4 ms·

Yes, the "NATO problem". The "problem" that is actually defending countries from invasions instead of letting their people, in a country that is not even close

Yes, the "NATO problem". The "problem" that is actually defending countries from invasions instead of letting their people, in a country that is not even close to being in NATO, die at the hands of tyrants.

p1esk 5y ago
What would US do if Russia decided to build military bases in Mexico or Cuba?
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  You'll be happy to learn that you can find that answer in any number of history books.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  The US tried to invade Cuba (with CIA-supported Cuban rebels). It's not a hypothetical.
- unilynx 5y ago
  Last time they set up a naval blockade.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Fair enough. How many bases has the US built in Ukraine anyway?
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Ukraine? No idea. Poland, the Baltics, the southern former Soviet republics (most of which end at -stan) to support the invasion of Afghanistan, a lot.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  To make the metaphor correct, what would the US do if Mexico or Cuba asked Russia to build a military base just after the US took some of their territory and Russia continually said no. Because Russia just took Crimea a few years ago and NATO refused to allow them to join. And Russia has agreed Crimea was part of Ukraine as recently as 1994.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
konart 5y ago
That's the view from one side of the fence, sorry.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The side of the fence that’s being bombed for no reason. Good luck justifying that.
  - konart 5y ago
    >no reason Again. Reason is something one has in this mind. You may find no reason where a different person sees one.
    - avmich 5y ago
      Yet the reason is an important subject, and in questions like that different reasoning lead to lost lives. So it's a serious, justifiable subject to discuss.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      If you can't supply one the logical conclusion is that there is no good reason and all the reasons that flow from simple observation are terribly unsupportable morally and legally. You know that. You are vague because giving a better answer is impossible and the actual answer is unpalatable.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I don’t find abstract philosophical arguments convincing.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Everyone bombs everyone, it seems. NATO bombed Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq,... Sent "peacekeepers" to loads of African countries (funny enough those countries sit on tons of raw materials). Russia bombed Georgia (not the US state of Georgia), Ukraine. China isn't bombing as much with actual bombs for now, money seems to work just fine it seems. Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, Israel is bombing Palestine, while Palestine is bombing Israel. No need to justify any of that, because it all sucks and is ultimately utterly pointless. It does help so, to understand the other side. Because it makes it easier to find a solution that doesn't lead to all out war between nuclear powers. And no, I don't consider just handing Ukraine to Putin to be that solution. Or Taiwan to China, as far as that is concerned.

p1esk 5y ago

What would US do if Russia decided to build military bases in Mexico or Cuba?

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
You'll be happy to learn that you can find that answer in any number of history books.
ethbr0 5y ago
The US tried to invade Cuba (with CIA-supported Cuban rebels). It's not a hypothetical.
unilynx 5y ago
Last time they set up a naval blockade.
throwaway894345 5y ago
Fair enough. How many bases has the US built in Ukraine anyway?
- hef19898 5y ago
  Ukraine? No idea. Poland, the Baltics, the southern former Soviet republics (most of which end at -stan) to support the invasion of Afghanistan, a lot.
HWR_14 5y ago
To make the metaphor correct, what would the US do if Mexico or Cuba asked Russia to build a military base just after the US took some of their territory and Russia continually said no. Because Russia just took Crimea a few years ago and NATO refused to allow them to join. And Russia has agreed Crimea was part of Ukraine as recently as 1994.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

konart 5y ago

That's the view from one side of the fence, sorry.

throwaway894345 5y ago
The side of the fence that’s being bombed for no reason. Good luck justifying that.
- konart 5y ago
  >no reason Again. Reason is something one has in this mind. You may find no reason where a different person sees one.
  - avmich 5y ago
    Yet the reason is an important subject, and in questions like that different reasoning lead to lost lives. So it's a serious, justifiable subject to discuss.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    If you can't supply one the logical conclusion is that there is no good reason and all the reasons that flow from simple observation are terribly unsupportable morally and legally. You know that. You are vague because giving a better answer is impossible and the actual answer is unpalatable.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I don’t find abstract philosophical arguments convincing.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Everyone bombs everyone, it seems. NATO bombed Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq,... Sent "peacekeepers" to loads of African countries (funny enough those countries sit on tons of raw materials). Russia bombed Georgia (not the US state of Georgia), Ukraine. China isn't bombing as much with actual bombs for now, money seems to work just fine it seems. Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, Israel is bombing Palestine, while Palestine is bombing Israel. No need to justify any of that, because it all sucks and is ultimately utterly pointless. It does help so, to understand the other side. Because it makes it easier to find a solution that doesn't lead to all out war between nuclear powers. And no, I don't consider just handing Ukraine to Putin to be that solution. Or Taiwan to China, as far as that is concerned.