But Russia is in the wrong for thinking NATO existing next to them is a threat.
Why is it OK when you say it but bad when they do? If you're encouraging others to put themselves in your shoes ("you had to be there"), why can't you put yourself in Russia's shoes and see how they could reasonably perceive NATO as a threat?
I'm not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat. I'm saying that what Russia is doing and how it's behaving, and how it talks publically is a threat.
But I do understand how NATO might be viewed as a threat to some nations or world leaders. I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
If Libya didn't want us to drag their popular leader through the streets and humiliate him before assassinating him, completely destabilizing the country and establishing open air slave markets, they should've thought twice before supporting a misogynist.
I'm not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat.
That's exactly what you said, although you said it about the USSR, which was even more absurd.
I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
So clever to fall back on the "well if I did do it, they deserved it" defense.
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you'd say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
I don't think I was being very clever there, but I'll take it!
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you’d say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
Gaddafi's Libya didn't seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic. I think we also have to note that that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed. So not really a NATO operation exclusively.
Libya went from bad to worse as a consequence though, about that you're not wrong.
Gaddafi's Libya didn't seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic.
That's the point: your "well they deserved it" excuse is nonsense. Taking your arbitrary definition of "bad" countries at face value, all NATO interventions have done is make situations worse. Its actions are much more consistent with destroying regional economic competitors than with any sort of good faith effort to help anyone.
And all that is setting aside how the U.S. and its allies have destroyed any "liberal, free, non-oppressive" countries that don't adequately toe the U.S. line (see Indonesia and Chile, among others). The countries that remain have to choose between being subservient to the U.S. (to varying degrees) or becoming the type of state liberals like you deem deserving of wholesale destruction.
that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed
Russia, China, and three other states abstained, and only NATO countries actually dropped bombs.
I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Liberal, free, non-oppreasive, democratic nations that oppose Western neocolonial interests tend to get coup'ed by the CIA and replaced with pro-Western fascists. Countries that do survive, like for instance Cuba, have their name dragged through the mud by an enormous propaganda machine - which also whitewashes or conveniently forgets the crushing of the leftist projects that don't survive.
There are countless examples throughout history, but my go-to is Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran, in the 50's. No doubt the line will be that "that was a long time ago so it doesn't count," but the CIA covered up their involvement for decades, and if I picked a more modern example you'd likely either deny involvement or say that the government deserved it.
Iran suffered under British colonialism for decades. In the 1800's, the shahs signed all sorts of deals selling out the country at absurdly bad rates and no expiration, to fund their exorbitant lifestyles. A large scale popular movement ousted them, but the agreements remained, and a new dynasty took power with British support, and the exploitation continued. Britain secured enormous profit and wealth through Iranian oil while falsifying records to pay virtually nothing for it while the Iranians lived in abject poverty. For decades the Iranians sought a diplomatic resolution and we're completely stonewalled.
Finally, another popular movement caused the shah to appoint Mossadegh as PM (a position that had previously been hand-picked by the British). Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry to enormous popular support, but the British responded with a blockade, and offered Eisenhower support in Korea and in forming NATO in exchange for having the CIA oust Mossadegh (an offer Truman had dismissed in disgust, as this was the first case of CIA involvement of regime change).
Mossadegh, like many Iranians at the time, saw their struggle as being only against the British and trusted the US to uphold the values it preached and saw it as a potential friend. The CIA took over every newspaper in the country and started publishing anti-government propaganda nonstop. They hired false flag protesters, who claimed to support the government and then wrecked shit (as well as hiring protesters to march against the government). Politicians, vote counters, religious leaders, journalists, anyone with an ounce of power was getting bribed by the CIA. Mossadegh believed that these were genuine and legitimate expressions of dissent and did nothing to crack down. Finally, a US diplomat told him a made-up sob story about people at the embassy getting death threats from his supporters and threatened to close it, and Mossadegh got on the radio and told his supporters to stand down and stay home - the next day, the CIA launched a coup that ousted him from power.
What followed was the restoration of the shah's power, which included hunting down leftists with secret police, banning traditional religious garb to make the country appear more Western, and of course the continued exploitation of Iranian oil, the proceeds of which went straight to the king's bank account. When the Iranian Revolution of 1973 happened, decade of political repression of the left allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to be the ones that took power, and the US allowed the shah to flee there which outraged the Iranians, considering that he had previously been installed by them.
I could tell you the same story over and over again about countries all around the globe. Many nations had resources stolen from them via violence and colonialism and these resources remain in the hands of the people who took them, and anyone who attempts to reassert control over their own resources is putting themselves in the crosshairs of the the US and NATO, whether through sanctions, seizing assets, CIA backed coups, or overt military aggression. But all they have to do is cover up the truth or present a bullshit justification, and by the time it falls apart it'll be too late to do anything about it, it'll have faded from the public consciousness, and people will assert, without reason or evidence, that "they don't do that anymore" dispite having clear means and motive to and never having faced any sort of punishment for it. Meanwhile the historical examples can continue to be used to intimidate countries outside of the imperial core who don't have goldfish memories, and understand that they could be next. So they either comply with neocolonial exploitation, or they take measures to prevent CIA infiltration, which then gets them derided as "authoritarian" by people like you - and if they do neither of these things, then they get coup'ed and replaced by a fascist.
I guess you had to be there.
Think about what you're saying.
Why is it OK when you say it but bad when they do? If you're encouraging others to put themselves in your shoes ("you had to be there"), why can't you put yourself in Russia's shoes and see how they could reasonably perceive NATO as a threat?
I'm not actually saying that Russia just existing close to us is a threat. I'm saying that what Russia is doing and how it's behaving, and how it talks publically is a threat.
But I do understand how NATO might be viewed as a threat to some nations or world leaders. I don't immediately remember any particurarily good (liberal, free, non-oppressive, democratic) nations that NATO poses a risk to, however. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Removed by mod
If Libya didn't want us to drag their popular leader through the streets and humiliate him before assassinating him, completely destabilizing the country and establishing open air slave markets, they should've thought twice before supporting a misogynist.
That's exactly what you said, although you said it about the USSR, which was even more absurd.
So clever to fall back on the "well if I did do it, they deserved it" defense.
Do you think the people of Libya, a country you'd say deserved it, prefer their country after the NATO attack on it? They went from one of the highest (if not the highest) living standards on the continent to a decade of civil war and open-air slave markets.
I don't think I was being very clever there, but I'll take it!
Gaddafi's Libya didn't seem to fit any of liberal, free, non-oppressive or democratic. I think we also have to note that that intervention was based on a UN Security Council resolution, which no member (not even Russia or China) opposed. So not really a NATO operation exclusively.
Libya went from bad to worse as a consequence though, about that you're not wrong.
That's the point: your "well they deserved it" excuse is nonsense. Taking your arbitrary definition of "bad" countries at face value, all NATO interventions have done is make situations worse. Its actions are much more consistent with destroying regional economic competitors than with any sort of good faith effort to help anyone.
And all that is setting aside how the U.S. and its allies have destroyed any "liberal, free, non-oppressive" countries that don't adequately toe the U.S. line (see Indonesia and Chile, among others). The countries that remain have to choose between being subservient to the U.S. (to varying degrees) or becoming the type of state liberals like you deem deserving of wholesale destruction.
Russia, China, and three other states abstained, and only NATO countries actually dropped bombs.
Liberal, free, non-oppreasive, democratic nations that oppose Western neocolonial interests tend to get coup'ed by the CIA and replaced with pro-Western fascists. Countries that do survive, like for instance Cuba, have their name dragged through the mud by an enormous propaganda machine - which also whitewashes or conveniently forgets the crushing of the leftist projects that don't survive.
There are countless examples throughout history, but my go-to is Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran, in the 50's. No doubt the line will be that "that was a long time ago so it doesn't count," but the CIA covered up their involvement for decades, and if I picked a more modern example you'd likely either deny involvement or say that the government deserved it.
Iran suffered under British colonialism for decades. In the 1800's, the shahs signed all sorts of deals selling out the country at absurdly bad rates and no expiration, to fund their exorbitant lifestyles. A large scale popular movement ousted them, but the agreements remained, and a new dynasty took power with British support, and the exploitation continued. Britain secured enormous profit and wealth through Iranian oil while falsifying records to pay virtually nothing for it while the Iranians lived in abject poverty. For decades the Iranians sought a diplomatic resolution and we're completely stonewalled.
Finally, another popular movement caused the shah to appoint Mossadegh as PM (a position that had previously been hand-picked by the British). Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry to enormous popular support, but the British responded with a blockade, and offered Eisenhower support in Korea and in forming NATO in exchange for having the CIA oust Mossadegh (an offer Truman had dismissed in disgust, as this was the first case of CIA involvement of regime change).
Mossadegh, like many Iranians at the time, saw their struggle as being only against the British and trusted the US to uphold the values it preached and saw it as a potential friend. The CIA took over every newspaper in the country and started publishing anti-government propaganda nonstop. They hired false flag protesters, who claimed to support the government and then wrecked shit (as well as hiring protesters to march against the government). Politicians, vote counters, religious leaders, journalists, anyone with an ounce of power was getting bribed by the CIA. Mossadegh believed that these were genuine and legitimate expressions of dissent and did nothing to crack down. Finally, a US diplomat told him a made-up sob story about people at the embassy getting death threats from his supporters and threatened to close it, and Mossadegh got on the radio and told his supporters to stand down and stay home - the next day, the CIA launched a coup that ousted him from power.
What followed was the restoration of the shah's power, which included hunting down leftists with secret police, banning traditional religious garb to make the country appear more Western, and of course the continued exploitation of Iranian oil, the proceeds of which went straight to the king's bank account. When the Iranian Revolution of 1973 happened, decade of political repression of the left allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to be the ones that took power, and the US allowed the shah to flee there which outraged the Iranians, considering that he had previously been installed by them.
I could tell you the same story over and over again about countries all around the globe. Many nations had resources stolen from them via violence and colonialism and these resources remain in the hands of the people who took them, and anyone who attempts to reassert control over their own resources is putting themselves in the crosshairs of the the US and NATO, whether through sanctions, seizing assets, CIA backed coups, or overt military aggression. But all they have to do is cover up the truth or present a bullshit justification, and by the time it falls apart it'll be too late to do anything about it, it'll have faded from the public consciousness, and people will assert, without reason or evidence, that "they don't do that anymore" dispite having clear means and motive to and never having faced any sort of punishment for it. Meanwhile the historical examples can continue to be used to intimidate countries outside of the imperial core who don't have goldfish memories, and understand that they could be next. So they either comply with neocolonial exploitation, or they take measures to prevent CIA infiltration, which then gets them derided as "authoritarian" by people like you - and if they do neither of these things, then they get coup'ed and replaced by a fascist.
Man extremely rare Truman W in there