[wonkowasright]

@ Lonesome : Not clear on the concept, are we? Let’s go over it again. NATO, at least in principle, is a mutual defense pact.

Very clear on concept, you are right thats why it was formed as a mutual defense pact. Now it seems its gone into full expansion mode instead of defense.

@ansel12 : NATO was formed as a reaction to Russian aggression. They keep up with what Russia is invading.

Now we are the ones expanding into new territory and now knocking on Russias border. Thats certainly not what NATO was all about.

@WhiskeyX : Russia has no right to invade and annex the Ukrainian territories

We have no right to back militant uprisings that unseat elected governments either. But yet we do.

We have swallowed the coolaid of "we can do nothing wrong" and "its only wrong if Russia does it".

Right and wrong have taken a backseat to mindless sputtering "but but but its Russia"

[ansel12]

I wasn’t aware that we were invading European nations, but I am aware that the evil empire is.

Reagan would be doing his best to prevent this KGB man from reconquering and enslaving those Reagan, and NATO, freed.

[Ohioan]

See my reply #29.

With respect to your comments on the changing role of NATO, which incidentally flowed out of the Clinton/Blair war on Serbia in the 1990s, see American Foreign Policy At The Crossroads.

With respect to references to Ronald Reagan, in this thread, it is important to point out that it was not Reagan who turned NATO from a defensive alliance against Soviet Communism into an aggressive promoter of international conformity--far from it. Again, it was Clinton & Blair, and Serbia was the target. (The Serbs referred to Clinton as "Adolph Clinton" at the time.)

There is, of course, an ocean of difference between a Russia that was the central cog in a Communist conspiracy to force Marxist collectivist uniformity on mankind, and a Russia that simply celebrates a Russian heritage. It is very sad that some people cannot understand the distinction.

William Flax