Retired Army Officer doesn’t get it. Finland and Sweden Edition.

SavannahMann

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2016
14,540
6,820
365
Let me start with the link.


In short. The author explains how accepting Finland and Sweden into NATO moved the world closer to war. His argument is that these two nations were protected by their neutral status.

Exposing himself as a far Right nut this fellow then laments how the US is already spending too much protecting rich European Countries. I bet he still wonders why he wasn’t promoted to full Colonel.

The RW in advocating guns everywhere argues that Gun Free Zones don’t work. In a way. They are right. Gun free like neutrality works when everyone respects it. Russia has never shown that they respect much of anything.

Let’s look at history. Let’s see how neutrality has worked. We can ask Belgium which was invaded twice during the 20th Century despite guarantees of Neutrality. We can ask their neighbors, all of whom did not have their neutrality respected.

In fact, one of the few is Switzerland. This has more to do with their terrain than their political positions. Any invading army would be channeled into narrow routes able to be brought under fire from hills and mountaintops with ease. It would be suicide to invade. And if you managed to pull it off. Supply of your troops would be nearly impossible.

The author again waved the scary flag. Nuclear war. If we oppose or do anything to oppose Russia we face. Clutch the pearls. Nuclear War. Begin ominous music.

One thing those who wave that flag never do is describe the last line. The line we are supposed to stand firm upon no matter the threat. They always tell us to not do this or closer to nuclear war. But they never have a line where we say war or no. Nuclear or not. Doesn’t matter. We won’t accept this.

Obviously this fellow doesn’t think NATO or Europe are worth it. So what is? What is worth risking this horrible outcome? Where do we draw the line? Do Russian Troops have to occupy Washington before we risk it? Or do we have to wait to see if they head for Texas?

This fellow advocates a failed plan. The idea that isolationism will keep us safe. It did not work in 1915. It didn’t work in 1941. It didn’t work ever.

Isolationism is like neutrality or gun free zones. It only works if everyone respects it.

It is the idea that if I don’t bother them. They won’t bother me. It doesn’t work. High School should have taught him that simple human truth.
 
Let me start with the link.


In short. The author explains how accepting Finland and Sweden into NATO moved the world closer to war. His argument is that these two nations were protected by their neutral status.

Exposing himself as a far Right nut this fellow then laments how the US is already spending too much protecting rich European Countries. I bet he still wonders why he wasn’t promoted to full Colonel.

The RW in advocating guns everywhere argues that Gun Free Zones don’t work. In a way. They are right. Gun free like neutrality works when everyone respects it. Russia has never shown that they respect much of anything.

Let’s look at history. Let’s see how neutrality has worked. We can ask Belgium which was invaded twice during the 20th Century despite guarantees of Neutrality. We can ask their neighbors, all of whom did not have their neutrality respected.

In fact, one of the few is Switzerland. This has more to do with their terrain than their political positions. Any invading army would be channeled into narrow routes able to be brought under fire from hills and mountaintops with ease. It would be suicide to invade. And if you managed to pull it off. Supply of your troops would be nearly impossible.

The author again waved the scary flag. Nuclear war. If we oppose or do anything to oppose Russia we face. Clutch the pearls. Nuclear War. Begin ominous music.

One thing those who wave that flag never do is describe the last line. The line we are supposed to stand firm upon no matter the threat. They always tell us to not do this or closer to nuclear war. But they never have a line where we say war or no. Nuclear or not. Doesn’t matter. We won’t accept this.

Obviously this fellow doesn’t think NATO or Europe are worth it. So what is? What is worth risking this horrible outcome? Where do we draw the line? Do Russian Troops have to occupy Washington before we risk it? Or do we have to wait to see if they head for Texas?

This fellow advocates a failed plan. The idea that isolationism will keep us safe. It did not work in 1915. It didn’t work in 1941. It didn’t work ever.

Isolationism is like neutrality or gun free zones. It only works if everyone respects it.

It is the idea that if I don’t bother them. They won’t bother me. It doesn’t work. High School should have taught him that simple human truth.
Why post a link only to trash it? Is this a new version of the Straw Man argument?
 
Turkey dropped its objections (which were based solely on personal enemies of Turkish dictator Erdogan, he demanding they be extradited) when the U.S. agreed to modernize their F-16's. Of course, Erdogan has already bought anti-aircraft weapons from Russia.

With so many NATO member nations in Europe, I really don't think the U.S. should even remain in it. We have enough problems than worrying about babysitting Europe.
 
Why post a link only to trash it? Is this a new version of the Straw Man argument?
Used as a springboard for juxtaposition. Not bad use, actually. Welcome to CNGSC/Geopolitics/Actions Other than War, class discussion.
 
Why post a link only to trash it? Is this a new version of the Straw Man argument?

This idea is not unique. Nor is it the first time it has been advocated. However this idea is a current event. It is happening now. And objections from the Putinistas and Isolationism works fools follows these lines. The narrow minded morons deserve to be refuted. And harshly.
 
Turkey dropped its objections (which were based solely on personal enemies of Turkish dictator Erdogan, he demanding they be extradited) when the U.S. agreed to modernize their F-16's. Of course, Erdogan has already bought anti-aircraft weapons from Russia.

With so many NATO member nations in Europe, I really don't think the U.S. should even remain in it. We have enough problems than worrying about babysitting Europe.

Great. So where do we draw the line? Where do we say here and no further. Any further and we will go to war. When does it become our circus, our monkey?
 
Now that the Russians have been proven to not much more than a paper tiger and NATO has added two more countries there is probably little reason for the US to part of NATO.

Let the Europeans provide for their own security.

However, the US should maintain a close relationship and do joint training just to keep the Russies guessing.
 
Obviously this fellow doesn’t think NATO or Europe are worth it. So what is? What is worth risking this horrible outcome? Where do we draw the line? Do Russian Troops have to occupy Washington before we risk it? Or do we have to wait to see if they head for Texas?

IMO? I think you seem to be biased, but then? We all are. Where do we draw the line? I would say, our sphere of influence.

But where should our sphere of influence be? Do we really have the economy and power, anymore, to project over the entire world? I would say no. Nor do I believe the war propaganda that Russia really wants to conquer all of Eurasia, that the leaders in Russia really believe that their sphere of influence as all of Europe.

Perhaps, if we could limit our sphere of influence to at least N & S America? At the very least?


It did not work in 1915.
You are woefully ignorant. That ship contained war munitions. If you dance with the devil, expect to get burned.

It didn’t work in 1941.
Again, siege warfare, is a kind of war. Block-aids are a kind of war.
We were the nation, the opened up our guns on Tokyo in the 1800's when THEY were an isolationist nation, forcing them either into trade relations, or into war, when they did not want to interact with the modern world, effectively sending their society into turmoil.

Our chickens were only coming home to roost.

It is easy to cast ourselves as the good guys, but in that, you might be right, however, there are some, who believe, the attack was desired by those in power, so we were purposely made to appear weak, because those in power wanted to enter the war.


It didn’t work ever.

If done from a place of strength? Of course it works. Don't be absurd.

No one is going to attack the US and our nukes, nor is anyone ever going to attack, on purpose, Israel, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, etc.
 
Great. So where do we draw the line? Where do we say here and no further. Any further and we will go to war. When does it become our circus, our monkey?
I believe it was our first President who warned about "foreign entanglements", and there are few even alive today who fought in the last European war. I just think it is crazy we are trying to get all of Europe in NATO, why don't we let Europe police itself? It's time.
 
No one is going to attack the US and our nukes, nor is anyone ever going to attack, on purpose, Israel, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, etc.

Good to know. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be accurate.


Israel is attacked constantly. They’ve been attacked constantly since their creation. Some years are cooler. Some are hotter. But they are always marked with violence.

India and Pakistan? Really?


They are not quite as active as Israel. But still warm.

North Korea? We were at war for sixty years.
 
I believe it was our first President who warned about "foreign entanglements", and there are few even alive today who fought in the last European war. I just think it is crazy we are trying to get all of Europe in NATO, why don't we let Europe police itself? It's time.

You obviously haven’t considered it. Otherwise you would realize it makes Nuclear war more likely. Not less likely.

England and France have Nukes. If NATO is threatened without us. They would have to either surrender or fire the Nukes. The Russian Response would effect us. We would retaliate too. And soon everyone is firing what they have. Use them or lose them.

Without us. The war against NATO becomes one the Russian would believe could be easily won. The same way they deluded themselves to think Ukraine would be easy.

The scary flag becomes one of surrender or die. Not just for Europe. For all of the world.
 
So where do we draw the line? Where do we say here and no further. Any further and we will go to war.
You seem to have lots of questions but no answers. Where do YOU draw the line? If Ukraine, then shouldn't we declare war on Russia?

I draw the line at U.S. territory and our treaty allies. That being said, we should rethink NATO and either demand that the other member countries pay their own defense costs or get the hell out of it.
 
Without us. The war against NATO becomes one the Russian would believe could be easily won. The same way they deluded themselves to think Ukraine would be easy.
I think they have learned their lesson. Regardless, whether we are in NATO or not, NATO is using most of our weaponry, and any attack on a NATO member means we will likely charge right in.

But make Europe, and Russia, deal with their conflicts themselves, that's how the world is supposed to work, we were never appointed the worlds policeman.
 

Forum List

Back
Top