Is it time to join Nato

Bully by invective?

Did he reduce you to a nameless belligerent unionist or partitionist by any chance?

And I have said I have no issue 'distrusting them'. They have never blocked a peace mission at the UN, if they do then I will reconsider.

This isn't the hardest concept to grasp.

The thread is titeled 'Is it time to join NATO'.

The only time the TL gets mentioned is when you and blanch etc think I am going to get embarrassed by it.

I have stated very clearly my position on it. So keep it up, as I say youse are only embarrasing yourselves.

My objection is to how you use it Yurt. Whenever the argument falters out it comes to try and goad.

Read carefully: I KNOW 5 nations at the UN have a veto.

I THINK that is not perfect.

I THINK though that the umbrella of the UN for peacekeeping roles is more important.

The UK have never blocked a mission, if they do, prehaps they have gone rogue and it is time to re-consider the TL.

*Please bookmark this post and go back to it whenever you wish to raise it again with me.

Where did I say I want to 'calcify it into the constitution'?

You lie through your teeth in order to call people names.

Yes, Yurt, who has bullied and insulted anyone with a different opinion to him/her since the thread began has disappeared since his lie was called out in post 2783. QED

I didn't have to lie, bully or use invective to make my points.

Posters here had to lie and misrepresent my postion (That I supported Putin, that I wanted to 'calcify the Triple Lock into the constitution, etc etc) and claim false wins.

That's on posters like Mark and Yurt. Own it and stop the false chest thumping.

More lies to try and bully someone out of the conversation.

Won't work mark.

I backed up what I was referenceing and the only thing you could come up with was derisory attempts to censor the conversation. Anytime criticism of NATO is made here we get the 'Putinversteher' stuff.

Realy does illustrate the thinness of the argument to join, if that is all you have got. An argument that up to now and into the future, as our Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, has failed. 'We won't be joining anytime soon'.

The memes again.

Not one single 'crazy' conspiracy theory from me, all of it based on factual information.

You claim all this stuff about 'winning' and 'beating to a pulp' and then try and shut down the conversation when questioned.

Classic bulying behaviour.

Here's a quick look at the US and the influence of the Arms Industry there, see this quote:

‘They have massive influence.’ How Raytheon turned a potentially hard year into a good one. - The Boston Globe

Would you say that guy is 'interested' in 'an end to conflict'?

You can continue to pretend the world is a black and white political entity or a case of good folk v bad folk, but there are those who have a more nuanced, realistic un-naive view. But then, I suspect it is all an act from you guys.

That's just complete naivety and stubbornness to face realities - the huge influence of an industry that requires ongoing conflict to thrive.

It's there in black and white mark.

And that attitude from the leading players in NATO is why we are not in it and why even Coveney knows there won't be an appetite to be in it for a long time, if ever.

I have shown the facts that leading members of NATO are heavily influenced by their arms industries and relish the growth conflict brings.

That has led me to make my assessment and argument.

You - have just supplied invective, namecalling and zero counter argument not to mention either a naive assessment of world affairs or a gung ho cheerlead for these same influencers, who as shown before and below would sell arms to a 2 year old for a quick profit

Start supplying some counter facts mark...the invective and namecalling is water off this duck's back.