Goodbye Nato - Goodbye world peace.
For some unknown reason huge numbers of people see the EU as cuddly , a bit like the teddy-bear you had as a child, always there when you needed it......... get real
The EU is a project to acquire complete undemocratic federal control of Europe, always has been from day one, the British people were duped into joining it back in the 70's by being told it was a common market. Most of the world's population isn't interested in what the EU is up to as they think it doesn't\won't affect them.....think again
Britain has been a pain in the arse for the EU for decades, vetoing there excesses, soon Britain won't be there anymore to do that, already the EU is forging ahead with plans for an EU army, that will of course be a nuclear power, this will of course mean the collapse of NATO as many NATO members are also EU members. NATO has kept peace in the world since the last war by the principle "You attack any NATO country you attack them all", in addition Trump has said if he's elected, which looks highly likely as Clinton is rumoured to be dying, he will withdraw the support of NATO from countries not spending 2% of GDP on defence, that's most of them, so either way NATO is a dead organisation walking
The EU is controlled not by elected MPs as it appears, they're there to rubber stamp the decisions made by unelected commissioners, a shadier bunch you wouldn't want to meet , but ALL the unelected hierarchy have one thing in common when you look at there backgrounds, they have all either worked for or have connections to Goldman Sachs, the last retired President of the commission has just taken a directorship at yes you guessed it Goldman Sachs. Sachs is bank, It's for others to decide what there interest is in controlling the whole of the Europe, and indeed who's behind it
Comments (51)
that it has done more harm than good.Never having any respect
or common decency when aboard is hypocrisy.
If you are tactful,you are diplomatic.Their actions say otherwise, flaunting their immunity as "above the law", Unconscionably.
An International Mafia.
I've found the cure.Brutality combined with monetary power.
Perpetuation of crimes against humanity.
it claims their ultimate motive is not to assimilate,but annihilate.
We are taught to ignore the obvious and romanticize conquerors.
You and others help me to remain hopeful,but more than that you kept
hearts and minds connected too.Thank you friend.
In line of your thinking Z, if in fact it has served its purpose as laid out, then it should be kept and maintained for the same principle as founded.
Below is the core of NATO's purpose:
"NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.
POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.
MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations."
If we look at its objective, it serves to underscore aggression by any other country that is not a member but if it eventually dismantled then the real survival of the fittest will rise. Country against any other country and the alliance and or union of any country that will subdue the aggressor will just be done when it happens. Just as the Allies against the Axis.
What I see is a a very unstable world that is skirting any escalation of conflict that will give rise to another global war. Maybe it is a plan all along that is initiated by those of military and economic means?
This is not new Z. I thought we already covered the migration crisis initiated by Merkel and that it wouldn't stop. The problem is that there is no way of stopping them and all these recent development strengthens the crises even more. With Britain no longer a member of the union, seems likely that there is not abating now or in the future. Is there?
So saying it in contempt about the Americans should and must not meddle in Europe's business is like telling your own child to stay away from the cake in the cover..
Having said that, we have to understand that the role the US has made in its global relation is not because of the demographic location, these same people as the Goldman Sachs, the Rosenthals and the IMagnin, rule the world Z.
As was seen in the recent vote in the UK, all the resources chucked at keeping Britain in EU proved fruitless, the people saw right through the BS & voted to get out.
Scotty you hear?
and pointed fingers in directions I am too politically challenged to understand
and it all sounds very alarming
are you just reporting or is there something that can be done?
if just reporting, I shall take up my famous imitation of an ostrich
Just coming back to the ttip agreement, we don't for sure what's in cos it's secret, how the hell can we object to something we don't know about, fortunately the EU being the leaky old barge it is we have a have a good idea, taking two of I think 27 points, the EU will agree to the privatisation of all Europe's public services, that's things like the NHS in Britain, America will in effect be able to buy it outright & sell the service back to the government, point two, it will allow American corps that have invested in Europe to sue any government that in it's opinion reduces there profits by a change of government policy, say the USA has bought all of the nuclear power stations in the UK & there was an accident, so the UK government decides nuclear power is too dangerous, the American company can sue the UK for loss of profits they may have made, despite the fact it would be there power that blew up, that's a bad example really but there are already such agreements in place & several European governments are currently being sued for loss of profits. Big pharma is especially interested in being able to sue when a government decides it's drug is too expense cost for benefit.