Common...they are obviously in on the Islamo-Commie take-over of Europe...they aren't gonna do anything but wave the Ruskies through...
Admitting what? What actual security, besides some piece of paper, comes from EU and NATO. Good deals with using the Euro and trading with other NATO countries, but what keeps them secure? I am still on yall's side comrad, I just want to know so I can blog it on DailyKOS.
The ?? Since when is Argentina a socialist country the likes of Cuba or Russia? Are you on crack or just ignorant? Not that we're not on our way, but don't jump the gun.
Your ignorance.You really don't know?What actual security, besides some piece of paper, comes from EU and NATO.Holy -- you really don't know what NATO is!Good deals with using the Euro and trading with other NATO countries, but what keeps them secure?I meant it when I said you suck at this, turns out you suck at any knowledge of NATO and the EU as well.I am still on yall's side comrad, I just want to know so I can blog it on DailyKOS.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 09-19-2009 at 01:13 AM.
Wow chumpDumper. You cannot answer my question. Instead you try and turn it around to spin it like I do not understand an acronym. You have done this over and over. Is this an Alinsky thing? This is the type of adolescent nonsense that works with kids. So for the re s like ChumpDumper
What ACTUAL, measurable amount, of security will being a member of NATO and EU get Poland?
I sick at what? What do you mean I sick at?
The answer was even given to you earlier in this thread.
Sorry, I meant to say you suck. I'll edit that one. Thanks for pointing it out.
Seriously, if you want to know the "actual, measurable amount" of security available to Poland and the Czech Republic, I suppose you could go and add up all the military forces and equipment belonging to those two countries and the other 26 members of NATO and that will give you a rough idea.
You're welcome.
You don't get it do you?
You obviously don't.
They should have an elitist emoticon for chumpdump and shasta so they can perpetuate their status on us with emoticons. Have it a smiley face with a big upward pointing noise. Maybe in a robe. So when they make their elitist remarks which have no facts, just belittle, (try to)discredit, and ridicule.
Thank you for making my point.
Do you really think NATO is just a piece, or series of sheets (ream 'em) of paper?
I do not know. I was asking if maybe someone did.
"During most of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organization." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
"Many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have 'national caveats' that restrict how their troops may be used. While the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire cir stances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S. are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north.
It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility."
Joseph Nye (2006).
ISAF=I Saw America Fight makes me think that maybe if we had shields, that if Russia (a Oligopoly/Dictatorship) attacked an democratic allie, we would not have to send the ISAF (US soldiers) in and would just instead keep the attack from happening. Seems like a liberal stance if you ask me.
No offense, but to suggest that NATO would remain constricted if Russian troops and tanks started pouring across the border into Poland or the C.R. is absolutely preposterous. You would see an instant, massive reaction to halt the aggression, with the combined might of the EU, and at that point, the U.S. would be very involved.
They're posturing and you're playing right into that fear by looking at a bunch of theoretical possibilities for how the EU could be stalled into complacency.
Furthermore, your responses to people are a little too subtle. What you seem to be suggesting does not have a firm place in reality. It seems that you are being intentionally deceptive either to cause someone to overreact, or to say something that's potentially assailable from your point of view.
Again, what you are proposing is not possible. Russia's economy is coming back, it would be completely against their interests to go to war now and get crushed by the combined might of the EU and the USA. Their military clout is not what it used to be, and risking relations with the EU would potentially bankrupt them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/t...-security.html
Barack Obama is gambling with Europe's security
When Barack Obama was running for the White House, he posed as a man with a cool head in a crisis who would display calm resolve in the face of any thuggery from the world's rogue states. The candidate described by his aides as "no drama Obama" would have despised the label of a gambler. Yet his decision to abandon plans for a missile defence shield in central Europe amounts to nothing less than a colossal gamble – and one that history may yet condemn as irresponsible and reckless.
Be in no doubt about the stakes: the defensive system that Mr Obama has chosen to scrap was the West's ultimate insurance policy against a nuclear-armed Iran. If all our efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal were to fail, this anti-missile shield would have provided a measure of assurance.
All that has gone by the board. Mr Obama offered a plea in mitigation, promising that America would still deploy sophisticated defences against missile attack, probably based at sea and designed to counter the short- and medium-range weapons that Iran already possesses. Any long-range variants, the President seemed to claim, amounted to insignificant gleams in the eyes of Tehran's ruthless rulers and will take many years for Iran to perfect.
This case is wholly specious: it places too much reliance on intelligence assessments which we know, from bitter experience, have a mixed record – at best – when it comes to forecasting the technical progress of weapons programmes in hostile states. What if Iran deploys long-range missiles sooner than America now predicts – and the only defences available are designed to deal with short- and medium-range weapons? Highly sophisticated anti-missile systems cannot be rustled up in a hurry.
A prudent defence policy guards against every realistic menace, not a selection of threats. Mr Obama is behaving like an eccentric homeowner who refuses to lock his front door, but points out that a gleaming smoke detector will protect against fire. Just as the answer is to install the smoke alarm and use a latchkey, so a defensive shield should be able to counter any kind of missile, not merely those your potential adversary presently deploys.
Mr Obama's decision to gamble with Europe's security – for this is what it means – can only be defended if he now secures a real and incontestable gain. That hinges on Russia. The Kremlin, which bitterly opposed the missile-defence scheme, has had its way. In the next few weeks, we will all learn the answer to the burning question: what will Russia give in return? There is no doubt about what Mr Obama wants. Iran's nuclear programme continues apace and the underground centrifuges in Natanz are still enriching uranium in brazen defiance of five United Nations resolutions. Only yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would "never" halt this highly sensitive process, which could be used to produce nuclear weapons.
We are nearing the endgame of diplomacy towards Iran. On October 1, Tehran's chief negotiator will meet an American official at a gathering of the world's leading powers. If those negotiations fail – and no one is predicting success – Mr Obama will place a new sanctions resolution before the Security Council. This time, America will probably seek to target Iran's oil and gas industries, perhaps by imposing a UN ban on any investment in this vital sector.
Will Russia allow such a resolution to pass – or will Moscow follow its usual practice and ally with China to shield Iran? If the Kremlin vetoes or dilutes a sanctions resolution, this will make a peaceful resolution of the confrontation with Iran far less likely, and shorten the odds on a war in the Middle East next year. It will also show that Mr Obama's monumental gamble has failed. The President has effectively placed the fate of a vital element of his foreign policy in the hands of the Kremlin. That is a sorry pass for a superpower to reach.
What precedent leads you to conclude that? If you read what I posted, it talked about the ISAF, besides US and GB, is filled with non-combat soldiers. This is why American soldiers nickname them I Saw America Fight, or I Suck At Firing. When Russia shut oil pipelines to Europe, what did EU and NATO do?
I don't want to be that douchbag with the "what" comment but I do not understand exactly what this has to do with my comment which for the most part is a question.They're posturing and you're playing right into that fear by looking at a bunch of theoretical possibilities for how the EU could be stalled into complacency.
Furthermore, your responses to people are a little too subtle. What you seem to be suggesting does not have a firm place in reality. It seems that you are being intentionally deceptive either to cause someone to overreact, or to say something that's potentially assailable from your point of view.
*All my views come from "the NExt 1oo years". That is the basis for my ideas.Again, what you are proposing is not possible. Russia's economy is coming back, it would be completely against their interests to go to war now and get crushed by the combined might of the EU and the USA. Their military clout is not what it used to be, and risking relations with the EU would potentially bankrupt them.
You are trying to put common sense on a country ran by a dictator or a small party. Much like Hitler, Moussalini, Lenin, Stalin, Gadafi, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, and the Mullahs. This appeasment never works out how it should. Security is Russia's interest. Like when they invaded Georgia and everyone still maintains trade with them. Most countries will still trade with Russia if they invaded Poland. Also Russia is a huge nuclear power. I doubt for that reason alone, there would not pe a counterstrike. The only country in Europe that would have a huge incentive to fight Russia would be Germany. From Berlin to Moscow, there are no real geographical boundaries. The only thing that keeps Germany safe is Poland. I believe Putin wants Russia's sphere of influence back. Also the Poland economy was doing great in the free market.
Iran doesn't have ICBM's. Even it did, using them on Europe would be tantamount to signing its own death warrant. Even Ehud Barak and Bibi are saying now that the Iranian threat isn't existential. Israel deters it ahead of the fact and the US would quickly adjust if Iran made a leap in its nuke capabilities.
The op-ed pretends that the US shift in strategy was aimed only at getting Russian cooperation on Iran, but ignores the possibility that that the shift is a move to a better, and cheaper, missile strategy. The system Bush wanted to put in place was geared to ICBMS the Iranians don't have and would have been useless against a swarm of smaller projectiles according to Sec'y Gates. This shift addresses that weakness.
BTW, mogrovejo, I'd be interested to hear your opinion about why it still ought to be the US's responsibility to assure and pay for the defense of Europe. Why can't Europe carry its own weight?
..bet he's never heard that before...BTW, mogrovejo, I'd be interested to hear your opinion...
Idea of Russian invasion of Poland and Czech Republic is beyond crazy - for starters none of them borders directly with Russia, altrough Poland does with Kaliningrad (basically large Russian navy base on Baltic coast) and Belarus (very friendly relations with Russia).
Idea of ballistic missile threat to them is even crazier. Really, let just put both things off the table.
Whole point of shield would be protection of Western Europe (showed no interest in it) and USA with both host countries taking most of risk. After all any intercepted missile has to land somewhere and raining nuclear material does not sound like fun. Things would get especially interesting for all if it happened over Russian sphere of influence.
There is also problem of pissing them off from economic standpoint. It's a large market both republics are historically well positioned to do business with.
The precedent that Russia never invaded a country while it was a member of NATO.
You don't seeem to know why NATO exists in the first place, so your arguments seem quite obtuse and you seem to be a complete idiot. I say "seem" because I have a difficult time believing someone could be this stupid. Maybe you have some other kind of agenda, or you really think that ten missiles is enough to stop a land invasion by Russia.
Please explain yourself fully to dispel our belief that you could be the stupidest poster on this board.
Russia is not a member of NATO.
You do not know who is in NATO. I think you need to brush up on what you talk about a little more often. Don't assume Huffington Post will set you up for success. I think if you ask twenty different ambassadors in America why NATO exists, you would get twenty different answers. Wow you bring nothing to a discussion.You don't seeem to know why NATO exists in the first place, so your arguments seem quite obtuse and you seem to be a complete idiot. I say "seem" because I have a difficult time believing someone could be this stupid. Maybe you have some other kind of agenda, or you really think that ten missiles is enough to stop a land invasion by Russia.
You calling me the stupidest poster is like communists calling capitalists evil.Please explain yourself fully to dispel our belief that you could be the stupidest poster on this board.
The indefinite pronoun reference threw you off. It referred to countries, not Russia.
There is a reason for that you haven't quite picked up on yet. I got a feeling you should be able to, but may be even more stupid than I think.
And I think you are very stupid. You couldn't even figure out that first sentence.
Of course I do.You do not know who is in NATO.I can't help but notice you didn't even attempt to answer the question -- why does NATO exist in the first place? Why was it created?I think you need to brush up on what you talk about a little more often. Don't assume Huffington Post will set you up for success. I think if you ask twenty different ambassadors in America why NATO exists, you would get twenty different answers. Wow you bring nothing to a discussion.
Nah, it's like anyone calling you stupid -- they'd be right.You calling me the stupidest poster is like communists calling capitalists evil.
I'll ask again -- why was NATO formed?
SnC... I've come to the conclusion you're about 15 years old.
He can't be that stupid, can he?
Jeez, let's dumb it down some more:
Russia never invaded a country while that country I am referring to in the object of the first phrase of this sentence (that is not Russia because Russia is the subject and anyone thinking that I was referring to Russia's being a member of NATO would have to be the stupidest poster on the board) was a member of the organization you may or may not know is NATO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote