450
submitted 7 months ago by nekandro@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 26 points 7 months ago

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.

smuglord

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.

[-] mellowheat@suppo.fi -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So clever

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.

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 27 points 7 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
450 points (98.1% liked)

World News

32113 readers
769 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS