#1 they have the annual Estonian blonde parade
Posted on 04/08/2014 8:57:52 AM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Estonia is a little nation of 1.3 million people, which was made a member of NATO in 2004. Estonia was once a province of the Soviet Union. It has a Russian minority that is 25 percent of the population, and Russia has vowed to protect ethnic Russians if they are subjected to mass violence by the Estonian majority.
Did NATO make a wise decision to bring in itty-bitty baltic nations that were once part of the Soviet Union? I can understand the importance of preventing the Soviet Union from being brought back into existence. But the lives of American troops are valuable, and should only be used to defend high value allies of the United States.
We (the U.S.) are no longer a superpower.
I do not know my country.
5.56mm
You're asking the wrong question here. The question should be, "Should America have to fight World War Three in Order to Defend Estonia?"
The bottom line here is that we should never be in that position. As long as we exhibit strength, Russia will not dare to attack Estonia. The fact that such a possibility now exists shows that we have already lost.
'Leading from Behind' is not leadership. It is surrender to the outcome of everyone elses' leadership.
#1 they have the annual Estonian blonde parade
Should America Fight World War Three in Order to Defend Estonia? No , just threaten to and thereby prevent it altogether.
Amen to that. As the great philosopher Horton once said, "I said what I said and I meant what I meant."
This is a question best answered after the fact, probably.
For example, should Hitler have been stopped at the Sudetenland, or Austria, or Poland?
Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think half these countries are signatories to the NATO accord.
Most of the nations charted did not commit troops to combat in Southern Afghanistan. They pretty much stayed out of the fight and took far fewer casualties than the main participants.
Who were the main participants that helped the US when called? The usual suspects of the Anglosphere. UK, Canadian, and Australian special forces were dispatched in 2001.
From Wiki: "Approximately 40 Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) assaulters were sent to southern Afghanistan in early December 2001, although the Canadian public was not informed of the deployment, following the American declaration of a War on Terror.... in Sean M. Maloney's book Enduring the Freedom, it was reported that JTF2 was secretly deployed without Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's permission in early October 2001.[1] (In October 2004, these JTF2 personnel were awarded the US Navy Presidential Unit Citation as part of Task Force K-Bar, a multinational special-operations task force led by the US Navy SEALs that was decorated for its operations during the period 17 October 2001 through 30 March 2002.)"
According to this, Canada sent special forces within a few weeks of 9/11.
When did the Germans, for example, go in, and where did they fight?
Know who your real friends are. Hint: they speak English, they fight and they take casualties to defend western civilization.
Back up a little. You wrote, “That said, I didn’t notice all the other NATO nations rushing to help the US in Afghanistan.” I noticed.
If RasPutin actually trusted and didn’t need to verify the word of our President, he, Putin would know not to copulate with the USA or Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, VietNam, Bhutan, or any other nation looking for a bed partner.
That would make the world a safer place for all of us.
Vanity Tag missing?
Hoodat, I’ll sign on to that.
In the same way that Norway was once a province of Nazi Germany.
haha. Ok. My bad.
Non American NATO forces are symbolic.
Symbolism is also important but not as important as actual military capability.
In logic, this is known as a false dilemma which in my opinion is a rather pathetic use of non-rational persuasion. The point you offer is that if we defend Estonia, then two dozen American cities will suffer nuclear holocaust. The conclusion is that nothing is worth defending because it will result in nuclear holocaust. To that, I offer the same response given by General Anthony McAuliffe almost half a century ago: "Nuts!"
I thought we were Oceania?
Silly me, I’d entirely overlooked the fact that they are White. Doubtless, they’d be denied access. After all, they aren’t “diverse”.
Oh look, history is repeating.
Take a long hard look at where this will likely go, and decide whether you want to fight WWIII now or later. Not if, when.
Methinks the Obama wouldn’t even resist Russia annexing Alaska.
Doesn’t that just look like the happiest place on the planet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.