Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "How The Army Prepares For A NATO Deployment • SCOTS DG | Forces TV" video.

@markojovanovic1750 we're not threatening Russian sovereignty but ensuring the independence of it neighbours. No NATO member is stupid enough the consider an invasion of Russia. But without NATO you get Russia willing to act as it has in the Ukraine or Georgia.
7
@gilbert7794 it's a NATO deployment, NATO comfortably out numbers Russia.
4
Hundreds of Europeans have died in Afganistan fighting on the USs behalf. The only time article 5 has been invoked.
4
@gilbert7794 Troop number are irrelevant, it wasn't an army that stood in the way it was the Royal Navy, the largest navy in the world at the time. The UK ended the battle of Britain with more planes that it started with, it wasn't that close but if you want to go that route it was Luck/Incompetence that saved Britain not Russia. And Russia didn't even choose to fight, it was invaded.
3
@gilbert7794 How will pissing off Russia end badly. Are Russia going to invade us and face NATO, which as I said out numbers it militarily and utterly dwarves it by economic and population terms. What are their mechanisms to make it end badly for us? Also again "entered the war" suggest it was in anyway there decision, they tried there best to avoid with Ribbentrop, but were invaded, inevitably based on Nazi idealogy.
3
It is precisely countries near Russia that need the protection of NATO. Countries that felt to need to join voluntarily. I'm also curious how you think Russia is capable of attacking the UK, an island a thousands miles from it.
3
@gilbert7794 how do you come to that conclusion? Was Russia fighting Germany when Britain won the Battle of Britain? If Britain looked for peace the worse that would have happen was they'd loose a few colonies. But we thought the fight was worth fighting.
2
@crazychimp1324 that was for the politicians that campaigned for Brexit but didn't have plan for implementing it. And a lot of Brits agree with him.
2
@gilbert7794 Napoleon and Hitler were fighting another country at the time. Britain.
1
@markojovanovic1750 that's just M.A.D.
1
@barrysorento3572 what's being involved in European affairs got to do with the length of Afganistan. That's a US war in Asia. Only your not fighting alone, but with allies. And the 2nd amendment hasn't been relevant for defence in a century. No one is invading past your massive Navy and Air force. Quarter them in size and they are still the most powerful in the world. What make the EU the 4th Reich, is it the vetos all the small countries have or the 12% of the vote Germany has in the parliament?
1
@barrysorento3572 1) You entered WW1 because your merchant ships were being sunk by German subs, being isolationist is one thing, letting someone else walk all over you us another. Also the allies likely still would have won only later so Hitler might well have happened anyway. 2) Less Americans dead, less financial burden because it's split with allies. 3) You missed my point complete. You are to powerful for 2nd amendment to be relevant. But the idea you want to be a guerrilla is dumb, 10x plus guerrillas have died is wars like Vietnam and Afganistan. 4) They are appointed by the elected heads of states, so indirectly elected. But even if you go with unelected 1 in 28 is German. How does that make it a Reich?
1