261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I do believe that NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity that is bringing much death and destruction and turmoil to the world for the sake of special interests - political and commercial - who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built. But, I've been paying attention to NATO's war crimes over the last two decades, as well as the immensely evil crimes against humanity…
You know what would be really helpful here? Links to sources to know what the heck you're talking about. Preferably Wikipedia pages or something like that. And no, "do your own research" is not a valid answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now, your comment format follows a pretty typical pattern utilized by paid Russian trolls, so I'm likely wasting my time here. But anyway: There is a slight difference between de-platforming Russian propaganda channels in the West, and Russia jailing anybody speaking about the war in any other terms than those approved by Kremlin.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I do believe that NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity that is bringing much death and destruction and turmoil to the world for the sake of special interests - political and commercial - who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built. But, I've been paying attention to NATO's war crimes over the last two decades, as well as the immensely evil crimes against humanity…
> who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built Broken window fallacy [0]. That money spent on bases is a cost we'd rather not spend because it could be spent on other things or just saved with reduced taxes giving us citizens more of our money back. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
This post was dead when I stumbled upon it. I don't agree with it, for the obvious reasons, including the fact that I'm not American. Yet, my understanding is that this kind of opinion is shared by a large number of US citizens. I don't believe censoring it is the correct way to deal with it - it's not even off-topic as we discuss NATO membership in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current Baltic NATO states and Norway are much easier to defend having control over the Baltic Sea, plus Finland has a considerably strong military that now joins to strengthen NATO, so it should be a win-win for the both sides.
Why are we pretending conventional war between NATO and Russia is a thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, there was little doubt a Finnish application was on the way. From what I can tell from Swedish media, it's more or less decided there aswell. Both Finland and Sweden signed a defence agreement with the UK yesterday. Norwegian newspapers has claimed Denmark, Iceland and Norway are also going to offer Finland and Sweden military aid in case of Russian shenanigans during the application process. That leaves both Fin…
Actually it is not a contract, because it is not contractually binding. It is more a promise to help. And Churchill promised to help Finland in WW2 and did not keep his promise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia has argued that having NATO on its borders is a threat. Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. But Russian domestic politics is always using a narrative of being a victim and having risk of being invaded. The Second World War doesn’t exist in Russian storytelling. The great patriotic war on the other hand, conveniently started in the 40s. The Finnish borde…
> Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not for Russia nor for NATO, but what is the purpose of the alliance if not against Russia as a remnant of the cold war? Wasn't the same kind of reasoning used by the USA for Cuba resulting in its ~blockade~ "quarantine" and almost war/invasion? It seems to me there's a certain rhetoric meant…
This was not yet the case during Cuban missile crisis BTW.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built Broken window fallacy [0]. That money spent on bases is a cost we'd rather not spend because it could be spent on other things or just saved with reduced taxes giving us citizens more of our money back. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
The fact is, billions and billions in profits have been made by every single NATO base built, and it has not stopped a single damn war. In fact, NATO bases have been used to commit one heinous atrocity after the other for the last 30 years.
Didn't Russia (last month) threaten Finland/Sweden with 'consequences' should they decide joining NATO? Wondering what would those be. Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'?