I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a PhD in whataboutism.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
The expansion happened, because countries applied to join NATO. So, you have to ask Poland, the Baltics, the Czech Republic etc. why they wanted to join NATO. And they will tell you that it was necessary to protect them from Russian aggression. These countries have ample of experience what it is like to exist next to Russia without NATO protection. And they will feel validated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine (as well as their previous wars in Transnistria and Abkhazia). Because without NATO, they would be at Putin's mercy.
Countries want to join NATO, because it aligns them with (largely) free, democratic and prosperous countries and offers them protection from Russia. That protection is invaluable as we can see. Ukraine's problem is not NATO, it's that they weren't in NATO yet.
Better than being a hypocrite.
Yes, of course, the problem with the last 10 years was that people didn't listen to a despot and Putin is a maniac. It's not even up for debate.
And you've got a PhD.
I'm quoting a study of a highly reputable university which probably put hundred times the effort in the research than you and me combined. I don't believe "think a little bit" is enough of a counter argument to be honest.
Especially since your argument is pretty weak from a logical standpoint, too. If I'm not mistaken, the infant mortality rate for Iraq was very high before the sanctions, too, and it didn't decrease after they were taken back. Maybe the families you're speaking about didn't get the help they needed before the sanctions were put into place either. After all, it was a pretty brutal regime and chances are that the poorest in the country belonged to the discriminated groups of people. And there are many more potential explations for it. They might all be true and it mgiht also be the case that none of them are. It's a difficult and complicated topic - that's what studies are for.
If you think that there have not been consequences on the US for meddling in the Middle East, you better take a closer look at the long list of Americans on the Veteran Affairs list struggling to make it back into civilian life. Even we in Canada have to work to treat our own veterans' mental health issues from the trauma of war and then resinserting them into civilian society. THAT is also a cost of war hitting us at home. Physical scars may not be there, but amputated souls are there and take far longer to heal.
Ever since you popped up in the other thread, you have shown to have zero undertsanding of the European context that explains why NATO became bigger since 1999. Tell me what the hell was that drunk Yeltsin even thinking by supporting Milosevic work and his genocidal when his predecessor Gorbachev was clever enough to abstain as Saddam was just becoming too much of a burden to support publicly in 1990-1991. And that is before we go on to discuss about Putin's warring methods from Chechnya up to now. Eastern European countries had plenty of reasons to join NATO because of the Yugoslavian wars and now have even more reasons to be more active into it because of the bald twat in the Kremlin. Once you taste freedom and the rule of law altogether, you don't want to let it go.
And for the 4,999,999th time, Ukraine is not a NATO member although they aspire to become one. Ukraine is more likely to become a member of the EU first and foremost, and that's the first big middle finger that the Kremlin deserves.
How small of a person you are. It's pathetic.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
not sure if this is the right thread but whatever
They wouldn't but of course, we saw what happened the last time a country in the USA's sphere tried to host missiles from another country.
That is not a consequence, certainly not of the kind being talked about here.
So the USA that dropped the Hiroshima bomb and the current USA are basically the same?
What a country did 70+ years ago (to a country that committed atrocities of their own) decides how we think about said country now? Even if most of the people in that country now weren’t even alive when the Hiroshima bomb was instructed/dropped (and was a last resort and aimed at net savings of lives)?
And Putins actions now are not so bad because of what another country did decades ago?
So, again, you do realize that Senior didn’t go it alone & what were these ‘b & b’ operations we were undertaking similar to the 91 invasion?
The only country who's been engaging in wars in the last decade is the USA, Afghanistan and Iraq should ring a bell. Then they decided to go all the way for the arab spring, reach syria and got fecked badly.
What a country did 70+ years ago should have been trialed, but the winners of the war dictate the rest I would say. Same for the second iraqi war, 1 million deaths, no-one sanctioned, do you think that is fair or right let's say?
Nobody is saying Putin's actions are good* but to take USA as a country to trust, unless there is gaz/petrol involved, I find this difficult to believe
That's probably one of the worst takes I've ever seen regarding the 1990 war. The 'Arab war' between Kuwait and Iraq....
Libya didn't involve all of NATO (and did include some non NATO). Yugoslavia was an exception and one I agree is outside of the remit of what NATO is supposed to do.
The oil in Saudi Arabia is under the control of Saudi Arabia. Only this week KSA and the UAE declared they wouldn't increase oil supply if the USA banned Russian imports. Unless you think that the US is also in control of OPEC, what you said just isn't true.
As for Ambassador Glaspie's involvement with Saddam - there is a load of evidence to suggest that the USA didn't think he would invade, hence her words. They were not setting a trap, which is what you seem to be implying.
Then why don't your provide your arguments behind the real reasons of intervention of USA back then? I'm willing to listen, I lived in the middle-east for 29 years, so I am all ears...
Sanctions are generally actions taken at the national level. So countries that were not part of 'the west' or involved in the second Iraq war were free to sanction those who were. They didn't. Makes you wonder.
Just to show how ridiculous this conversation is, it's the Japanese of all people that now want American nuclear forces stationed in their country. Things change throughout time and bothsidesism only serves Putin's propaganda at the end of the day.
It’s as if some don’t realize the calculus changes over time.
It's pretty much impossible to sanction 'the West', such is its economic dominance over the world economy.
How would a country like Indonesia or Gabon go about sanctioning the USA?
No it isn't. A country can enforce sanctions on another any time it wants.
What might be impossible is for sanctions to have a noticable impact on the west, for the reasons you've indicated. Nevertheless, there have been quite a few posts lately across the forums asking why the west wasn't sanctioned during the second Iraq war. That's either a question for those countries who were not involved or it's a poor attempt at rhetoric.
Numbers published by Dyson and Cetorelli are based on numbers collected by the workers working in assitance with the new iraqi government, I have no doubt these numbers are also manipulated. I worked in two children hospitals and I saw these numbers in practice.
Last edited:
Cant take this as a serious post. You think soldiers dying and having ruined lives are the consequences I’m talking about? Time to remove the sanctions then because plenty of Russian soldiers have died.
Ridiculous post.
Your problem is that you know jack shit about History and you have no respect about the fact that casualties hit everywhere in different ways. I don't know where in Asia you come from and I don't give a shit, but you seem to enjoy kissing ass to China and Russia just to crap on the West from the looks of it. Well, I have news for you: both countries and their sycophants worldwide can go feck themselves as they are now.
And what the feck are you even doing on a Manchester United fan forum? Take that crap to an Arsenal fan forum.
Last edited:
Monroe Doctrine was a United States foreign policy position that opposed European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the U.S. The doctrine was central to U.S. foreign policy for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Ronald Reagan even cited it to justify intervention in El Salvador and Nicaragua.
Yet US intervention all over the world in spheres of influence belonging to other countries is expected to be tolerated and accepted? Whether people like it or not there is a world order and there are spheres of influence where transgression is treated as a hostile act. What works for the US also works for other great powers.
The strawman doesn’t change the fact that it was a ridiculous post.
Strawman, my arse. You are a despicable person to begin with.
The fact that you keep resorting to insults seems to suggest that you are the same. Can we be friends then? Go for a sing and a song and maybe a dance after.
There was a deadly war before the sanctions. The Iran war, one that was largely driven by the US... And there was another war waged on the Iraqi people by the US(& some allies) after those sanctions were lifted. Both wars would be likely to contribute not only to deaths but also to malnutrition and medical shortages nearly as serious as the sanctions.
Any serious study into the sanctions' impact can't be solely based in such comparisons.
This video nicely sums up the arguments I’ve been trying to make. People familiar with the source would realize that it’s about as independent as you can get.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That was before the shitshow called the Kosovo genocide, committed by a government that was supported by Russia diplomatically. Can anybody honestly blame Eastern European countries for joining NATO and meeting the criteria to become full members after they saw Russia not changing one bit? From an European context, Russia's support for Milosevic is a self-inflicted wound that has led Europe further away from Russian influence in both military and economic fronts.
Funny they're not willing to admit the same right now.
The world was inherently different in 1997.
A lot has happened since then.
Funny that the tweet is from 'In Context' yet no context is supplied.
If expanding NATO in 1997 when Russia was at its weakest was already known to be provocation then what does that say about doing it today when Russia has recovered?The world was inherently different in 1997.
A lot has happened since then.
Funny that the tweet is from 'In Context' yet no context is supplied.
That the world has moved on from the Soviet, but Russia hasn't?
But the world clearly hasn’t moved on has it? The anti soviet pact NATO has just kept growing since the Soviet Union ended.
Quoting an establishment supporting, bigoted, beer-gutted, fake-liberal, breeder jerk no longer worth talking about? Really?