NATO official: Russia now an adversary

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which NATO member country was attacked by Afghanistan?

You ought to try reading in context every now and then. Here's what I said.

The Afghanistan invasion was an act of collective self-defense of one of the NATO members. Yes, one can certainly argue about the validity of that point of view but one cannot argue that a NATO member was attacked and that Afghanistan hosted the attackers.

Um … NATOs help didn't include annexing Poland or Georgia to one of its member states.

Not hard to understand, is it?

Edited May 4, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Dakine10 5,452]

You ought to try reading in context every now and then. Here's what I said.

I know what you said. The statement is wrong.

Considering your context would only lead us to debate the validity of an invalid statement. I see no point in doing that.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Funny thing though, when you "sort of" agree with something, because to the extent that you don't completely agree, you then also "sort of" disagree. The sort of is just a convenient way to reduce cognitive dissonance.

We invaded Afghanistan because we believed they were harboring Bin Laden. NATO countries followed because they were either "with us or against us". The Taliban did not turn over Bin Laden thus they were "against us". There was never any implication that Afghanistan attacked us. Intelligence wass mixed on whether or not Bin Laden was even still in Afghanistan in 2001.

I agree 80% if that makes things more clear. It was something akin to the Archduke's assasination. Austria demanded the attackers be handed over, Serbia refused and WW1 started as a result.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I know what you said. The statement is wrong.

Considering your context would only lead us to debate the validity of an invalid statement. I see no point in doing that.

Wrong or not, it is the official justification that the US administration presented for the invasion. And just to be sure, it wasn't NATO that invaded Afghanistan but the US and UK. In the context of the debate here, the Afghanistan invasion is not exactly relevant. Even if you want to point to the Afghanistan invasion as an act of aggression, it is not an act of aggression that NATO carried out. It was alleged that NATO has carried out acts of aggression which is why Russia feels threatened by NATO. The fact of the matter is and remains that NATO has done no such thing.

[BatmanUSA 105]

Um … NATOs help didn't include annexing Poland or Georgia to one of its member states.

what was the purpose of NATO accepting/annexing Poland and Georgia.???

they asked.???

just as Crimea asked for help from Russia...

so whats the difference....?

Russia has been threatened by NATO expansion... So they acted in their best interests..

[novedsac 355]

what was the purpose of NATO accepting/annexing Poland and Georgia.???

they asked.???

just as Crimea asked for help from Russia...

so whats the difference....?

Russia has been threatened by NATO expansion... So they acted in their best interests..

Accepting an entity into a treaty organization, be it for mutual defense, economic vitality, etc. is oh so very different from wholesale invasion and annexation.

Poland and Georgia were and remain independent countries regardless of participation in NATO. Participation in NATO has not infringed upon their rights of governing, territorial borders, etc.

This is not the same with Crimea. A better analogy would be Cuba annexing Miami because a bunch of Cubans in Little Havana were whining about repression in the US ( I use this as an analogy only; it would be difficult to find any Cuban Americans who would be so inclined in today's environment)

I don't know how to explain it any more simple than that … the inability to understand is yours, I'm sorry to say.

The only threat Russia feels from NATO expansion is the threat to their own territorial expansion and conquest.

Edited May 5, 2014 by novedsac

[mota bhai 2,675]

Poland and Georgia were and remain independent countries regardless of participation in NATO.

Yes, I am sure that's exactly what the Illuminati wants you to think.

[novedsac 355]

Yes, I am sure that's exactly what the Illuminati wants you to think.

oh yeah, the conspiracy … forgot

[mota bhai 2,675]

Or maybe you're saying the Polish people are as free as you are. Which is another way of saying, not free at all.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I agree 80% if that makes things more clear. It was something akin to the Archduke's assasination. Austria demanded the attackers be handed over, Serbia refused and WW1 started as a result.

If we were all 80% sure, or more importantly if US intelligence were 80% sure it wouldn't be an issue. The reality is they didn't know where Bin Laden was at the time. Afghanistan was just an educated guess. As summarized by Donald Rumsfeld:

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead." Donald Rumsfeld 2001

Looking back, we know that Bin Laden was in a military hospital in Pakistan on Sept 10, 2001. He was also in Pakistan on May 1st 2011 when they caught him. We don't know where he was in between that time. We have credible intel from Ahmad Shah Massoud (the northern alliance leader who was assassinated by Al Qaeda on on Sept 9, 2001) that Bin Laden had left Afghanistan mid 2001. We also know that Al Qaeda and the government of Pakistan were 2 of the Talibans biggest benefactors.

We demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. The problem is the Taliban was never in a position to give us Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was the stronger entity, not the Taliban. The question I'll always wonder is why we didn't go to Pakistan in the first place. Perhaps Afghanistan was the easier scapegoat.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

what was the purpose of NATO accepting/annexing Poland and Georgia.???

they asked.???

just as Crimea asked for help from Russia...

so whats the difference....?

Russia has been threatened by NATO expansion... So they acted in their best interests..

There was no annexation of any territory by NATO. Period. It's really simple.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If we were all 80% sure, or more importantly if US intelligence were 80% sure it wouldn't be an issue. The reality is they didn't know where Bin Laden was at the time. Afghanistan was just an educated guess. As summarized by Donald Rumsfeld:

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead." Donald Rumsfeld 2001

Looking back, we know that Bin Laden was in a military hospital in Pakistan on Sept 10, 2001. He was also in Pakistan on May 1st 2011 when they caught him. We don't know where he was in between that time. We have credible intel from Ahmad Shah Massoud (the northern alliance leader who was assassinated by Al Qaeda on on Sept 9, 2001) that Bin Laden had left Afghanistan mid 2001. We also know that Al Qaeda and the government of Pakistan were 2 of the Talibans biggest benefactors.

We demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden. The problem is the Taliban was never in a position to give us Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was the stronger entity, not the Taliban. The question I'll always wonder is why we didn't go to Pakistan in the first place. Perhaps Afghanistan was the easier scapegoat.

That's RT style propaganda. Seriously. That particular quote from Rumsfeld dates back to December 27, 2001. Well after the invasion. And some two weeks after the battle of Tora-Bora where Bin-Laden is widely believed to have fled Afghanistan for Pakistan. Only a Putin minion would bring that quote in this context and deliberately obfuscate the timelines in order to suggest that the administration invaded Afghanistan having no knowledge whatsoever that Bin-Laden was actually there - or at least not actually caring whether he was or not. The reality, of course, is quite different. But they don't do reality in Putin's world.

[Dakine10 5,452]

That's RT style propaganda. Seriously. That particular quote from Rumsfeld dates back to December 27, 2001. Well after the invasion. And some two weeks after the battle of Tora-Bora where Bin-Laden is widely believed to have fled Afghanistan for Pakistan. Only a Putin minion would bring that quote in this context and deliberately obfuscate the timelines in order to suggest that the administration invaded Afghanistan having no knowledge whatsoever that Bin-Laden was actually there - or at least not actually caring whether he was or not. The reality, of course, is quite different. But they don't do reality in Putin's world.

Good God! Putin, Putin, Putin!!

For all you say about others, you sure gush on and on about him. Really starting to look like you got a little bit of jealous man crush goin on there. Maybe you should keep it to yourself.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Good God! Putin, Putin, Putin!!

For all you say about others, you sure gush on and on about him. Really starting to look like you got a little bit of jealous man crush goin on there. Maybe you should keep it to yourself.

Worth remembering that I am not the one sitting here day in day out defending his Hitler style land grab. That would be you and the other Putin minions around here.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Worth remembering that I am not the one sitting here day in day out defending his Hitler style land grab. That would be you and the other Putin minions around here.

Holy #######. You took a long time typing that one line. I was expecting something better.