5 ms·
Do you support the same sanctions for the population of all NATO countries after the illegal invasions of Afghanistan, Irak, Yugoslavia? For their support of al
by simiones 5y ago
Do you support the same sanctions for the population of all NATO countries after the illegal invasions of Afghanistan, Irak, Yugoslavia? For their support of allied invasions in Yemen, Palestine, etc.? I know my country (Romania) directly participated in these other horrible wars, but as a child at the time, I don't feel too directly responsible for not doing more to stop the warmongering of my leaders.
In fact, the sanctions should be even worse by your logic, since the people had much more power to prevent these wars, unlike the people of Russia.
Of course what Russia is doing is unacceptable, but it's hardly alone in the world in this type of behavior. Rather than getting on your high horse and condemning the people of Russia, it's better to send help to the people of Ukraine who are suffering in this brutal war, and maybe as well to the people of Yemen and Palestine and other invaded places.
Also, see if you can lobby your leaders to advance negotiations for treaties to dismantle all nukes - a major weapon that enabled Russia to bully its neighbors.
- jquery 5y agoIt's difficult to take your comment seriously when you start off with a falsehood. Afghanistan was not an illegal invasion, they were the aggressor country. To equivocate ukraine with afghanistan is to support Putin's invasion.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y agoYugoslavia/Kosovo was illegal, Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was based on a tissue of lies.
- brandmeyer 5y agoThe intervention in Yugoslavia was possibly most well-justified military campaign in my lifetime, even more-so than the liberation of Kuwait.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y agoIt was still illegal, if well justified. So illegal that Russia and Serbia have been pissed off about it for over 20 years.
- simiones 5y agoI am not equivocating Ukraine with Afghanistan. The Ukrainian regime is NOT a quasi-terrorist, fundamentalist, sinister right-wing regime as the Taliban were, for one. Putin had no right to invade Ukraine. However, this does not mean that we should consider the invasion of Afghanistan as "defense" either. No state had been attacked by the state of Afghanistan. That a few afghan civilians conducted a terrorist attack in the USA doesn't mean that Afghanistan attacked the USA. Afghanistan even agreed to consider handing over Osama bin Laden to the USA, as long as they were provided with evidence of his guilt - like any state that is asked to extradite a resident. The USA decided that it didn't care to wait and produce such evidence, so they launched an invasion less than a month after the attack. It is true that this war in particular got acquiessence from the UN security council, so I will admit that it was not technically illegal (unlike the Iraq war).
- type0 5y agoTwo wrongs don't do another right
- simiones 5y agoNot sure what you're trying to say. Nothing about war is right, with very very few exceptions. My only point was that claiming NATO is a "purely defensive alliance" is not supported by history. This means that some NATO claims about Russia's lack of reasons for fearing NATO expansion are bullshit. But to be very clear again, this doesn't justify Russia's illegal murderous invasion of Ukraine.
- adolph 5y ago> Afghanistan was not an illegal invasion, they were the aggressor country. This is wrong. The country of Afghanistan did not conduct the WTC attacks. The nominally ruling clique in Afghanistan would not extradite OBL. If anything Afghanistan was an area of civil war in which the US intervened. After the Taliban refused to turn over the mastermind of the attacks, Osama Bin Laden, Operation Enduring Freedom officially began 7 October 2001 with American and British bombing strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/sept-11-attack.html https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-...
- mrits 5y agoI'm not sure why NATO would sanction NATO. If your country wants to sanction a NATO member then they certainly have that right to. If we actually eliminated nukes NATO influence would only expand.
- simiones 5y ago> I'm not sure why NATO would sanction NATO. If your country wants to sanction a NATO member then they certainly have that right to. I was discussing the principle of it - would UN sanctions against NATO countries be justified, especially if they were to target the population of NATO countries? Note that my country is in fact a NATO member. > If we actually eliminated nukes NATO influence would only expand. My point was exactly that eliminating nuclear weapons entirely would in fact be a boon to NATO, since for example in the current situation it could have actually considered some limited military aid without risking nuclear Armageddon.
- mrits 5y agoThe last time NATO depended on nuclear as a deterrent was in the late 70s when we didn't think we could stop the advancement of soviet tanks. No one would like nuclear to not exist more than NATO. You might want to be on an Asian website if you are trying to lobby against nuclear weapons.
- simiones 5y agoThe USA at least just recently unilaterally withdrew from the INF treaty (claiming Russian non-compliance, but launching a rocket of their own that would have been illegal to even develop while the treaty was in force the day the treaty expired). Israel's well known illegal nuclear weapons are also supported by the USA. So at least one pretty important NATO country is very clearly not prepared to get rid of its nukes, or pressure allies to get rid of theirs. Even more scarily, per president Trump, this same country is very interested in finding ways to get usable nukes.
- patrickaljord 5y agoNATO is with the good people tho so it can't do wrong.