Newt on Trump

[Correll]

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

 

[Liminal]

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

And of course the Russians have no choice but to intervene to protect the rights of oppressed Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. Now lets see, where have we heard that kind of thing before?

 

[Correll]

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

And of course the Russians have no choice but to intervene to protect the rights of oppressed Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. Now lets see, where have we heard that kind of thing before?

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

 

[Liminal]

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

Ever wonder what would have happened if Britain and France had stood by Czechoslovakia in 1938? I wonder if Donald Trump ever wonders about things like that?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

And of course the Russians have no choice but to intervene to protect the rights of oppressed Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. Now lets see, where have we heard that kind of thing before?

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

 

[Correll]

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

WWII is one model of how wars can spread, ie people NOT getting involved and a bad actor just going and going.


WWI is another, where large networks of alliances can drag everyone into a bloodbath over a small clash.


Simply referencing one historical example does not mean that that is the situation we face NOW.

I gave you one scenario, based on the NATO treaty, that could lead to a WWI scenario of a global war caused by a small clash dragging everyone in because of a very large and spread out Alliance.

Would you like to address why you support such a commitment to Estonia?

Or perhaps, you would like to argue that such a clash is unlikely?

Or would you like to counter with a more likely example of where, in YOUR opinion, that NATO would be of great use to us in defending ourselves?

I happily await to see how you will support your position.

Will you argue the merits of YOURS?

Or will you attack the claimed merits of MINE?

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

And of course the Russians have no choice but to intervene to protect the rights of oppressed Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. Now lets see, where have we heard that kind of thing before?

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

 

[Liminal]

The purpose of NATO is to serve as a deterrent to larger wars in Europe. In this regard it has been successful.

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

And of course the Russians have no choice but to intervene to protect the rights of oppressed Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. Now lets see, where have we heard that kind of thing before?

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

 

[Correll]

Well, it WAS successful during the Cold War, when the line of demarcation between the East and the West was in the middle of Germany, a thousand miles from Moscow.

NOw, we have pushed the borders of Nato right up to the Russia border. We have interfered in the internal affairs of nations with large ethnic Russian populations, right on Russia's border. HELL, Turkey shot DOWN a Russia military jet, and Kerry is talking about how we could do the same.

And to think libs used to complain that Reagan was reckless...

The situation has changed dramatically, and the question is, is the NATO alliance NOW set up to deter war, or more likely to enlarge and draw US into a major war?


I gave you an example of the scenario I fear.

You have not addressed whether you find my fear credible, or if not, why not.

And of course the Russians have no choice but to intervene to protect the rights of oppressed Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. Now lets see, where have we heard that kind of thing before?

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

 

[Liminal]

And of course the Russians have no choice but to intervene to protect the rights of oppressed Russian minorities in former Soviet Republics. Now lets see, where have we heard that kind of thing before?

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

 

[Correll]

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

You asked how abandoning NATO increases our security.

I pointed out that it removes a treaty obligation to go to war with Russia (risking a nuclear holocaust).

That is a pretty good answer.

YOu have failed to address it.

As is common with you.

And then you lied and said that I had NOT been answering anything.

I've also asked a number of good or "informed" questions, which you have ignored and lied about.

 

[Liminal]

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

You asked how abandoning NATO increases our security.

I pointed out that it removes a treaty obligation to go to war with Russia (risking a nuclear holocaust).

That is a pretty good answer.

YOu have failed to address it.

As is common with you.

And then you lied and said that I had NOT been answering anything.

I've also asked a number of good or "informed" questions, which you have ignored and lied about.

So if I understand your logic correctly: Withdraw American power and influence from global responsibilities, allow expansionist dictatorships to dictate terms to everyone, and just hope they don't want more. Does that about sum it up?

 

[Liminal]

Sounds like Correll and Trump have come up with the perfect formula for World War lll.

 

[Liminal]

And who would have guessed that Trump followers would be pacifist isolationists?

 

[Liminal]

No doubt the Trump/Correll strategic policy plans include reconstituting the Soviet Union.

 

[Liminal]

With the Trump/Correll defense plans in place, selectively abandoning NATO allies, Russia will no doubt wish to then become more reasonable and conciliatory.

 

[Liminal]

Abandoning allies who are willing to fight for their freedom would be an act of cowardice.

 

[Liminal]

As long as we're retreating into the bunker we might as well abandon our Pacific and Asian allies as well.

 

[candycorn]

I appreciate the help from Nato, mostly the UK, in those wars.
That doesn't change the fact that most of them pay very little for their defense and rely on US for their security, to our great expense and risk.
Being bound by Treaty to go to war with Russia, over ESTONIA, is utter madness.
And regarding your continued child like behavior with Trump's name.

Drumpf is pretty much the only person in the world stating that we should get out of alliances. War is a costly game. Every President in memory has had to use the military to some degree or another; it’s always cheaper to be part of an alliance and have England fly some of the sorties, having France attend to the wounded, perhaps having Italy doing some of the POW work.

In every case, nations sharing information and intelligence is what keeps terrorism at bay.

You’re simply out of your depth trying to discuss the topic. Drumpf is smart enough to just keep bitching about how he’s been treated; you’re ignorant enough to try to prop up his policies which are childlike and moronic; just like yourself.

 

[candycorn]

Every person or nation that has an interest in members of their ethnicity that fall on the other side of a border is not Hitler/nazi germany.

Please try again. YOur goal, if you can is to either explain why my fear of the US being drawn into a large war that is not in our interest is unfounded.

or to explain what the threat is that NATO is to protect US from.

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

Nor will he ever. His Resorting to cartoons over and over is a sure sign he’s lost.

 

[Liminal]

I'd be interested to hear the details of comprehensive plans for a viable strategic alternative to NATO.

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

Nor will he ever. His Resorting to cartoons over and over is a sure sign he’s lost.

I think we should be a little more tolerant of his ignorance, it might not be his fault. Maybe no one ever took the time to teach him anything.....or maybe he can't be taught. All we can do is try to be patient so we can hopefully enlighten the less fortunate.

 

[candycorn]

Mmm so, trying to put everything on me and with a made up goal post of your own?

We are committed by the NATO treaty to go to war with Russia, a nation of 140 million people with 5,000 nuclear warheads, over Estonia a nation of barely a million people, a quarter of them Russian.

A nation right on Russia's border, with all the advantages that would give Russia in the case of a war.

So, please tell me, if you can, either why my fear of that scenario is unfounded,

or perhaps why such a war would be in the best interests of American.

The strategic alternative to THAT is to NOT go to war with Russia, unless the vital interests of the United States are threatened.

I haven't heard anyone give any reasonable explanations as to how abandoning NATO increases our security or in any way advances American interests and influence.

We would NOT be treaty bound to go to war with Russia on the other side of the world.

Not if they invaded Estonia, not if Turkey fired on Russian military forces and started a war.

That is a huge reduction in risk and thus increased security.

Note how I keep answering your questions and points, but you are unable to answer mine.

No, you actually haven't answered anything to my satisfaction, nor have you asked any informed questions.

Nor will he ever. His Resorting to cartoons over and over is a sure sign he’s lost.

I think we should be a little more tolerant of his ignorance, it might not be his fault. Maybe no one ever took the time to teach him anything.....or maybe he can't be taught. All we can do is try to be patient so we can hopefully enlighten the less fortunate.

It's all his fault. I'm so enjoying the exchanges. Funniest shit Evah!