4 ms·

>They did not threaten anybody Try viewing things from another perspective for a moment. If there was an unfriendly alliance to the United States, and Mexico d

by Rury 5y ago

>They did not threaten anybody Try viewing things from another perspective for a moment. If there was an unfriendly alliance to the United States, and Mexico declared they wanted to join this alliance, and were being supplied military weapons and training by this alliance over the past few years... wouldn't you think the US would be somewhat alarmed or threatened? (Cuba missile crisis hello?) Furthermore, in such a situation, how likely would the US warn Mexico to not join this alliance, and/or threaten to invade if they didn't demiliterize? How likely would we invade if they refused? We did invade Iraq after all, over supposedly weapons of mass destruction - why not an unfriendly nation on our border that has been militarizing the past few years? Now replace Ukraine with Mexico, and Russia with US, and that's basically the situation.

zozbot234 5y ago
This happened in the run-up to World War I, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram Mexico then made it clear that they would not be joining an anti-U.S. alliance in the near term, and relations were kept quite cordial throughout. Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to.
- k_sze 5y ago
  Huh? How does that prove the exact opposite? Mexico said they won’t join anti-US alliance. Ukraine still wanted to join NATO right before the invasion.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    There are many, many reasons why Ukraine would not have been able to join NATO in the foreseeable future, and this was very clear to all parties. Ironically, the Crimean situation is one which Russia has direct influence on. Ukraine's retaliatory moves on the status of the Russian language likely would've been naturally on the table in the context of joining either NATO or EU.
- Rury 5y ago
  >Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to Actually, you're proving my point. The Zimmermann Telegram publication caused outrage and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I. And difference here is that Mexico ultimately decided to not join this alliance (so we didn't invade Mexico), whereas Ukraine announced they'd like to join such an alliance.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I. No, the main catalyst was definitely Germany's submarine warfare against U.S. civilian ships. Prior to that, orientation in the U.S. was largely against the war despite the Zimmermann telegram.
    - Rury 5y ago
      Okay, maybe not the main reason, but it was still was a contributing reason. Anyhow, pointing this out, still doesn't invalidate my point.
lazyeye 5y ago
Now as part of your analogy, imagine the United States is a brutal, repressive dictatorship and what it finds threatening is democracy. And Mexico is becoming more democratic....
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
simion314 5y ago
So if my small country would be neighbor to US we would need to ask US permissions for stuff? If the answer is "sure, for X and Y US should approve because it is so big" then this means that US neighbors are not really independent but vassal countries? If yes, please have your preferred politician admit this. I am from eastern Europe and I can tell you we did not want to enter in NATO because we love USA and agree with it 100% , we did it to get into this defensive alliance to protect ourselves from Russia. Nobody here wants to sacrifice their live to bring freedom or Western values to Russians, we want to be left alone and we want to be able to do aliances and partnerships without the big bully to veto it. If you listen to all of Putin speeches and not some cherry picked parts, you will see he admitted he wants to restore the URSS , he started the war to bring back is "brothers" into URSS and this NATO stuff is upsetting him because if he waits until Ukraine or Moldove enters NATO he will not be able to make URSS great again.
csee 5y ago
Explanation != justification. And a partial explanation at best.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
If the point of the alliance was to keep the US from invading alliance members, then I can see the US being unhappy, sure. What I can't see is the comparison to Cuba, where the issue was the presence of nuclear-capable missiles. That's... not defensive.

by Rury 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

This happened in the run-up to World War I, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram Mexico then made it clear that they would not be joining an anti-U.S. alliance in the near term, and relations were kept quite cordial throughout. Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to.

k_sze 5y ago
Huh? How does that prove the exact opposite? Mexico said they won’t join anti-US alliance. Ukraine still wanted to join NATO right before the invasion.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  There are many, many reasons why Ukraine would not have been able to join NATO in the foreseeable future, and this was very clear to all parties. Ironically, the Crimean situation is one which Russia has direct influence on. Ukraine's retaliatory moves on the status of the Russian language likely would've been naturally on the table in the context of joining either NATO or EU.
Rury 5y ago
>Your argument proves the exact opposite of what you're expecting it to Actually, you're proving my point. The Zimmermann Telegram publication caused outrage and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I. And difference here is that Mexico ultimately decided to not join this alliance (so we didn't invade Mexico), whereas Ukraine announced they'd like to join such an alliance.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > and was the main catalyst for why the U.S. entered into World War I. No, the main catalyst was definitely Germany's submarine warfare against U.S. civilian ships. Prior to that, orientation in the U.S. was largely against the war despite the Zimmermann telegram.
  - Rury 5y ago
    Okay, maybe not the main reason, but it was still was a contributing reason. Anyhow, pointing this out, still doesn't invalidate my point.

lazyeye 5y ago

Now as part of your analogy, imagine the United States is a brutal, repressive dictatorship and what it finds threatening is democracy. And Mexico is becoming more democratic....

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

simion314 5y ago

So if my small country would be neighbor to US we would need to ask US permissions for stuff? If the answer is "sure, for X and Y US should approve because it is so big" then this means that US neighbors are not really independent but vassal countries? If yes, please have your preferred politician admit this. I am from eastern Europe and I can tell you we did not want to enter in NATO because we love USA and agree with it 100% , we did it to get into this defensive alliance to protect ourselves from Russia. Nobody here wants to sacrifice their live to bring freedom or Western values to Russians, we want to be left alone and we want to be able to do aliances and partnerships without the big bully to veto it. If you listen to all of Putin speeches and not some cherry picked parts, you will see he admitted he wants to restore the URSS , he started the war to bring back is "brothers" into URSS and this NATO stuff is upsetting him because if he waits until Ukraine or Moldove enters NATO he will not be able to make URSS great again.

csee 5y ago

Explanation != justification. And a partial explanation at best.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

If the point of the alliance was to keep the US from invading alliance members, then I can see the US being unhappy, sure. What I can't see is the comparison to Cuba, where the issue was the presence of nuclear-capable missiles. That's... not defensive.