The NATO does attack.
It attacks those countries like Syria and Libya whose leaders were not considered "suitable" by the American Deep State.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion
- Thread starter ajay0
- Start date
The NATO does attack.
It attacks those countries like Syria and Libya whose leaders were not considered "suitable" by the American Deep State.
By invading other NATO countries.
Membership might be useful to Russia.
It could make invasion easier (as I explained before).
It is a conjecture.
No NATO member has ever attacked another NATO member.
You are assuming Russia would.
Of course.
It's a response to your conjecture about Russian joining NATO.
(Which is like having a flock of foxes join the Henhouse Treaty
Organization. We know that the foxes goal isn't defending hens.)
I assume that Russia might.
You assume that Russia would only defend NATO members.
That is a dubious assumption.
That murdering of women and children is so misunderstood.
Hillary Clinton: we came, we saw, he(Qaddafi) died.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Guess you didn't read the article.
Let us make a hypothesis (even if I know for sure it is not ).
Let's say that Russia has always wanted to join the NATO since the nineties...but the American Deep State does not want her.
Because their ultimate goal is to wage war against her, to take possession of her territory and countless resources.
Don't you think that the USA would do anything to antagonize her, to provoke her?
Last edited:
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Why didn't NATO attack when the Soviet Union dissolved then?
Because the American law says you need a pretext to attack a country.
Yoi know...like the fake bottle of Colin Powell...
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
So NATO is constrained? You can't have it both ways.
How many years after Qaddafi was involved with the Lockerbie terrorist attack? Way too late, IMO.
You're either cooperate with global peace and security, or you are against it. People like Putin and Assad are given a lot of tolerance, and when they take advantage of this good will eventually innocent people die.
Assign the blame where it belongs: on Dick Cheney, and Bush by association. Only Powell has apologized for being part of a deception that he was used after being given false information.
That's for sure.
You've constructed an unverifiable scenario.
Exactly, the American authoritarians can just ally with Russia and destabilize NATO.
Exactly, just as Napoleon and Hitler were able to do.
You mean provoke a nuclear power whose government is unstable? Now it makes sense.
Russia lost the cold war.
So the NATO should have sought peace and alliance with the defeated country.
But didn't.
Augustus
…
Use Aristotelian logic to solve these equations:
If Russia never tried to join NATO, how is it NATOs fault that Russia didn't join NATO?
Who has more to fear:
Tiny Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia from Russia, a country who has already colonised and oppressed them and uses violence to stop any colonial possession from becoming free and practicing self-determination or Russia, the world's number one nuclear power, from NATO?
Russia has never invaded a NATO country.
Ukraine is not NATO.
And Russia has no intention to invade and occupy a NATO country