tzijlstra Posted November 29, 2015 Author Share Posted November 29, 2015 Mind you we have left other countries to slaughter innocents. Boko harem carry on regardless, nobody gave a hoot as thousands were killed Sri Lanka. Yemen is a mess. Somalia is a mess. this is a significant point, one that I'd like see answered by our politicians. But somehow they remain eerily quiet on that front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 (edited) this is a significant point, one that I'd like see answered by our politicians. But somehow they remain eerily quiet on that front. If boko harem blew up a few double decker busses or brought down a Ryan air flight full of British tourists we probably would our. Our response to Sri Lanka was an utter disgrace. Edited November 29, 2015 by cassity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 If the baltic countries left it wouldnt be a big deal.Bigger than you think: might I remind you that, unlike Turkey (at least for now), Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are fully paid-up members of the EU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Bigger than you think: might I remind you that, unlike Turkey (at least for now), Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are fully paid-up members of the EU? We are talking about a theroretical situation. What would be the significance if they decided to leave Nato? It wouldnt mean Nato fell apart. EU member states who are not part of the NATO include Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Interesting article in the guardian about wether Putin was right about Turkey supporting terrorists = http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/vladimir-putin-turkey-isis-terrorists-warplane-analysis I also read elsewhere that president erdogans son in law is the minister for energy so has an interest in the oil market = http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/28/syria-army-says-turkey-increases-arms-shipments-to-rebels.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 We are talking about a theroretical situation. What would be the significance if they decided to leave Nato? It wouldnt mean Nato fell apart. EU member states who are not part of the NATO include Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden. The 2 largest scandinavian countries which invited themselves to the last NATO large-scale military exercises in the Baltic this summer with an unprecedented scale of respective forces' contribution, and the country that has been hosting one of the main US logistical airport nexuses on this side of the Pond for years and more? Sure, NATO would fall apart. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 The 2 largest scandinavian countries which invited themselves to the last NATO large-scale military exercises in the Baltic this summer with an unprecedented scale of respective forces' contribution, and the country that has been hosting one of the main US logistical airport nexuses on this side of the Pond for years and more? Sure, NATO would fall apart. Not. Am genuinely mystified Loob. What are you going on about? I think theres some confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Honestly dont see it. Wait and see I guess. If the baltic countries left it wouldnt be a big deal. The Baltic countries are desperate to stay in NATO to protect them from Russia, they've still got a lot of historical scars left over from when Russia/ the USSR occupied them. The worry would be if one or more of the Nato countries decided that the keeping the Baltic countries within NATO would be too high a risk. Or another scenario would be if one of the Baltic countries was under pressure from Russia and one of the core NATO countries such as Germany would shy away from protecting their sovereignty due to risk of an escalation to a wider conflict. I think that any of these scenarios would spell the end for NATO because it would destroy the trust between the nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 (edited) The Baltic countries are desperate to stay in NATO to protect them from Russia, they've still got a lot of historical scars left over from when Russia/ the USSR occupied them. The worry would be if one or more of the Nato countries decided that the keeping the Baltic countries within NATO would be too high a risk. Or another scenario would be if one of the Baltic countries was under pressure from Russia and one of the core NATO countries such as Germany would shy away from protecting their sovereignty due to risk of an escalation to a wider conflict. I think that any of these scenarios would spell the end for NATO because it would destroy the trust between the nations. Tbh JFK I'm more mytsified at what loob is going on about. 1. Yes to your first point absolutely, which is all the more reason why your scenario of them leaving is a bit unusual. 2. Ejecting them because a few other Nato countries said they were too risky because the soviets didnt like them being in Nato? I cant see that happening at all. Once they are in they are in. What sort of message would that send? That would mean Russia gets to pick who can and cant be a member of Nato. Has there ever been an example of a company being ejected from Nato. Has any core member (ant member)of Nato ever voiced concerns sice the Baltic states joined, that it was too risky to have them as members and they were rethinking? Surely the time to voice such concerns is before they join? My point was this: If the Baltic states left by their own accord then Nato would survive. It existed before they joined and could exist afterwards. If I now take into account your new information that the reason they left is because they were forced out, then that would fundamentally show Nato doesnt work because it gives into aggression and will not defend any member. Is there any evidence core countries would consider doing this? Edited November 29, 2015 by 999tigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom309 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Turkey seems to want to attack the Assad regime, the Kurdish fighters whom they class as rebels and ISIS NATO and the west want to attack ISIS and the Assad regime and want the Kurds to do the ground fighting Syria whom Russia and Iran are backing want to attack ISIS but need to over come the free Syrian rebels and Turkman rebels first It is a United Nations law that it illegal to procure a regime change in another sovereign country Putin,s suggestion that they all unite to get rid of ISIS and then attempt to find a political solution to the Syrian problem at a later date appears to be the most sensible way forward but it would require a lot of negotiation and back tracking for this to be come achievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now