Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, forlanssister said:

We need the benevolent Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin to de-natzifi us from these NATO imperialist aggressors and bring freedom and democracy to these isles.

It is not a choice between Putin and extending N.A.T.O. into the Pacific.

 

To present it in that way is a false dilemma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Bill said:

...

 

It's quite clear. Nato is not the problem. Nato might be a problem and it certainly has problems delivering its remit. It definitely has a problem with lack of robust commitment from some of its member states. But it is not in any shape or fashion the problem.

 

...

The N.A.T.O. remit?

 

Peace in the North Atlantic has been unchallenged for quite some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

The N.A.T.O. remit?

 

Peace in the North Atlantic has been unchallenged for quite some time.

Until now

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

Until now

Please explain the threat to me.

 

Is it anything to do with our support of the Ukraine since February?

 

Are you just concerned about pollution from the Admiral Kuznetsov?

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

It is not a choice between Putin and extending N.A.T.O. into the Pacific.

 

To present it in that way is a false dilemma.

I'm not saying it is am I, that's you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

I'm not saying it is am I, that's you?

Strange response to the original post then.

 

Please forgive me.  I thought that you had some point of substance to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

I consider it to be a problem for everyone. There are particular reasons to consider it a problem for us and the poor people that end up acting as proxies.

 

At the most basic level we are causing proxy conflict with nuclear armed nations. That can enter into an unpredictable series of escalations and can end in multiple nuclear exchanges. I don't think anything in the Ukraine is worth that risk for Britain. Same is true for Taiwan or any of the nearby rocks.

 

It has clearly been a problem for the poor people in the Ukraine. It will become a problem for whoever it is that our masters want to back in Asia too. I think that when you back a side, in a proxy war, you will increase, or prolong, the suffering of the people living there.

 

Pointing to the behaviour of countries like Russia and China doesn't justify it either. Britain and the U.S.A. to name only two, have invaded nations with military force and left a trail of dead civilians behind. See Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan (Two of those are N.A.T.O. misadventures). Sad to say it but the West is not on a sincere moral crusade.

 

 

If NATO dissolves tomorrow, how does any of this change? War never changes, human nature never changes. There always has been and always will be war between humans. For justifiable and completely pointless reasons. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

If NATO dissolves tomorrow, how does any of this change? ...

Although I sometimes wonder about an end to N.A.T.O. that's not the point I'm making in this thread.

 

It would be sufficient for N.A.T.O. to stop trying to expand into regions where it is likely to lead to problems. That would entail an end to creation of non-N.A.T.O. proxies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

... War never changes, human nature never changes. There always has been and always will be war between humans. For justifiable and completely pointless reasons. 

You might be right about all of this. But if you are right, particularly about human nature, then there are implications for any comparison between N.A.T.O. Russia and China (All populated by humans).

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Although I sometimes wonder about an end to N.A.T.O. that's not the point I'm making in this thread.

 

It would be sufficient for N.A.T.O. to stop trying to expand into regions where it is likely to lead to problems. That would entail an end to creation of non-N.A.T.O. proxies.

Its all a bit Schrodinger's NATO really. Many nations aren't members but would find value in being a member(Finland and Sweden eg). As in they have a military alliance to help mitigate any threat from another nation.

 

If they joined NATO its considered an aggression and may start a war. If they categorically state they will never join NATO or NATO dissolves and they are invaded as they dont have a military pact that helps protect them.

 

To use a footballing phrase this could go either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.