5 ms·

As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I di

As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you. I am sure people in Iraq (that had nothing to do with 11 of September and had no mass destruction weapons), Libyan negros (that were hunted down and their city razed with NATO air support) and many, many others would agree with me. It is not even a matter of blaming only USA that drags the rest of NATO with them, Libya for example the country that started the shenanigans was France. Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in.

emptysongglass 5y ago
> Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in. Those countries are doing it under their own auspices. You seem to be confusing a defensive alliance with a federalized government. > As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you. You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  > You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here. They absolutely do not. The military aggression of nato countries against weaker ones is well documented. They have killed, organized coups, waged war, and assassinated elected leaders for their own economic and political goals. If you're going to argue that every single one of these was merely a country that happened to be part of nato, acting independently, then do it. It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    A defensive alliance is what it says on the tin. If you want to take umbrage with the aggressions of any individual country, by all means do so. But don't turn NATO into your own personal bogeyman because one of its members did a thing you didn't like irrelevant to the mandate of the alliance. That's a bad faith argument. If I make a promise that I won't punch you and you go punch someone else, that doesn't reflect on my promise not to punch you. If that aircraft carrier was acting under NATO's auspices it is absolutely relevant to the argument. If it wasn't then it is a strawman and should be called out.
    - kingofpandora 5y ago
      What it says on the tin might not be what's inside.
  - BuckRogers 5y ago
    You didn't cite your sources in massive claims but yes it's disingenuous to apply individual nation's actions on NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance. They did go to war in the mideast after the US was attacked on 9/11, triggering Article 5. As far as mideast wars in general, most of them, especially from the 60s to 90s, were proxy wars between democratic states and totalitarian regimes. Whether it be Iran or another one. The mideast is a powder keg in general though, I wouldn't use that region's history, or any party's involvement as a guide for much of anything in regards to your views. It's amazing to see people on both the left and right oppose NATO. 63 Republicans voted against supporting NATO yesterday, which is just astonishing and short-sighted. That is not the GOP that I once supported, they are lost. NATO is what prevented nuclear war for 70 years. Protected Europe so it could thrive into the healthy democratic states they are today. Prevented Soviet tanks from rolling in. Especially today, when a non-NATO nation is under attack, and would not be, if it were in NATO. The whole Trump and far left anti-NATO viewpoints were absolutely blown out of the water. It's not even a debate anymore. Western expansion was the correct move as the mask is now off of Putin's Russia. If you hate free and sovereign states, and like dictators building empires and committing genocide to do it- being against NATO is for you. The story today is the Free World consisting of democratic states vs totalitarianism / authoritarianism / dictatorships. That includes Putin's right-wing government, and Xi's left wing Communist government.
qsort 5y ago
What exactly are you disagreeing on? There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". NATO is an alliance. NATO does not declare war as a block. Iraq was not a NATO operation. Libya was not a NATO operation. The only time NATO has intervened outside of self defense as per Article V of the Charter was Yugoslavia (and with good fucking reason).
- epolanski 4y ago
  All nato countries fought in iraq I think.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state". >>>Iraq was not a NATO operation. And yet there is very significant overlap of Multi-National Forces- Iraq countries with NATO member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93... >>>Libya was not a NATO operation. Have you taken a look at the Wiki article on that conflict? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... A couple of choice quotes: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya 24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest I'm always amazed at the number of emphatically stated positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are so easily challenged with a 30-second internet search.
  - qsort 5y ago
    > I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state". US != NATO > very significant overlap ah yes the overlap > On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya You must have forgotten to paste the text after the comma, let us retry together: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity” ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters. I'm always amazed at the number of snarky know-it-all positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are based on conveniently projecting away inconvenient pieces of information.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw_5202 5y ago
> like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in It was Azerbaijan using drones procured from Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war Anyway NATO is not a single state. NATO members can make independent decisions other NATO members would disapprove.

emptysongglass 5y ago

> Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in. Those countries are doing it under their own auspices. You seem to be confusing a defensive alliance with a federalized government. > As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you. You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
> You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here. They absolutely do not. The military aggression of nato countries against weaker ones is well documented. They have killed, organized coups, waged war, and assassinated elected leaders for their own economic and political goals. If you're going to argue that every single one of these was merely a country that happened to be part of nato, acting independently, then do it. It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  A defensive alliance is what it says on the tin. If you want to take umbrage with the aggressions of any individual country, by all means do so. But don't turn NATO into your own personal bogeyman because one of its members did a thing you didn't like irrelevant to the mandate of the alliance. That's a bad faith argument. If I make a promise that I won't punch you and you go punch someone else, that doesn't reflect on my promise not to punch you. If that aircraft carrier was acting under NATO's auspices it is absolutely relevant to the argument. If it wasn't then it is a strawman and should be called out.
  - kingofpandora 5y ago
    What it says on the tin might not be what's inside.
- BuckRogers 5y ago
  You didn't cite your sources in massive claims but yes it's disingenuous to apply individual nation's actions on NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance. They did go to war in the mideast after the US was attacked on 9/11, triggering Article 5. As far as mideast wars in general, most of them, especially from the 60s to 90s, were proxy wars between democratic states and totalitarian regimes. Whether it be Iran or another one. The mideast is a powder keg in general though, I wouldn't use that region's history, or any party's involvement as a guide for much of anything in regards to your views. It's amazing to see people on both the left and right oppose NATO. 63 Republicans voted against supporting NATO yesterday, which is just astonishing and short-sighted. That is not the GOP that I once supported, they are lost. NATO is what prevented nuclear war for 70 years. Protected Europe so it could thrive into the healthy democratic states they are today. Prevented Soviet tanks from rolling in. Especially today, when a non-NATO nation is under attack, and would not be, if it were in NATO. The whole Trump and far left anti-NATO viewpoints were absolutely blown out of the water. It's not even a debate anymore. Western expansion was the correct move as the mask is now off of Putin's Russia. If you hate free and sovereign states, and like dictators building empires and committing genocide to do it- being against NATO is for you. The story today is the Free World consisting of democratic states vs totalitarianism / authoritarianism / dictatorships. That includes Putin's right-wing government, and Xi's left wing Communist government.

qsort 5y ago

What exactly are you disagreeing on? There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". NATO is an alliance. NATO does not declare war as a block. Iraq was not a NATO operation. Libya was not a NATO operation. The only time NATO has intervened outside of self defense as per Article V of the Charter was Yugoslavia (and with good fucking reason).

epolanski 4y ago
All nato countries fought in iraq I think.
CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state". >>>Iraq was not a NATO operation. And yet there is very significant overlap of Multi-National Forces- Iraq countries with NATO member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93... >>>Libya was not a NATO operation. Have you taken a look at the Wiki article on that conflict? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... A couple of choice quotes: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya 24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest I'm always amazed at the number of emphatically stated positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are so easily challenged with a 30-second internet search.
- qsort 5y ago
  > I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state". US != NATO > very significant overlap ah yes the overlap > On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya You must have forgotten to paste the text after the comma, let us retry together: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity” ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters. I'm always amazed at the number of snarky know-it-all positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are based on conveniently projecting away inconvenient pieces of information.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throw_5202 5y ago

> like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in It was Azerbaijan using drones procured from Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war Anyway NATO is not a single state. NATO members can make independent decisions other NATO members would disapprove.