Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO
By Julio
Severo
Recent
major headlines show the contrast between Donald Trump and Barack Obama in
their stances on NATO:
Washington Times: “Donald Trump: U.S. wouldn’t necessarily defend NATO countries attacked
by Russia.”
CNN: “Obama huddles with NATO leader as Trump derides alliance.”
The New York Times: “Obama Tells NATO That ‘Europe Can Count On’ the U.S.”
Associated Press: “President Obama slams Trump saying that The Donald’s comments about
NATO show a ‘lack of preparedness’ when it comes to foreign policy.”
Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that the U.S. wouldn’t necessarily
defend other NATO countries if they were attacked by Russia and that NATO
defense of its member countries was not unconditional.
Europe
was left “terrorized”!
Obama
and top NATO military commanders were fast to accuse Trump of undermining the
most important U.S. military alliance.
James
Stavridis, retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied
commander of NATO, tweeted: “Trump on NATO: deeply dangerous, will dismay
our closest Allies.”
Democrats
also piled on, saying, “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed. Harry Truman would be
ashamed. Republicans, Democrats and independents who helped build NATO into the
most successful military alliance in history would all come to the same
conclusion: Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally
ill-prepared to be our commander in chief.”
In
contrast, Obama has said that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is supremely
capable of making NATO stronger.
He
has pledged unwavering commitment to defending Europe, even saying that “in
good times and in bad, Europe can count on the United States.”
In
2014, under Obama insistence NATO created a rapid-reaction force of 4,000
troops to “counter a resurgent Russia.”
This
insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes much more a provocation than a defense.
If Russia were actually a threat, the number of troops would have to be 100 times
greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force. What then
is the purpose of such insignificant NATO troops stationed in the EU border
against Russia? Just Obama and neocons using EU and NATO for unnecessary
provocations, while the real enemy, the Islamic immigration, has a free reign
to invade Europe.
Yet,
European elites are “terrorized” not by the Islamic hordes already invading
Europe, but by Russia.
Equally
“terrorized” are U.S. neocons, who want a U.S. president to make NATO stronger
against Russia. But the current Republican hope for president has dashed their
dreams of military expansion.
Hillary
is the only neocon hope for NATO expansion.
“The neocons… thrive on military
conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and the defense contractors who
work with them make enormous amounts of money. The neocons don’t care which
side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political
situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.”
Savage
points that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in
Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.
Obama
and his neocons want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war over it. In
contrast, Trump has shown, so far, no willingness to follow neocon passions for
war in Ukraine against Russia.
Last week, Ukrainian President
Petro Poroshenko invited Trump for a meeting, but, according to DailyMail, “the
Ukrainian government says the Republican candidate blew them off.”
Yet,
Hillary Clinton met Poroshenko and promised him that she would stand with
Ukraine against “Russian aggression.”
She
added that if elected, she looks forward to deepening and intensifying
cooperation with Ukraine.
Other
major supporter of Ukraine is
left-wing billionaire George Soros,
who has heavily invested in the Ukraine crisis. The Ukrainian revolution was
more than a people’s revolution. It was Soros’s revolution, and his special
trophy. It is his revolutionary crown.
Michael
Savage also said,
“Washington’s original purpose for
staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring
Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the
bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest
control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over
the country.”
NATO’s
original purpose had never been to gain economic and energy control over
nations. But now, under the brutish force of neocons, including Obama and
Hillary, NATO is a puppet making nations neocon interests’ puppets. NATO has
become a powerful tool for the neocons’ greed.
NATO
(North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a U.S. military alliance created to
protect Europe from the Soviet Union and its communism. But Soviet Union has
been extinct since 1991, and a new powerful threat is engulfing Europe right
under NATO’s nose: Islamic invasion.
There
is an abundant evidence that the Islamic threat is real: terror attacks are
increasingly commonplace in European nations that saw only peace in recent
decades. Islam and its adherents have dramatically changed the peaceful
European landscape.
Besides,
there is abundant evidence that the influx of Islamic immigration is increasing
anti-Semitism and violence against the Jews. Anti-Semitism in Europe is
historically linked to major violence against the Jews, including the
Inquisition and Nazism. The Islamic invasion is preparing the way for bringing
a reenacting of both anti-Jewish killing machines.
There
is a movement of Jews leaving Europe because of anti-Semitic violence directly
linked to the increasing population of Islamic immigrants.
NATO
has done nothing to protect Europe from Islam. NATO has done nothing to protect
European Jews from the prevalent anti-Semitism of Islamic invaders. In fact,
the only Islamic NATO member, Turkey, has had a crafty alliance with ISIS and
has been the main door for the Islamic invasion in the European Union. Turkey
has flooded Europe with Islamists.
A
friend in Turkey told me last year that Turkey provides Islamists with false
papers and passports to enter Europe. With Islamic Turkey and with a NATO mysteriously
unwilling to fight the Islamic threat, it is very suspicious that the only
focus of NATO and neocons is Russia.
If today
NATO were honest in its purposes and necessary and helpful in its objectives,
it would focus on:
·
Islamic
threat.
·
Drawing
Russia for a NATO membership.
Probably,
this will never happen because Obama wants a strong NATO against Russia, not
against the Islamic threat.
I
disagree with Trump on pro-family issues. He has a very weak history in these
issues. But his decision of deriding NATO is correct, because NATO has been
useless against the Islamic invasion. Trump seems to be very strong and
resolute against this threat.
While
Obama receives global praise for his NATO advocacy, Trump has publicly welcomed
praise from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A former CIA director has labeled
Trump a “Russian agent”
and he said that he intends to vote for Hillary. Even former president George
H. W. Bush said that he
is going to
vote for her.
Human
Rights Commission chairman Garry Kasparov compared Donald Trump to Vladimir
Putin, in a Washington Post essay. He is the author of a new book, “Winter is
Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped,”
and played a pivotal role in the establishment of The Other Russian Party,
which is one of the opposition’s to Putin’s United Russia Party.
Kasparov
said, “I’ve seen too much of Putin in 16 years and too much of Trump in one.”
For
him, both Putin and Trump represent destruction. Would Obama and Hillary be the
only hope?
Who
is right? Obama and Clinton, who want a stronger NATO? Or Trump, who does not want
what Obama and Hillary want?
If NATO
had followed its original intents, would it exist today?
The
first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the
alliance: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national
defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole
project will have failed.”
Today,
the only NATO’s mission seems to be military expansion against Russia. And
among those who warned against moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch was
America’s greatest geostrategist, George Kennan, who said: “Expanding NATO
would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era.
Such a decision may be expected to impel Russian foreign policy in directions
decidedly not to our liking.”
Kennan
was proven right. By refusing to treat Russia as the U.S. treated other nations
that repudiated Leninism, the Obama, Clinton and neocons are creating the
Russia they say that they fear, a rearming nation bristling with resentment.
Doug
Bandow, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, said, “The Cold War’s premier
military alliance led by the U.S. should have disappeared after the Soviet
Union dissolved… The Soviet Union no longer exists and there is no evidence
that Moscow plans to stage a blitzkrieg through… the Atlantic Ocean. Russia’s
brutal treatment of Georgia and Ukraine is essentially defensive against an
expanding NATO, not offensive in attempting to recreate the Soviet empire.”
Trump
understands this reality and he is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy
elite whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.
What
is not frozen is the Islamic threat, which has been increasingly active around
the world, especially in Europe. In the perspective of this mounting cultural and
civilizational threat, NATO has been useless, and a Trump presidency could help
the U.S. to pursue a realistic policy, not the visionary plans of Obama, Hillary
and other neocons.
With information from WorldNetDaily,
DailyMail, Associated Press, FoxNews, Washington Times, CNN, New York Times,
Charisma News and George Soros.
Portuguese version of this
article: Trump,
Obama, Hillary e OTAN
Source: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:
Posts
No comments :
Post a Comment