I am sick of this sort of argument. Oh, oh, oh, those who don’t know our best interests doubt the beauties of this or that. Look, Bruno—you kill. Latvia backs killing. For no reason at all. Could provide reason; that’d be another thing. Real corpses, their deaths endorsed by us. It’s a shitty rationale that almost no one understands. Why should anybody understand it? To turn on nations as dubious as ours? You come here and do a little survey on NATO intervention in Macedonia or Kosovo/a. Then listen to a popular broadcast of why we commit troops. One of my main points is that NATO would destroy Latvia at the flick of a wrist, and I think I’m right. You tell me about Macedonia, where NATO imposed a solution. And the sum game is that we lose any moral authority we ever had—except that we really never had any, methinks. We merely pretended to it. Latvia has never had any trouble backing totalitarian shitholes, as long as they rhyme with some momentary advantageous activity. I think that’s sad. I think that will blow up in our face. It already has.

/P

Latvia is backing action against the Taliban in Afghanistan.  I’m all for that.  But then, I don’t live in Latvia, talk with locals on a daily basis, etc.

I’m all for that, too. But please to put it in context.

/P

I think the principal problem is that of total hypocrisy combined with near total ignorance and a lack of information. We support the rabid, murderous, bellicose policies of Israel, hand Kosovo to Albania, destroy Iraq, defend Georgia, etc. You are welcome to rationalize each of these scenarios, but most people don’t know anything about any of them and yet stake out a position.

It’d perhaps be well and good if somebody could prove the “values” part—but in reality people are rarely consulted, and I’ll return to what I said earlier—there’s not even one book about Afghanistan in the Latvian language.

The next day, we wonder why nobody understands us. Poor Ambersun’s vid is now Glenn Beck’s thing. And some of us have a huge prob explaining how this became that. Dunno which stats you buy, but I guess 400 000 people were killed as a result of OK the PR Man’s voice, no matter how he tries to get around it. I take that pretty seriously, and if it’s taken lightly—we can all die tomorrow.

It’d be pretty different if OK or VVF or __ actually invested some thought in it, but that is not the case; it’s never been the case. To then raise the head and ask for moral support for our case—why? How? There is only one world, and Latvia is part of it. To lie incessantly is not in the national character.

Vysu lobu,
/P

P.S. If you truly believe there’s a moral component to fighting the Taliban, Anita, kindly tell us about this component as regards our allies. I won’t name them for you—but please, cut the sūdi. It’s too pathetic for words.

/P

Peteris Cedriņs et al.,

“To refresh your memory: “Pec iestašanas NATO varbutiba, ka pret Latviju tiks versts teroristu trieciens, pieaugs daudzkart.”—Juris Paiders, not someone I generally agree with, with an obvious truth.
/P “.

Your “obvious truth”  hypothesis does not withstand the test of time.  It has been more than five years since Latvia joined NATO and there have been no “obvious truth” terrorist attacks.  All the talk,as I mentioned’ was just fear mongering to discourage Latvia from joining NATO.  Sure, there might be terrorist attacks in the future, and one day a real meteor will fall down in Latvia too.  Your “obvious truth” is just more garbage that you come up with.

Like I said after Latvia joined NATO, eat your hearts out all the ill wishers for Latvia ,with all your “obvious truth” crap.

Visu labu,

The fight against the Taliban has a moral foundation, ie the Talibans violent abuse of human rights, the marginalization of women, religious freedom, etc. Clearly, NATO didnt invade Afghanistan on those grounds though. Afghanistan was invaded as justification of the Wests retaliation against Al Qaeda. I’ll agree with Anita that the war in Afghanistan is, lets say, well intended and at least reasonably grounded. What cheapens the message in Afghanistan is that its generally lumped together with the corrupt war of personalities that led to the invasion of Iraq.

Bruno, equating joining NATO to the absence terrorist attacks is a clumsy straw man construct. NATO isnt an anti terrorist organization. It’s a military security alliance. If you want to address NATO’s effectiveness in the Baltics please feel free to post details on NATO’s formal plan to defend the Baltics from Russian military aggression - not that the Baltics have been members for several years.

I’m all for NATO membership and always have been. The problem is that the US’s loss of focus on NATO’s true role in Europe and the misdirection of its power brings question to whether NATO is a relevant security alliance anymore.

Wahabist et al.,

“Bruno, equating joining NATO to the absence terrorist attacks is a clumsy straw man construct”

I am not equating joining NATO to absence of terrorist attacks.  There are simpletons here on the forum who are equating joining NATO to terrorist attacks.

You better stick to what is happening in Lithuania by visiting horse farms there. 

Visu labu,

I’m glad Vidas condensed my viewpoint.  And he used words and a minimum of pathos.  Can be done.

Bruno, as I read Peteris’ original point, it was that the likelihood of terrorism went up.  Not that it was to be expected, or that it would happen.

Bruno the Simpleton wrote amongst other weird things et al:

You better stick to what is happening in Lithuania by visiting horse farms there. 

I could, but I’m not sure which end of any given horse will better remind me of your point of view.

Vidas

Go Bruno! The soft and fuzzy generally discover too late that those that turn their swords into plows usually plow for those that did not.

Those who wish to dominate with mere words are frightened by those who are capable of fighting. Therefore,they claim to abhor violence, but in reality they recognize their own insignificance and fear that others will as well.

Some of the rationale used to bash NATO is similar to the russky talking points . Maybe their avatar should be a hammer and sickle.

So Vidas (the one who is “the only one” very willing to “lie” for some—- and Vidas, isn’t that a greater mock in itself?) which is actually “weird”?
Anita’s: “it was that the likelihood of terrorism went up.  Not that it was to be expected, or that it would happen”
or someone suggesting you spend some quality time with nature?

I say, get with nature (and with good human reasoning) and then there might be less confusion in deriving a point of view, as only “truth” will keep ones head from wondering. For if you “hang” with Anita, you just might just hang together.

Mikus E.

Vidas condensed the rationale well, yes, Anita—but Vidas is also talking about the cheapening of the message. My view is harsher because I think the message we endlessly repeat has already been cheapened beyond worthlessness. The President can’t gleefully and gratefully get medals in Kazakhstan one day and blather about our fight for freedom and democracy the next.

Vysu lobu,
/P

NATO and EU…

And what did I hear most often about these two orgainizations back when?

NATO for defense and EU for borders?

Mikus E.

P.S. Hmmm, in agreeing to join NATO, did not its “future” members have to already agree to “settle” all border issues?

Some of the rationale used to bash NATO is similar to the russky talking points.

My, my. So we should avoid some things just because they could sound like Russkie talking points? How beautiful. Don’t eat pelmeņi and palatalize your “ŗ”; freedom and democracy are right around the corner.

Throughout his post, Ogresdēls illustrates some of my complaints most perfectly, though unwittingly. Nowhere did I suggest turning swords to ploughshares or anything of the kind. I’m a supporter of NATO membership and always have been.

The trouble is the drone. For guys like Son of Ogre, there really is no difference whatsoever between the Kremlin sending boys to die in Afghanistan or Washington doing so. Blind faith, empty rhetoric, vacuous slogans, and an old Cold War mirror to shave by.

/P