[Politics] Should NATO send in troops and planes

[Hugo Rune]

I like people in general but shit, do they have some strange ideas about the world. People buying into all of this "all we want in the West is peace, love and prosperity for all" when all evidence points at the opposite. NATO is about making sure no one is able or willing to defend themselves from us exploiting them.

NATO is there to protect western interests. Western capitalism and democracy to be precise. It is about defence not attack. But countries joining the western alliance seem to do a lot better than they did after under the soviets.

I thought they’d be 3 superpowers during this next century, competing to be No.1 but it’ll be a two horse race (which China will have won by 2050) now that Putin has committed financial and economic suicide.

Oligarchs are losing millions and millions per day. The man with the golden gun has been hired, Putin will soon be worm food.

 

[Seagull58]

NATO is not a defensive alliance, it is a "join us or get bombed by us and/our member states" alliance.

There's also nothing that indicates that "it's not there to 'protect' Ukraine and other non-members"... if this is the case, why the involvement in Yugoslavia in the 90s?

It is a defensive alliance. NATO got involved in Yugoslavia only after the UN-brokered peace treaty failed and 100,000 people died. The world and NATO have moved on since the early 90's. Article 5 of NATO memorandum is very clear, although you don't believe it, and that's why NATO hasn't got directly involved on the ground or in the air in Ukraine. If Russia takes full control of Ukraine and places forces near the border with Poland and other NATO members the NATO decision on direct involvement may change.

 

[Swansman]

Either

Long list then.

"Basically stable" means **** all, it is part of warfare to destabilise a country before going in. If you perform a state coup in a country, it turns to chaos and you then "have" to bomb the shite out of it, you're still the invading nation regardless of the "stability" of that country.

A list...
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Lebanon, Korea, Laos... probably missing some.

All of it motivated and justified by western newspeak.

 

[birthofanorange]

Long list then.

"Basically stable" means **** all, it is part of warfare to destabilise a country before going in. If you perform a state coup in a country, it turns to chaos and you then "have" to bomb the shite out of it, you're still the invading nation regardless of the "stability" of that country.

A list...
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Lebanon, Korea, Laos... probably missing some.

All of it motivated and justified by western newspeak.

I pity Portslade.

 

[Swansman]

NATO is there to protect western interests. Western capitalism and democracy to be precise. It is about defence not attack. But countries joining the western alliance seem to do a lot better than they did after under the soviets.

I thought they’d be 3 superpowers during this next century, competing to be No.1 but it’ll be a two horse race (which China will have won by 2050) now that Putin has committed financial and economic suicide.

Oligarchs are losing millions and millions per day. The man with the golden gun has been hired, Putin will soon be worm food.

Western democracy yes... I hear a lot about how ****ing great and amazing it is yet in reality it appears that very wealthy people pick two candidates who are both shite for their countries and very good for a dozen or so oligarchs in each respective country. Cant speak for you but we certainly have no democracy in Sweden, just the illusion of it.

 

[The Clamp]

I like people in general but shit, do they have some strange ideas about the world. People buying into all of this "all we want in the West is peace, love and prosperity for all" when all evidence points at the opposite. NATO is about making sure no one is able or willing to defend themselves from us exploiting them.

From a Swedish man. The country that sat on it’s hands while millions perished in the name of freedom, yours included, during WW2.

 

[birthofanorange]

From a Swedish man. The country that sat on it’s hands while millions perished in the name of freedom, you’re included, during WW2.

From a guy with a Swedish girlfriend - he's talking out of his arse. Funny guy, though...if only he could put his brain to better use.

 

[Swansman]

From a Swedish man. The country that sat on it’s hands while millions perished in WW2. Not sure your opinion is that valid tbh

I played a limited role in Swedish politics back in the 30s and 40s. Not sure how ancient you are but I'm not going to hold you personally accountable for starving 4 million Indians to death during the same war just because you wanted food reserves back in the UK.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Absolutely not - NATO sending in troops could potentially spark a world war - with the potential for Nuclear weapons to be used.

At the moment the focus is on Russian agression against the Ukraine - NATO involvement would lead to every country in Europe being dragged into this conflict and would do nothing except bolster Putin in Russia where he would be able to whip up Russian nationalist chauvanism.

 

[birthofanorange]

I played a limited role in Swedish politics back in the 30s and 40s. Not sure how ancient you are but I'm not going to hold you personally accountable for starving 4 million Indians to death during the same war just because you wanted food reserves back in the UK.

Okay - I've genuinely had enough of your shite. Just leave this thread alone. Please.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

It is a defensive alliance. NATO got involved in Yugoslavia only after the UN-brokered peace treaty failed and 100,000 people died. The world and NATO have moved on since the early 90's. Article 5 of NATO memorandum is very clear, although you don't believe it, and that's why NATO hasn't got directly involved on the ground or in the air in Ukraine. If Russia takes full control of Ukraine and places forces near the border with Poland and other NATO members the NATO decision on direct involvement may change.

NATO has never been a 'defensive alliance' - many countries who are part of NATO have engaged in naked military agression over the past 70 years (the Americans in Vietnam as a prime example - although there are a large number of others) - usually with the tacid or open support of the rest of NATO - who have their 'backs'.

 

[AmexRuislip]

I played a limited role in Swedish politics back in the 30s and 40s. Not sure how ancient you are but I'm not going to hold you personally accountable for starving 4 million Indians to death during the same war just because you wanted food reserves back in the UK.

If no one is going to say it, I will.
You're beginning to act like a tw@t now, please give it a rest and stop smoking whatever it is you're on

 

[Icy Gull]

Long list then.

"Basically stable" means **** all, it is part of warfare to destabilise a country before going in. If you perform a state coup in a country, it turns to chaos and you then "have" to bomb the shite out of it, you're still the invading nation regardless of the "stability" of that country.

A list...
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Lebanon, Korea, Laos... probably missing some.

All of it motivated and justified by western newspeak.

WOW! You think any of those countries political situations at the time of invasion/regime change can be compared to Ukraine? I don’t remember NATO waging war against any of them either. In fact I don’t recall NATO waging war against any country. Maybe an involvement against Iraq, Bosnia and Libya but **** me that is hardly the same as what Russia are doing in Ukraine…imo. There was proper shit going on in those countries before any involvement.

What was going on in Ukraine to justify Russia’s invasion?

 

[The Clamp]

I played a limited role in Swedish politics back in the 30s and 40s. Not sure how ancient you are but I'm not going to hold you personally accountable for starving 4 million Indians to death during the same war just because you wanted food reserves back in the UK.

You’re not a soldier either, or a world leader but you seem to claim insider knowledge of how it all works and what they should be doing.

Anyway, I apologise for an aggressive post. I don’t wish to be at odds with anyone, especially now. Whatever the motivations or cogs turning behind the scenes, the result for millions of Ukranians is there for all to see.


Peace and respect, genuinely

 

[dangull]

Even if Russia eventually wins this invasion war and the country is split in half, or even if they manage to take the whole of the Ukraine, unlikely with the slow progress and the numbers to occupy such a large country, they would then just face an insurgency and guerrilla warfare against a hostile population while slowly becoming bankrupt.

The USA coalition won the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns much easier, but ended up leaving because the population didn't want them there either.

So, no it would be madness to risk the end of the world in a conflict while awful and tragic at it is, is still quite minor in terms of casualties than many wars in the past.

 

[birthofanorange]

So, no it would be madness to risk the end of the world in a conflict while awful and tragic at it is, is still quite minor in terms of casualties than many wars in the past.

Tragic though it is - this. ^

 

[Bry Nylon]

Cant speak for you but we certainly have no democracy in Sweden, just the illusion of it.

That sounds terrible. I can only hope that in time Swedes will be able to speak, meet and travel freely, access whichever news sources they choose and swap opinions, criticisms and ideas with friends and even strangers in other countries over the internet without fear of retribution or arrest.

Free the Swanny one.

 

[birthofanorange]

That sounds terrible. I can only hope that in time Swedes will be able to speak, meet and travel freely, access whichever news sources they choose and swap opinions, criticisms and ideas with friends and even strangers in other countries over the internet without fear of retribution or arrest.

Free the Swanny one.

My Swedish partner agrees.

 

[Icy Gull]

That sounds terrible. I can only hope that in time Swedes will be able to speak, meet and travel freely, access whichever news sources they choose and swap opinions, criticisms and ideas with friends and even strangers in other countries over the internet without fear of retribution or arrest.

Free the Swanny one.

True, living under the Nazi regime in Sweden must be fecking terrifying, poor young Swanny.

 

[beorhthelm]

NATO has never been a 'defensive alliance' - many countries who are part of NATO have engaged in naked military agression over the past 70 years (the Americans in Vietnam as a prime example - although there are a large number of others) - usually with the tacid or open support of the rest of NATO - who have their 'backs'.

being in an defensive alliance doesnt stop members from taking their own independent actions. they promise to defend each other. when US goes off somewhere like Vietnam, there is no expecation that the Greeks or Germans for example will join in. but if the Greeks or Germans are attacked, there is an expectation the US will help defend them. do you see the difference? i dont know why this is difficult.