Russia in NATO??

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I see where Russia is now a junior member of NATO. Are there any Warsaw Pact countries left? What's the point of NATO if there are no Commies to fight! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent:

    <strong>I see where Russia is now a junior member of NATO. Are there any Warsaw Pact countries left? What's the point of NATO if there are no Commies to fight! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    The war agains terrorism according to Poutine and Bush
  • Reply 2 of 15
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:

    <strong>



    The war agains terrorism according to Poutine and Bush</strong><hr></blockquote>



    What the hell? I don't understand it why people see the whole War on Terrorism a joke. Terrorism is a serious threat to global stability and I don't understand why people would not want it eliminated.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>



    What the hell? I don't understand it why people see the whole War on Terrorism a joke. Terrorism is a serious threat to global stability and I don't understand why people would not want it eliminated.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I did not say it was a joke, the last attack of Al Quaeda was in pakistan, 11 french people where kill in a bombing of a car. Al Quaeda is not dead, this war (of a new type) will last for long long years.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:

    <strong>



    I did not say it was a joke, the last attack of Al Quaeda was in pakistan, 11 french people where kill in a bombing of a car. Al Quaeda is not dead, this war (of a new type) will last for long long years.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    By saying "according to Putin and Bush," you kind of implied that YOU believed otherwise. And oh yea, good luck in the World Cup.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>



    By saying "according to Putin and Bush," you kind of implied that YOU believed otherwise. And oh yea, good luck in the World Cup.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    ah, yes i see, i should have said according to Putin, Bush and me
  • Reply 6 of 15
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Powerdoc, doesn't Poutine mean something in French???
  • Reply 7 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

    <strong>Powerdoc, doesn't Poutine mean something in French???</strong><hr></blockquote>



    no it does not mean anything.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    digixdigix Posts: 109member
    War against terrorism = World War III under a different name



    The question is, when one must go to war, one must have the right reason and is certain who is his enemy.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    [quote]Originally posted by digix:

    <strong>War against terrorism = World War III under a different name



    The question is, when one must go to war, one must have the right reason and is certain who is his enemy.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The enemy is very certain: militant Islamic fundamentalists. Though locating them is more difficult. However, it's not hard identifying the nations that harbor them. In my eyes, this could be the first modern war, where the fighting is done mostly through economic policy. But that may be a pipe dream.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    scott_h_phdscott_h_phd Posts: 448member
    The cold war was WWIII. WOT is WWIV



    NATO is not NATO. NATO is the US. ThinkingDifferent is right. NATO has almost no purpose these days. It cost the US a lot of money to "defend" Europe. The only reason I can see to keep it is to keep the forward bases. For the most part we could do that with agreements with individual agreements.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    To my humble opinion the transatlantic relationship has great value, even though its character gains symbolic value more and more. But, untill there's no other institutional organ (social, economic, security, discuss about the form) that can replace NATO as a strong bounding factor between US and European countries, I'd rather keep it alive a little longer (relationships between countries need more that just goodwill). In the end, it will disappear, when it is really obsolete.



    DE
  • Reply 12 of 15
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 13 of 15
    macfenianmacfenian Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>



    What the hell? I don't understand it why people see the whole War on Terrorism a joke. Terrorism is a serious threat to global stability and I don't understand why people would not want it eliminated.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You really believe this can be eliminated by bombing it away don´t you? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 14 of 15
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    The question is, when one must go to war, one must have the right reason and is certain who is his enemy.



    Still blaming the jews, are you? I know you try to be subtle but I'd have more respect if you just came out and say it.



    You really believe this can be eliminated by bombing it away don´t you?



    Seemed to work in WW2 against the Japanese and Germans. But at that time the Europeans didn't mind the means, only the ends. There is a saying: The ends don't always justify the means. (note the bold)
  • Reply 15 of 15
    [quote]Originally posted by macvasco:

    <strong>



    You really believe this can be eliminated by bombing it away don´t you? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    But that's not all we're doing or did you not notice? Or not want to notice?
Sign In or Register to comment.