• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nato has a Turkish problem!

Infinite Chaos said:
no, I think you’re wrong. The USA has lots of bilateral agreements and treaties including one with Australia and another with Japan. They don’t weaken NATO in the slightest.
Click to expand...
They are not in freaking Europe, the primary area of NATO.

Could care less if the UK or US made military defense deals with Australia or Argentina.. it is not within NATOs sphere of influence/action/whatever it is called. Finland and Sweden are.
 
PeteEU said:
They are not in freaking Europe, the primary area of NATO.

Could care less if the UK or US made military defense deals with Australia or Argentina.. it is not within NATOs sphere of influence/action/whatever it is called. Finland and Sweden are.
Click to expand...

Location isn’t the issue.

Basically if the US, France UK sign a military treaty with Finland and Sweden because of Orban and Erdogan - good.
I’d rather see them in a treaty than pawns of two Putin supporters.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Location isn’t the issue.
Click to expand...
Location is and always has been critical. Same reason NATO does not invite Taiwan into NATO or Australia. They aint in Europe.

Infinite Chaos said:
Basically if the US, France UK sign a military treaty with Finland and Sweden because of Orban and Erdogan - good.
Click to expand...
The US and France wont do that at the present time. Orban and Erdogan will be beaten into place and accept Swedish and Finish membership eventually.

Orban and Erdogan are the Brexit Farage of NATO. What the UK has done, is done another Brexit, just in NATO. But then again, there is so much evidence out there, that the pro-Putin lobby of NATO should read Orban, Erdogan and Johnson...

What the UK has done, is cause even more conflict within NATO, which is the whole point of Putins policies the last 30 years. Gee thanks comrade Johnson.

Infinite Chaos said:
I’d rather see them in a treaty than pawns of two Putin supporters.
Click to expand...

Why rush it? The two Putin supporters could be beaten into submission... but why the rush? Putin aint gonna invade Finland, let alone Sweden. He can barely keep Ukrainian farmers out of his own country. His army is in tatters.

No the reason Boris did what he did.. other than to play right into Putins hands yet again, and score some stupid domestic distraction (even though it did not last long) from the multiple corruption scandals back home. Boris and the UK are just as big a puppet of Putin as Orban and Erdogan.
 
Sweden and Finland support terrorist organizations like as many other NATO countries. (they probably support terrorist organizations against each other as well.)
Turkiye as a NATO "ally" naturally expects its allies to put an end to such actions.

Quran 2:194: "...respect is mutual, whoever attacks you, attack them the same way they attack..."
 
PeteEU said:
The US and France wont do that at the present time. Orban and Erdogan will be beaten into place and accept Swedish and Finish membership eventually.
Click to expand...

Location is not important. Individual NATO nations can make military pacts with other nations as they see fit. The only unanimity requirements for NATO are the vote to accept a new member and article 5.

Also, even if France and the US don't do anything - "Norway, Denmark and Iceland - all Nato members - immediately said they were ready to support Sweden and Finland by all means necessary if they came under attack."


PeteEU said:
What the UK has done, is done another Brexit, just in NATO. But then again, there is so much evidence out there, that the pro-Putin lobby of NATO should read Orban, Erdogan and Johnson...

What the UK has done, is cause even more conflict within NATO, which is the whole point of Putins policies the last 30 years. Gee thanks comrade Johnson.
Click to expand...

Boris lives rent free in your head. This is nothing to do with brexit and more your obsession with Boris.

PeteEU said:
No the reason Boris did what he did.. other than to play right into Putins hands yet again, and score some stupid domestic distraction (even though it did not last long) from the multiple corruption scandals back home. Boris and the UK are just as big a puppet of Putin as Orban and Erdogan.
Click to expand...

You've totally lost the plot here.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Location is not important. Individual NATO nations can make military pacts with other nations as they see fit. The only unanimity requirements for NATO are the vote to accept a new member and article 5.

Also, even if France and the US don't do anything - "Norway, Denmark and Iceland - all Nato members - immediately said they were ready to support Sweden and Finland by all means necessary if they came under attack."




Boris lives rent free in your head. This is nothing to do with brexit and more your obsession with Boris.



You've totally lost the plot here.
Click to expand...
You just don't understand that Putin's goal for the last 30+ years has been to harm NATO.

He tried with putting Trump in charge, but NATO stood fast.

Now we have a conflict in Europe and one of NATOs key members broke rank and made a side deal. There was no reason what so ever to go to Helsinki and sign such a deal other than for personal political clout at home.

France and Denmark have said and even the US has hinted, that they would a would come to Finland and Swedens aid if Russia attacked and they did not need a photo op and treaty to do so.

Boris knew Finland and Sweden both would apply and he did it anyways...anything to attempt to distract from sex and corruption scandals on the home front.
 
PeteEU said:
You just don't understand that Putin's goal for the last 30+ years has been to harm NATO.

He tried with putting Trump in charge, but NATO stood fast.

Now we have a conflict in Europe and one of NATOs key members broke rank and made a side deal. There was no reason what so ever to go to Helsinki and sign such a deal other than for personal political clout at home.

France and Denmark have said and even the US has hinted, that they would a would come to Finland and Swedens aid if Russia attacked and they did not need a photo op and treaty to do so.

Boris knew Finland and Sweden both would apply and he did it anyways...anything to attempt to distract from sex and corruption scandals on the home front.
Click to expand...

PeteEU, you have a hard-on for Boris and all lucid thought has evaporated.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
PeteEU, you have a hard-on for Boris and all lucid thought has evaporated.
Click to expand...
Well, sorry to butt in, but BoJo's move with Finland smacks of a PR stunt for his own own personal gain. Superfluous and thus totally meaningless beyond that.

And when I (me) move to overcome being totally limp over Boris, I'll quickly go and see somebody about that desire.
 
Chagos said:
Well, sorry to butt in, but BoJo's move with Finland smacks of a PR stunt for his own own personal gain. Superfluous and thus totally meaningless beyond that.

And when I (me) move to overcome being totally limp over Boris, I'll quickly go and see somebody about that desire.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree the publicity stunt accusation but to put that stunt and the offer (which @Juks described as hollow and empty) was also probably a publicity stunt but to lay that stunt down as part of Putin's grand plans???

We see how ineffective Putin's grand plans have been over Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom