Chad NATO
-
If a Serbian nationalist hadn't shot the damn archduke of Austria then Hideki Tojo wouldn't've sank the majority of the US pacific fleet decades later.
I first read it as "archdude" and i hereby start a petition to normalize this word
-
I guess it's a shitpost because Hawaii is not technically covered by NATO...
True, it's the only member of the NPTO instead
-
Moreover, as the meme indicates, their citizenry continues to feel as though the intervention was unwarranted. at least in large part. No state-level population is a monolith.
They know what they did, they just want to do it again.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ah yes, I see the history understander has logged on again...
-
If a Serbian nationalist hadn't shot the damn archduke of Austria then Hideki Tojo wouldn't've sank the majority of the US pacific fleet decades later.
Are you sure you want to credit us with all that? First the invisible bombers...
-
NATO doesn't really do much other than scare Russia and China. There were a couple of debatable interventions in Europe, and the US did demand everyone join them in Afghanistan, but not Iraq, for example. NATO doesn't just automatically go where America goes. They have actual rules that have to be cited, like Article 5.
The rest of the world were willing participants in Afghanistan. The US didn't have to do anything to "force" them.
Iraq and Afghanistan are interlinked stories, but the way they played out with world support was very, very different.
-
Are you aware of the actual reason that NATO bombed Yugoslavia?
Oh, .ml, that explains it.
tankie detected. opinion rejected. *
-
No, they are an alliance for defense. Nothing peaceful about it, they will fuck you up with military force if you mess with any one of their member states.
No, they are an alliance for defense. Nothing peaceful about it, they will fuck you up with military force if you mess with any one of the US's economic interests.
There, FTFY
-
No, they are an alliance for defense. Nothing peaceful about it, they will fuck you up with military force if you mess with any one of the US's economic interests.
There, FTFY
But that's not true. Why do you guys repeat such propaganda without question? Countless nations have messed with the US's economic interests throughout history, how many times has NATO gotten involved?
-
The rest of the world were willing participants in Afghanistan. The US didn't have to do anything to "force" them.
Iraq and Afghanistan are interlinked stories, but the way they played out with world support was very, very different.
Afghanistan was a NATO Article 5 mission. We didn't stick around a minute after the NATO mission was over.
-
But that's not true. Why do you guys repeat such propaganda without question? Countless nations have messed with the US's economic interests throughout history, how many times has NATO gotten involved?
The point is that "NATO" is an umbrella term for "US's interests" or "US military".
The US can and absolutely does wreck shit up for the sake of their own interests, regardless of international law. "NATO" only comes into play when either other countries are willing to step in or the US might need a veneer of legitimacy. -
Afghanistan was a NATO Article 5 mission. We didn't stick around a minute after the NATO mission was over.
And nobody especially objected to it. Not even much from outside of NATO, excepting Afghanistan itself.
-
The point is that "NATO" is an umbrella term for "US's interests" or "US military".
The US can and absolutely does wreck shit up for the sake of their own interests, regardless of international law. "NATO" only comes into play when either other countries are willing to step in or the US might need a veneer of legitimacy.The point is that "NATO" is an umbrella term for "US's interests" or "US military".
Well if we're just misusing words and making things up, shit, why not say "DPRK" is an umbrella term for "US's interests"?
I think you might need to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether you may have been influenced by Russian/Chinese propaganda. There is no rational reason to have a problem with the existence of NATO.
-
Are you sure you want to credit us with all that? First the invisible bombers...
Butterfly affect. You literally just made it rain here. Do you have no decency? How dare you!?!
-
I first read it as "archdude" and i hereby start a petition to normalize this word
The archdude archabides
-
This post did not contain any content.
P.S.
We still haven't forgotten 9/11.
-
Ah yes, I see the history understander has logged on again...
Mayonese-Jar is a real one
-
P.S.
We still haven't forgotten 9/11.
The one from 1973 right?
-
P.S.
We still haven't forgotten 9/11.
Is that why you guys still kill arabs?
-
Moreover, as the meme indicates, their citizenry continues to feel as though the intervention was unwarranted. at least in large part. No state-level population is a monolith.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Of course it was unwarranted dafuq they bombed civilians areas with depleted uranium.
