Comments by "duncan smith" (@duncansmith7562) on "Turkey resumes talks with Sweden and Finland over their bids to join NATO | DW News" video.

that's right, let's just keep changing the rules whenever things get difficult
15
@JawaThePwn Not true. Article 5 mentions nothing about anyone being compelled to jump in and defend any other member. Article 5 merely mentions taking appropriate action, which could be just a letter of complaint! Re read Article 5.
3
@Greksallad there is no guarantee anyone will come to anyone else's defence in NATO. Article 5 just states that member states will decide together on appropriate action. it's a meaningless statement in the event of an attack.
2
Sweden and Finland rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of having their cannon fodder wiped out in the next NATO blunder, probably Taiwan.
2
@wearebecomedeathstar2658 i don't have a bike
1
@wearebecomedeathstar2658 some of us understand the situation with NATO. others just blabber what they hear in Western media.
1
@wearebecomedeathstar2658 I'm deadly serious. I just don't understand the dumb analogy, and suspect you don't either. if you want to make a point that doesn't depend on analogies about bikes, get serious, and make your point in plain English.
1
@wearebecomedeathstar2658 Just a suggestion. Write plain English. Nope. gear shifts change no "rules" at all. Gear shifts just make it easier to propel the bike. If you want to use a gear shift analogy and connect it to NATO rules, you would have to say "changing the NATO rules would be like introducing a whole new gear shift device which no rider had previously agreed upon". No wonder the analogy was incomprehensible. It didn't make any sense!
1
@wearebecomedeathstar2658 I know very well how a bicycle works. What is at fault here is your confusion with a gear shift being some kind of "rule". With clarity and accuracy of expression, I can understand any comment made regarding how NATO works. The problem here is you tried to make your own analogy, but the analogy doesn't work. Stick to plain English, or pick an analogy that works in context.
1
@wearebecomedeathstar2658 "went", not "whent" Einstein. The reasoning is flawed, exactly as I pointed it out. I'll point it out again. Gear shifts change the values of an equation. Gear shifts don't change any "rules" at all. As I said, a change of rules, as regards gear shifts, would imply a whole new way the gear shift system works, or functions, not just changing from one gear to another within the established system. So, yes, gear shifts change the values in a given equation, but they certainly don't change any rules of the universe. I am not arguing about the nature of mathematics and physics. certain rules apply to both disciplines. what I am saying is that to equate gear shifts with a rule, as it applies to NATO, is dumb and misplaced.
1
@wearebecomedeathstar2658 and now to the primary reason why your analogy is a failed one. a gear shift does not involve any consensus of group members (human beings) to agree to any change in rules. A gear shift is purely a mechanical and physical change. if you want to draw an analogy based on the rules of NATO membership, you would have to come up with something involving agreements, debate, directives, and place the analogy in the world of social interaction, like deciding to admit girls into the boy scouts and expel boys who don't want girls in the boy scouts (which, given the total pussification of woke, pansy countries like Sweden and Finland, would be the better analogy). Keep learning and writing better.
1
I dispute it. 2 soft, pansy countries like Sweden and Finland joining a failed s**t show like NATO will change nothing. Sweden and Finland can't even win the battle against their own violent immigrants.
1
yeah, kick Turkey out, and Hungary, and anyone that disagrees with the majority. that should really help unity.
1
@paulmitchell5349 nor is Afghanistan
1
@peabase the 7 fatalities you mentioned also contrasts with the millions of dead in WW2. So, what's your point?
1
@peabase ah, so the resort to insults when the argument is lost! try to address the issues, not what type of person I might be. Try to improve your reading comprehension skills. I never said Sweden and Finland provided cannon fodder in WW2. I was questioning how the war dead in any conflict justifies Sweden and Finland joining NATO, a point you fail to address. And for the record, learn some history. Finland lost huge numbers of cannon fodder sent to fight against the USSR in WW2. Never heard of Mannerheim? Educate yourself for a change.
1
@peabase No, again, your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking. try harder. I never said that I never associated Finns with cannon fodder. On the contrary, I pointed out that Finland was the country that sent cannon fodder to fight the USSR. Which is correct. Bizarrely, you seem to equate the term "cannon fodder" with the total number of people dead in a war, or the ratio of dead compared to the enemy! That has nothing to do with the term "cannon fodder". look it up. BOTH USSR AND FINLAND sent cannon fodder to fight each other in WW2. It happens in just about every intense combat. The world will be better for sending more young men to die in war? Maybe for you. Not for the young men who die, and not for the vast majority of people who really don't care for war. Are Americans much better off now after all their losses in Afghanistan?
1
@peabase "soldiers regarded merely as material to be expended in war" would be the definition, so, as per the definition, it has nothing to do with the numbers that die, nor the ratio of those who die compared to the enemy. so, yet again, you prove yourself wrong. do some learning. Finns used cannon fodder against the Soviets in WW2, as all armies do in a desperate attempt to maintain independence. Fighting for "hearth and home" is not part of the definition. Zelensky throwing in teenagers with 2 weeks training into Bakhmut = use of cannon fodder. And if Finland becomes a NATO member, it must be prepared to do the same, unlike in their recent, neutral history. Your Soviet barber was right. no overall benefit from foolish military ventures overseas, but that is exactly what Sweden and Finland are heading for, futile carnage and deaths at the behest of warmonger Biden and co, if they join NATO.
1
@peabase BTW, the assumption that Soviet soldiers didn't fight for "hearth and home" is yet another one of your foolish assumptions based on nothing but ignorance and prejudice.
1
@peabase again, focus on your appalling reading comprehension skills. I never said that Soviet soldiers had hearths and homes in Finland. I pointed out that you are a fool to think that Soviet soldiers did not fight for their hearths and homes. checjk out the definition of "cannon fodder" in a dictionary and see how the term has nothing to do with the number that die, nor the ratio in which they die to the enemy. you are learning a lot today! Still dumb as rocks, but improving! and BTW, your handle is spelt "peabrain" not "peabase".
1