Geopolitics

[GlastonSpur]

Simply isn't true. We're on the side of freedom and democracy in Yemen, are we? Thought so.

Freedom and democracy has never existed in Yemen nor any of the nations attacking Yemen. So, apart from your classic "what aboutism", who knows what your point is.

China + Russia + North Korea + Syria + Byelorussia + Cuba + Venezuela + numerous ex-Soviet states in central Asia + elsewhere. Plus authoritarian leaders currently in power in the Philippines, Brazil, India and elsewhere.

Full democracies comprise only 6.4% of the global population. So yes, I'd say democracy and freedom is engaged in an existential and global fight for survival.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Freedom and democracy has never existed in Yemen nor any of the nations attacking Yemen. So, apart from your classic "what aboutism", who knows what your point is.

China + Russia + North Korea + Syria + Byelorussia + Cuba + Venezuela + numerous ex-Soviet states in central Asia + elsewhere. Plus authoritarian leaders currently in power in the Philippines, Brazil, India and elsewhere.

Full democracies comprise only 6.4% of the global population. So yes, I'd say democracy and freedom is engaged in an existential and global fight for survival.

The point is simple. The US/West does not wage war to protect democracies. It hasn't happened once in history insofar as I can tell. Any democracy/freedom dichotomy will be an effect (and mostly chimerical) rather than cause and possess about as much intelligence as "freedom fries" in 2003 (that one was for democracy, too, remember?).

It's a joke to frame it like that (you're talking about the need for EU countries to go to war with China ).


Regarding Yemen, the point is also simple. The US/UK/NATO directly funds genocide. The US has just given the Saudis its Patriot missile system which they need after the Houthis have had some success following the death of 400 thousand people over eight years. We're directly on the side of autocracy for the sake of self-interest and profit and have been a million times before, often at the expense of democracy, so framing this situation (having to engage China) as an existential threat to western democratic values is absurd.

 

[GlastonSpur]

The point is simple. The US/West does not wage war to protect democracies. It hasn't happened once in history insofar as I can tell. Any democracy/freedom dichotomy will be an effect (and mostly chimerical) rather than cause and possess about as much intelligence as "freedom fries" in 2003 (that one was for democracy, too, remember?).

It's a joke to frame it like that (you're talking about the need for EU countries to go to war with China ).


Regarding Yemen, the point is also simple. The US/UK/NATO directly funds genocide. The US has just given the Saudis its Patriot missile system which they need after the Houthis have had some success following the death of 400 thousand people over eight years. We're directly on the side of autocracy for the sake of self-interest and profit and have been a million times before, often at the expense of democracy, so framing this situation (having to engage China) as an existential threat to western democratic values is absurd.

I guess WWII escaped your attention ... like much else it seems.

Your frequent attempts in this thread to paint a moral equivalence between the democracies of this world and the likes of China and Russia is frankly sickening.

Your claim that the likes of China and Russia do not pose an existential threat to freedom and democracy flies in the face of reality. If you haven't seen it I suggest you watch a fairly recent BBC Panorama report principally focused on China, called Are You Scared Yet?

I also suggest you drop the fashionable cynicism and get real.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

I guess WWII escaped your attention ... like much else it seems.

Your frequent attempts in this thread to paint a moral equivalence between the democracies of this world and the likes of China and Russia is frankly sickening.

Your claim that the likes of China and Russia do not pose an existential threat to freedom and democracy flies in the face of reality. If you haven't seen it I suggest you watch a fairly recent BBC Panorama report principally focused on China, called Are You Scared Yet?

I also suggest you drop the fashionable cynicism and get real.

He's indeed another who should be put on the ignore list if it wasn't for his status as staff member.

Having been part in demonstrations against dictatorships before, people who show up to "support" such dictatorship are the first being yelled to feck off from our country if they love supporting autocracies through whataboutism.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I guess WWII escaped your attention ... like much else it seems.

Your frequent attempts in this thread to paint a moral equivalence between the democracies of this world and the likes of China and Russia is frankly sickening.

Your claim that the likes of China and Russia do not pose an existential threat to freedom and democracy flies in the face of reality. If you haven't seen it I suggest you watch a fairly recent BBC Panorama report principally focused on China, called Are You Scared Yet?

I also suggest you drop the fashionable cynicism and get real.

WWII had nothing to do with democracy. Or are you saying the British and French Empires went to war for reasons of altruism? and the US stood, intelligently, aside until it was attacked responded out of idealism? Don't think so.

The West has unfortunately been far worse than Russia and China combined over the past century in terms of external aggression, which is what counts when you talk about existential threat. The US alone has overthrown more governments since 1945 than Russia/USSR and China have in the entirety of their collective existence.

He's indeed another who should be put on the ignore list if it wasn't for his status as staff member.

I thought I did have you on ignore (I was trying hard to ignore the gun fetishists a while back and have you down as one of those "freedom fries" types, could be wrong though).

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I also suggest you drop the fashionable cynicism and get real.

You've reinvented yourself as a real-life version of that madman who rides an atomic bomb in Strangelove. And you're not alone, there's a lot of it about.

 

[GlastonSpur]

WWII had nothing to do with democracy. Or are you saying the British and French Empires went to war for reasons of altruism? and the US stood, intelligently, aside until it was attacked responded out of idealism? Don't think so.

The West has unfortunately been far worse than Russia and China combined over the past century in terms of external aggression, which is what counts when you talk about existential threat. The US alone has overthrown more governments since 1945 than Russia/USSR and China have in the entirety of their collective existence.


I thought I did have you on ignore (I was trying hard to ignore the gun fetishists a while back and have you down as one of those "freedom fries" types, could be wrong though).

So the fight against a fascist dictator in Germany, who imposed fascism across most of mainland Europe, and then sought to conquer the only remaining free and democratic nation (Britain) in Europe had "nothing to do with democracy"? Christ almighty ... I'm done responding further to such wilful idiocy.

 

[Carolina Red]

the US stood, intelligently, aside until it was attacked

I hope you’ll also acknowledge that the same thing can be said about the Soviet Union.

In the meantime, the UK and (for a short time) France were fighting Fascist dictatorships with supplies from the US.

 

[hasanejaz88]

So the fight against a fascist dictator in Germany, who imposed fascism across most of mainland Europe, and then sought to conquer the only remaining free and democratic nation (Britain) in Europe had "nothing to do with democracy"? Christ almighty ... I'm done responding further to such wilful idiocy.

Britian would not have attacked Germany had they not gone into Poland (they had already given him Czeckslovakia). Had Hitler remained in Germany and not ventured out, I don't think Britain/France etc would have done anything no matter how facist he became.

And let's not forget the US only came into the war after it had been attacked by Japan, before that I don't think there were any indications of them being willing to enter the war.

You're world view is really naive, to think that the US and NATO are only here in the world to 'fight for the existential survival of democracy' while having a well known history of:

1) Overthrowing a democratically elected leader of Iran, because he was a leftie and wanted to nationalize oil, and inserting a western friendly Shah who ruled authoritatively for the next 2 decades.

2) Provide weapons to Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran, which he initiated by invading Iran, eventhough they knew he was using them against his own people as well (France have him know how on how to create chemical weapons as well).

3) Provide weapons to Saudi Arabia, who are probably the most authoritarian regime in the world right now.

Countless not examples of similar actions in Central/South American. So yeh, spare us the soapy image of the US being the angelic supporters of democracy around the world.

 

[Carolina Red]

Britian would not have attacked Germany had they not gone into Poland

But Germany did, and Britain did. So here we are.

And let's not forget the US only came into the war after it had been attacked by Japan, before that I don't think there were any indications of them being willing to enter the war.

If you ignore all the arms shipments to Britain and the (at the time) ongoing undeclared naval war against German U-boats, then sure.

 

[Superden]

So the fight against a fascist dictator in Germany, who imposed fascism across most of mainland Europe, and then sought to conquer the only remaining free and democratic nation (Britain) in Europe had "nothing to do with democracy"? Christ almighty ... I'm done responding further to such wilful idiocy.

And the railways..don't forget we gave them all railways.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

So the fight against a fascist dictator in Germany, who imposed fascism across most of mainland Europe, and then sought to conquer the only remaining free and democratic nation (Britain) in Europe had "nothing to do with democracy"? Christ almighty ... I'm done responding further to such wilful idiocy.

You're calling the British Empire "free" and "democratic". Didn't many million Indians die due to famine (one particularly bad famine during the war, too, which Churchill wouldn't let the navy help with)? See, it was democratic internally but a murderous string of dictatorial administrations externally. And it clearly did not fight wars for anything except self-interest. Definitely not for democracy.

If you ignore all the arms shipments to Britain and the (at the time) ongoing undeclared naval war against German U-boats, then sure.

They only gave arms after the UK had given them bases (lend-lease, as you'll know). The Americans played their own interest very well (profiting by doing business with the Nazis, directly, too). Also, the USSR had been sounding the alarm about Hitler since the early 30s when it was the "in thing" to have large marches and do Nazi salutes in New York and London.

 

[Carolina Red]

They only gave arms after the UK had given them bases (lend-lease, as you'll know). The Americans played their own interest very well (profiting by doing business with the Nazis, directly, too). Also, the USSR had been sounding the alarm about Hitler since the early 30s when it was the "in thing" to have large marches and do Nazi salutes in New York and London.

And yet the USSR signed the M-R Pact and refrained from joining the war until they were invaded. In the meantime, the US Navy was sinking German U-boats in the Atlantic.

Spare me. Spare all of us, actually.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Britian would not have attacked Germany had they not gone into Poland (they had already given him Czeckslovakia). Had Hitler remained in Germany and not ventured out, I don't think Britain/France etc would have done anything no matter how facist he became.

And let's not forget the US only came into the war after it had been attacked by Japan, before that I don't think there were any indications of them being willing to enter the war.

You're world view is really naive, to think that the US and NATO are only here in the world to 'fight for the existential survival of democracy' while having a well known history of:

1) Overthrowing a democratically elected leader of Iran, because he was a leftie and wanted to nationalize oil, and inserting a western friendly Shah who ruled authoritatively for the next 2 decades.

2) Provide weapons to Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran, which he initiated by invading Iran, eventhough they knew he was using them against his own people as well (France have him know how on how to create chemical weapons as well).

3) Provide weapons to Saudi Arabia, who are probably the most authoritarian regime in the world right now.

Countless not examples of similar actions in Central/South American. So yeh, spare us the soapy image of the US being the angelic supporters of democracy around the world.

First, Britain did not "give" Czechoslovakia to Hitler. He took it ... and it was not Britain's to give or not give. As for "Had Hitler remained in Germany and not ventured out, I don't think Britain/France etc would have done anything no matter how facist he became" ... if my aunt had balls she might have been my uncle, but she didn't and she wasn't.

Second, I have not said that "US and NATO are only here in the world to 'fight for the existential survival of democracy'". All nations and systems have their flaws. But as Churchill said, democracy is the least worst system available. And if democracy is to survive, bearing in mind that only 6.4% of the global population live in fully democratic nations, then NATO, Europe and America are essential bulwarks for that survival.

So tell me, if the UK, Europe, the USA and all other democracies are so bad, then which countries and political systems are better? Or are you going to come up with some drivel about how all countries and systems are equally morally reprehensible?

 

[entropy]

the US stood, intelligently, aside until it was attacked

Let’s also not forgot a lot of US businesses were more than happy to do business with the nazis during this time.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

And yet the USSR signed the M-R Pact and refrained from joining the war until they were invaded. In the meantime, the US Navy was sinking German U-boats in the Atlantic.

Spare me. Spare all of us, actually.

Yes, out of necessity in the end. But my argument is that there were few good guys in that war and democracy/freedom was not a motivating factor for any of the major players. That's so obviously true that I will spare myself the insanity of trying to reprove it to people who can't see it.

 

[entropy]

So the fight against a fascist dictator in Germany, who imposed fascism across most of mainland Europe, and then sought to conquer the only remaining free and democratic nation (Britain) in Europe had "nothing to do with democracy"? Christ almighty ... I'm done responding further to such wilful idiocy.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Let’s also not forgot a lot of US businesses were more than happy to do business with the nazis during this time.

There was a significant nazi element in the US. A plot to overthrow FDR, too. Also, massive pro-nazi marches. The nazis took a lot of inspiration from the US in terms of eugenics, as well. Also England.

 

[Carolina Red]

Yes, out of necessity in the end. But my argument is that there were few good guys in that war and democracy/freedom was not a motivating factor for any of the major players. That's so obviously true that I will spare myself the insanity of trying to reprove it to people who can't see it.

Yes, we get it. Everybody sucks.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Yes, we get it. Everybody sucks.

No, not everyone. Some are exceptional and only murder people for freedom and democracy. You can't question those guys or people get angry and feign disbelief

 

[entropy]

There was a significant nazi element in the US. A plot to overthrow FDR, too. Also, massive pro-nazi marches. The nazis took a lot of inspiration from the US in terms of eugenics, as well. Also England.

You’re right. They were obsessed with the American model and tried to emulate it on multiple levels

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hitlers-american-model

 

[GlastonSpur]

You're calling the British Empire "free" and "democratic". Didn't many million Indians die due to famine (one particular bad famine during the war, too, which Churchill wouldn't let the navy help with)? See, it was democratic internally but a murderous string of dictatorial administrations externally. And it clearly did not fight wars for anything except self-interest. Definitely not for democracy.

Every country has its flaws and failings. But it also has its virtues. For example, the only reason that some semblance of democracy exists today in India is precisely because it was part of the British Empire.

Why don't you try living in Putin's Russia - or in China - and put to to test your fond imaginings that these countries are just as free and democratic as the West?

But you won't, of course, because you enjoy the freedom of expression that doesn't exist in those places. So instead, you push your fake "moral equivalences" whilst using your freedom to endlessly bash the political systems and nations that protect those freedoms. In short, you're a hypocrite.

 

[hasanejaz88]

But Germany did, and Britain did. So here we are.

If you ignore all the arms shipments to Britain and the (at the time) ongoing undeclared naval war against German U-boats, then sure.

But then it wasn't against fascism but rather because Hitler was invading countries in Europe. Saying the war was purely against fascism is a bit incorrect then as the war would have started earlier when Hitler implemented fascist policies.

Also, it would be a bit rich for Britain to be going over branding themselves as defenders of freedom all the while forcedly holding on to India (and numerous over colonies).

 

[Carolina Red]

No, not everyone. Some are exceptional and only murder people for freedom and democracy. You can't question those guys or people get angry and feign disbelief

No, if there’s one thing you’ve taught us all since Russia invaded Ukraine, it is that we are all “the baddies”.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Why don't you try living in Putin's Russia - or in China - and put to to test your fond imaginings that these countries are just as free and democratic as the West?

But you won't, of course, because you enjoy the freedom of expression that doesn't exist in those places. So instead, you push your fake "moral equivalences" whilst using your freedom to endlessly bash the political systems and nations that protect those freedoms. In short, you're a hypocrite.

The premise was: Glastonspur (and others) contends that the US and EU want to, or else do, start wars for democracy and freedom.
This is clearly nonsense.
Premise made to seem as ridiculous as it evidently is, poster and others throw a tantrum and talk about other things that are less relevant to their mystical image of the West as "holy".

Seems about right based on experiences so far.

You’re right. They were obsessed with the American model and tried to emulate it on multiple levels

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hitlers-american-model

yep

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

No, if there’s one thing you’ve taught us all since Russia invaded Ukraine, it is that we are all “the baddies”.

The US and EU are war criminals, many times over, yes. That's a matter of historical record. What Russia is doing is a war crime to my mind. See? I don't need a mythical ideal of one to condemn the other. I'll leave it there.

 

[Carolina Red]

The US and EU are war criminals, many times over, yes. That's a matter of historical record. What Russia is doing is a war crime to my mind. See? I don't need a mythical ideal of one to condemn the other. I'll leave it there.

I’m skeptical.

 

[GlastonSpur]

The premise was: Glastonspur (and others) contends that the US and EU want to, or else do, start wars for democracy and freedom.
This is clearly nonsense.

Britain declared war on Germany after Hitler's army invaded Poland and thus made it clear that he wouldn't stop after his previous aggression. We did so to fight against fascism - i.e. to stand up for freedom. So clearly not nonsense.

Russia, on the other hand, the country that you apparently think is no worse than the West, only declared war on Germany after Germany attacked them - and until then was in partnership with fascism.

You are a muddle-headed hypocrite.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I’m skeptical.

The petty personal name calling, not the topic. (Leave it here [with you, on this personal trend, especially]).

Britain declared war on Germany after Hitler's army invaded Poland and thus made it clear that he wouldn't stop after his previous aggression. We did so to fight against fascism - i.e. to stand up for freedom. So clearly not nonsense.

Russia, on the other hand, the country that you apparently think is no worse than the West, only declared war on Germany after Germany attacked them - and until then was in partnership with fascism.

You are a muddle-headed hypocrite.

[personal part redacted, I'll let you maintain the trademark on that score]

We had red lines before Poland, by the way, it was to save face that they declared war not because they cared about Poland (who they sold out to the Soviets in the end anyway )

I've called Russia a war criminal society steeped in autocracy. How is that better than the West? The distnction is that Russia is far worse internally but because of its limited capacity is far better externally. Same with China. The last fifty or hundred years of wars and numbers of dead proves the point beyond all subjective reasoning.

No war has been declared, by the US/UK/NATO, for freedom. It may be advertised as that to naive people, but no sane country goes around the world overthrowing democracies (or supporting autocracies, or doing the inverse) in the name of freedom. It's great power politics and dominance and self-interest. That's how it is. Every country involved in war has been involved in this to some degree and the largest countries are obviously involved in it far more often.

 

[Carolina Red]

The petty personal name calling, not the topic.

I’m going to assume you’ve never seen the Mitchell and Webb “are we the baddies” skit, if you think what I did was personal name calling.

 

[frostbite]

The point is simple. The US/West does not wage war to protect democracies. It hasn't happened once in history insofar as I can tell. Any democracy/freedom dichotomy will be an effect (and mostly chimerical) rather than cause and possess about as much intelligence as "freedom fries" in 2003 (that one was for democracy, too, remember?).

It's a joke to frame it like that (you're talking about the need for EU countries to go to war with China ).


Regarding Yemen, the point is also simple. The US/UK/NATO directly funds genocide. The US has just given the Saudis its Patriot missile system which they need after the Houthis have had some success following the death of 400 thousand people over eight years. We're directly on the side of autocracy for the sake of self-interest and profit and have been a million times before, often at the expense of democracy, so framing this situation (having to engage China) as an existential threat to western democratic values is absurd.

In Yemen, the other side is Iran. It is the Saudis vs Iran. Do you think that Iran is for "freedom and democracy"?

 

[frostbite]

The West helped South Korea, and they have a good democracy.

The West is not perfect. But what is the alternative? What did the alternative achieve? Answer: North Korea.

I definitely prefer the West and South Korea to the alternative with North Korea.


To all those who don't like the West: Please show us a better alternative. (An existing better alternative, not Star Trek.)

 

[frostbite]

And it is a lie to say that the West never helped Democracy.

Do you think that the Baltic countries would exist today if they were not in NATO? What about Croatia and Bosnia? They have had peace for the last 20 years, only because there are no dreams for a "Great Serbia" any more, thanks to the West. What about Taiwan? Taiwan survives only because the West supports it. Is Taiwan going to improve if the West abandons it?

In reality, the West lost a lot of times. The West lost in Vietnam, they lost in Cuba, they lost in Somalia, they lost in Afghanistan, they gave up Hong Kong. What did the winners achieve in those countries? Is their population free now? Did they develop a better democracy?

 

[groovyalbert]

The US and EU are war criminals, many times over, yes. That's a matter of historical record. What Russia is doing is a war crime to my mind. See? I don't need a mythical ideal of one to condemn the other. I'll leave it there.

Do you think the levels Russia has escalated to in anyway come close to what the US and EU (and the UK) would now stretch to in times of conflict though?

Have to say that given the current state of affairs in Ukraine - and the news coming out of Bucha - this thread is growing more and more tone deaf by the minute. I had assumed posters had tuned out once Russia's escalation and war crimes clearly surpassed anything we've likely seen in living history (Agent Orange aside imo).

Your points are valid in a time of peace, but we are now clearly dealing with the most dangerous and active dictator since the mid-20th century. There is little room for nuance in his actions, and the black and white nature of this conflict is unnervingly stark and surpasses anything currently going on.

One thing that is worth noting on the point of democracy however is the acceptable level of response to conflicts waged by the democratic West by the aggressors citizens. There is almost always mass and public displays of disapproval to these conflicts which go without punishment, and eventually you have a system that will judge it's leaders and governments by said public. No war waging democratic leader survives for long (compared to Putin's current leadership). Try finding the grounds for this in virtually any warmongering state actively opposing the West currently.

I know this isn't something you're arguing against, and I agree it's through rose tinted glasses to argue the West fights it's wars with a noble pro-democratic vision in mind, but however it manifests, there's a system to judge a government's actions where democracy is present. It's hard to see a system of governance that replicates this within the current oppositional states to the West.

What's more, for those referring back to 17-19th century imperialism and the barbarous actions taken there (stretched into 20th century in India), the only state currently looking to expand via those means and with that level of disregard for human life is Russia. If you're anti-colonialist (as I would claim to be), then Russia should surely be your number one current main concern.

 

[africanspur]

Every country has its flaws and failings. But it also has its virtues. For example, the only reason that some semblance of democracy exists today in India is precisely because it was part of the British Empire.

Don't forget about the railways!! How would those Indians have ever figured out how to build /buy railways if it wasn't for those altruistic Brits just trying to spread peace, love and democracy around the world?

 

[Smores]

Britain declared war on Germany after Hitler's army invaded Poland and thus made it clear that he wouldn't stop after his previous aggression. We did so to fight against fascism - i.e. to stand up for freedom. So clearly not nonsense.

Russia, on the other hand, the country that you apparently think is no worse than the West, only declared war on Germany after Germany attacked them - and until then was in partnership with fascism.

You are a muddle-headed hypocrite.

WW2 was absolutely nothing to do with democracy or fighting fascism as a model of government, you're wrong and incredibly rude whilst being so. We were still slicing up territory at this point allowing nay supporting fascist dictators annexation across the world.

It was solely about territorial integrity and the balance of power in europe, largely fear of germany.

I think this thread could do without US style bumper sticker level opinions of war.

 

[africanspur]

Then I'd suggest you wake up and smell the coffee, China supports Russia. Authoritarian leaders around the world - in Brazil, North Korea, Cuba, Byelorussia, Syria and elsewhere - support Russia.

Moreover, if China were to invade Taiwan then of course European nations will get involved - in defence of freedom and democracy. The UK, France, Italy and Spain have a combined 6 aircraft carriers for starters - that's 3 times more than what China has.

And I would suggest you remove yourself from this quasi fairytale thinking. A European country has invaded another and is committing atrocities there. The other country is being supported with weapons by other European countries, as well as North American countries. Sanctions are in place from Europe, North America, English speaking Australasia and 4 close Asian allies of the West (Singapore, SK, Taiwan, Singapore). That's it.

Much of the rest of the world, democratic or otherwise, either (rightly) condemns or mostly stays out of a conflict they see as ultimately not that much different from previous ones.

And do those countries have experience fighting with their aircraft carriers against an enemy that can actually fight back? Do they have the capability to defend the carriers in hostile territorial waters? Why would China need lots of carriers in a fight literally right on their doorstep? The whole point of them is to project power afar, not to fight in your backyard.

One wonders why, in defence of democracy and decency, we don't all recognise Taiwan as a country and cut ties with China? A much easier step to take than sailing carriers halfway round the world against a nuclear armed superpower.

 

[Pintu]

In Yemen, the other side is Iran. It is the Saudis vs Iran. Do you think that Iran is for "freedom and democracy"?

Saudi's will to control Yemen precede any involvement by Iran. What you are saying about the Yemenis resisting Saudi Arabia is just like telling the Ukrainians that they are in fact fighting for the US and they themselves have zero interest in resisting the Russian invaders.

It doesn't matter how horrible the Houthis are and it shouldn't matter they are taking arms from the only country in the world willing to arm them (in this case Iran), they are still Yemenis and they represent an important part of that population, unwilling to cave for the Saudi regime.

 

[Pintu]

Two very debatable points, all things considered. But probably also best left for the geopolitics thread.

On paper at least the two points are holding. While it certainly overstepped its mandate in Kosovo and Libya, the initial interventions were legitimate. The questions I am bound to ask myself when assessing whether we should join NATO do not relate to the history of NATO, but rather to its future.

NATO is currently an alliance of mostly "good guys". And joining it with Finland will only increase the number of "Peaceful good guys" voices inside the alliance. With more of us inside the alliance, the next Cameroon-Sarkozy to lead an eventual intervention in another Libya would be less likely to abuse the UN given mandate.

Regarding the US foreign policy, it's a 2-way street. Having more "peace striving law-abiding" EU countries in NATO can only influence the US positively.

 

[frostbite]

Saudi's will to control Yemen precede any involvement by Iran. What you are saying about the Yemenis resisting Saudi Arabia is just like telling the Ukrainians that they are in fact fighting for the US and they themselves have zero interest in resisting the Russian invaders.

It doesn't matter how horrible the Houthis are and it shouldn't matter they are taking arms from the only country in the world willing to arm them (in this case Iran), they are still Yemenis and they represent an important part of that population, unwilling to cave for the Saudi regime.

I can't see any similarities at all.

Ukraine is a European democratic country that wants to join EU and NATO. Naturally, EU and NATO want to help them.

Yemenis were not democratic, they wanted saria law. Which is the opposite of democracy. Why would EU and NATO support them against Saudi Arabia? It doesn't make sense.

I don't understand why some people keep bringing Yemen into these discussions. Why don't the Middle East countries resolve these problems? The EU and NATO have absolutely nothing to do with this! Why don't you all complain that the Middle East countries don't do anything? Or perhaps UN.