DeltaSPARTAN003
New Member
[Mod Edit: Do not edit your Mod warning. The matter is now closed. It may be useful for you to read the ban list for why people get banned. ]
Last edited by a moderator:
Spetsnaz, you need to SEE me less and pay more attention to your spellings, etc.
We will start deleting your posts if its a useless one-liner and on top of that it has spelling mistakes.
Read the rules: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
If you use firefox, there are english dictionary plugins that you can use.
Thanks and enjoy!
We will start deleting your posts if its a useless one-liner and on top of that it has spelling mistakes.
Read the rules: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
If you use firefox, there are english dictionary plugins that you can use.
Thanks and enjoy!
I see we have a misunderstanding. The real issue was not profanity. It was the flaming/trollbait. Saying NATO is a shit organization contributes nothing but antagonism to the dicussion, and tells us nothing of the qualms you have with NATO. So either present a coherent and polite statement of what you see as the problem (and for whom it is a problem) or refrain from commenting at all (if all you have is a general dislike).
For example, I certainly think that there are many ways in which NATO is problematic, both for it's memberstates, and for other countries. So an appropriate way of saying it would be that unchecked NATO expansion over-inflates membership, while adding a defence burden, and at the same time antagonizing Russia.
For example, I certainly think that there are many ways in which NATO is problematic, both for it's memberstates, and for other countries. So an appropriate way of saying it would be that unchecked NATO expansion over-inflates membership, while adding a defence burden, and at the same time antagonizing Russia.
So what you said- NATO is problem to Russia? or Russia is problem to NATO?I see we have a misunderstanding. The real issue was not profanity. It was the flaming/trollbait. Saying NATO is a shit organization contributes nothing but antagonism to the dicussion, and tells us nothing of the qualms you have with NATO. So either present a coherent and polite statement of what you see as the problem (and for whom it is a problem) or refrain from commenting at all (if all you have is a general dislike).
For example, I certainly think that there are many ways in which NATO is problematic, both for it's memberstates, and for other countries. So an appropriate way of saying it would be that unchecked NATO expansion over-inflates membership, while adding a defence burden, and at the same time antagonizing Russia.
As far as I am concerned no-one(majority talking from member state) finds it problematic...
All I see, that anyone that is not in NATO might consider/willing to be in alliance.
Well alliances are two way streets. Benefits are usually not without costs. Every member state or potential member of an alliance should utilize a cost-benefit analysis to see if it is truly in that state's interests to join.So what you said- NATO is problem to Russia? or Russia is problem to NATO?
As far as I am concerned no-one(majority talking from member state) finds it problematic...
All I see, that anyone that is not in NATO might consider/willing to be in alliance.
Some benefits of alliance membership include enhanced deterrence of an attack, or enhanced defense capability, etc. But the costs include the risk of aiding an ally, the risk of war entrapment, the limitation of options, risk of a counter alliance, etc.
You also have the issue of tethering powerful states within an alliance constraining their courses of action. So alliances are not always a universally good thing, even NATO.
In the case of Sweden joining, both NATO members and Sweden need to consider the pros and cons of that action. Sweden has historically been a neutral country, with some pacific tendencies. There is also the issue of Swedish domestic politics to consider. Do the people of Sweden want to join a military defensive alliance?
Lastly NATO states have to consider the issue of burden sharing; what does or can Sweden bring to the alliance other than another land mass to defend? Is its military readiness up to NATO standards? I don't know much about Swedish military issues so it is possible, though I have read that when several Eastern European countries joined NATO their militaries were not up to standards.
These are some issues to consider I think in answering the question of whether Sweden will join NATO.
^ Comprehensive overview^- totally true!
On the other hand, Sweden is already helping international community by military means
Every member state of NATO had reasons to join alliance at some point of time and now, weather it is worth doing so to Sweden- the question of demographical climate to be answered:daz @ same time it would indicate how safe does the region believe is today
On the other hand, Sweden is already helping international community by military means
Every member state of NATO had reasons to join alliance at some point of time and now, weather it is worth doing so to Sweden- the question of demographical climate to be answered:daz @ same time it would indicate how safe does the region believe is today