Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Phmcw]

Because as we aren't using them in critical situation, we're doing stupid shit that could cost us a lot. A simple exemple : the French FAMAS cannot feed the usual 5,56x45 round. It need steel 5,56x45 rounds that only the French produce. Now generalise that kind of dumb shit to everything and you have the current state of our armies.

On paper they cannot be beaten by anyone but the US. In reality...

[Sheb]

Also, the real risk is that in case of an invasion, the French and Brits will decide getting into a war with Russia over Poland or Estonia ain't worth it and weasel out of their obligations.

[smjjames]

Also, the real risk is that in case of an invasion, the French and Brits will decide getting into a war with Russia over Poland or Estonia ain't worth it and weasel out of their obligations.

Isn't that what NATO is for? Providing (more or less) a guarantee for those bordering Russia?

[Erkki]

Also, the real risk is that in case of an invasion, the French and Brits will decide getting into a war with Russia over Poland or Estonia ain't worth it and weasel out of their obligations.

I believe that is one of the reason why the Baltics want NATO units permanently stationed on their turf - they may consider the Article 5 alone is not a strong enough guarantee. The countries garrisoning the forces at least could be relied on.

[Sergarr]

Also, the real risk is that in case of an invasion, the French and Brits will decide getting into a war with Russia over Poland or Estonia ain't worth it and weasel out of their obligations.

Isn't that what NATO is for? Providing (more or less) a guarantee for those bordering Russia?

Seeing as Turkey, the country that all but openly supports the current Big Enemy of NATO, ISIS, is in NATO, I think it's reasonable to consider a possibility of guarantee failure.

After all, do you remember the words Obama chosen to portray Russian green men in Crimea? It was certainly not "invasion". More like "unauthorized entry".

There was a very nasty precedent before with guarantees and weak Eastern European countries before...

[Loud Whispers]

Also, the real risk is that in case of an invasion, the French and Brits will decide getting into a war with Russia over Poland or Estonia ain't worth it and weasel out of their obligations.

Didn't think of that.
Yeah, that is definitely a possibility too.

[wobbly]

Also, the real risk is that in case of an invasion, the French and Brits will decide getting into a war with Russia over Poland or Estonia ain't worth it and weasel out of their obligations.

I believe that is one of the reason why the Baltics want NATO units permanently stationed on their turf - they may consider the Article 5 alone is not a strong enough guarantee. The countries garrisoning the forces at least could be relied on.

Pretty much this. If it comes to war the politicians are going to spend time differing over whether to get involved or not. When you have troops & bases in the area your pretty much involved by default.

[Helgoland]

Mourir pout Tallinn?

[wobbly]

Mourir pout Tallinn?

Had to look that one up & it was a nightmare to find anything in english, so I'm quite possibly misunderstanding what your saying. Forgive my cynicism but America is famous for political speeches. Hey, they employ the best in the business & pay well. Was there stirring music or an anthem playing in the background? How was the ceremony? Lots of flags? If you reference to a speech I'll respond with a cliche: Actions speak louder then words.

It's not even like I doubt NATO would respond, more like: Why take the risk? Why take the risk that they'd be slow in responding? Why risk the other side questioning whether they'd respond?

[Il Palazzo]

Mourir pout Tallinn?

Had to look that one up & it was a nightmare to find anything in english, so I'm quite possibly misunderstanding what your saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Die_for_Danzig%3F

[Mr. Strange]

Mourir pout Tallinn?

For cheap booze, what else? 

[Sheb]

So the Foreigner's Office (Charged with dealing with immigration) just asked for the right to send police inside illegal immigrant's houses without a warrant. Because respecting due process is such a drain on resources. Our far-right immigration secretary is supportive of the measure.

Seriously, fuck that government.

[10ebbor10]

Note, this is only the case if the illegal immigrant in question is to be arrested for deportation. Because, for some reason, people tend to be less cooperative in those cases.

On a side note, I'm not sure if supportive if the correct word. The only thing that's happening is is that the proposal will be examined by a task force.

[Sheb]

Well, yeah of course. Why would you send the police after them otherwise?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If they're already slanted for deportation then the police should have no problems obtaining a warrant to carry out that order. As such, this cannot have any benefit besides corruption.