Sweden has formally joined NATO as the 32nd member of the transatlantic military alliance, ending decades of post-World War II neutrality and centuries of broader non-alignment.
Ah, yes, the scary defense-only alliance. Purely by design it doesn’t have the lawful capacity to do any of the things you said, and single members (US or UK) don’t represent it.
Ah yes, no advancements in Ukraine where 1/3 of the country is under occupier control and in entrenched positions.
In is defensive only on paper. In reality it is NATO weapons that supply wars in Middle East. Joining NATO isn’t just mutual defense, you need to sign a lot of other requirements that inevitably gets you under strong influance of US military and finances. Check out military intervantions of NATO, they are all offensive, no one ever attacked a NATO country, they are too strong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations
None of these counties they invaded where part of NATO, Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, Bosina, Libya.
Laws don’t matter when you have the military power. Laws only apply to the weak. Powerful countires (and people) don’t protect them selves with laws, since they have the military. When Assange and Manning published US war crimes, militry officials didnt go to jails, but they, whistlblowers and journalists did. Don’t fall for the laws for a second, they don’t apply to them.
You are not wrong that a lot of shady things can happen with military power. It is a fine general statement.
But with regards to NATO, I think you are misinformed (or mixed up?). If all those were invasions (and NATO is so strong), I don’t see how any of these countries could be independent countries now.
There is this wikipedia article with a list of all the countires in the world with their military presence outside of their countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases
You can google for each of these countries as well, such as France and their presence in Africa, as well as other “past”-colonial forces, US with their presence in Kosovo, Turkey with their presence in a lot of Balkan countries (also previous colonies of Ottoman empire).
There is a lot of countries in the World that where past colonies that never got rid completly of their imperialist rulers. In fact during cold war they made an alliance just for that, that is where the term third world comes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
Obviously imperialist didn’t like that and the media propaganda changed the meaning of that term to the “developing country” to excuse them staying there while they “develop”. Never actually leaving of course.
You’re conflating a lot of topics in your discourse but you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about. Yes, many countries have military bases overseas. That is not controversial or new. They are used as means to expediently deploy troops and assets to various global positions. The fact that some of these countries happen to be part of NATO has nothing to do with your previous position.
It is more then just having a base. They often run the whole country. I simply tried to find a single list for all of it, but if you look into these cases, one by one, you can see what I mean.
Take French troops in Africa, they are collonizers that never left and their government can’t kick them out. Take NATO troops in Kosovo, they are completley dependent on US support to exist. Or Israel as well. Or many other places in Middle East. These are not volontery military presence in these locations, they are invasions which people can’t get rid of, either under threat of antoher force taking over or because they just wont leave.
You’re doing it again and at this point it feels intentional. You’re taking five different things that are unrelated and mixing them but throwing enough vague terms hoping that something will stick:
French troops in Africa
Nato in Kosovo
Or Israel (whatever that means)
Or many other places in middle east (whatever that means)
Not defending the probable Russian shill, but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source. What it is not is a primary source. But every claim has a source whose reliability can be assessed (and what counts as reliable is going to vary from person to person). So, no, if I’m writing an essay or a formal document, I’m not going to cite Wikipedia. But if I’m arguing with strangers on the internet, Wikipedia is a fairly credible place to start backing up your claims.
You can say that for literarly anything. Wikipedia has sources for every claim. Are you dispututing that NATO was in those countries. I have seen some of those troops in those countries with my own eyes.
Russian weapons supply a lot of wars in the Middle East too. Russia funded the 10/7 Hamas attack. Russia gassed and bombed a lot of civilians in Syria. Russian mercenaries are keeping the civil war going in Libya, as well as couping lots of governments across African countries in the past year
I am not defending Russia. They do horrible things as well, but it is no excuse for our governments to do these things too. And they do it a lot more. As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry. Israel government funded Hamas and let 10/7 happen on purpose to justify genocide, they even brag about it.
The US called on NATO following an attack on them. The idea was to fight those who had attacked the US, which is in the purview of a defensive alliance. Of course that didn’t end up being the reality because the bush admin lied about Iraq.
Kosovo, Bosina
This was not defensive, you’re correct. But it was instead to stop a genocide of Muslim people by Serbia. Kosovo exists because of NATO involving themselves to stop genocide.
Well if you claim that you are attacked by “Terrorism” and you declare war on it, you can make any invasion a defensive action. That is my point, in theory it is defensive, but they can twist it any way they want to make it offensive.
Also if you go around the World claiming you are there to stop a genocide (ironically while funding a genocide yourself) just so you can send your army there, than you have no reason for CIA not to just finance some genocidal maniacs on one side to justify you going in there to “save” them (like Israel funded Hamas, and HIlary funded Trump). This is not even legally clean, just ignoring the laws when they don’t suit your interests.
Ah, yes, the scary defense-only alliance. Purely by design it doesn’t have the lawful capacity to do any of the things you said, and single members (US or UK) don’t represent it.
Ah yes, no advancements in Ukraine where 1/3 of the country is under occupier control and in entrenched positions.
In is defensive only on paper. In reality it is NATO weapons that supply wars in Middle East. Joining NATO isn’t just mutual defense, you need to sign a lot of other requirements that inevitably gets you under strong influance of US military and finances. Check out military intervantions of NATO, they are all offensive, no one ever attacked a NATO country, they are too strong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations None of these counties they invaded where part of NATO, Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, Bosina, Libya.
Laws don’t matter when you have the military power. Laws only apply to the weak. Powerful countires (and people) don’t protect them selves with laws, since they have the military. When Assange and Manning published US war crimes, militry officials didnt go to jails, but they, whistlblowers and journalists did. Don’t fall for the laws for a second, they don’t apply to them.
You are not wrong that a lot of shady things can happen with military power. It is a fine general statement.
But with regards to NATO, I think you are misinformed (or mixed up?). If all those were invasions (and NATO is so strong), I don’t see how any of these countries could be independent countries now.
They are not independent, that is the point. NATO military is still present in most of them or have puppet governments or are still at war.
Source?
There is this wikipedia article with a list of all the countires in the world with their military presence outside of their countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases You can google for each of these countries as well, such as France and their presence in Africa, as well as other “past”-colonial forces, US with their presence in Kosovo, Turkey with their presence in a lot of Balkan countries (also previous colonies of Ottoman empire). There is a lot of countries in the World that where past colonies that never got rid completly of their imperialist rulers. In fact during cold war they made an alliance just for that, that is where the term third world comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Obviously imperialist didn’t like that and the media propaganda changed the meaning of that term to the “developing country” to excuse them staying there while they “develop”. Never actually leaving of course.
You’re conflating a lot of topics in your discourse but you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about. Yes, many countries have military bases overseas. That is not controversial or new. They are used as means to expediently deploy troops and assets to various global positions. The fact that some of these countries happen to be part of NATO has nothing to do with your previous position.
It is more then just having a base. They often run the whole country. I simply tried to find a single list for all of it, but if you look into these cases, one by one, you can see what I mean. Take French troops in Africa, they are collonizers that never left and their government can’t kick them out. Take NATO troops in Kosovo, they are completley dependent on US support to exist. Or Israel as well. Or many other places in Middle East. These are not volontery military presence in these locations, they are invasions which people can’t get rid of, either under threat of antoher force taking over or because they just wont leave.
You deserve some sort of award for most incoherent post ever with this shit.
You’re doing it again and at this point it feels intentional. You’re taking five different things that are unrelated and mixing them but throwing enough vague terms hoping that something will stick:
This is a gish gallop
Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So, link something else.
Not defending the probable Russian shill, but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source. What it is not is a primary source. But every claim has a source whose reliability can be assessed (and what counts as reliable is going to vary from person to person). So, no, if I’m writing an essay or a formal document, I’m not going to cite Wikipedia. But if I’m arguing with strangers on the internet, Wikipedia is a fairly credible place to start backing up your claims.
You can say that for literarly anything. Wikipedia has sources for every claim. Are you dispututing that NATO was in those countries. I have seen some of those troops in those countries with my own eyes.
Russian weapons supply a lot of wars in the Middle East too. Russia funded the 10/7 Hamas attack. Russia gassed and bombed a lot of civilians in Syria. Russian mercenaries are keeping the civil war going in Libya, as well as couping lots of governments across African countries in the past year
I am not defending Russia. They do horrible things as well, but it is no excuse for our governments to do these things too. And they do it a lot more. As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry. Israel government funded Hamas and let 10/7 happen on purpose to justify genocide, they even brag about it.
As for Russia funding Hamas attack, that just sounds like insane propaganda, sorry.
Your posts on the matter reads like insane propaganda as well.
The US called on NATO following an attack on them. The idea was to fight those who had attacked the US, which is in the purview of a defensive alliance. Of course that didn’t end up being the reality because the bush admin lied about Iraq.
This was not defensive, you’re correct. But it was instead to stop a genocide of Muslim people by Serbia. Kosovo exists because of NATO involving themselves to stop genocide.
This was a UN coalition to aid rebel groups.
Well if you claim that you are attacked by “Terrorism” and you declare war on it, you can make any invasion a defensive action. That is my point, in theory it is defensive, but they can twist it any way they want to make it offensive. Also if you go around the World claiming you are there to stop a genocide (ironically while funding a genocide yourself) just so you can send your army there, than you have no reason for CIA not to just finance some genocidal maniacs on one side to justify you going in there to “save” them (like Israel funded Hamas, and HIlary funded Trump). This is not even legally clean, just ignoring the laws when they don’t suit your interests.