 |
| |
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by laurentius
People in most Nordic countries oppose NATO,
|
Let's see... we have Denmark, Norway, and Iceland in NATO and we have Sweden & Finland not in NATO but still using all of NATO's standards on their equipment. Yep, I can see how everyone in the North hates NATO.
quote:
millions and millions of German, French even british people hate NATO partly because of the Euro missile scandal. |
I truly don't know what the Euromissile scandal is. Can you please tell me?
quote:
Half of Balkans hate NATO, especially the serbs. |
Is that why most Balkan states are in NATO and the few that aren't are lining up to join? Even Serbia.
Last edited by Oerdin on 11-11-2004 at 12:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
To Oerdin
You said something awhile back that NATO helps against terrorism.
To my mind the only effective way to combat the root causes of terrorism is to introduce more overview of innternational money transfer and off-shore money laundering. Then the financing of terrorism would dry up. This would also have the effect of curbing other forms of criminal activity such as drug trafficking and trade in women for prostitution. It should also be considered if financial derivitive speculation should be outlawed. Then it would not be possible to speculate in future catastrophies.
Unfortunately this would, should it be effective, diminish the global money circulation by 5 percent. So I can see that there will be intense lobbying against it by the people who make a living from that sort of business.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
It seems that people forget that there are two parts in the NATO treaty. One is to protect each other, the second is that you don't attack each others. Many of the new NATO countries sees NATO as a protection against an aggresive russia, but also a mean to diminish the risk of quarrels with more humble neighbours.
If you only look at the first point, then the purpose of NATO is less than earlier, but not totally irellevant. Baltic states and a couple of eastern europe coutries feel a lot more secure under the NATO umbrella.
I find the second point more interesting. The more countries in an alliance the less chance of local fights.
I can't rember who it was that claimed that russia never could be a NATO member, but why not ?
Many of the statements Mr. Steele make are really weird, but some are strictly rediculous :
quote:
The last time Europe was in dire straits, as Nazi tanks swept across the continent in 1939 and 1940, the US stayed on the sidelines until Pearl Harbor.
|
I admit he is right, but if i'm not wrong, NATO was first created after WWII and US had no treaties pre WWII with any euorpean contries, so they had no obligation to do anything.
quote:
It is true that Nato is unlikely ever again to function with the unanimity it showed during the cold war.
|
This is a direct lie. Because of internal political quarrels (the social democrats lost an election and changed their mind on what they earlier had agreed to), Denmark made the double decision troublesome (if you (soviet) dont stop deploying SS20 rockets, then we start deploying some of our own).
quote:
But it is wrong to be complacent about Nato's alleged impotence or irrelevance. Nato gives the US a significant instrument for moral and political pressure. Europe is automatically expected to tag along in going to war, or in the post-conflict phase, as in Afghanistan or Iraq. Who knows whether Iran and Syria will come next? Bush has four more years in power and there is little likelihood that his successors in the White House will be any less interventionist.
|
US might or might not do any of this, but if they do, that will be on their own and it will be up to the single member of NATO if they want to join or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
Kuci, **** how can you be neutral when you are being attacked? You tell me.
notyoueither, nah, it's not a big problem. The problem is that people tend to think our soldiers were part of nazis and stuff like that. Which wasn't the case.
I ask you, you are hanging from a cliff, and a nazi comes to you and reaches his hand 'grab this and live'. What do you do? Mix it up, at this point you don't know that Nazis are responsible for genocides and all that. You know they have been a little imperialistic though. What do you do? Do you grab the hand or not?
And until you learn the nature of the 'alliance', I'd advice you to read about it, or watch couple of documentaries. Hey, anyone will do, I won't even suggest any propaganda. Anyone will do. Before that, I'd like to remember you that Nazis were pretty strong in the US before WWII, so, chances aer you are a nazi. Unless you start actually learning history rather than throwing racist tantrums, I also refuse to reverse my position when it comes to this thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Kuci, **** how can you be neutral when you are being attacked? You tell me.
notyoueither, nah, it's not a big problem. The problem is that people tend to think our soldiers were part of nazis and stuff like that. Which wasn't the case.
I ask you, you are hanging from a cliff, and a nazi comes to you and reaches his hand 'grab this and live'. What do you do? Mix it up, at this point you don't know that Nazis are responsible for genocides and all that. You know they have been a little imperialistic though. What do you do? Do you grab the hand or not?
And until you learn the nature of the 'alliance', I'd advice you to read about it, or watch couple of documentaries. Hey, anyone will do, I won't even suggest any propaganda. Anyone will do. Before that, I'd like to remember you that Nazis were pretty strong in the US before WWII, so, chances aer you are a nazi. Unless you start actually learning history rather than throwing racist tantrums, I also refuse to reverse my position when it comes to this thread. |
I don't blame the Finns for the choice they made. In fact, the Soviet Union well and truely deserved any cuts the Finns could deliver. You were the only ones out of Poles, Latvians, Lithuaneans, Estonians... etc... to send the Red Army packing when they tried the land grab under the skirts of the Nazis.
TBH, most people I know who know **** about the situation admire the Finns and do not begrudge that you took up arms against the Reds when a good opportunity presented itself to take back what they had so recently taken from you by naked aggression.
However, you do need to acknowledge the nature of the angel that came to your rescue. Italians, Hungarians, and many others have done so already... most importantly Germans themsleves. There is no shame in the past for you, there is only shame in denying it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
No. SU started city bombings first. We were ready for sure. It was only temporary peace and no one had actually 'gone to business as usual' after winter war. We both knew it was only a matter of time. SU knew it, we knew it. We knew we couldnt' take another offensive. We had no gear. Hitler offered gear. We accept. We are ready for a new offensive now, which started I remind you.
But, now we were equipped properly, unlike the war before, and started pushing forward to the old borders. I mean, what are you going to do, stay put? Only direction is backwards from there. So we pushed forward until the old borderlines and created a small bufferzone. German weaponry helped. German troops in Lapland mostly were kind of inactive, almost all fighting happened in front where Germans didn't really have force.
Volunteer Swedes did more fighting than Germans in here. That's just a fact.
And when we reached the borders and buffered it up, the troops STOPPED and stayed there for 2 and a half years, building strongholds.
Of course, SU was more convinced we would be mad and ready to take it to them when German weapons started arriving and all that. So they were paranoid about it, of course it was pretty justified paranoia, as equpiment started flowing in. We were paranoid as well. And city bombings started again, so, at the end waht we suspected happened. Wehrmacht didn't lead the way in here. THey mostly were hanging in oru coat tails.
So no, it's not taking Germany's side. Rather they took our side. We couldn't actually afford playing big startegic games in the world field. It was very simple in here, SU attacked, and is our enemy, now protect yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:19
|
|
They did nothing that was against our will. What they did in our soil helped us. So why should we think we helped them, when they helped us? And that's the only reason WE call it alliance (we don't have a word for co-belligrent), but it's pretty much explained why it was so.
Why do you demand for me to acknowledge their contributions? I said that the appreciation for the weaponry was great. The contribution as far as men was poor. In pure numbers it was OK, but like said, most were in Lapland. In a way, that helped to stabilize the sitaution in there though, and maybe it prevented the cutting the country half from happening. But they saw little action. Why do you demand me to say something that is not true? They saw very little action. Individual volunteer groups saw more action. This is just a fact.
I can acknowledge alliance where we say what we do and how far we go, only if the other person is educated on the issue. If a person has the normal amount of knowledge, which is next to nothing, I refuse to do so for the sake of mixing things up. You say Italians etc admitted. Yeah, what could they deny, they had Mussolini  .. but yeah it's known that Italians themselves weren't really much into fascism. But to compare our situation to theirs is not even the same. Our situation was unique, and our relations to Germany were unique, so unless a person knows some of the background and the war in general, and in our front also, then it's no use to oversimplify it like that.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-11-2004 00:12
|