Would you take a bullet for Brazil?

NATO will not undertake such a costly land invasion just because of American interest though.
Not that I think it would happen but you might be able to push for another bombing campaign without UN mandate, that's as far as NATO involvement could go. But given the outcome in Libya I find it highly doubtful such a scenario will play out.

And besides all that, what is a NATO intervention going to accomplish really?

>take a bullet
America wants our help because European numbers are pathetic in a war.
We are 210M people, with the vast majority of the people being fit for military duty and pretty much auto sustainable.
We don't need your help, you need our help.

lol these kikes are so desperate to control south america theyre trying every trick in the book.

>China is Brazil's most important partner
That has nothing to do with Bolsonaro. It's only that their electorate is too stupid too understand that haveing comercial partnership with China doesn't mean you are now a communist, neither licking the USA will make your American Dream come true. It's not about mirroring. They've been for DECADES your most important partners.

having*
our*

Yes, I would die for Brazil and I am sure my fellow Germans would do the same.

Burgers get to control your foreign policy and make bases.

>your

Esqueceu o proxy amigo?

Do you really believe that Venezuela can fight?
They cease military training almost half year ago because they could not afford buy more ammo. Their gasoline and diesel reserves are also ending and soon they may go back to horses or use cattle to pull cars. They had to close the borders because their military personal was defeating.
Stop taking the Venezuelan meme seriously. We will not invade unless they strike first, and they can't.

For idiots: what Trump is doing is trying to make NATO dead for all intents and purposes except on paper.

He would kill NATO outright, but faces too much opposition and obstruction from the US Army itself

Yeah, I didn't knew I could be "haveing" one

China is only your best partner because Brazil is a banana republic.
If you look at your export towards china you will see that is mostly raw materials (iron) and foodstuffs, while China exports mostly technology to Brazil.
Not saying you shouldn't take advantage of it, but your economy is not getting a push in the right direction from that relationship.

Yes, you are very right. That I can't argue against.

I hope they're smart enough not to join. Being a NATO member only makes sense if your country borders an aggressive cunt. All of South America is 100% safe from invasion by each other, all NATO membership would mean is getting dragged into stupid fucking conflicts that Brazil could otherwise avoid.

maybe comrade trump should start by killing the US army first, then NATO

He can't do that. His own electorate would eat him if he touched the brave soldiers.

>We will not invade unless they strike first, and they can't.
but I agree with this?
I was talking about the Murrican poster's proposal of a land invasion of Venezuela coming from Brazil.
The war itself would most likely end soon but then you run the very real risk of getting bogged down fighting militias in the jungle and getting NATO stuck in an endless conflict that will only further American interest and would mean the Alliance's credibility would be destroyed.

Attached: global-forest-map-1990.jpg (3353x1687, 1.07M)

>brave soldiers.

lol ,if they were "brave", the US would have a coup that would make Turkey's look like a kebab party.

theyre just welfare queens and an unnecessary burden on the broke budget., polnigger

Brazil can take half the country in 12 hours putting the borders in the Orinoco river.
Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT INDIANS AND MALARIA MOSQUITOES THERE.
If Trump wants to invade Venezuela, he should be talking to Colombia, they are closer to the cities.

would rather take a bullet for a brazillian than a e*ropean

It could mess us up, and it's not even for some great good. It will only benefit the interests of the shadiest sectors of the USA's interests.

I guess you didn't catch the irony.

this, my exact feelings Takeshi

yeah you should be careful using irony over chat, tends to be hard to detect.

I know a lot of idealistic people hate the fact that America is in charge of being the police of the world, but lets get real. Most of the world is in a peace period that was never seeing in human history.

that's just on paper though, I agree that a Brazilian push from the south would pierce the border easily, but then there's no telling how the operations will unfold deep in the jungle.
Seems from google maps ( :^) ) that there's only one major road from Brazil to Venezuela, you are running the risk of piling up infantry and armored forces on the same road and possibly suffering either vast casualties or just getting stuck there at some point if Venezuelan decide to blow up their own infrastructure.
Venezuela still has an aviation and (I guess) missile strike capability, you would not be able to secure airspace as easily as Libya or some other middle eastern theater, therefore you have no guarantees that a land invasion will be 100% effective, might even turn into a shitshow very easily.

> he should be talking to Colombia
this would be smart.

Attached: Schermata 2019-03-20 alle 09.23.55.png (1288x1008, 387K)

>Most of the world is in a peace period that was never seeing in human history

lol wut? did you just go to sleep pre 9/11 and just woke up yesterday?

Don't mind him, that's what our media tell us

Nope.

M O S T O F T H E W O R L D.

Read how many wars the world fought when Europe was in charge of the world. How many useless not necessary wars.

>Venezuela still has an aviation and (I guess) missile strike capability
Venezuela air bases would be targeted first (in this case, the winner is the bigger country because most of our air planes are out of the Venezuela reach, but all their air planes are at our air bases reach). The mobility inside the jungle is pathetic, something like 10km a day, so the country who still has air superiority hold the highway until we reach the river and fortify the position.
Their ground-to-air missiles could be a problem but most of their equipment is old and the range is not that big (not even mentioning that they don't train with those guns since Chavez died, so i don't expect that they could hit anything on purpose), and move it around is impossible inside the jungle, even with dedicated tanks (most trees can be hugged by 3 men).

The real war will be fought in the Caribe. I expect that they invade those small islands (some who belong to European countries) in a vain attempt to create some space between the war ships and their coastal cities.

>The real war will be fought in the Caribe.
absolutely agree with this 2bh

I also agree that aerial is the way to go if there was ever an intervention in Venezuela.
I'm simply arguing against land operations that go beyond securing positions near the border.
And in case war broke I imagine Brazil would act that way too, rendering NATO membership and a proper NATO mission in Brazil bretty much useless.

Venezuela has the S-300VM anti-air system that has a 200km range and it's being operated by Russians.

The Russians build those to take down American jets and super sonic missiles. Their radars can't read our Super Tucanos flying too slow and too close to the ground.

Attached: Captura de tela de 2019-03-20 05-57-28.png (602x418, 255K)

>European numbers are pathetic in a war
Imagine actually believing this

I wonder if drumpf knows what NATO stand for

Is Trump so stupid he doesn't understand the meaning of "North"?

Lmao fucking cuck

hurr me dum

>north ATLANTIC treaty organization
>bunch of Mediterranean countries in

>We don't need your help, you need our help.
I hate to break it to you Brazil but not even the combined force of the EU makes up more than 1/10th of our military force. If our Navy stops for a single day, Europe loses billions in trade goods that rely on sea transport.

wtf no

>Trump says
oh no stop the press

Med leads to north Atlantic

Isn't NATO membership restricted only to countries in the North Atlantic anyway by statute or something?

south atlantic leads to north atlantic

>we are in
>turkey is in
>greece is in
>bunch of irrelevant east euros with no access to atlantic are in

A satanic organization
The NWO basically

>Based Arnie not falling for the carb jew

Attached: gettyimages-455516864-1024x1024.jpg (844x1024, 491K)

Enhancing the forward presence of american military infrastructure at a discount, with some foreign morons to throw into the grinder together with their own.
Its not by chance that the allegedly so mighty US is also the only NATO member to have ever actually invoked Article 5.

He actually believes this.

Attached: 1553049458097.jpg (486x434, 43K)

Would you take a bullet for Montenegro?

Attached: 2000px-Flag_of_Montenegro.svg.png (2000x1000, 185K)

Imagine being actually so deluded to think american military ships make sea trade happen.
How much kool-aid do you need to guzzle for this level of brain damage.

>The Cold War ended almost 30 years ago

Why does NATO still exist?

easier to keep it than dismantle it

Mediterranean, Black Sea and Baltic are part of the North Atlantic. Anyway found the part of the treaty that I was talking about.
>The Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
So by treaty further enlargement is limited to European countries which is why Mexico or Israel never joined.

to maintain and expand western geopolitical alliances against russian and chinese influence.
the fact that its part of nato means i wont have to.
i would if it wasnt run by fascists.

Are we the bad guys?

Attached: russia-wants-war.jpg (480x339, 36K)

this pic unironically makes me sleep better

fuck no, why should NATO be blamed for russian incompetence?

Basically only being guaranteed safety by the world's only superpower

If the Baltic republics weren't in NATO, they'd be getting Ukraine'd/Georgia'd too, prove me wrong.

>see, look! I'm not a Russian asset, I expanded NATO to include another Russian asset!

Attached: bolsonaro, president of israel.jpg (668x720, 124K)

The one policy that I liked about this asshole was the dissolution of NATO and it was one of the first things he fucking backslid on.

congratulations, you're more retarded than an actual retard is

>What's the point in NATO anyway
To keep the capitalists in rule.

Take off that proxy, Boris.

Honestly, adding Japan and Korea would make more sense. The name should probably be changed in that case but it's not like Turkey is exactly in the Atlantic now is it?

>Brazil is now the lapdog of burgers in their war to conquer Latam
Easily the most pathetic country in the region right behind Culombia

Can't wait to murder monkey invaders when they decide to turn South.

Attached: 160328171253_bonobo_abre_640x360_alamy_nocredit.jpg (660x371, 44K)

>even though all Brazilian military officers would love to give blowjobs to Americans.

Except for the part when every high ranking military officer chimped out when Bolso(((mito))) said he was going to allow a US base in your territory.

Cuck

No, maintaining control of the rimland and thus the world island is how we ensure global economic order centered around democracy and the rights of man. Russia is only an enemy because of it's location and interests being in conflict with ours. A US controlled world is preferable to Chinese or Russian controlled one. Be aren't good, but not in any way the worst.

Attached: Mackinder'sModel.jpg (960x720, 89K)

>The real war will be fought in the Caribe. I expect that they invade those small islands (some who belong to European countries) in a vain attempt to create some space between the war ships and their coastal cities
Invade those islands with what?

Attached: Venezuelan navy.jpg (1920x1080, 591K)

babby's first geopolitics class, cute

The most warmongering continent to have ever existed hasn't been killing each other since 1945

NATO does not cover territories below the tropic of cancer so this doesn't make sense without radically changing the NAT. Trump again spouting non-sense and bullshit.

The Balkans aside, but we put a stop to that.

>US controlled world is preferable to Chinese or Russian controlled one
No it's not Cletus.

>muh epic Xi and Vladimir

edgy

Ignore the proxy Kremlinbot please.

If you think a slow and incompetent democracy is a bad world leader, wait for a ruthless dictatorship and see how quickly you change your mind.

>ruthless dictatorship
Russia is a democracy.

Attached: 1540645228094.jpg (640x441, 55K)

Redpilled!

We know a lot about dictatorships here, you made them.

>would you take a bullet for Brazil?

This is paranoia, brazil has about zero chances of starts a war, while europeans are always killing each other. south america is a pacific land.

Attached: being immature is fun.png (1068x758, 681K)

It's a friendship club

Yes only the middle east and South America have legitimate reason to hate America and prefer China

falkland islands war?

There is no good or bad
There are alliances, postures, invasions, tariffs, nuclear triads and perhaps even a globalist plot but still no good or bad
Welcome to the 21st century