But Russia is in the wrong for thinking NATO existing next to them is a threat.
Why is it OK when you say it but bad when they do? If you’re encouraging others to put themselves in your shoes (“you had to be there”), why can’t you put yourself in Russia’s shoes and see how they could reasonably perceive NATO as a threat?
I’m not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat. I’m saying that what Russia is doing and how it’s behaving, and how it talks publically is a threat.
But I do understand how NATO might be viewed as a threat to some nations or world leaders. I don’t immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
I’m not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat.
That’s exactly what you said, although you said it about the USSR, which was even more absurd.
I don’t immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
So clever to fall back on the “well if I did do it, they deserved it” defense.
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you’d say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
I don’t think I was being very clever there, but I’ll take it!
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you’d say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
Gaddafi’s Libya didn’t seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic. I think we also have to note that that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed. So not really a NATO operation exclusively.
Libya went from bad to worse as a consequence though, about that you’re not wrong.
Gaddafi’s Libya didn’t seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic.
That’s the point: your “well they deserved it” excuse is nonsense. Taking your arbitrary definition of “bad” countries at face value, all NATO interventions have done is make situations worse. Its actions are much more consistent with destroying regional economic competitors than with any sort of good faith effort to help anyone.
And all that is setting aside how the U.S. and its allies have destroyed any “liberal, free, non-oppressive” countries that don’t adequately toe the U.S. line (see Indonesia and Chile, among others). The countries that remain have to choose between being subservient to the U.S. (to varying degrees) or becoming the type of state liberals like you deem deserving of wholesale destruction.
that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed
Russia, China, and three other states abstained, and only NATO countries actually dropped bombs.
“Their mere existence is a threat”
“They’re just existing there…Russianly!”
I guess you had to be there.
Think about what you’re saying.
Why is it OK when you say it but bad when they do? If you’re encouraging others to put themselves in your shoes (“you had to be there”), why can’t you put yourself in Russia’s shoes and see how they could reasonably perceive NATO as a threat?
I’m not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat. I’m saying that what Russia is doing and how it’s behaving, and how it talks publically is a threat.
But I do understand how NATO might be viewed as a threat to some nations or world leaders. I don’t immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
That’s exactly what you said, although you said it about the USSR, which was even more absurd.
So clever to fall back on the “well if I did do it, they deserved it” defense.
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you’d say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
I don’t think I was being very clever there, but I’ll take it!
Gaddafi’s Libya didn’t seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic. I think we also have to note that that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed. So not really a NATO operation exclusively.
Libya went from bad to worse as a consequence though, about that you’re not wrong.
That’s the point: your “well they deserved it” excuse is nonsense. Taking your arbitrary definition of “bad” countries at face value, all NATO interventions have done is make situations worse. Its actions are much more consistent with destroying regional economic competitors than with any sort of good faith effort to help anyone.
And all that is setting aside how the U.S. and its allies have destroyed any “liberal, free, non-oppressive” countries that don’t adequately toe the U.S. line (see Indonesia and Chile, among others). The countries that remain have to choose between being subservient to the U.S. (to varying degrees) or becoming the type of state liberals like you deem deserving of wholesale destruction.
Russia, China, and three other states abstained, and only NATO countries actually dropped bombs.
Removed by mod