Russia: No CFE treaty for you! - Page 6

Saras · February 11, 2004, 05:46

Well, don't escalate if you don't have to?

notyoueither · February 11, 2004, 05:49

So, we should admit the Baltic States to NATO, but not go to their aid if the alliance is triggered? What then would NATO mean?

Saras · February 11, 2004, 06:01

How would you have your government react to an unprovoked aggressive war being waged in the center of Europe?

notyoueither · February 11, 2004, 06:05

As we have in the past as an obligation, we have gone to war.

Do you really want to join NATO?

Bereta_Eder · February 11, 2004, 07:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

You call them definite and concrete, but, really, it's nothing but prejudice and unjustified suspicion. What anti-EU actions has the UK taken that are unequalled by anything France or Germany have done?

From what I know you only need to see the UK negotiating within the EU family to actually start wondering wether it is a member of this family or a NAFTA member. As for concrete actions, Shenghen, constitution (even such silly things as echelon) and of course euro and federalist idea not to mention euroarmy and of course foreign policy (3rd pillar) are just some of the most concrete examples. The UK is creating way too many variable geometries in critical matters. Getting it out of the EU or isolated is thge only way to effectively deal with it untill and if it changes. It's actually something that has characterized its relations with what the continental states have achieved so far.

The european idea is something clear, those who wonder is because they propably haven't really understood it.

I don;t think it's suspicion. Suspicion is when sopmeone looks at you the wrong way. When he's trying to rip your arm apart I think it goes beyond suspicion

Saras · February 11, 2004, 07:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
So, we should admit the Baltic States to NATO, but not go to their aid if the alliance is triggered?

I did not say that; emphasis on the "if you don't have to". An invasion of an ally is worthy of an escalation, non?

Ned · February 11, 2004, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I think the main challange is for the Russians, The Germans, and the French to convince Britain to join their side.

It is clear to me that the Labour party in Britain has been hijacked by an evil force. After the next election, hopefully Blair will be ousted in favour of a better labour candidate who understands the importance of joining the international peace faction.

With the Germans in the Russians again united, I think really see why Poland (in the Baltic countries) looks to the United States
and Great Britain for comfort.

Patroklos · February 11, 2004, 11:21

Man Serb are you still talking. I figured with a mouth as big as yours your government would have silenced you long ago.

But like I told you before, if your going to curse, don't be a wuss about it and just say it

Tripledoc · February 11, 2004, 11:23

The security situation for Poland is now the best it ever had. The Russian and German armies are barely adequate to even defend their own territorial integrity. I don't see why it should be in the Polish national interest to allow a NATO build up of forces on its eastern order.

Ther is something odious about the Polish government if is willing to sacrifice their people's security just for the few dollars the new bases will generate.

Spiffor · February 11, 2004, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
With the Germans in the Russians again united, I think really see why Poland (in the Baltic countries) looks to the United States in Great Britain for comfort.

The Germans would have nothing to gain by the invasion of Poland. And the Russians have nothing to win either, except some feelgood about their military capacity. Neither of these countries will invade Poland. You know, there are countries in this world that do not invade others on a whim.

Patroklos · February 11, 2004, 11:39

How would it be sacrificing it's security?

Do you think that NATO wants basses in Eastern Europe to defend it against anything? Do you think Poland wants bases ther it defend againist anything? They are bieng moved there for operation cost purposes and as you said, the hosts get a few dollars.

That is all.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

The Germans would have nothing to gain by the invasion of Poland. And the Russians have nothing to win either, except some feelgood about their military capacity. Neither of these countries will invade Poland. You know, there are countries in this world that do not invade others on a whim.

Spiffor, I think the Poles do not believe the Germans are reliable allies, especially against the Russians, after the events in the last year.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 11:48

Although this is pure speculation, would Hitler have invaded Poland had English stationed it's expeditionary force there in early 1939?

I tend to believe that Poland and the Baltic states are much more secure against invasion from either Russia or Belarus if NATO has bases and those countries.

Tripledoc · February 11, 2004, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
How would it be sacrificing it's security?

Do you think that NATO wants basses in Eastern Europe to defend it against anything? Do you think Poland wants bases ther it defend againist anything? They are bieng moved there for operation cost purposes and as you said, the hosts get a few dollars.

That is all.

Well if it is costs that is worrysome to the American military why are they not moved back to the US?

Also the wealth disparity between Poland and Germany will decrase significantly in the coming years, and hence consumer prices will surge.

The decision to move the troops forward is a strategic decision. At least nothing would indicate otherwise.

Patroklos · February 11, 2004, 11:50

NATO alliance obligations are a little different than "international coalition" bullcrap.

I guarantee you Germany would aid Poland if such an impossible event were to happen.

Harovan · February 11, 2004, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Although this is pure speculation, would Hitler have invaded Poland had English stationed it's expeditionary force there in early 1939?

You mean like they had in Belgium and France?

Ned · February 11, 2004, 11:51

Tripledoc, you are right.

As well, Germany can be considered an unreliable member of Nato, joining France in that regard. It is only a matter of time 'til they leave voluntarily, or will be asked to leave, IMO.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 11:53

Pat, given what happened when Turkey asked for help, I doubt it.

Tripledoc · February 11, 2004, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Although this is pure speculation, would Hitler have invaded Poland had English stationed it's expeditionary force there in early 1939?

If that happened then Hitler would have had no other choice, but go to war.

Spiffor · February 11, 2004, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, I think the Poles do not believe the Germans are reliable allies, especially against the Russians, after the events in the last year.

You know, I don't think the Pakistanis are reliable allies, but I don't fear them trying to invade us. Do you know there is a nuance between "not reliable ally" and "blatant enemy"?

GePap · February 11, 2004, 11:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, you are right.

As well, Germany can be considered an unreliable member of Nato, joining France in that regard. It is only a matter of time 'til they leave voluntarily, or will be asked to leave, IMO.

NATO without Germany is trully a joke.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 11:56

The question is whether the Germans would support Nato operations to defend Poland or the Baltic states. If US troops were stationed in Germany, we would need their active cooperation. If we don't get it, Poland or the Baltic states cannot be defended.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 12:01

GePap, one cannot have an enemy within an alliance that needs consensus to act.

Tripledoc · February 11, 2004, 12:03

Since when are neutral countries enemies?

Ned · February 11, 2004, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

You know, I don't think the Pakistanis are reliable allies, but I don't fear them trying to invade us. Do you know there is a nuance between "not reliable ally" and "blatant enemy"?

Spiffor, the only country more hostile to the United States in the world in March of 2003 than France and Germany was Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Spiffor · February 11, 2004, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The question is whether the Germans would support Nato operations to defend Poland or the Baltic states.

The Germans would not hesitate in honoring our defensive alliance.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Since when are neutral countries enemies?

When they actively obstruct your efforts to defend yourself.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

The Germans would not hesitate in honoring our defensive alliance.

That is an outrageous lie.

Tripledoc · February 11, 2004, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Spiffor, the only country more hostile to the United States in the world in March of 2003 than France and Germany was Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Uhm. I recall that the Chinese forced down an American survaillance aircraft, and conducted a thorough investigation on it's electronic equipment.

Countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico, India, Russia also spring to mind.

Ned · February 11, 2004, 12:09

Tripledoc, in March 2003?

No country was more hostile than France and Germany were.