Why NATO? Economically the US and the EU are deadly enemies!

Economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies. So the NATO must be terminated. Do you agree?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I don’t know.
0 voters

The NATO must be terminated because, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies. Do you agree?

Logically the premiss is a proposing that NATO must be terminated. The reason behind that is, that EU and the USA are deadly enemies, is a hypothetical which needs to be validated, since it is implausible to assume it’s common knowledge.

Finally, even if the above propositions are validated, it is no certainty that there may be direct correlation between economic and mutually defensive associations. Therefore, I voted ‘No’, although until clarifications are forthcoming re: the above.

Voted no. NATO isn’t an economic agreement, it’s a military alliance. “Deadly enemies” is a bit of poetic wording to make it appear as though economic issues and military issues are combined when they are not. Economic rivals can be military allies.

It is not advisable to consider, and especially to assess military and economy only separately.

the question also misses the little Russian problem.
Putin is bat shit crazy and could pull the trigger just to boost
his ego.


The question misses nothing.

K: a bit sensitive are we?

The US and the EU are not deadly enemies. the means of economics is trading and
the US and the EU are trading partners, which means they make money off each other.
Sure they hit their rough patches but overall they need each other economically and
that will keep Nato in business long after its needed. And as for putin, as long as
Russia has delusions of grander, Nato will be needed. The EU by itself cannot hold off
any type of Russian attack. Militarily, the EU needs the US. The fear of Russia will
keep Nato in business.


On top of that, prior to the meltdown of relations between Nato members and Russia, Russia was a NATO conference ‘observer’, with even talk of having her become a permanent member. there were discussions going on in Brussels, over the relevance of NATO, when there are no reasons for it to continue, since the demise of Communism. However, NATO could still have retained symbolic significance , of usefullness, by retaining it’s function as a sort of world police force. Here again the dual aspect of symbol and signification props up in context.

You are sensitive? Okay, then I give you a cuter example:

A: „How old are you, K.?“
K: „The question also misses the place where I was born.“
A: „The question misses nothing.“

Headshrinker: „K, would you please tell A how old you are?“

The EU has no fear of Russia, because Russia isn’t militarily strong - apart from its nuclear weapons. And besides that: The EU could also arm itself. Why not?

The NATO was once founded as an alliance of defence, at least it was said so (and as usual a lie), but more and more it became obvious that it was an alliance of attack and even the most aggressive attack alliance of all times. We have been becoming aware of it at least since the Attack on Vietnam.

Okay, if the existence of the NATO has not to be terminated, then it has to be reformed - as well as the EU.


… and so on.

The NATO should be an alliance of defence - and nothing more than an alliance of defence!

Please make suggestions how the NATO can be reformed that it can become an alliance of defence - and nothing more than an alliance of defence!

The EU has to be reformed too. Please make also suggestions for the EU reform!

K: gladly, I am 55. I am old enough to remember having drills in class, where we practice hiding
under the desk in case of a nukes from the mean old soviet union. Yep, our desk would save us from
a nuclear holocaust.


Maybe not, but a military 'enemy' is not the same thing as an economic 'enemy', and to call two groups 'deadly enemies' is hyperbolic when talking about the latter sense.  
 In the sense in which NATO matters, the US and EU aren't enemies.  In the sense in which they are economic 'enemies', there's nothing 'deadly' about it to provoke the comparison.

It would be like asking if New York or Massachusetts should seceed from the union because the Yankees and the Red Sox are 'deadly enemies'.

No, that’s wrong, and you know that it is wrong!

B.t.w.: What would you think, if your “friend” is vitsiting and at the same time robbing you?

Arminius, before there was trade between adjacent villages, there were only skirmishes over differences of unfairness. now the village has gone global, and the most that such unfairness can garner, is some protectionist tax. Before international trade agreements, countries would go to war with each other. Some examples are the Opium Wars of the British Empire with China, the rubner wars of the USA and Vietnam, the oil wars with the Middle East, and the list goes on. NATO is important, even if there is in some persons opinion, no relationship between economics and international security. however, what makes anyone think, that if trade agreements are broken, economic pressures do not force governments to engage in saber rattling rhetoric or action? now, more then ever, with the attempted equalization of the global economy, the world needs teeth to sink into the petty thefts of countries accused of misappropriation, especially theft of foreign aid, consumer product espionage, of illicit printing of forged currency, not to speak of international narcotic trade, human investiture and trafficking of young girls , pirating on the high seas? downing of airlines to serve political ends, and the button still on the nuclear option,as a way of swinging big time threats to unbelievers? is not Nato if nothing else, a big stick of which Theodore Roosevelt spoke as a requirement for governance of imperium? And the US is an imperium, needing allies to control the world , absent of which, the vacum it would leave behind, would for sure ascertain a real catastrophe of no presdedent? There is, clearly, more to the idea, that whereas they are different, economics and defense are primordially related.

Maybe I don’t have all the facts- if you think the relationship between the US and the EU is comparable to robbery, tell me how.

[size=150]Yes, you don’t have all the facts. After bombing Europe (especially Germany and robbing it, cp. the robbed millions of patents, masterpieces, knowledge, scientists and technicians [by blackmailing them], and - amongst much others - territories [cp. the forced displacement of about 20,000,000 Germans] and the whole gold of the German Reich) you have been bombing it with immigrants because (you know) that it will weaken it sooner or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all European people?[/size]

[size=150]The reasons why there is still no peace treaty to end the Second World War have also to do with those historical facts I described above. And why and for whom is it advantageous (cui bono?) that enemies of the Second World War which has not ended (because there is no peace treaty) became suddenly and remain partners, although one of this partners (Germany) always has to pay reparations, redemptions, reinstatement etc.? And since about thh 1960’s this partner has been sacrificing its people again, this time by abortion and enslaving to make a way for immigrants from countries which are bombed by the USA and Israel.

I like the US people of all time - but not the US politics since 1913![/size]

The European Union and central bank is the United States bitch.

NATO is the United States lapdog.