SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,820
- 365
Let me start with the link.
www.nbcnews.com
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.
Turkey allows Sweden-Finland NATO membership. That's too bad for the U.S.
Instead of lowering the chances of war, the membership of the two Nordic countries increases the risk for the entire alliance.
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.
