[Bolding added.]
So are you willing to start WWIII over Estonia or not?
I am. Certainly. Estonia is a NATO member. If Russia invades, she must be destroyed. Unconditional surrender or total annihilation.
I imagine you're in an extreme minority.
You imagine being the American president who has to explain a nuclear strike over Estonia.
Something tells me that "well we made a commitment" ain't gonna cut it.
Anyhow who is publicly against it should be locked up of course. If the world is at war then we won't have time for discussions with pacifists and the far left.
A treaty either means something or it means nothing. If it means nothing and military aggression against allies is perfectly okay once again, then we will have war. Once again.
NATO is a deterrent to war. It works. Just as FDR and Churchill envisioned it would.
What the fuck? “Anyhow who is publicly against it should be locked up”?
In other words, you advocated criminalizing political speech. That’s totalitarian thinking.
Just because something is the law, even the supreme law of the land, doesn’t mean it’s criminal to oppose it.
Yeah but I want to trample that part I don't like.
See how that works?
18 comments
Because that worked out so well one hundred years ago, when we did not even have weapons that would wipe out the biosphere as we know it...
Mutually assured destruction is utterly insane and perverse. It sounds like something a coldly amoral straw-computer to whom "everything is just zeroes and ones" would come up with. How do such psychos end up in positions where anyone actually listens to them?!?
I'm genuinely puzzled by what you snowflakes are proposing. Wasn't too long ago you were complaining about Trump supposedly being anti-NATO (he wasn't, 2% GDP minimum spending on military is a NATO obligation, more military spending makes NATO stronger) and now you're saying fuck the NATO treaty, if one nation is attacked we should ignore it.
Obviously nuking Estonia to save it from Russia is retarded.
That said, the NATO treaty clearly states and attack on one NATO-member nation is an attack on all NATO nations. If Russia attacks Estonia (and it's big if) it's as if it attacked the United States. So therefore the US would have no choice but to go to war with Russia and expel them from Estonia, possibly even go further with regime change.
But I doubt it's happening. Putin might be a corrupt power hungry leader, but he's not insane. He's a "rational actor". If you show strength, he backs down. If you show weakness, he takes advantage.
@SJW Critic:
It's almost like we're capable of considering more than one factor when making a decision and even weighing those factors against each other. I'm sure the concept must terrify you.
"I like -X- but hate -Y- and -Z-. If I pursue -X- this way, I'll get -Y- and -Z-, too. I shouldn't pursue -X- this way."
I suppose it just sounds like "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" to you.
@Shepard Solus
How should NATO members react if Estonia is attacked by Russia? And I mean actual large-scale attack, not one plane getting shot down or whatever possibly due to a misunderstanding.
You don't really have a lot of options here. It's either go to war with Russia (doesn't necessarily mean you have to nuke them, although escalation is a danger) or not go to war with Russia (in which case the entire NATO treaty is a joke).
Now if you choose NOT to go to war that also makes you look weak because an attack on Estonia is completely equivalent to an attack on American soil according to the NATO treaty. As well as the soil of every other NATO member. If America doesn't respond in kind to an aggression that sets the precedent that others can also attack America and get away with it.
My only advice if you want a near guarantee of never having to go to war with Russia is to project enough strength that they'll never even consider doing it. Putin is not a maniac. He'll "get it".
At the same time it's also better not to provoke them. No need to expand NATO further or try to force Russia to do things as you do, protect what you have so far.
Maybe kick Turkey out too cause honestly it's going down the shitter and doesn't really share the values of other NATO members. It's not even a real democracy anymore.
Maybe kick Turkey out too cause honestly it's going down the shitter and doesn't really share the values of other NATO members. It's not even a real democracy anymore
...Tadpole, is that you?! If not, then if he shows his retarded Nazi face here again, Fundie Fight!
The people of Turkey want a dictator: Erdogan. They voted for such. If you are anti-democracy, you are a Nazi . Isn't that what you wanted all along - a tyrannical dictator - Ugly Toad?! [/Donald Fart]
image
But then, post-Obama Dumbfuckistan is going down the shitter and doesn't really share the values of other NATO members.
image
When it's 'Emprah' is taking it up the arse from the country that was the original reason why NATO was formed in the first place, it's not even a real democracy anymore.
image
Wiggy seems to forget that his top is a former officer in the Soviet KGB.
(antichrist, http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=127648&Page=1#2058139 , that pic is certainly B3ta.com-worthy visual satire : as their continued [I]covfefe[/I] of such demonstrates )
@Insult to Rocks
Russia has its human rights issues still. But you're not going to see the Iron Curtain again. (At least so long as no communists are in power.)
Define "reasonably able." The NATO budget is more than able to respond to Russia. In fact it's able to respond to any threat that originates from an earthly nation or group of nations. I'll grant you this, it probably can't fight aliens that can vaporize Earth. They haven't been shown to exist though.
Because the treaty makes it very clear. An attack on Estonia would be like being attacked in the US.
The argument for non-intervention only worked as long as you weren't attacked. Iraq didn't attack the US. Libya didn't. Syria didn't.
@Critic
"Reasonably Able" would mean a lot more than having a big budget. You can't solve military issues by throwing money at them (not that our leaders seem to realize that). It's about not going off half-cocked.
You'd need to ensure that NATO itself is stable enough politically and that there aren't any other more immediate pressures or threats. You have to ensure that the nations were your staging grounds lie are actually viable to hold a diverse military operation. You have to make damn sure that Russian nuclear capability is neutralized in some significant capacity before you make any moves. You have to have a good intel system on the ground, you need a clear, agreed-upon strategy...I can go on.
Modern military conflicts are exceedingly complex, especially on the scale suggested, which hasn't been done in over half a century. There's very little room for error. Which means not engaging unless you're absolutely sure that it's a feasible operation.
@Insult To Rocks
I don't want to see a return of the Iron Curtain
Neither should someone else, if he knows what's good for him.
Can you imagine the scene in Mexico, near a certain border: the world's media attending, with Mikhail Gorbachev pointing at a certain structure and saying 'In the words of Ronald Reagan...!'
But then, Donald Fart has infinitely greater priorities right now: keeping his job as Swamp Flooder-in-Chief without being impeached. [/Watergate]
As if he'd have time to even pass such a bill in said 'Swamp': when he's the turd blocking that sewage outflow in Washington, making it not only increase in size, but turning it into a fetid cesspit, to actually build that Iron Curtain Mk. II.
image
image
Even when the Alt-Shite 'won', they still lose . >:D
@Insult to Rocks
I understand your concerns but if nothing is done to liberate this hypothetical Estonia being taken over by Russian troops, then:
1. the NATO treaty is meaningless, countries start pulling out, whole thing collapses
2. it projects weakness which leads to more aggression and not just from Russia
Also if you make any threats or draw any red lines, you better be ready to carry them out. Otherwise your bluff will be called. And future red lines will be laughed at.
@Anon-e-moose
It takes a special brand of retard to compare the Iron Curtain (which was intended to keep people from leaving) with a wall or barrier on the southern border intended to merely ensure people migrate legally. Every country has a fucking border.
Here's a tip: Walls wouldn't stop Americans from leaving. Trump would have to ground all the planes for that and it would be 1000 times more effective.
As for his promises:
1. You obstructed him on several proposal including the travel ban, so no I'm not going to hold him even remotely accountable when he did his job and you sabotaged him (even though the left falsely promised they want to make the best of it and allow him to succeed), there was nothing even remotely unconstitutional about the travel ban since non-citizens outside of US soil aren't covered by the Bill of Rights, previous less biased Supreme Courts have made that clear
2. The others take time
3. Appointing Goldmann Sachs executive doesn't mean anything since he hasn't worked with them in ages
Also the people he appoints aren't entirely free to follow their personal agenda.
@SJW Critic
The wall is a stupid idea altogether. It's a waste if time and resources.
Yes, it's never Trumps' fault is it? Nevermind that Republicans did the same thing to Obama when they had the majority.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.