It’s not strange. It’s the point of the argument made by the author in that book - which you would know if you wouldn’t just jump to conclusions by reading a few selected sentences from it that align with your opinion, but actually took the time and effort to understand the whole argument.
All you show here is that you didn’t understand what this book is about, which isn’t surprising as you only know the title and a few selected extracts that can be framed in a provoking manner. I tried to point out that your view on this book has been manipulated but you don’t seem to have a problem with that.
With the energy poured into this to-and-fro here for days, you could also have been reading the book you like to show here. It would enable you to provide well-founded arguments for your opinions and hence would have been far more beneficial to the quality of the debate. Maybe that’s something you’d like to aspire to.
I said what I have to say and I guess you understood it. No need for a stretched out discussion into no-where. When you feel the urge to refer to this book again in the future, think about this conversation - I will.
Since it is you that keeps referring to this book on here, it is you who should be able to point to something precise that you find noteworthy.
How come you’re not able to do that?
You haven’t asked for something noteworthy.
That doesn’t have to be Russia.
I don’t think it will be Russia. What’s your point? Do you know the sentence that comes before this?
Yes. It’s strange even if the sentence before would be the goal. What does it say about the EU?
It’s not strange. It’s the point of the argument made by the author in that book - which you would know if you wouldn’t just jump to conclusions by reading a few selected sentences from it that align with your opinion, but actually took the time and effort to understand the whole argument.
All you show here is that you didn’t understand what this book is about, which isn’t surprising as you only know the title and a few selected extracts that can be framed in a provoking manner. I tried to point out that your view on this book has been manipulated but you don’t seem to have a problem with that.
With the energy poured into this to-and-fro here for days, you could also have been reading the book you like to show here. It would enable you to provide well-founded arguments for your opinions and hence would have been far more beneficial to the quality of the debate. Maybe that’s something you’d like to aspire to.
So you have read the book? Then please explain how the sentence can be interpreted differently. That sentence sets a limit to the growth of the EU.
I said what I have to say and I guess you understood it. No need for a stretched out discussion into no-where. When you feel the urge to refer to this book again in the future, think about this conversation - I will.
So you haven’t read the book but you make claims about the context. That’s bold, in the context of your recent comments.
I hope you will remember the quote about the EU when you see the next reference. Maybe one day you will understand what you support.