The Myth of NATO Provocations

[Anler]

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

NATO represents a strong defensive position for western powers. Western civilization still finds the need for its existence due to how Russia’s has behaved. NATO is also a 100% voluntary organization.  Russia has a 3 decade history of being aggressive towards its neighbors. Until it changes it attitude and behavior, NATO will stand. 

The original NATO countries are the worst colonizers of the last 1000 years. That is a fact. If we are going to blow up Russia I would request we also blow up England, France, Spain and Israel. Then China. I mean if we are going to be fair about it. 

[spin_dry]

3 minutes ago, Anler said:

Here's the problem Jim. I will concede that Putin is a giant asshole and his Oligarchs are nothing more than mobsters. Where was NATO when they allowed him to grow to be the worlds richest man creating dependency of his oil and gas to Europe and the world? And Russia's agricultural exports are also widely used globally. This "all of the sudden" attempt to stop him is having major ramifications everywhere and will take years if not decades to balance out. He was all fine and dandy when they were making money off of him knowing he was this monster but now that he is being the guy they always knew he was we have to fuck up everything to stop him.

I would apply the same logic to China. The world put themselves in a position of dependency on them knowing what China was doing and now it would have major ramifications globally to attempt to back them down. We allowed them to grow into the worlds 2nd largest military and are occupying about every continent on the earth. What is NATO's solution to that problem before we have to blow to whole god damn earth up?

It’s not NATO’s responsibility to prevent a leader’s rise to power. There’s no preventing that from occurring in any country. NATO’s purpose is defense of a nation’s existence. There’s going to be monsters popping up until the end of time. It’s inherent to the human condition. War is inevitable. It’s important to be prepared. 

[Anler]

Just now, spin_dry said:

It’s not NATO’s responsibility to prevent a leader’s rise to power. There’s no preventing that from occurring in any country. NATO’s purpose is defense of a nation’s existence. There’s going to be monsters popping up until the end of time. It’s inherent to the human condition. War is inevitable. It’s important to be prepared. 

So you agree NATO's entire purpose is war? thank you!

 

[Rod]

Thpin and Jimmy are so painfully stupid 

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 minute ago, ACE said:

Thpin and Jimmy are so painfully stupid 

Says the known troll and liar.

[Anler]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Honestly its not very hard to figure out.   What diplomacy without land concessions could have avoided this?   

Ukrainians would be living peacefully in their homes and not getting blowed up? The regions in question were already pro russian and self determination or neutrality wasnt even discussed, Zelensky just refused. The deal brokered by Germany would have been signed by Putin and Biden guaranteeing Ukraine's safety. 

The "what ifs" are merely speculation because had Putin violated the agreement then they would just have what they have now with more US military involved. There was no attempt at peace so you cant just rule it out

[spin_dry]

2 minutes ago, Anler said:

The original NATO countries are the worst colonizers of the last 1000 years. That is a fact. If we are going to blow up Russia I would request we also blow up England, France, Spain and Israel. Then China. I mean if we are going to be fair about it. 

The absolute worst violations of human rights have occurred in china and Russia. All the colonizing of those countries you listed can’t even come close. So when you start throwing rocks, be honest and inclusive of all national sins. Otherwise it’s simply propaganda. 

[Highmark]

7 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

It’s not NATO’s responsibility to prevent a leader’s rise to power. There’s no preventing that from occurring in any country. NATO’s purpose is defense of a nation’s existence. There’s going to be monsters popping up until the end of time. It’s inherent to the human condition. War is inevitable. It’s important to be prepared. 

Yet NATO and the US has done exactly that.   I'm not saying always without reasonable good cause however we've done that for decades especially when it came to stopping the spread of communism. 

[spin_dry]

7 minutes ago, Anler said:

So you agree NATO's entire purpose is war? thank you!

 

Does nato training involve the practice of taking down nations? 

[akvanden]

38 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Doesn't change the fact that when countries align together specifically to "defend" themselves against one specific enemy that it will be taken as a provocation. 

What other choice do they have? Wing it on their own like Ukraine? Be hopeful that Russian changes its aggressive ways?

 

39 minutes ago, Highmark said:

What do you say about NATO's eastward expansion after promising Russia it wouldn't?  

There was some sort of legal document where NATO stated this? Even Gorbachev stated no.

 

43 minutes ago, Highmark said:

What do you think we would say if China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and other countries formed a defensive organization solely against the US?  Do you think we would take that as a provocation?

After the laugher died down, if their sole intensions was that of NATO, we'd know we have nothing to worry about. Or maybe we could go invade/annex Myanmar if they threatened to join. 
 

[Anler]

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

The absolute worst violations of human rights have occurred in china and Russia. All the colonizing of those countries you listed can’t even come close. So when you start throwing rocks, be honest and inclusive of all national sins. Otherwise it’s simply propaganda. 

Who used to occupy china? Turned them into a country of opiate addicts? ffs you got owned hard

[spin_dry]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Yet NATO and the US has done exactly that.   I'm not saying always without reasonable good cause however we've done that for decades especially when it came to stopping the spread of communism. 

Point out one example of where NATO enacted article 5 to invade a nation and remove its government. 

[Anler]

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

Does nato training involve the practice of taking down nations? 

Well they havent been very successful at it but yeah. Probably why Putin has been so emboldened. Go lay down boomer, you arent making any kind of sense here. 

[Highmark]

7 minutes ago, Anler said:

Ukrainians would be living peacefully in their homes and not getting blowed up? The regions in question were already pro russian and self determination or neutrality wasnt even discussed, Zelensky just refused. The deal brokered by Germany would have been signed by Putin and Biden guaranteeing Ukraine's safety. 

The "what ifs" are merely speculation because had Putin violated the agreement then they would just have what they have now with more US military involved. There was no attempt at peace so you cant just rule it out

What deal was that?  

[Anler]

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

Point out one example of where NATO enacted article 5 to invade a nation and remove its government. 

deflection noted

[spin_dry]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

Who used to occupy china? Turned them into a country of opiate addicts? ffs you got owned hard

And that somehow comes close to violations of Stalin? Or Mao Zedong? 

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

What deal was that?  

 

 

[spin_dry]

2 minutes ago, Anler said:

Well they havent been very successful at it but yeah. Probably why Putin has been so emboldened. Go lay down boomer, you arent making any kind of sense here. 

Thanks for the absolute non-answer. 

[Anler]

Just now, spin_dry said:

And that somehow comes close to violations of Stalin? Or Mao Zedong? 

No different than the strawman arguments you are making. Go lay down ffs

[spin_dry]

Just now, Anler said:

 

 

Zelinsky didn’t sign it because the deal sucked shit. 

[spin_dry]

1 minute ago, Anler said:

No different than the strawman arguments you are making. Go lay down ffs

Once again. A non-answer. 

[Anler]

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

And that somehow comes close to violations of Stalin? Or Mao Zedong? 

You mean our old ally Stalin? ffs dude

[Jimmy Snacks]

Yeah we get it Dave….you’re right and everybody else is wrong…SMH.

[spin_dry]

4 minutes ago, Anler said:

deflection noted

No. You inferred that nato takes down governments yet you don’t have one example to cite. 

[Anler]

Just now, spin_dry said:

Zelinsky didn’t sign it because the deal sucked shit. 

He got what he wanted. war. He isnt a nato country and nato doesnt take down nations as you said and Ukraine isnt part of NATO so lets let Zelensky have HIS war and stay out of it. Mkay?