Forums | MacLife

Did they change the article in that link? There's nothing about that.

It's worse. SS's real name is Michael Fischer

Hmm, don't know what happened with that link. Anyway I fixed it.

I don't think it's an odd turnaround, by the way, about the NATO membership. Don't forget it was originally formed, and continues to exist, in order to counterbalance the "Russian threat."

And when was the last time Russia has been as threatening as it is now? Not since Gorby came to office a quarter century ago.

In fact the Russians might have done NATO the biggest favour it could ever have done: given the alliance a purpose.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan94.html

Pat Buchanan wrote:

The arrogant folly of the architects of U.S. post-Cold War policy is today on display. By bringing three ex-Soviet republics into NATO, we have moved the U.S. red line for war from the Elbe almost to within artillery range of the old Leningrad.... A resurgent Russia is no threat to any vital interests of the United States. It is a threat to an American Empire that presumes some God-given right to plant U.S. military power in the backyard or on the front porch of Mother Russia.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis120.html

Eric Margolis wrote:

It’s a good thing Georgia was not admitted to NATO, as the White House had reportedly promised Saakashvili. Had Georgia been admitted before this crisis, the US and its NATO allies would have been in a state of war with Russia. Disturbingly, Germany’s conservative prime minister, Angelika Merkel, rushed to Tbilisi to assure Saakashvili that her nation still backed NATO membership for Georgia.

Is the west really ready to be dragged into a potential nuclear war for the sake of South Ossetia? Are American and German troops ready to fight in the Caucasus? Georgia is a bridge too far for NATO.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind145.html

William Lind wrote:

President Bush has used Georgia to taunt and humiliate Russia, even putting Georgia up for NATO membership, which the Europeans were wise enough to block. This folly was part of a larger strategic blunder, going back to the Clinton administration, of treating Russia as an opponent despite the fall of Communism.

That blunder is now blowing up in our face, as Russia in turn uses war with Georgia to teach America a lesson about the dangers of overextension and the price to be paid for humiliating a Great Power. Prudence suggests we swallow our medicine and profit by it, tempering our ambitions and our arrogance with a dose of reality.

But under the King of Misrule, folly remains the order of the day. The Bush White House tells itself American power knows no limits. All that is required is that they show sufficient "will," and the rest of the world will buckle.

Not this time. Russia has taken all it is going to take.

Now thats a quality warsaw pact.

Hank Rearden wrote:

So, if we grant them NATO membership, and Russia is still invading them when we do that, do we get to have a war with Russia?

It's good to know that Generation Z (or whatever the current crop is called) will get to enjoy the fear of being nuked at any time like us X-ers did. It was sure good for building character.

I'm prepared to thrive in a nuclear apocalypse

beyond diplomacy is brinkmanship. Time to up the DEFCON status.

That's a cool image.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

As for the "if Georgia had been in NATO we'd be at war with Russia now" argument, I don't buy it. I don't see Russia taking on NATO for no good reason.

I agree with you. It should be obvious I'd think.

Colonel Panic wrote:

USA Interest = Insignificant

:snicker:

If I had the time, I'd dig out the manual and recalculate it...