People think of NATO as an alliance akin to NATO but opposite. In reality it was essentially US Army padded with national units of subjugated countries. For instance there is NATO HQ as everyone knows but the chain of command started in Washington.
Literally no country was forced into NATO. Quite the opposite, the eastward members were banging the door to get in and were admitted only because no-one in the West could fathom aggressive Russia again. Warsaw Pact in contrast bided its time invading its members who tried to get out.
> Warsaw Pact in contrast bided its time invading its members who tried to get out.
That's the irony -- the only countries Warsaw Pact members were invaded by were other Warsaw Pact members. (Too bad they couldn't call other Warsaw Pact members to protect them.)
You probably think you're being either smart or funny, but you are neither.
NATO and Warsaw Pact are not some kind of mirror opposite (except for being enemies in the cold war). Countries join NATO voluntarily, for example Sweden and Finland recently. Countries have joined Warsaw Pact by being occupied by the Soviet Army.
> US Army padded with national units of subjugated countries
Please go ahead and explain how USA has subjugated Sweden and Finland recently, after failing to subjugate them during the previous decades.
In Oakland? Most of the homes in the region were built in the 1920s-1930s, though some were newer developments that were only about 10-30 years old.
Wooden construction is very common in America because wood is very common and hence cheap. In this particular region there's another reason for its use: it's right on top of a fault line, and wood-frame residential construction performs very well in an earthquake, while brick or unreinforced masonry tends to crumble.
reply