3 ms·

> They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. Are you seriously argui

by Matl 6mo ago

> They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. Are you seriously arguing about being called warmongers considering what your government started in Iran? (and btw screwed the global energy market) This lack of self awareness is what turns people away.

0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
>Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. So how would you feel if you got labeled as warmongers for that help? You're welcome to call us warmongers. Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do. Libya was Europe's idea -- we helped when you called -- yet the US still gets blamed for it. If the US had surged more weapons to Ukraine (as some Europeans were requesting), thus provoking Russia to launch a nuke, we surely would've been blamed for that too. The pattern I've noticed is that anywhere the US has foreign policy involvement (including Europe), there are locals in that region who are both for and against said involvement. People who aren't knowledgeable about the region will generally not know many details, and simply say "oh, the US is involved in a war again". If that's how we're going to be judged, then yes, I want to be involved in fewer wars. And withdrawing from NATO will help with that objective. So I favor NATO withdrawal.
- Matl 6mo ago
  > Libya was Europe's idea. Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: 1. Was the 2003 Iraq war started based on false claims about WMDs? Yes/No? 2. Did you just attack Iran for no good reason? (Yes/No?)
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
    >Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. You can see French and UK leadership were making moves before the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Obama's approach was referred to as "leading from behind". >For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. I'm glad we can agree on something. I find that a lot of Europeans are not willing to accept the logical implication of their stated beliefs. >As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: [...] I'm not sure why you're pushing this "warmongers" point. As I said, I'm an isolationist. I've left many comments here on HN about how I want the US to be more like Switzerland. The Swiss never do anything and thus they never get blamed for anything. The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason. Same way the thousands of Ukrainians slaughtered by Russia probably thought our weapons deliveries were being given for a good reason. In any case we may be called "complicit" if we do not act -- the same arguments were used in the case of Libya. But we can't keep playing world police. We aren't very good at it, and it is not clear whether it is helpful. Not to mention the dubious ethics of getting involved in the affairs of other countries. You're either "complicit" in "propping up" bad regimes, or a "warmongering" "imperialist" who "destabilizes" them. There's no way to win. Given the choice, I prefer to be complicit.
    - Matl 6mo ago
      > The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason Regardless of the 'thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime' which is supposed to just be accepted as fact despite everyone citing some random number everytime, no they don't. Because the logic of 'we'll liberate you from oppression by bombing you' does nothing but unites Iranians more than they ever were united before. Or do you think the killing of schoolgirls by the US is welcomed by Iranians somehow? Honestly, I am speechless.
- alfiedotwtf 6mo ago
  > Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do. Back at you. I'm glad Europe, Asia, and Australia all said no to helping liberate oil from Iran. Also, it's so weird seeing Americans wanting to leave NATO because NATO didn't help invade Iran, whilst forgetting that NATO is a defensive pact. Han shot first :headdesk:
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
    >I'm glad Europe, Asia, and Australia all said no to helping liberate oil from Iran. I didn't expect any help from them. >Also, it's so weird seeing Americans wanting to leave NATO because NATO didn't help invade Iran That's not why I want to leave NATO. >whilst forgetting that NATO is a defensive pact. It didn't look very defensive when the Europeans dragged NATO into Libya.
    - wat10000 6mo ago
      Nobody got "dragged" in. Being that NATO is a defensive pact, no country was under any obligation to participate. There is exactly one time in history when a NATO country has actually invoked the treaty that requires help from other members, and I'm sure you know which country that was.
- wat10000 6mo ago
  There's a big difference between helping an ally that's been attacked or intervening in a civil war, and attacking countries for no good reason at all. Afghanistan and Libya don't merit the "warmonger" label, but Iraq and Iran do. I don't think there's any equivalent on the European side in recent times.
8note 6mo ago
the US dodnt want help after 9/11 NATO insisted on helping
- pelorat 5mo ago
  USA invoked article 5.

by Matl 6mo ago

0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago

>Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. So how would you feel if you got labeled as warmongers for that help? You're welcome to call us warmongers. Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do. Libya was Europe's idea -- we helped when you called -- yet the US still gets blamed for it. If the US had surged more weapons to Ukraine (as some Europeans were requesting), thus provoking Russia to launch a nuke, we surely would've been blamed for that too. The pattern I've noticed is that anywhere the US has foreign policy involvement (including Europe), there are locals in that region who are both for and against said involvement. People who aren't knowledgeable about the region will generally not know many details, and simply say "oh, the US is involved in a war again". If that's how we're going to be judged, then yes, I want to be involved in fewer wars. And withdrawing from NATO will help with that objective. So I favor NATO withdrawal.

Matl 6mo ago
> Libya was Europe's idea. Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: 1. Was the 2003 Iraq war started based on false claims about WMDs? Yes/No? 2. Did you just attack Iran for no good reason? (Yes/No?)
- 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
  >Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. You can see French and UK leadership were making moves before the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Obama's approach was referred to as "leading from behind". >For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. I'm glad we can agree on something. I find that a lot of Europeans are not willing to accept the logical implication of their stated beliefs. >As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: [...] I'm not sure why you're pushing this "warmongers" point. As I said, I'm an isolationist. I've left many comments here on HN about how I want the US to be more like Switzerland. The Swiss never do anything and thus they never get blamed for anything. The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason. Same way the thousands of Ukrainians slaughtered by Russia probably thought our weapons deliveries were being given for a good reason. In any case we may be called "complicit" if we do not act -- the same arguments were used in the case of Libya. But we can't keep playing world police. We aren't very good at it, and it is not clear whether it is helpful. Not to mention the dubious ethics of getting involved in the affairs of other countries. You're either "complicit" in "propping up" bad regimes, or a "warmongering" "imperialist" who "destabilizes" them. There's no way to win. Given the choice, I prefer to be complicit.
  - Matl 6mo ago
    > The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason Regardless of the 'thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime' which is supposed to just be accepted as fact despite everyone citing some random number everytime, no they don't. Because the logic of 'we'll liberate you from oppression by bombing you' does nothing but unites Iranians more than they ever were united before. Or do you think the killing of schoolgirls by the US is welcomed by Iranians somehow? Honestly, I am speechless.
alfiedotwtf 6mo ago
> Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do. Back at you. I'm glad Europe, Asia, and Australia all said no to helping liberate oil from Iran. Also, it's so weird seeing Americans wanting to leave NATO because NATO didn't help invade Iran, whilst forgetting that NATO is a defensive pact. Han shot first :headdesk:
- 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
  >I'm glad Europe, Asia, and Australia all said no to helping liberate oil from Iran. I didn't expect any help from them. >Also, it's so weird seeing Americans wanting to leave NATO because NATO didn't help invade Iran That's not why I want to leave NATO. >whilst forgetting that NATO is a defensive pact. It didn't look very defensive when the Europeans dragged NATO into Libya.
  - wat10000 6mo ago
    Nobody got "dragged" in. Being that NATO is a defensive pact, no country was under any obligation to participate. There is exactly one time in history when a NATO country has actually invoked the treaty that requires help from other members, and I'm sure you know which country that was.
wat10000 6mo ago
There's a big difference between helping an ally that's been attacked or intervening in a civil war, and attacking countries for no good reason at all. Afghanistan and Libya don't merit the "warmonger" label, but Iraq and Iran do. I don't think there's any equivalent on the European side in recent times.

8note 6mo ago

the US dodnt want help after 9/11 NATO insisted on helping

pelorat 5mo ago
USA invoked article 5.