• geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    1 year ago

    NATO is a defensive pact to protect nations from russian aggression, or other states also of course. Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Plenty of geopolitical experts have discussed how financial support of Ukraine is the best investment when it comes to weakening the Russian military. Which makes them less of a threat to NATO

      • geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nice argument, however the population supported it:

        According to a Gallup poll conducted in March and April 2012, a survey involving 1,000 Libyans showed 75% of Libyans were in favor of the NATO intervention, compared to 22% who were opposed.[1] A post-war Orb International poll involving 1,249 Libyans found broad support for the intervention, with 85% of Libyans saying that they strongly supported the action taken to remove the Ghadafi regime.[2]

        [1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/156539/opinion-briefing-libyans-eye-new-relations-west.aspx [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20170608060559/https://www.orb-international.com/article.php?s=4-in-5-libyans-agree-country-heading-in-right-direction-according-to-post-revolution-citizen-poll

        So it sounds more like you are just anti-NATO from an ideological perspective

          • geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is a ridiculous argument and you know it, unless your idealism has blinded you. "Something bad happened later so something good can't have happened before"

            Yet you gloss over what it was like in these countries before. Here is an example of how Iraq was before: https://youtu.be/CR1X3zV6X5Y?si=QVE1b277NIVHnOUB

            Does that mean the Iraq invasion was good? No. However don't remove all nuance from a discussion about helping the population overthrow a dictatorship, and the potential consequences of that action, just to attempt a cheap shot.

            • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Gaddafi had his problems but sol massively improved under him. Given we back plenty of much worse dictatorships, it wasn't done for altruistic reasons. It was done because he was giving a cut of the wealth to the masses instead of to neocolonial powers. Incidentally, improving sol and education like Gaddafi was doing tend to trend to democratic transitions over time.

              The open air slave markets were a direct result of the intervention. The US backed regime didn't have a democratic mandate and didn't have Gaddafi's entrenched power structures and collapsed.

              • geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de
                ·
                1 year ago

                It was done because he was giving a cut of the wealth to the masses instead of to neocolonial powers

                No, a no fly zone was instated because Gaddafi was ordering air strikes on his own citizens, to the extent that his own representative to the UN asked for the no fly zone:

                21 February 2011: Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi called "on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all of Tripoli to cut off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime."

                https://web.archive.org/web/20110226113522/http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201102219941/Libya-Politics/libyan-ambassador-to-un-urges-international-community-to-stop-genocide.html

                Are you going to continue just making things up?

                • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, the US which is the largest drone striker in the world and where it is explicitly legal for the president to kill US citizens without trial went in with a moral imperative because of air strikes.

                  Even if the Spanish sabotaged the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin wasn't made up, and WMD were in Iraq, the cassi belle are not the structural reasons why the invasions happened. You're being intentionally credulous because you think US empire benefits you. It doesn't.

                  • geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah to be honest I'm a bit done with your mixture of fact and deliberate fiction to try to assist your ideology.

                    Here is an actual factual paper on the reasons for the Libyan invasion

                    https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention

                    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12290-017-0447-5

                    There are plenty of discussion points for you without needing to sprinkle in fiction for good measure.

            • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
              ·
              1 year ago

              Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/CR1X3zV6X5Y?si=QVE1b277NIVHnOUB

              Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

              I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

    • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is not an alliance against the Russian federation. It was an alliance against the ussr. After that it became a rogue army for enforcing us hegemony. Every time it has been used it was to make the world worse. This mercenary core was originally made of nazi generals with nazi soldiers as well. So it really boggles the mind that anyone thinks they could be good for the world.

    • GivingEuropeASpook [they/them, comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      NATO is a defensive pact to protect nations from russian aggression

      NATO is a legacy of the Cold War that was aimless until the Russian invasion lol. The Soviet Union even tried to join NATO when it was first talked about and was rebuffed (and you can't say it's because "muh democracy," as Greece, Turkey, and Portugal - a literal fascist state until 1974 - have all been or are authoritarian states at various points in their NATO memberships).

      Plenty of geopolitical experts have discussed how financial support of Ukraine is the best investment when it comes to weakening the Russian military.

      Plenty also argued from the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion into eastern Europe would antagonize Russia.

      • geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah it's pretty clear you're not trying to have a reasonable discussion when you mention that the USSR wanted to join NATO. That was an attempt to undermine the defensive pact by using it's own rules about inter-member conflicts against it.

        One of the core strengths of NATO is that if a country is invaded then the other countries can't just vote to kick that state out. There is no mechanism to remove another country from the group, by design. So you are either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting it when you discuss issues with certain members during their membership