Britain vs Russia a message

[GreenerGrass]

I am sure the Ukrainians are deeply flatterd by your condescending remarks. Did the Americans send their tanks in to Poland and force them to join NATO?

Given Poland's history I don't think you can blame them for wanting to join NATO.

But do you not deny the US military presence in Georgia and Ukraine might be a teensy bit provocative?
How would the USA react if the Russkies did the same in Mexico, Canada etc.?

And where do you get the info that the missile shield cannot be used against Russian missiles? Did Condi say that?

[Pickle2]

[QUOTE=Cyberman;617451]

'Swallowed up' really is the wrong phrase to use. Nato is purely a voluntary defence alliance and countries in it are totally independent. Any countries swallowed up by Russia become part of a pseudo-communist war machine and are definitely not independent.

Your definitions may well be valid (though im not sure russia see nato quite as you describe it), but the difference is irrelevant when considering the opposing strategic aims of the west and russia i described earlier. Again, i think you are confusing the "right and wrong" of it, with the "why".

Im not suggesting that i believe russia are some great global moral champions. Im just trying to explain why they are taking the actions they are taking, and why, given the circumstances, they believe its probably the correct thing for them to do in the interest of their country. They are not driven by a desire to be "evil" any more than the west were in their invasion of iraq. Its just all part of the bigger games of state.

[Likely]

If there is a major conflict aka WWW III ( now that is a good Doom thread ) it will be between the big ones ie. US vs Russia etc , NATO members like Romania , Poland and most smaller NATO members will definitely try to preserve neutrality. For one they could never defend against attack from Russia ( they simply don't have the technology) , secondly their armies are so insignificant they can hardly make a difference and they would remain neutral.

PS: WWW III = World Wide War III

[Bob Dalek]

You are a complete pillock Dalek in deliberately misinterpreting my post !!

What I am saying is that there are no limits to what we should spend, which is vastly different what New Lie is currently doing, having wasted so much on worthless projects.

Apology accepted.

[Diver]

Apology accepted.

[TinTin]

Lol

Cpt Mainwaring (Dodgy) and 'Stupid Boy' (Cyberman) just repeatedly shown how clueless they both are wrt history and geography of the area. Why don't you get on a C130 with the other American 'humanitarian' aid to Georgia for a 'fact-finding mission' and do us all a favour?

[DodgyAgent]

If there is a major conflict aka WWW III ( now that is a good Doom thread ) it will be between the big ones ie. US vs Russia etc , NATO members like Romania , Poland and most smaller NATO members will definitely try to preserve neutrality. For one they could never defend against attack from Russia ( they simply don't have the technology) , secondly their armies are so insignificant they can hardly make a difference and they would remain neutral.

PS: WWW III = World Wide War III

Oh dear,

Poland and Romania are members of NATO so they could not remain neutral.
Constanta is the largest port in the Black sea so it is likely that the Nato warships would be based there. Poland would very likely be either the main front or the main thoroughfare for war against Russia.

As for your ridiculous comments about the technology and size of Romaian and Polish armies the fact that they are members of NATO means that they have access to all the best western technologies and reinforcements from other NATO members.

Anyway with Russia's population dwindling by 800,000 a year NATO may as well sit tight and let them kill themselves off.

[DodgyAgent]

Given Poland's history I don't think you can blame them for wanting to join NATO.

But do you not deny the US military presence in Georgia and Ukraine might be a teensy bit provocative?
How would the USA react if the Russkies did the same in Mexico, Canada etc.?

And where do you get the info that the missile shield cannot be used against Russian missiles? Did Condi say that?

Do you think the Americans would be in either Georgia or Ukraine if they were not invited? and why would Mexico or Canada want Russian warships there anyway. You have a distorted view of "equivalence" whwerby you think somehow that Russia has some sort of moral right to threaten other countries or even invade them. The fundamental difference between the US and Russia is that the formers activities are being conducted with the consent of the sovereign states that it is involved in. Russias activities are quite the opposite, they are in turn being conducted against the governments of the sovereign states of Georgia and Ukraine.

This whole stand off is fundamentally a battle between freedom (represented by NATO members) and totalitarianism (Russia)

as for the missile shield, the loathsome Monbiot makes a well argued point:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...npolicy.russia

[DodgyAgent]

Cpt Mainwaring (Dodgy) and 'Stupid Boy' (Cyberman) just repeatedly shown how clueless they both are wrt history and geography of the area. Why don't you get on a C130 with the other American 'humanitarian' aid to Georgia for a 'fact-finding mission' and do us all a favour?

You stupid boy

[ace00]

The fundamental difference between the US and Russia is that the formers activities are being conducted with the consent of the sovereign states that it is involved in.

USA to the rescue again. Just like Iraq, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc...

2 words for you: Monroe Doctrine