From the guy's own mouth.

    • tripartitegraph [comrade/them]
      ·
      10 months ago

      Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked.

      Yugoslavia and Libya would probably beg to differ.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow.

      But they usually always do, because of the implication...

      You are aware that the US and UK were not the only countries to deploy troops to Iraq (not Iran, as you mistakenly claim). There was a whole NATO training operation involving 13 NATO member states. 20 of the current 31 NATO members had some form of troop deployment in Iraq between 2003 and 2011.

      Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this

      I am not American, and it's quite clear the US does use it's military might when it needs to, to dictate the order of the world, and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Precisely because their sovereignty is curtailed due to being US vassal states. Of which NATO membership is a key part. This includes actions against the EU. Unless you want to argue that the nordstream gas pipelines just spontaneously combusted.