3 ms·
1 and 2. UN asked NATO to do so. 3. Solved with zero deaths in less than two weeks, and removed missiles fron Turkey. Nothing to do with NATO. Meanwhile I'm 1
by otherme123 5y ago
1 and 2. UN asked NATO to do so.
3. Solved with zero deaths in less than two weeks, and removed missiles fron Turkey. Nothing to do with NATO.
Meanwhile I'm 100% sure that NATO has already avoided a bloodbath in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, in the light of current events. Ukraine handed nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange of a promise to never invade them, and look where we are.
- jmyeet 5y ago> 1 and 2. UN asked NATO to do so. Wrong [1]: > NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. > Nothing to do with NATO. Not according to NATO [2] (emphasis added): > ... furthermore, in the early 1960s, NATO was authorised by Ankara to station medium-range Jupiter missiles near Izmir for a short period of time. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia [2]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_191048.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_191048.htm?s...
- otherme123 5y agoOk, lets say I give you both. People killed in [1]: around 2,000, and a bloody war ended. No countries were anexed by NATO members. No puppet states were created. People killed in [2]: 0. Mistake recognized, turkish missiles removed, Cuba never invaded. It doesn't sound like a terrifying force that keeps anexating countries and setting puppets or war lords. NATO is terrifying if you plan to go hunting small countries without nuclear weapons.