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.
You know the old joke about a Pole having the choice to shoot a Russian or a German soldier, which one he shoots first? The German of course, business before pleasure.
Estonia becomes self-sufficient on shale gas boom
The London Telegraph | August 25, 2013 | Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Posted on 9/3/2013 12:28:47 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3061822/posts
Dear god, please read. I do NOT think Estonia is oppressing anyone.
All that has happened that I can see, is that a Russian diplomat basically said it’s not right to tell a minority that they all need to stop speaking Russian. (they haven’t)
And of course, everyone is instantly banging the war drums and praying excitedly for a WWII eastern front reenactment starring the US Army,,,
Russia hasn’t even hinted that they are going to invade Estonia. The Estonian Russian minority isn’t in danger the way they are in Ukraine. There is no active Nazi movement in Estonia. The Estonian Russian speaking population is widely on record saying they are happy in Estonia and do not desire any Russian intervention.
And as Estonia is the wealthiest place in the region, that is quite sensible.
They do disagree on a language law policy.
And people here have managed to escalate that into global thermonuclear war.
“I believe NATO has changed...”attacked” has a different meaning now.”
Just ask the Serbs and Libyans about this.
Hell, we may need to fight World War Three in order to defend the United States from itself!
“Would you wait until the enemy was near the border with Mexico?”
Ill skip the irony of the 20 million that has already invaded us there, but besides 10% of Mexico, what nation do you believe intends to launch a military attack across the Mexican border?
That’s too hilarious. Its funny because its so true, I’m sure.
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.
However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account.
And of course, everyone is instantly banging the war drums and praying excitedly for a WWII eastern front reenactment starring the US Army,,,
Why should we fight to save Estonia when a really good case can now be made that we shouldn’t even fight for America?
<><><><
I really like that you can utter those words freely. You could even do so without the shield of anonymity this internet forum provides.
Beyond that, you pretty much make me ill to my stomach, as do all people who “I don’t like this or that, America sucks”.
Just leave, will you? I won’t miss you at all.
If we won’t stop the Mexican invasion of America, why should we concern ourselves with Russians in Estonia? The Mexican (others, too, but overwhelmingly Mexican) invasion will destroy America more quickly and surely than Russians parking tanks in Estonia.
The only problem with that statement is that the US would likely not launch a retaliatory strike and Russia knows it.
The current CIC would not counter launch due to his ideology , a hint of which surfaced in his saying during the 2008 campaign that he felt the US could withstand a nuclear hit. We have become the cheese eating french surrender monkeys.
You have no idea what the CiC would do, nor do any of us, but I might even tend to agree with you on this point. None of us know what pressure would be brought to bear by the military. It would not surprise me to learn that there might be some special circumstances whereby our SSBN commanders have standing orders to launch a retaliatory strike without National Command Authority, such as an instance where the entire Nuclear Command Authority and/or the government is totally decapitated, et al. I would also suspect that the military would rise up and depose him, quickly, if he did not order a retaliation to a nuke strike and they would certainly enjoy the support of the American people in such circumstances. If a nuke strike was launched on the US there would be a retaliation, without a doubt. To believe that it would not is bordering on fantasy.
True.. of course, if the "United" States had a western leader who doesn't value islam above all, things might be different.
Do you have a link for that chart? Please.
RE post 93. Your post is exactly what I was getting at.
Who decides at which point one has to "act"? When? There was a marvellous episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" in which the PM is asked the question "at which point do you use nuclear weapons? When the Soviets act to quell riots in West Berlin? When they walk into West Germany? When they cross the Rhine? When they approach the Channel? Or when they reach Piccadilly?"
most of the world supported the US move into Afghanistan.
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.