You must log in or # to comment.
Well duh, it’s a defensive alliance.
Tell that to the people of yugoslavia in 1999
That was a humanitarian intervention to STOP a genocide.
I bet most were happy that the Serbians were reigned in. Even many Serbians.NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
Well… I think a lot of people in Iran are also happy about these strikes.
But that does not change the fact that Nato is clearly not only defensive.
I don’t get the downvotes, you are correct. The OP’s comment that NATO only intervenes defensively is clearly wrong.
Should they intervene here? No, definitely not because this is a stupid, stupid war, and that’s reason enough.
I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said “NATO good”. The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It’s the centrist form of the tankie purity test.
They were defending those people, no?
I know Serbians in the celebrity world of the country. They hate NATO for stepping in. We used to get into arguments about it.
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
Ah, so it’s not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.
Depends what your definition of defence is though, doesn’t it. NATO could just be considered to be defence of peace in which case yeah you could have a mandate to intervene in certain situations and it would still be in defensive peace.
I think you’re trying to make a distinction without a purpose.
defence of peace
Ah, like the US.
Yes, under this ‘definition’ they could be intervening all over the world, including in Iran.
No under the NATO definition of peace. Don’t be moving the goal posts now.
NATO definition of peace.
Don’t be moving the goal posts now.
lol.
Should’ve bombed Israel while there was still something left of Gaza then
Absolutely. But USA has gotten steadily worse, esp. since Bush.
They hadn’t in Serbia. Not every illegal attacking war is bad. Reality is messy.
I bet most were happy that the Serbians were reigned in.
83 upvotes for this… Man this species is doomed…
Also NATO in 1999 had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council and international legal approval.
I did, they were in my class growing up in Canada, they said thanks. Have you talked to any of those people who fled that genocide?
Not my point at all. I did in no way say it was unjustified. I was just saying it was offensive and thus contradicted what the original comment said.
Yea… poor Yugoslavia that already faced three UN resolutions concluding their violation of basic human rights wasn’t allowed to go on with their ethnic cleansing. Shocking! /s
Correct me if I’m wrong. But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right? Therefore nato was in violation of international law.
But that’s besides the point. I commented under a commenting claiming Nato is purely defensive. Which it clearly isn’t.
But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right?
Pretty hard to get the UN to mandate anything substantial if there’s almost always a veto power protecting its pawns…
Now your moving the goal post. I’m not arguing about if the UN is effective or not. Just arguing that the UN didn’t sanction the bombing, unlike you implied.
If there’s ethnic cleansing going on, do you want to wait for the UN to act (in vain, because veto powers) or do you act based on the principles the UN should act on if it actually worked?
Because let’s not pretend that the UN actually decided on the substance of that matter and decided against it based on what was happening. It never decided solely due to political reasons and its architecture.
If you want to hold that against NATO, fine. Sometimes, being technically correct isn’t the thing to aspire.
So, when Israel…
You are wrong. NATO was under UN mandate.
No, it was not.
You are clearly right. It was an illegal attack.
So far the only country I’m not appalled by their reaction is Spain. The rest are all so luke warm or plain wtf. Specially Germany. I feel like since WW1 they have an subscribtion on standing on the wrong side. Today they called in Iranian diplomats to tell them they should adhere to the rules of war and not bomb civilians.
Meanwhile Israel started off the war by bombing a primary school & hospital. But that’s cool for the German goverment since Israel did not confirm they did it. So they are obviously adhering ho the rules of war.
Here’s the problem, the second we (Germans) criticize Israel in any shape or form, they start calling us Nazis again. The vast majority of Germans disagree with war to solve problems.
let them call you nazis. criticize them and let people see the truth and whether it is you or them that is the nazi.
Not only they call us Nazis but our laws call us nazis.
Solidarity with palastine is often Times already equated with Support for Hamas, which then in turn is interpreted as Support for antisemitic Terror Organisation and the you are held legally responsible for being antisemitic.
I bet there are already precedents when Israel was criticised and that was legally regarded as antisemitism, i am unaware of.
Dutchie here, before Mark Rutte was SG of NATO he was our PM for over a decade where he earned the nickname Teflon Mark: no scandal sticks, no political storm makes him wet. Why? Because he can say anything in a way that makes you believe he is telling the truth. Before you know it this man has no active memory of any meeting that was about not-joining and suddenly ‘remember’ a meeting about joining. If you do not want your country participating in this war, do not sit back and relax because this guy says it won’t happen. He is not all bad, but i’d advise anyone (except Trump) to not take what he says too serious.
Thank you Rutte.
Dear Donald, please now apply the same trade war to all NATO nations as you have to Spain. I dare ya’.That goes without saying, given that this is a completely illegal war of aggression. It is inconceivable that the EU is nevertheless acting as if these were allies. This war is a crime and serves to distract from further crimes: in the US, from the fact that the country is run by a fascist pedophile ring, and in Israel, from genocidal fascists whose agent, Epstein, made all this possible in the first place.
It is outrageous that the EU has not withdrawn from NATO and continues to supply weapons to the monsters in Israel.
Most insane to me is that, it’s EU who will have to deal with humanitarian crisis and spend more money supporting Ukraine to offset Russia’s oil profits from increasing prices.
Call me crazy but US seems to have more interest in supporting Russia’s war and destabilizing EU than destroying Iran’s regime. As part of this operation at least
The US has labeled the EU its number one enemy. Destabilizing the EU as a goal isn’t very far fetched, even if not a primary goal.
EU passive stance can be seen as pragmatic or necessary, or injust and severely lacking depending on how you look at it.
Why would the EU withdraw from NATO? What has NATO done to piss them off?
It’s in my comment above, but I’m happy to repeat it for you: By threatening to invade Greenland, the US has threatened a founding member of NATO with a war of aggression.
NATO isn’t pissing itself off, just one of its member countries is pissing off all the others: the US.
Right, so the EU wouldn’t withdraw from NATO, they would kick the US out of it.
Although NATO has survived hotter internal conflicts before, it can probably come out of this intact if Trump turns out to be an abberation.
It’s a tragedy other countries provide even passive support, and continue to support Israel even after Gaza genocide, which still continues, even if it’s not during or for this campaign specifically. Years of human rights and international law violations, and there’s no strong opposition or distancing. That initiative is hard to swallow.
Strongly hoping for someone to just bomb the US and make them stop their crimes against humanity. They have so much real state to conquer and split and govern after that…
We had that in 2001. Didn’t go so well…
Trump is already doing that, but through a different route. They don’t need to bomb there. They’re using other means.
That is good news and i fully agree. Fighting alongside the MAGA and Israeli nutters is not worth a single EU bone. Furthermore, we have the fucking Muscovites to worry about.
“They will join it individually”
Rutte can go and get fucked.
He is a lapdog to the USA and doesn’t protect or advocate for European interests.
I expected better from Europe but you’re all just colonialists.
Imo he’s buying time for Europe. Most people here obviously despise the US. But we made ourselves reliant on them in every way. If Trump wants, he can absolutely ruin is right now. We need to decouple, but that takes time. Rutte is trying to manipulate Trump until he’s either gone or we’re self-sufficient enough to not need him anymore. And yes that means praising him for doing dumb shit, for doing illegal shit. But if that keeps us afloat for another few months then that’s what it takes.
No shit point to me in the map where Israel is in the North Atlantic.
Turkey is not either. But Israel is no Nato member.
Israel is much more than a NATO member, Israel is actually important to America
israel and america are the same entity, so israel is in the north atlantic
Expected
Merz is puppet of USA like this guy explained : https://lemmy.world/post/43726633/22438250
