4 ms·

Historically an invasion force? Afghanistan is the only place where NATO has been involved in anything like an invasion. Unlike the Warsaw Pact which helped sub

by greedo 6y ago

Historically an invasion force? Afghanistan is the only place where NATO has been involved in anything like an invasion. Unlike the Warsaw Pact which helped subjugate Chechoslovakia and Hungary.

runarberg 6y ago
Before Afghanistan there was Bosnia and Herzegovina, and since there is have been some missions in Iraq, and the Gulf of Aden and a full scale intervention in Libya. Your not doing your cause any favor by pointing to another military alliance to proof a point. Too the contrary what you say about the Warsaw Pact is my point exactly. Military alliances are dangerous and need to be condemned by the UN.
- greedo 6y ago
  Can you give some examples of how military alliances are dangerous? Not all alliances automatically require members to fight. Usually there's enough wiggle room for a country to say "not my business."
  - runarberg 6y ago
    WW1, the seven years war, current conflicts in the middle east (including foreign interventions in the Syrian Civil War), the Napoleonic Wars, all escalated to catastrophic proportions in part because of complications in relations to military alliances. Even the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is made more complex and harder to resolve peacefully because of relations to Russia and especially Turkey. There is a reason why many nations are currently condemning Israel’s opening relations to Morocco. It is seen as a normalization of (a) Israel’s occupation of the Palestine territories and (b) normalization of Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara. So if a war breaks out in either of these places, it is gonna be more devastating as a result.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Condemning the establishment of peaceful diplomatic relations between Israel and Morocco is just bizarre. They haven't established a military alliance.
      - runarberg 6y ago
        The reason people condemn it, is because those two nations are both occupying forces of a different nation. It is not explicit, but people suspect that both are in fact silently supporting each others occupation. If say the Polisario front starts an armed insurgence for a Sahrawi liberation in Western Sahara and it is met with brutal forces from the Moroccan military, a peaceful resolution seems less likely because now Israel has stakes in allowing Moroccan military to advance as brutally as they wish—knowing that similar brutality might be preferably against an armed Palestinian insurgence.
        nradov 6y ago
        If you don't like Israel then just come out and say so. It's ridiculous to single them out for occupying another nation. You could criticize Spain, China, Iraq, Russia, the USA, India, Mexico, Denmark, and half the other countries in the world on the same basis. Quit using a double standard to complain about normal diplomacy.
        runarberg 6y ago
        But I just did... I gave Morocco the same weight for occupying Western Sahara as Israel for occupying Palestine. But, I mean, sure... The same thing can be said about Mexico having military relations with the USA and Canada if each of them is going to acknowledge the rights of the other to fail to uphold treaties for the indigenous population. Elsewhere in this thread I’m giving the UK a similar “singling out”, but that is unfair, since France is just as guilty of the things I say there. Alas the UK and France are both NATO members (and both control nuclear weapons), I wonder if their colonies would be liberated by now, or if we had finally enacted an international nuclear weapons ban if it weren’t for the countries most guilty of doing precisely that banding together with a huge and deadly military to back it up.
- jopsen 6y ago
  Bosnia and Libya came with a UN mandate. Isn't the only reason NATO was involved that it was the only organization that could coordinate such a coalition quickly? Point being: the mutual defense agreement is just one part of NATO. The organizational capabilities is another. You might want to abolish alliances -- but to some that might seem as realistic as ending armed conflict. (Personally, I hope/think armed conflict is increasingly a thing of the past -- but it'll probably take a bit more time)

by greedo 6y ago

Historically an invasion force? Afghanistan is the only place where NATO has been involved in anything like an invasion. Unlike the Warsaw Pact which helped subjugate Chechoslovakia and Hungary.

runarberg 6y ago

Before Afghanistan there was Bosnia and Herzegovina, and since there is have been some missions in Iraq, and the Gulf of Aden and a full scale intervention in Libya. Your not doing your cause any favor by pointing to another military alliance to proof a point. Too the contrary what you say about the Warsaw Pact is my point exactly. Military alliances are dangerous and need to be condemned by the UN.

greedo 6y ago
Can you give some examples of how military alliances are dangerous? Not all alliances automatically require members to fight. Usually there's enough wiggle room for a country to say "not my business."
- runarberg 6y ago
  WW1, the seven years war, current conflicts in the middle east (including foreign interventions in the Syrian Civil War), the Napoleonic Wars, all escalated to catastrophic proportions in part because of complications in relations to military alliances. Even the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is made more complex and harder to resolve peacefully because of relations to Russia and especially Turkey. There is a reason why many nations are currently condemning Israel’s opening relations to Morocco. It is seen as a normalization of (a) Israel’s occupation of the Palestine territories and (b) normalization of Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara. So if a war breaks out in either of these places, it is gonna be more devastating as a result.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Condemning the establishment of peaceful diplomatic relations between Israel and Morocco is just bizarre. They haven't established a military alliance.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      The reason people condemn it, is because those two nations are both occupying forces of a different nation. It is not explicit, but people suspect that both are in fact silently supporting each others occupation. If say the Polisario front starts an armed insurgence for a Sahrawi liberation in Western Sahara and it is met with brutal forces from the Moroccan military, a peaceful resolution seems less likely because now Israel has stakes in allowing Moroccan military to advance as brutally as they wish—knowing that similar brutality might be preferably against an armed Palestinian insurgence.
      - nradov 6y ago
        If you don't like Israel then just come out and say so. It's ridiculous to single them out for occupying another nation. You could criticize Spain, China, Iraq, Russia, the USA, India, Mexico, Denmark, and half the other countries in the world on the same basis. Quit using a double standard to complain about normal diplomacy.
        runarberg 6y ago
        But I just did... I gave Morocco the same weight for occupying Western Sahara as Israel for occupying Palestine. But, I mean, sure... The same thing can be said about Mexico having military relations with the USA and Canada if each of them is going to acknowledge the rights of the other to fail to uphold treaties for the indigenous population. Elsewhere in this thread I’m giving the UK a similar “singling out”, but that is unfair, since France is just as guilty of the things I say there. Alas the UK and France are both NATO members (and both control nuclear weapons), I wonder if their colonies would be liberated by now, or if we had finally enacted an international nuclear weapons ban if it weren’t for the countries most guilty of doing precisely that banding together with a huge and deadly military to back it up.
jopsen 6y ago
Bosnia and Libya came with a UN mandate. Isn't the only reason NATO was involved that it was the only organization that could coordinate such a coalition quickly? Point being: the mutual defense agreement is just one part of NATO. The organizational capabilities is another. You might want to abolish alliances -- but to some that might seem as realistic as ending armed conflict. (Personally, I hope/think armed conflict is increasingly a thing of the past -- but it'll probably take a bit more time)