The articles of NATO have been called upon for defence only one time, and since no country was found responsible there has never been a NATO response and NATO has never attacked anyone.
NATO is the world’s largest defence pact and it’s biggest opponents are Russia and China who want to expand their borders with military aggression.
All three were NATO operations. So was Iraq part 1. And even when articles of defense aren’t called, NATO allows countries like America and France to use their resources and bases to carry out its own wars of imperialism.
China
Do you believe NATO needs to defend itself from a country on the other side of the planet?
Correct, America, France, etc have attacked other nations. NATO has not. NATO is a group of 32 nations wherein if one of them is attacked then they all come to the defence of that member. To be anti-NATO is to be pro-war.
When Iraq was invaded several NATO member strongly opposed it, and now that Iran is being attack the USA is being denied logistics support from many nations.
It’s one thing to oppose NATO, it’s another to not only oppose NATO but also the entire UN. Both of those links are UN Resolutions. You’re easily the most pro-war mf on this platform.
UN was created as a result of WWII. It is participated in by nations as a means of diplomacy. It’s sole purpose is to prevent the outbreak of global war, and nothing else. The actions in Libya, which did not condone invasion or occupation, were to prevent unnecessary casualties in the region.
It’s sole purpose is to prevent the outbreak of global war
The UN proceeded to recognize the puppet South Korean government (there was literally only 1 ballet presented, if you wanted to vote against the US-chosen candidate, you had to ask the US guards for the other ballet) as the government of all of Korea, and ignore the massacres it was carrying out, essentially creating a situation where either the USSR and China had to accept the US conquering their neighbor or go to war with the US. That’s the closest we’ve been to actual global war, having half the planet on opposing sides of a war again. The UN has mostly been a tool for American soft power.
The actions in Libya, which did not condone invasion or occupation, were to prevent unnecessary casualties in the region.
Libya went from the highest Human Development Index in Africa to open air slave markets. The actions in Libya caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary casualties and displaced millions.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the UN’s stated mission, but we have look at its actual actions. In practice, it does nothing to constrain the biggest threat to world peace, America, while it does constrain anyone who tries to stand up to us.
Anti-NATO is anti-war, see Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.
The articles of NATO have been called upon for defence only one time, and since no country was found responsible there has never been a NATO response and NATO has never attacked anyone.
NATO is the world’s largest defence pact and it’s biggest opponents are Russia and China who want to expand their borders with military aggression.
All three were NATO operations. So was Iraq part 1. And even when articles of defense aren’t called, NATO allows countries like America and France to use their resources and bases to carry out its own wars of imperialism.
Do you believe NATO needs to defend itself from a country on the other side of the planet?
Correct, America, France, etc have attacked other nations. NATO has not. NATO is a group of 32 nations wherein if one of them is attacked then they all come to the defence of that member. To be anti-NATO is to be pro-war.
When Iraq was invaded several NATO member strongly opposed it, and now that Iran is being attack the USA is being denied logistics support from many nations.
The resolution NATO used to justify bombing Libya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973
NATO troops in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_Support_Mission
It’s one thing to oppose NATO, it’s another to not only oppose NATO but also the entire UN. Both of those links are UN Resolutions. You’re easily the most pro-war mf on this platform.
Do you think bombing Libya was the anti-war position? When the UN supports it, the UN has adopted a pro-war position.
UN was created as a result of WWII. It is participated in by nations as a means of diplomacy. It’s sole purpose is to prevent the outbreak of global war, and nothing else. The actions in Libya, which did not condone invasion or occupation, were to prevent unnecessary casualties in the region.
The UN proceeded to recognize the puppet South Korean government (there was literally only 1 ballet presented, if you wanted to vote against the US-chosen candidate, you had to ask the US guards for the other ballet) as the government of all of Korea, and ignore the massacres it was carrying out, essentially creating a situation where either the USSR and China had to accept the US conquering their neighbor or go to war with the US. That’s the closest we’ve been to actual global war, having half the planet on opposing sides of a war again. The UN has mostly been a tool for American soft power.
Libya went from the highest Human Development Index in Africa to open air slave markets. The actions in Libya caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary casualties and displaced millions.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the UN’s stated mission, but we have look at its actual actions. In practice, it does nothing to constrain the biggest threat to world peace, America, while it does constrain anyone who tries to stand up to us.