US upset by Russian Planes in Baltic

[ScotSquid]

Could you imagine if the Russians had a base in Mexico and had ships sitting off the coast or California ?

So.. The USSR?

How exactly did that come to be?

[strichener]

There's a big difference though isn't there: The USA doesn't have an interest in or history of annexing everything south of the Rio Grande.

No but it fair annexed a large amount of area North of it.

[Ad Lib]

No but it fair annexed a large amount of area North of it.

Right, so you think a nineteenth century conflict largely between states that were not long themselves created as post-colonial entities in North America, over land that was mostly uninhabited, is morally, functionally and geopolitically equivalent to the attempted annexation, domination and control by old-world nations of their established neighbours?

Best you sit this one out I think.

[Jacksgranda]

There's a big difference though isn't there: The USA doesn't have an interest in or history of annexing everything south of the Rio Grande.

Maybe not everything, but certainly a lot of things.

[Ad Lib]

Maybe not everything, but certainly a lot of things.

The United States has not sought to annex territory of Mexico, at the very least not in well over a century. Most of the land changes were a result of international treaties like Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Americans didn't even annex Texas in the same way Russia annexed Crimea; it was subject to a secession movement from Mexico then sought to join the Union.

Basically, the United States poses no threat to the territorial integrity of Mexico, nor has it in living memory. This is not true of Russia with respect to its neighbours.

[Jacksgranda]

Your post

 

There's a big difference though isn't there: The USA doesn't have an interest in or history of annexing everything south of the Rio Grande.

 

My reply was in relation to the bolded bit above

 

Maybe not everything, but certainly a lot of things.

 

 

The United States has not sought to annex territory of Mexico, at the very least not in well over a century. Most of the land changes were a result of international treaties like Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Americans didn't even annex Texas in the same way Russia annexed Crimea; it was subject to a secession movement from Mexico then sought to join the Union.

Basically, the United States poses no threat to the territorial integrity of Mexico, nor has it in living memory. This is not true of Russia with respect to its neighbours.

 

I didn't say the US had an interest in annexing Mexico or threatening their territorial integrity - I said they had an interest in many countries south of the Rio Grande. "having an interest in" does not equal "annexing territory/threatening territorial integrity of".

[strichener]

Right, so you think a nineteenth century conflict largely between states that were not long themselves created as post-colonial entities in North America, over land that was mostly uninhabited, is morally, functionally and geopolitically equivalent to the attempted annexation, domination and control by old-world nations of their established neighbours?

Best you sit this one out I think.

Wow, you manage to derive this from that one little fact that I posted.  How clever are you.

 

I am not really sure what limiting the time period has to do with facts either.  It is a fact that the USA has annexed large areas of land (and island) and it was you that mentioned history.

[Wee Willie]

We are talking about the Baltic Republics here.

 

 

Letting people in Eastern Europe decide their own fate?

I'm pretty sure that the Russian military does conduct exercises with a few fairly odious regimes in Latin America.

 

 

My view is that there isn't necessarily a good or bad side in Ukraine or Syria, but that there is a good side and a bad side in Russia v. the Baltics. I'd wager that both the US and UK governments agree with that assessment.

Mibbe so but that is your opinion.

As you can see by my avatar, me and the UK government will probably never agree on anything.

And that's my opinion.

 

Surely it doesn't matter where in the world a conflict arises it will always be a 'them' and 'us' situation.

Us are the good guys wearing the white hats and them are the bad guys wearing the black hats.

Conversely the other side will see themselves as the good guys and us as the bad.

Nothing's changed.

[ScotSquid]

Mibbe so but that is your opinion.

As you can see by my avatar, me and the UK government will probably never agree on anything.

And that's my opinion.

Surely it doesn't matter where in the world a conflict arises it will always be a 'them' and 'us' situation.

Us are the good guys wearing the white hats and them are the bad guys wearing the black hats.

Conversely the other side will see themselves as the good guys and us as the bad.

Nothing's changed.

Sorry, I couldn't understand a word of that.

Could you translate it to Scots please?

[Ad Lib]

Your post

My reply was in relation to the bolded bit above

I didn't say the US had an interest in annexing Mexico or threatening their territorial integrity - I said they had an interest in many countries south of the Rio Grande. "having an interest in" does not equal "annexing territory/threatening territorial integrity of".

You've misconstrued the sentence. If I'd meant that I'd have inserted parentheses after "interest in" and after "annexing". It was an interest in annexing, not just an interest in.

[Jacksgranda]

You've misconstrued the sentence. If I'd meant that I'd have inserted parentheses after "interest in" and after "annexing". It was an interest in annexing, not just an interest in.

 

You've misconstrued the sentence. If I'd meant that I'd have inserted parentheses after "interest in" and after "annexing". It was an interest in annexing, not just an interest in.

Commas would have done the job.

[THE KING]

There's a big difference though isn't there: The USA doesn't have an interest in or history of annexing everything south of the Rio Grande.

But have a long history of invading and bombing countries they dont like...over 70 since it came to be.

[THE KING]

Ah yes, this 'Union'.

How exactly did that come about again?

The same way as almost every other Union.

[parsforlife]

The Americans are fannys, the Russians are fannys, Isis are fanny's, we are fannys.

If we all stopped acting like fannys we'd all be better off, no chance of it happening tho.

[McRuffian]

Fannys and fanny's.

Whereas I'd be inclined to use fannies.

Which is it? My brain is frazzled.

[Dipped Flake]

The Russian navy operates in the Western Hemisphere.

There's also a slight moral difference between the type of regimes in Europe that the US has traditionally attempted to protect vs. the type of Latin American regimes that Russia has traditionally attempted to support.

 

 

Are you a member of the Russian government?

If not, why would you be more concerned about the "feelings" of the local bully vs the security of the smaller countries which always seem to find themselves bullied?

I can't believe someone from America? is going on about a big country supporting dodgy Latin American countries. How many coups/dictators/drug cartels has the USA supported there???  

[Fotbawmad]

 

The purpose of NATO is mutual self-defence against a number of things, and for the more effective coordination of international military responses to uphold international law in the absence of a standing UN Army.

One of the primary threats in respect of which NATO provides mutual self-defence is a country with a track record of invading its neighbours since the fall of the Berlin Wall and whose political regime stirs up minority nationalism within the Baltic states to generate disorder. It is the successor to a political regime that violently suppressed popular civic movements for independence from Soviet rule or influence. And when we are talking recent actions here we aren't just talking about Ukraine, where Crimea was subject to the most transparent of imperialist takeovers and East Ukraine has been plunged into civil war by Russian financed and armed separatist groups. There was also Georgia, which NATO and the EU and Europe generally had absolutely nothing to do with.

Russia is and for my whole life has been a threat to the security of Eastern Europe and the sovereign states that exist in it. It is an imperialist power, one which flagrantly and systematically disregards even the most basic of human rights, and which has regressed from being a fledgling democracy to an oligarchy.

"The West" is not perfect, but if imperialism, in its proper sense, and democracy, in any sense, is the criteria, then NATO is the lesser of two evils.

 

 

If anything it's the existence and our continuing membership of NATO that makes us so unsafe. It should have been disbanded after the Cold War, but has instead decided to expand. It's only happened as the result of mission creep. So it's existence can continually be justified. It deliberately stirs up trouble so a few well connected people can get rich off it. Any surprise when former NATO chiefs magically end up in a cushy bank job or "advisory" role in companies linked to the military?

 

It also goes without saying that having an organisation which can force you to spend 2% of your GDP on defense is reason alone to get out of it. Due to that mandate, Cameron has been forced to cook the books to give the illusion that we're spending 2% of our budget on defense. 

[vikingTON]

There's a big difference though isn't there: The USA doesn't have an interest in or history of annexing everything south of the Rio Grande.

lol wut

Apart from Cuba and Puerto Rico, of course, which were grabbed in a nakedly imperial war in the 1890s (as well as The Philippines). Apart from the fact that the 'Rio Grande' border was itself the result of wholesale imperial conquest of northern Mexico. And the consistent implementation of the Monroe Doctrine to the entire Americas for nearly 200 years, which in theory alone kept all the American states safe from pesky European imperialism, but in reality has made them subject to American imperialism and domestic political interventions throughout the Western Hemisphere.

You can make a decent relativistic case that U.S imperialism has been 'better' for the subject countries than Russian imperialism, but just because you value the Baltic states more highly than Nicaragua or Puerto Rico doesn't make U.S. imperialism go away. It is as imperial a state as Russia has ever been.

[vikingTON]

The Americans didn't even annex Texas in the same way Russia annexed Crimea; it was subject to a secession movement from Mexico then sought to join the Union.

 

 

lol wut

 

Erm yes, so in your fantasy island scenario the laughable 'Texas secession' movement was a legitimate expression of sovereignty that wasn't at all, nope, not one bit stoked up by the ambitious power on its border, whereas the Crimea secession movement was achieved by 'separatists' and their vicious, spiteful neighbouring state. Okay then.

 

Are you angling for the vacant George Robertson spot of the most buckled Britnat official in NATO? A truly bizarre effort otherwise.

[Peppino Impastato]

Breathtaking to see an American on here talking about imperialism. The USA has overthrown over 30 democracies since the end of WWII and has been far more prolific in interfering in other countries than any other state in that time.

I suppose they don't tell them that on FOX though.