NATO is in trouble.

[Colonel]

Yup. More like just starting.

Yeah I think so too.
There has been a surge of attacks throughout Europe - these will be going on for years.
European governments don't even know where their own known terrorists and extremists are - that's very worrying.

 

[Colonel]

You people are so full of shit I bet you have fleas. Terrorists have been here since the Reagan era, and Bush let even more come in through the Southern border. As to fighting terrorism, we are spending far more fighting ISIS then Bush spent on his phony "war".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/u...st-isis-with-attacks-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0

BTW, when do you suppose the Republicans will give him the authority to do so?

Yes they have.
You cannot deny that the surge of terrorists is due to countries leaders for improper control.

USA - Obama is to blame
UK - May is to blame
DE - Merkel is to blame

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Yes they have.
You cannot deny that the surge of terrorists is due to countries leaders for improper control.

USA - Obama is to blame
UK - May is to blame
DE - Merkel is to blame

I think the situation is the result of American interference in ME politics for the past 100 years, and especially that of Bush43. What the result was is what we are seeing, and no one has a clue as to how you stop the tidal wave that was created. e.g I was watching the news a short time ago, and the Syrians, and the Russians, were whining about how the US had accidently killed a few civilians in a bombing raid. However, they are killing thousands, especially children, on Aleppo, and feel no remorse. We need to keep ourselves in our own borders and let the rest of the world defend itself for a change. Of course, if you did that how could you justify the vast military complex we have.

 

[Colonel]

We need to keep ourselves in our own borders and let the rest of the world defend itself for a change

I agree.
I have been saying this for many years.

 

[Aus22]

Britain and France were interfering in the Middle east from WW1. Long before the USA.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Britain and France were interfering in the Middle east from WW1. Long before the USA.

Actually, the US was there with them in a conflict over oil, and who would control it, Britain, or the US:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6308.htm

 

[Reddie]

Putin is watching happily from the sidelines as NATO tears itself apart[/URL]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...as-jeremy-corbyn-endorses-rival-labour-confe/

Jeremy Corbyn . . . The Labour leader was asked multiple times at a leadership debate in Birmingham if he would uphold the Nato principle of "collective defence" where an attack against one member is considered an attack against all.

But he refused to give concrete assurance that he would do so were he prime minister.

Instead he said: “I would want to avoid us getting involved military, by building up democratic relationships."

Could be the beginning of the end for NATO.

 

[pwarbi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...as-jeremy-corbyn-endorses-rival-labour-confe/


Could be the beginning of the end for NATO.

I don't think that NATO is as secure as it was maybe even as recent as 6 months ago, but at the same time there's no way that it is just going to disappear. There are a lot of countries involved in NATO, and a lot of countries that rely on it for protection, and while that is still the case, it will maybe not always have a place in the world, but will for a long time to come.

Well, until WW3 breaks out anyway and then I think it will be every man (or country) for themselves at this rate.

 

[dogtowner]

Go away is certainly less likely than see some significant change.