Display:
No.

You probably don't realise how dismissive the above sounded. This DOES matter to people from here. You would find out if you travelled here. But if you find this sub-discussion annoying, I don't want to squabble, let's end it here (and I ask Migeru to stand away too), and please read my other, longer comments about the issue of what motivated people and elites in X Europe to join NATO.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can certainly understand that when discussing many subjects it would be very inappropriate to try to lump the whole of Europe into two large blobs. That is essentially what the cold war created and it was tragic and destructive. I am very interested in trying to understand the perspectives of people who are still living with some of the results of that. I did find your views about the dynamics of the NATO affiliation very interesting.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep. I'll add another illustration of the historical dimension to the NATO accession debates to that comment (because adding it here would make it too indented).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, I haven't made any further comments on this thread since last night.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The comment you reply to was posted at 12:33 AM, not PM :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I only now read it.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series