Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[FriendlyFire]

This is exactly what happened in 1999 in Yugoslavia.

What your Russians dont understand is that you need to allow the Germans to bomb, kill and unleash war every once in while, otherwise you are repressing the German genetic instincts for violence.
Eventually that German genetic instinct for war if repressed for a long time will build up and then come out in an explosion of war.

And we both know who was on the receiving end of that German Violent war explosion the last few time ?

 

[Borachio]

The Poles, right?

 

[FriendlyFire]

The Poles, right?

Poland and France are planning on surrendering early on in the war.

<snip>

Moderator Action: Had to take down the Polandball comic because of Russia's foul mouth.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mouthwash]

It has an important function, but the United States should aim at ultimately incorporating its member countries. As Russia breaks apart later in the century the NATO should broaden its scope from defense- perhaps merging with or replacing the EU as a single arm of imperial control.

EDIT: to the above poster, you may have missed the infractable language in your comic. I thought I should mention this.

 

[Borachio]

The EU is currently an arm of imperial control?

And what makes you think Russia will break apart later this century?

And what do you mean by "the US should incorporate its [NATO's] members"?

To be truthful, your post makes me squint more than usual.

 

[Mouthwash]

The EU is currently an arm of imperial control?

No, I'm referring to my hypothetical future NATO which will manage both defense and administration. Do you have a better definition of a client state?

And what makes you think Russia will break apart later this century?

Quite a few factors, none of which I have the energy to go through right now.

And what do you mean by "the US should incorporate its [NATO's] members"?

The US needs to subvert and eventually annex them. Couldn't be simpler.

To be truthful, your post makes me squint more than usual.

Is it my writing? I use the minimum of words necessary to get my point across.

 

[FriendlyFire]

It has an important function, but the United States should aim at ultimately incorporating its member countries. As Russia breaks apart later in the century the NATO should broaden its scope from defense- perhaps merging with or replacing the EU as a single arm of imperial control.

EDIT: to the above poster, you may have missed the infractable language in your comic. I thought I should mention this.

Is Russia, is Drunk on vodka again
NATO is there to control one country and only one country, Russia Germany.
Basically Italy,Greece and Spain are there to suck Germany money into supporting them as allies and thus diverting resources that Germany could be spending on Panzers Other stuff.

 

[Borachio]

I iz of lovings ze Germanyballs.

 

[Agent327]

I see we're done discussing reasonably.

 

[Kyriakos]

Germany is of partition time again?
Pay ww2 denbts & forced war loan.

(should note though that the thread is RD, so i suppose we cannot have fun here ).

 

[EgonSpengler]

So the Russians are playing games with the RAF again. A pair of Tu-95 Bears and a pair of Typhoons said 'howdy, neighbor' south of Cornwall. I guess this has become routine now?

 

[Borachio]

It's a bit of a worry. What are they doing here again? Just seeing how far it is, are they?

 

[Tahuti]

It's a bit of a worry. What are they doing here again? Just seeing how far it is, are they?

In Soviet Russia, they spy on us!

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a bit of a worry. What are they doing here again? Just seeing how far it is, are they?

A bit glib, but this really seems the point of a lot of stuff like this:

Spoiler :

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's a bit of a worry. What are they doing here again? Just seeing how far it is, are they?

I remember that in January, the Tu-95s approached with their transponders shut off, rendering them invisible to civilian air traffic control. The RAF picked them up on their actual RADAR and sent Typhoons to wave them off (EDIT: and the Russian ambassador was 'summoned' for a conversation that may or may not have involved some shouting). It certainly seemed like a test of detection distance, response time, etc. I think the PM said it was the first time Russian aircraft had been over The Channel since the 1980s. Yesterday's event took place in the UK's "area of interest" (e.g. just outside UK airspace) which again seems like they're sort of mapping out the RAF's responsiveness.

 

[EgonSpengler]

A bit glib, but this really seems the point of a lot of stuff like this:

Spoiler :

Yeah, could be. An international incident that Putin could blame on the Western Europeans would probably suit him nicely. "Our planes were just minding their own business in international airspace, but those crazy Brits..."

 

[Farm Boy]

Actually, I meant it more in the spirit of your earlier post with undertones more like the pingu there.

 

[Flying Pig]

I remember that in January, the Tu-95s approached with their transponders shut off, rendering them invisible to civilian air traffic control. The RAF picked them up on their actual RADAR and sent Typhoons to wave them off (EDIT: and the Russian ambassador was 'summoned' for a conversation that may or may not have involved some shouting). It certainly seemed like a test of detection distance, response time, etc. I think the PM said it was the first time Russian aircraft had been over The Channel since the 1980s. Yesterday's event took place in the UK's "area of interest" (e.g. just outside UK airspace) which again seems like they're sort of mapping out the RAF's responsiveness.

I think it's more simply an act of intimidation with no real military value. A bomber seems to me a particularly strange thing to send on any sort of reconnaissance - what they're doing is reminding people over here that they can send bombers that far, in the hope that it'll put pressure on politicians to be concessionary in negotiations.

 

[red_elk]

I think it's more simply an act of intimidation with no real military value. A bomber seems to me a particularly strange thing to send on any sort of reconnaissance - what they're doing is reminding people over here that they can send bombers that far, in the hope that it'll put pressure on politicians to be concessionary in negotiations.

It is not that far, comparing to patrols over gulf of Mexico.

 

[Flying Pig]

Fair enough, but what do they learn from flying a patrol over the English Channel, and why is a big, slow bomber the best aircraft to send on such a mission?