslaught - take a look on a map.

Since the other European countries would not have been able to stop a Russian attack based on their individual account they formed NATO, and Germany being the front state was asked to join, since the others didn't want to take the brunt by themselfs - which in turn is logical.

So did Germany join NATO to help out, or did NATO allow Germany to create a new army to join in so as to help NATO? Would the Europeans and the US have helped Germany if Stalin had attacked presumably in 1941-42?

NATO was nothing else but to fill the gap of the Wehrmacht after 1945, since only Germany and its allies had fought against Stalin and the reds. Englands and France's decleration of war against Germany in regards to Poland caused Hitler to go west instead of east as he always planed.

Since Hitler couldn't finish his job, NATO had to be put in place instead.

These are historical facts, they do not excuse Hitlers madness and him starting the war. If Germany had been sucessfull against Russia (and not engaging against the West at first), another NATO would have been formed - against Hitler Germany.

NATO had one very significant advantage though, it forced the Western Europeans to abandon their everlasting brawls and wars and unite them to a common goal – prosperity and coexistence without further wars amongst themselves under US supervision. A longer lasting Napoleonic Empire or even a united Hitler Europe would have resulted in the same effect.

Regards
Kruska

How many of your thousands of casualties have been out of Germany proper
NATO was formed after the USAF and RAF kept your new capital Berlin supplied in the airlift
Remember the tenseness in because of the actions of the Warsaw pact in 56 61 68 81
Its time for a country your size to stand up and be counted
As the sign reads in Khandahar " No loud noises you'll scare the Germans"

[Kruska]

pbfoot
How many of your thousands of casualties have been out of Germany proper

I wrote hundreds not thousands.

NATO was formed after the USAF and RAF kept your new capital Berlin supplied in the airlift

Was Berlin supplied to help the poor Germans and allied Forces from starvation, or to stop Stalin from grabbing it? I would say the population of Berlin was lucky to be in a place which the allies where not willing to give to Stalin as they did with other parts of Germany.

Treaty of Brussels 17. March 1948 was the forerunner of NATO and caused the Berlin Blockade in the first place in conjunction with the currency introduction.

Remember the tenseness in because of the actions of the Warsaw pact in  56 61 68 81

I never denied that Russia used force to oppress the eastern countries, and NATO did not achieve anything to stop the Russians from keeping them oppressed till 1990. It was Ronald and the US who killed of Russia by driving them into bankruptcy. And I truly respect him for this feat.

Its time for a country your size to stand up and be counted

Who should we stand up to and why? We are perfectly happy with our friends and ourselves, we do not have a Hitler who needs to stand up for whatever.

As the sign reads in Khandahar " No loud noises you'll scare the Germans"

Personally I do not give a rat’s ass about some silly sign put up in Kandahar or elsewere.

On the other hand you might be misinterpreting the actual meaning of this sign: Do not make noise, if the Germans have a reason to be afraid they will retaliate with all their power and skill and beat the **** out of everybody like in the past centuries.

Regards
Kruska

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Kruska

It just proves that including the Cold War enemy Russia (Who never attacked because of the US ABC arsenal), NATO was and is a totally ineffective organization.

Regards
Kruska

Label it what you wish, Kruska. You can attribute success where you want. But NATO exists. WARSAW pact does not. And last I read, the cold war was won. Revisionist history never dies. Its a wonder you can stand to live in your freedom. You must be very conflicted.

[Ramirezzz]

I agree with Kruska. The bankruptcy of the Soviet Union was not a military achievement of the NATO, but the economical of the reaganist USA. As an military alliance it was been proven itself ineffective when it came to some real action. The NATO was been created only with one purpose - to counter the Russian military threat and fight it in the case of war. That was the primary idea at the time of its founding. That's why when some NATO members were been involved in some local conflicts , no significant military aide was delivered. Simply because the NATO wasn't been created to oppose THAT kind of problems. It was like a gun with a single round in the clip. Effective only in one specific case - the war against USSR.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Label it what you wish, Kruska. You can attribute success where you want. But NATO exists. WARSAW pact does not. And last I read, the cold war was won. Revisionist history never dies. Its a wonder you can stand to live in your freedom. You must be very conflicted.

cold war wasnt won. thats the real revisionism, thinking cold war had a winner or a loser.

the warsaw pact does not exist because gorbachev ends the brejnev douctrin and gave to soviet satelite states and their republics the freedon to have democratic governments if they want. now, is gorbachev a nato guy ?

i think that point of view, cold war win, is not new, and it shows some lack of humility and some superb by the pompous and arrogant way that western leaders of nato faced the happened of the end of ussr.

instead to leds the global policies to a new unified state, between west and east, it was a infant opportunity to say - in your face ! -
instead to support the new born democratic russia, the leaders preferred to see they crash into a economic crisis that made possible things like nuclear proliferation.

i think its the same arrogance that make today, western leaders dont face the crisis in georgia as it should be faced, and the very wrong policies over eastern europe that creates useless tensions like the missiles shield issues.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

I agree with Kruska. The bankruptcy of the Soviet Union was not a military achievement of the NATO, but the economical of the reaganist USA. As an military alliance it was been proven ineffective when it came to some real action. The NATO was created only with one purpose - to counter the Russian military threat and fight it in the case of war. That was the primary idea at the time of its founding. That's why when some NATO members were been involved in some local conflicts , no significant military aide was delivered. Simply because the NATO wasn't created to oppose THAT kind of problems. It was like a gun with a single round in the clip. Effective only in one specific case - the war against USSR.

agreed. and for the nato, if ussr doesnt wanted war anymore, its was a signal of defeat, not an oportunity to move a step forward in international relations.

[pbfoot]

Yes it is agiven that the USSR when bankrupt
Prior to that it was a Mexican standoff it was as close to war to it could get at points , I really doubt many of you remember the Cuban Missle crisis or the invasion of Prague and other similar incidents.
Of course your not aware of false Navaids set up to entice aircraft or ships to encroach Soviet territory.
Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO
Was it the intention of the USSR to get Western Europe Yes
Were Nuclear armed bombers on both sides orbiting 24/7
Were Nuclear armed armed subs sitting off both sides coast 24/7
Why would Canada have 400 fighters in Europe in the 50's and 60's?
maybe so they have some uncongested airspace and good weather to fly in


If NATO does not exist Kruska would now be whining about driving a Trabant or Lada

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO

yeah, they didn't intend to free it, they intended to bomb it into stone age in a preemptive strike. See "Dropshot" plan.

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Yes it is agiven that the USSR when bankrupt
Prior to that it was a Mexican standoff it was as close to war to it could get at points , I really doubt many of you remember the Cuban Missle crisis or the invasion of Prague and other similar incidents.
Of course your not aware of false Navaids set up to entice aircraft or ships to encroach Soviet territory.
Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO
Was it the intention of the USSR to get Western Europe Yes
Were Nuclear armed bombers on both sides orbiting 24/7
Were Nuclear armed armed subs sitting off both sides coast 24/7
Why would Canada have 400 fighters in Europe in the 50's and 60's?
maybe so they some uncongested airspace and good weather to fly in


If NATO does not exist Kruska would now be whining about driving a Trabant or Lada

invasion of prague ? are you talking about prague spring ? when the population of prague was instigated to make protests by the "radio free europe" - a western instrument of propaganda then ussr army occupy the country and nato did nothing ?

funny thing is that i found a website of RFE, seems like they still instigating people against ussr or what they think still been ussr. should nato thinks russia is ussr too ?

i think in the past some soviet low profile supporters could said to some eastern germans protesters that if the wall wasnt built they would be driving mercedes or bmw´s maybe a vw passat...

ridiculous isnt ? a trabant for a bmw... but the real deal is the wall. still in some people minds...

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

yeah, they didn't intend to free it, they intended to bomb it into stone age in a preemptive strike. See "Dropshot" plan.

The key word being preemptive

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

The key word being preemptive

preemption ? or a mc carthyist paranoia ?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by JugBR

preemption ? or a mc carthyist paranoia ?

I'm in Canada ......but you being from Brazil with its 20 long years of Democracy 1988 its hard to tell the difference .
I guess your right they built that wall and fence just to keep us away from that socialist paradise
I always used to say to myself don't those Young Pioneer uniforms look so much better then my Boy Scout suit and I'm sure I'd like to explore all those spas in Siberia fresh air excercise and the Soviet confessional was far more awakening then that of the Catholic Church