View Full Version : Welcome to NATO
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 4:13pm
To all my homies in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia
Weclome to NATO! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20021120/ap_on_re_eu/nato_summit_28)
Now let's kick some Commie @$$.
Oh, wait. There aren't any more Commies. Damn.
Well, guess we all better go home then.
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 4:18pm
you can still kick my brothers ass... he is one... i am only an Extreme-Socialist... and i stand for it... *******
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 4:19pm
No commies? Last time I checked, about one fifth of the world's population have a communist government...
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 4:28pm
Bah! I'm talking REAL commies here! Commies with ICBMs! Commies with gruff accents! Commies who eat an American child for breakfast without even brushing afterward! Commies without toilet paper!
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 5:05pm
Rice eating Commies? Or cigar rolling ones? :1eye:
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 5:29pm
*heave russian accent*
Oh yeahski me comminiski me kicka you arsski
Me only eats Amerikanski child at dinnerski and then flosski
[ November 20, 2002, 17:31: Message edited by: Morgoth ]
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 6:40pm
We always have Arnie Schwarzenegger
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 6:44pm
So is China a real 'communist' government?
Whats wrong with communism anyway? I mean its a good idea in principle, its just ... it can't work ...I see the light now! :angel:
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 8:55pm
It feels like Christmas come early... Not. :shake:
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 8:55pm
the only "real" communism here is on Cuba...
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 8:59pm
Oh yeah forgot to say something to the new members,
Now you´re in, don´t forget to kiss Bush´s ass since if you don´t, he will put you in his Axis of Evil Christmas list
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 9:20pm
Yeah, just like he did to all those other members of NATO.
Oh, wait. My bad. He only mentioned known terrorist states. And then not even all of them. Silly me.
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 9:42pm
1: Nato sucks ass!
2: Sovjet etc were NOT communist states.
Why do you think that? Have you ever even studied communism?
Iam very sad, cux my goverment did sell my country Sweden this morning to the European Union. They are gonna create a USE, Unites states of Europe.
92% Are against it...
And they didnt even tell us anything!
Damn, rightwing goverment!
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 9:44pm
Hey, guys! Get this! Turandil thinks that Sweden has a right-wing government! And he thinks that joining to a larger centralized power is a right-wing thing to do! :1eye:
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 9:48pm
it is a right-wing goverment that disguises themself as socialist... not since the 50's we have had so much differences between the sexes and classes... bite that you frigging capitalists...
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 9:56pm
In America the main difference between the sexes is boobies!
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 9:56pm
We live in Sweden, we know. Since Olof Palme 1986 Sweden have been right winged, not extreme like the USA, but rightwinged never the less...
And the EU is surely something for righties, wich are the ones who want to join? Yes, rightwinged parties...
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 10:08pm
They probably missed that in your vaunted education system over there, but large government is a liberal tendency.
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 10:09pm
even the enviriolanist (miljöpartiet) want to quit EU... that shows how much the Social-Democrats is left... they even want the Euro... idiots...
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 10:09pm
Yeeeha!!!! When are we letting Russia in on the NATO party?!?!?
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 10:18pm
Belislappius, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I have. http://www.jamiedmcdonald.com/2002_05_01_archive.html#77063253
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 10:25pm
Thats weird, in Holland all the rightwingers(wannabees) I know are against the EU, hmm... :confused:
In America the main difference between the sexes is boobies With the Americans as the fattest population on earth, that aint really a difference anymore :D
[ November 20, 2002, 22:30: Message edited by: Morgoth ]
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 10:37pm
In the UK, the main difference between the sexes is the location.
LIVING ROOM, WATCHING TV: Male
KITCHEN, WASHING UP: Female
See, its quite easy if you stay alert!
;) ;) :D
[ November 20, 2002, 22:39: Message edited by: Sir Yerril of Morningmist ]
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 10:40pm
@Morgoth - that was just a hit below the belt... a good one though... and truth...
Wed, 20th Nov '02, 11:45pm
Oh woe, now we are completely surrounded by NATO, hopefully Russia wont join and then we have atleast one unallied nation in our vicinity.
Oh and yes, the swedish goverment did sell us out to the EU today, not that I disagree but the whole way it was handled was very questionable. I dont trust those 92% btw. Shralp, there is a mileswide chasm between what you call rightwing and what we here call rightwing, the most rightwing party here in Sweden is slightly left of the democrats :D
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 12:46am
Shralp, you're gonna love this...
As an Oz citizen, U.S. resident, living in France...really made me feel as though I were on the right side of things...
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 3:13pm
I am from Slovenia and I don't like NATO and that stufff...better remain neutral :rolleyes:
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 3:33pm
I always suspected that Slovenia was Isengard.
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 5:05pm
Shralp, those "real" commies you're looking for? They're still out there. They're in North American universities majoring in Environmental Issues and Women's Studies, and they're living in "feminist socialist lesbian collectives". I'm pretty sure they have ICBMs. They definitely have mustaches. :p
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 5:14pm
Shralp is a probably commie himself, he´s just in denial
(The same deal with homophobes, a great deal of those people are gay themselves)
[ November 21, 2002, 17:17: Message edited by: Morgoth ]
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 5:32pm
For all your commie homophobe needs!
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 6:09pm
Shouldn't you add anti-British to that list, Shralp, you good-for nothing, fatass, dumb-as-crap American?
:D :D :D :D
Thu, 21st Nov '02, 7:20pm
I dont trust those 92% btw. Thats true...But there were only 113 asked, and youth in a public forum like this one, so it is far from accurate information, but thats all I got :)
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 12:12pm
Russia thinks NATO is a pointless organization with no purpose any more, a gentleman's club for respectable countries which uphold democracy, if you will. So the last thing they'd do is join it.
You can have thousands of more or less intelligent debates about whether joining NATO is a good or a bad thing (and we have lots of morons here in Slovenia yakking about how we shouldn't join NATO and remain neutral etc.), but in the end, it all boils down to this - it's better to be in than out. Which, in politics, means a clearly defined goal to be in.
What cracks me up the most are the idiots here screaming on top of their lungs how we shouldn't join NATO and remain neutral... People, Switzerland is the only country in Europe which can afford to be at least somewhat neutral should any major conflict arise (again), because all European countries (and many others) share an interest that it stays that way. (No matter what, the piggy-bank stays safe and sound, this is in everyone's interest since they all have money there.)
Of the conflicts/wars that were fought anywhere near here in the last, oh, say 500 hundred years, in how many of these was the area where Slovenia is now, neutral? To my knowledge, none.
As for being neutral in more international conflicts, well... Some of them might creep behind you and bite you in the ass, if you don't pay them any attention. And we hardly have a war machine so large that our cooperation in any conflict would mean much more than a real life experience for the soldiers who took part. And considering the size of our army this, again, doesn't mean much.
Sure, you can declare you neutrality all you want. But unless you have something to back it up with, no one will care. Especially not in war.
[ November 22, 2002, 12:24: Message edited by: Taluntain ]
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 12:32pm
Okay, here is my argument on communism to all those that have been tottling off about how wonderful or dreadful communism is.
Its a brilliant idea ... in theory. I mean, the whole idea of equality is wonderful. But the thing is is that if we were to follow a strict communist regime, we could have no government otherwise it would not be equal. The economy would fail as we wouldn't be allowed to trade. Everyone gets the same, equal amounts regardless how hard you work.
Personally, if i was working my butt of off as a scientist or something, and I saw some guy getting the same pay as me in MacDonalds, I'd get pretty pissed off knowing that I've studied so hard to gain a job of prestige to know that it would bare hardly any significance or importance. Also, if i was working as hard as I could and i saw someone with the same job working like a sloth and yet still getting paid the same as me, I'd say "What the heck" and slacken off as there is no real inncentive to work. Hence eventually everyone would pick up on this, slacken off, allow the economy to fail and eventually decend into anarchy ...
My words on communism? "Damn"
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 12:46pm
This isn't a topic on communist doctrine, there are plenty of others where this view has been heard dozens of times before. So no more posts about this here, please. Go make a new topic discussing it, if you want. Or pick up one of the dozen existing ones and add to it. If you have anything to post here, it should have to do with NATO.
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 2:48pm
Well, Russia doesn't quite regard NATO as irrelevant, Tal. Otherwise they wouldn't protest so loudly when we include former Soviet satellites (especially the Baltics). I do wonder why they haven't asked or been asked to join.
Heck, that'd make China soil their undies.
Spot on analysis otherwise, though. It just makes sense to join the in crowd, even if it is largely irrelevant.
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 4:06pm
In conflicts there can be a great advantage being free from alliances; See Sweden for example during the cold war and other conflicts, we gaines much popularity as a conflict solver medling between the Nato and the Warzawa pact. Keeping out of war is also good, cause all wars realy suck. For example if we fought in the WW2 we would just have been another nazi state, instead of useless fighting we could use our advantage to help build up Europe after the war, and so we gained mych mony and respect. That way we did much more good then to die by the hands oh german soldiers. Its good to controll our military for ourselfs, not letting others do the decisions, its good to be in controll of your own nations military. Keeping out from unwanted conflict, and the opposite for example.
War sucks... Specially USAs wars, the purpose of those´is sooo good. :roll eyes:
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 4:33pm
Yes, much respect for Sweden. Standing idly by while an entire continent is swallowed up by a fascist regime whose policies included genocide... :rolleyes:
Sometimes you need to get involved. Especially with an example like WW2! The US remained neutral for a while, at least militarily. We sent materiel and weapons to England and Russia until we were attacked by Japan. WW2 really was black and white - good vs. evil. Personally, I would have been ashamed if the US didn't do anything to stop Hitler. Plus, the world would be a much darker place if nazi Germany wasn't defeated.
As for now, I think our current stance on foreign policy is warranted. The US gives billions of dollars in aid to nations around the world, and still people go to great pains to attack us. I personally, am glad we're finally taking the fight to terrorists! They're tough when they're blowing up office buildings and little kids - But since we've been capturing and bombing them...They finally have to pay for their actions.
But I'm getting off topic. Preventing war is a good thing, and should always be the first priority. But sometimes, there is no choice but to stand up for what you believe in.
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 4:39pm
Well, Hitler was as good as defeated when the USA troops landed on Normandy but I see your point. I understand that the swedes prefered to stay out of the conflict military, because if they interfeared they would surely be another nazi state, wich would be even more a advantage of the nazi pigs. But I think that we should have helped the allies and sovjet with suplies.
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 4:54pm
Turandil must have skipped Tal's post where he refutes everything that he says. If it was too long, in short, remaining neutral isn't an option except for the rich and privileged like yourself Turandil (did that on purpose I admit.)
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 5:05pm
No I read it, but that doesn't mean that I agree.
But we all are rich and privileged, if we compare to the mayority of the world, and thats sad. For a swede iam pretty poor realy. But I don't feel sad, I feel lucky, I aford a brand new computer, got nice house and stuff like that, so I shouldnt complain....
Well now Iam OT, but my opinions are; **** war! :)
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 5:18pm
Okay, I once posted a thread about how there are a number of younger members on the board and that when they post nonsensically I don't get upset because they're young and I essentially can just shrugh my shoulders and pass it off to being naive. A number of responses said that we should call anyone out regardless of age and tell them when what they say makes no sense in hopes that they may, and I shudder to speak this pretentiously, learn something. In that spirit, here I go.
Turandil, your posts are awful because you don't know how to make a reasonable argument. In this example, Tal has posted a long thoughtful post about how neutrality is unachievable for most and that Sweden has only achieved it because it is rich.
Your response is: "I disagree." You then go on talking as if nothing was ever said.
You started a post on communism, said you'd answer criticisms, and then never did. Yet you go on to ridicule others and their political systems. These are just two examples.
In order to argue something, you have to do more than cut and paste or spout rhetoric. You need an argument. You'll need a couple of premises, then you will need a conclusion that logically follows. Your arguments always lack a conclusion which follows from your premises and actually you usually lack premises.
Also, in order to argue you need to be willing to listen to others and respond to their arguments. "I disagree" is not the most compelling of arguments.
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 6:01pm
Tal talket about that Switzerland could be neutral because that was in everyones intrest, cause they got money and stuff there. Thats true.
But, I didn't see an argument why anyone else couldn't stay neutral to. (maybe he wrote one but my english arent currently the best) So I didn't have any reason to answer his post.
I agree that my I dissagree was pretty pathetic, but that was an answer to you, not Tal, ok that was a dumb answer, I appology...
I wasn't active during that time, and when I returned the topic was kinda full of text. I haven't all the time in the world, but I tried to answer some of them....
I dont't know what premises mean, but I think Iam pretty good argumenting, atlest at swedish forums, its much more easy to argument on your own language, I promise.... Not a good answer maybe but its true....
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 6:14pm
Imagine a math equation. 2+2=4. In the analogy, 2 is a premise, + is a logical device, and 4 is a conclusion.
Syllogisms are a common form of argumet. You have two premises, and from that a conclusion.
If it rains it is cloudy. (premise)
It is raining (premise)
Therefore, it is cloudy (conclusion)
To deny this argument you either need to show that one of the premises is not true (it can rain on a sunshiny day) or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
An example where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises:
If it rains it is cloudy
It is cloudy
Therefore it is raining.
In this example you affirm the consequent. Just becaus it is cloudy it doesn't mean it has to rain. And the premises above never say this, it says if it is raining it is cloudy, not the other way around.
When you argue on these boards you typically just cut and paste a bunch of facts. There is no logical connection between them and from the facts there is no conclusion that can be reached because there are no logical connectors in your arguments.
It isn't simply a language thing. If mathematics is the international language so is logic. I can't accept that as an excuse. It would be diffferent if you couldn't find the word or couldn't spell it. That's not the problem.
Here is a great sight of logical fallacies:
More disturbing than the logical problems though is that you appear to ignore arguments that you don't like and keep on going as if they didn't occur.
[ November 22, 2002, 18:16: Message edited by: Laches ]
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 6:59pm
Ok, thanks for the info...We are OT now but, what the hack. But if Iam remebering right your answer to my post was more pointing out some flaws in communicm, not answering my text, and you disn't state why capitalism should be the bether alternativ. But it was a long time ago, I might remeber wrong.
I think I explained in that post why I thought capitalism lead to misery...I have only posted facts to times if iam correct, and the other time those maybe weren't completly relevant to that topic but facts is mostly good imho, facts is facts....
Fri, 22nd Nov '02, 9:22pm
Shralp, I'm just telling you what one of the official delegates from Russia told the press in Prague. I've read it quoted directly in Delo (our major newspaper) today. It's not to be taken literally, of course. I just put it there for illustration. ;)
[ November 23, 2002, 11:29: Message edited by: Taluntain ]
Sat, 23rd Nov '02, 1:23am
Laches, did you make the classical mistake of mistaking Sweden for Switserland? If that is the case it is understandable as it is quite common.
Sweden managed to stay neutral in both the WW's, in the first because it never really reached us and no one threathened us. In WW2 we werent truly neutral, more like we sucked up to everyone else. But remember that Holland, Denmark and Norway was neutral as well, they all fell before the nazi's, the only reason we managed to stay out of it was to comply with all sides. The only real effort we did was to encourage 'volunteers' to go to Finland to fight the russians. I think this is a good thing, war is always bad and Sweden had nothing to gain and everything to lose by antagonizing any of the sides in the war. Sweden were also caught with their pants down and had more or less no military force to speak of so we hadnt been able to to put up a fight even if we wanted to. We remedied that after the war. We have managed to stay neutral in most conflict and been respected by all sides since after the Cold War, basicly because we have realised that war is bad and that even if it did come we wouldnt be able to do much about it, offensively. What Sweden did do was to build a huge defensive war machine designed to discourage anyone that had any plans on our tiny little country. We built and developed our own weapons just because we didnt want to be dependant on someone else, we even started to build nuclear weapons but stopped when we had gotten far enough to see that we could do it but didnt want to take the risk of actually building one as it might offend other states and do more bad than good not to mention that it is a horrible weapon. Sweden created a defence force that was designed to make it so costly for any other nation or alliance to take us that it just wouldnt be worth, not within a longshot. It was mostly designed to beat of the russians, of course as they were on our doorstep and werent part of the warsaw pact. One of my officers when I was in the army had once asked a high american officer during a common exchange of ideas what the americans would do if they wanted to take Sweden, the answer he got was that no matter how badly they wanted it they just wouldnt do it as it would bog down huge amounts of men and ecquipment.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union Sweden has dismantled its warmachine and it is a shadow of what it was but we dont really aim for neutrality any more. We may not be a part of NATO but as Taluntain said it is more of a buddies club than a military alliance and even so Sweden has always shied away from that but we are part of the EU and that is the end of the neutrality politics in my eyes. Another reason that we managed to stay neutral has been pointed out by Turandil, all sides in all conflicts wants if not someone from their side atleast someone that isnt from their opponents side, enter the swedes. Swedish citizens is very overrepresentated among diplomats and officals around the world that negotiates treaties and the like. The last two heads for the weaponinspections in Iraq has been swedes. This generates immense amounts of goodwill and gives sides in a conflict a way to find a more or less neutral go between, I say more or less because Sweden is a part of the west and we have a western culture but we are atleast offically alliance free.
So it isnt only to have loads of foreign money in the nation that enables you to be neutral there are plenty of other reasons as well.
Tue, 26th Nov '02, 2:10am
hmm,,,I`m from Slovenia too and yes NATO is the right way to go...
but with this I don`t agree: and we have lots of morons here in Slovenia yakking about how we shouldn't join NATO and remain neutral etc since when is a citizen with his own opinion a moron ? many of this yakking has some weight, but there a more pros. as contras
Tue, 26th Nov '02, 3:08am
Sir Belisarius wrote
WW2 really was black and white - good vs. evil.WW2
I strongly disagree! How can you possibly say that with the Soviet Union on the allied side? :eek:
Even UK/USA would be considered evil by todays standard. The mass bombing of civilian targets by the western allies were true war atrocities.
There are a few important facts which make Swedens WW2 neutrality look better:
- England and France planned to invade northern Sweden (and Norway) in 1940. Had the Germans not invaded Norway when they did Sweden would likely have faced war with England and France.
- Finland fought a defensive war against the Soviet Union in 1939. The war started again in 1941 when Germany attacked Russia.
Consider this and it would not have been far fetched to think that Sweden could have joined Finland and thus Germany.
I do not agree with Swedens policy of neutrality in the event of war.
The Soviets did not consider Sweden neutral and had very good reason for not doing so, as has been clearly shown after the end of the Cold War. Sweden was planning for NATO assistance. Not being part of NATO in those times was hitching a ride without paying. In Swedens defense it should be said that we had to take Finland in consideration. Finland constantly had to live under the threat of Soviet invasion and had Sweden joined NATO the threat to Finland would have increased. Also remember that Finland were forbidden to join NATO so they had no option.
Turandil and I appear to have completely different views on current politics (I support the EMU and membership in NATO), so as always don't think that one person speaks for all the rest of that nation. :)
Tue, 26th Nov '02, 4:14pm
since when is a citizen with his own opinion a moron ? many of this yakking has some weight, but there a more pros. as contras The moment he starts to shove his opinion down the throats of everyone else, as it happened here. Even the toilet doors at my uni were all covered in anti-NATO pamphlets one day. Sure, they removed them right away, but you still couldn't make 5 steps in any direction without seeing illegaly posted pamphlets on every lamp, tree or wall. (In Ljubljana, anyway.) I find this sort of propaganda repulsive, especially because some of these zealots have been doing it for weeks, without any solid arguments to support it, simply saying "Say NO to NATO!" "Slovenia - a country of peace, don't join NATO!", etc. As if they didn't even need any arguments.
Now THAT gets to me.
Tue, 26th Nov '02, 7:37pm
yes ,the philosophy students in Lj. are trouble, (strange freaks they are :) )
but the real morons are those from CNN :
"seven ex- Soviet states"
I`m working for Delo (not the newspaper, another magazine) and I have never hierd such a pice o s**t.