Newt on Trump

[Correll]

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

You asked how abandoning NATO increases our security.

I pointed out that it removes a treaty obligation to go to war with Russia (risking a nuclear holocaust).

That is a pretty good answer.

YOu have failed to address it.

As is common with you.

And then you lied and said that I had NOT been answering anything.

I've also asked a number of good or "informed" questions, which you have ignored and lied about.

So if I understand your logic correctly: Withdraw American power and influence from global responsibilities, allow expansionist dictatorships to dictate terms to everyone, and just hope they don't want more. Does that about sum it up?

All you are doing is ignoring my answers to your questions to re post your strawmen.

You seem incapable of any actually honest discussion on the topic.

 

[Correll]

[

Sounds like Correll and Trump have come up with the perfect formula for World War lll.

I have pointed out that there are TWO historical models for how World Wars start.

I made my case for why I believe we are set up more for a WWI model than a WWII model.

You have done nothing to challenge my argument for that.

I have asked you to make your case for thinking we are in a WWII model situation.

You attempts to do so have been weak, and when I point this out, your "defense" is to make another unsupported assertion.

And now you are making empty claims of victory.

 

[Correll]

And who would have guessed that Trump followers would be pacifist isolationists?

Anyone who understood what the Cold War was about.

Who would ever guess that libs would turn out to be warmongers?

 

[Correll]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

 

[Liminal]

[

Sounds like Correll and Trump have come up with the perfect formula for World War lll.

I have pointed out that there are TWO historical models for how World Wars start.

I made my case for why I believe we are set up more for a WWI model than a WWII model.

You have done nothing to challenge my argument for that.

I have asked you to make your case for thinking we are in a WWII model situation.

You attempts to do so have been weak, and when I point this out, your "defense" is to make another unsupported assertion.

And now you are making empty claims of victory.

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would agree with your idea of there being only TWO historic models for war.

 

[Liminal]

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

You asked how abandoning NATO increases our security.

I pointed out that it removes a treaty obligation to go to war with Russia (risking a nuclear holocaust).

That is a pretty good answer.

YOu have failed to address it.

As is common with you.

And then you lied and said that I had NOT been answering anything.

I've also asked a number of good or "informed" questions, which you have ignored and lied about.

So if I understand your logic correctly: Withdraw American power and influence from global responsibilities, allow expansionist dictatorships to dictate terms to everyone, and just hope they don't want more. Does that about sum it up?

All you are doing is ignoring my answers to your questions to re post your strawmen.

You seem incapable of any actually honest discussion on the topic.

The only straw man here is you.

 

[Liminal]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

And after you and Donald sacrifice Estonia the Russians should be satisfied........is that right?

 

[Liminal]

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

Nor will he ever. His Resorting to cartoons over and over is a sure sign he’s lost.

I think we should be a little more tolerant of his ignorance, it might not be his fault. Maybe no one ever took the time to teach him anything.....or maybe he can't be taught. All we can do is try to be patient so we can hopefully enlighten the less fortunate.

It's all his fault. I'm so enjoying the exchanges. Funniest shit Evah!

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

 

[Liminal]

And who would have guessed that Trump followers would be pacifist isolationists?

Anyone who understood what the Cold War was about.

Who would ever guess that libs would turn out to be warmongers?

It's you and Donald who want to destabilize the globe and precipitate more wars.

 

[Liminal]

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Our NATO allies evidently do more than you and Donald Trump know about.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Correll]

[

Sounds like Correll and Trump have come up with the perfect formula for World War lll.

I have pointed out that there are TWO historical models for how World Wars start.

I made my case for why I believe we are set up more for a WWI model than a WWII model.

You have done nothing to challenge my argument for that.

I have asked you to make your case for thinking we are in a WWII model situation.

You attempts to do so have been weak, and when I point this out, your "defense" is to make another unsupported assertion.

And now you are making empty claims of victory.

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would agree with your idea of there being only TWO historic models for war.

Which of course, is not what I said.

Here is what I said, you liar.


I have pointed out that there are TWO historical models for how World Wars start.

You have been acting like there is ONLY ONE.


I made my case for why I believe we are set up more for a WWI model than a WWII model.

You have done nothing to challenge my argument for that.

I have asked you to make your case for thinking we are in a WWII model situation.

Your attempts to do so have been weak, and when I point this out, your "defense" is to make a strawman.

 

[Correll]

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

You asked how abandoning NATO increases our security.

I pointed out that it removes a treaty obligation to go to war with Russia (risking a nuclear holocaust).

That is a pretty good answer.

YOu have failed to address it.

As is common with you.

And then you lied and said that I had NOT been answering anything.

I've also asked a number of good or "informed" questions, which you have ignored and lied about.

So if I understand your logic correctly: Withdraw American power and influence from global responsibilities, allow expansionist dictatorships to dictate terms to everyone, and just hope they don't want more. Does that about sum it up?

All you are doing is ignoring my answers to your questions to re post your strawmen.

You seem incapable of any actually honest discussion on the topic.

The only straw man here is you.

You asked how abandoning NATO increases our security.

I pointed out that it removes a treaty obligation to go to war with Russia (risking a nuclear holocaust).

That is a pretty good answer.

YOu have failed to address it.

As is common with you.

And then you lied and said that I had NOT been answering anything.

I've also asked a number of good or "informed" questions, which you have ignored and lied about.

 

[Correll]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

And after you and Donald sacrifice Estonia the Russians should be satisfied........is that right?

Why are you completely incapable of answering any of my questions or points?

And why do you think you are such a special snowflake that you can completely ignore my questions and expect for me to answer yours?

 

[Correll]

And who would have guessed that Trump followers would be pacifist isolationists?

Anyone who understood what the Cold War was about.

Who would ever guess that libs would turn out to be warmongers?

It's you and Donald who want to destabilize the globe and precipitate more wars.

I don't want to be treaty bound to go to war with nuclear armed Russia over Estonia or Turkey shooting down Russian planes.

You do .

 

[Correll]

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Our NATO allies evidently do more than you and Donald Trump know about.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post. You might have replied to the wrong post.

Here is my post for you to try again.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

 

[Liminal]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

And after you and Donald sacrifice Estonia the Russians should be satisfied........is that right?

Why are you completely incapable of answering any of my questions or points?

And why do you think you are such a special snowflake that you can completely ignore my questions and expect for me to answer yours?

Here's another country you and Donald Trump believe we should simply hand over to the Russians.

 

[Liminal]

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Our NATO allies evidently do more than you and Donald Trump know about.

Coalition casualties in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing in your post had anything to do with anything in my post. You might have replied to the wrong post.

Here is my post for you to try again.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept of a strategic deterrent.

 

[candycorn]

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

Nor will he ever. His Resorting to cartoons over and over is a sure sign he’s lost.

I think we should be a little more tolerant of his ignorance, it might not be his fault. Maybe no one ever took the time to teach him anything.....or maybe he can't be taught. All we can do is try to be patient so we can hopefully enlighten the less fortunate.

It's all his fault. I'm so enjoying the exchanges. Funniest shit Evah!

Whenever he can't make his point he launches into irrelevant minutiae for distraction.

And of course, cartoons.

 

[candycorn]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t help communication shitbrains. It does nothing to strengthen cooperation, prevent overlap, etc... Fuck you’re dense.

 

[Correll]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

1. As I have pointed out, this alliance seems more likely to get us INTO a war, than prevent it, at this point in time. A point you have done zero to challenge.

2. NOt being treaty bound to go to war with RUssia over Estonia, does not mean that we will not continue to share intelligence with other nations.

3. Empty claims of being superior. Isn't that one of the things you hypocrites supposedly don't like about DONALD TRUMP, you child?

And after you and Donald sacrifice Estonia the Russians should be satisfied........is that right?

Why are you completely incapable of answering any of my questions or points?

And why do you think you are such a special snowflake that you can completely ignore my questions and expect for me to answer yours?

Here's another country you and Donald Trump believe we should simply hand over to the Russians.

You are now just making up crap. Straw men is to soft a word.

You are a fucking liar.