How do you consider a defensive alliance to fight defensively? Roll over and play dead?
Consider
NATO currently have camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, a part of Serbia that was seized (with the help of the the terrorist KLA) against the will of the Serbian government after being bombed by the “defensive” NATO alliance in 1999. (Note - Serbia had not attacked any NATO member state…)
Well consider this:
Kosovo’s NATO membership unlikely for now amid calls for accession
Kosovo’s request to join NATO appears highly unlikely due to a lack of consensus between members, and there are no foreseen processes that would speed up the process, according to a NATO official.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and fears over potential aggression by Serbia which remains the only country in Europe, asides from Belarus, not to enact sanctions against Moscow, Kosovo has called for accelerated accession to NATO.
How do you consider a defensive alliance to fight defensively? Roll over and play dead?
Do you dispute my claim that NATO is not a defensive alliance? that they are on record of acting offensively, acting despite no NATO member being militarily attacked, do you or do you not agree with me here?
I have some guns in my house here in Arizona, I can use them defensively if I’m attacked in my home according to the law. But I cannot walk out of my house, down the road and enter someone else’s home and shoot them because they disagree with me. Well I can but I’ll be arrested, the law will be enforced, who can enforce the law against NATO? the US? Russia?
Wanna try again?
Try what “again”? You seem to have misread me, where did I mention Kosovo joining NATO?
Kosovo is Serbian territory, in the same sense that the Eastern provinces in Ukraine are Ukrainian territory. In each case a foreign power has used military force to conquer that territory, Russia in the case if Ukraine and NATO in the case of Serbia.
If you object to Russia recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk then on the same basis with the same logic you must object to the West’s (though only some states) recognition of Kosovo.
Russia saw Yugoslav get dismantled and soaked in blood due to Western geopolitics with NATO providing the military force - offensive - it is pretty obvious to them and many other informed parties like me, that the same fate could befall Russia next, break it up, encourage civil war, devalue the currency.
If you look at everything through the rose tinted spectacles of CNN, FOX, BBC and so on, you’ll miss a great deal of important detail.
There are states that you can shoot an approaching colored person “on sight” and claim “self defense” because their dark skin is a threat to your very life.
You can illegally arm yourself, go to an area where protests are being held and kill a few protesters because you claim they posed a threat to your life. And be declared as having justified cause and be hailed by the then President as a hero.
The current laws of free speech apply only if you carry an automatic assault weapon.
I"m LEFT of center and very anti-Republican. But I’m not surprised at the charges. This is about others feeling intimidated and insulted ‘politically’ for daring to challenge their sense of reality. AS I just said to mriana on that other thread, I am learning how some think and where they stand intellectually.
For instance, on this topic, knowing where the adiminitration and other stand here on this issue alerts me to what I can expect of talking about deeper issues. I’m still seeking a forum that has my trust not to take what I say as sincerely my ‘own’. If a forum claims the right to alter, edit, or delete content, I question the integrity of it. I have had material deleted only to discover others steal it as their own and censoring on ANY site gives them this power. It enables one to alter how I appear by affecting my reputation, a double bonus if one wants to coopt the efforts of another.
REMEMBER that when I came back here that I seem to have had my theory on Temples and Sacrifice anywhere? I posted it initially on this site and still cannot find it. I know better now not to trust any site that remotely permits such power to moderate on their arrogant belief in ‘ownership’ rights.
The beliefs in ‘free speech’ are presently being presented as though it is a ‘rightwing’ ideal and cenorship a leftwing one. Both sides have adopted a forrm of ‘republicanism’: where the Right extreme defaults to desiring the ‘right’ to power of ownership that permits exclusive powers to censor, the Left is dominated with the same thinkers who only differ from the right in which CLASS, race, sex, or ethnicity they are advocating for.
“Republican”, by the way, is from Plato’s “Republic” whereby Socrates argued AGAINST democracy of the Athens he was living in due to the diminished virtue of respect of ‘authorities’ given the tendency for abuses that inevitably occur more often as an unfortunate side effect of such participation. As such, he proposed that society needs “philosopher kings”, ones who represent a ‘college’ of intelligence in which the voting public should only vote an ‘elector’ from that class. His original proposal was to select a “philosopher” who is presumably both intellectual AND unwilling to rule but imposed upon as a matter of ‘duty’.
So, no, I am definitely NOT ‘Republican’ given how time and again the privileged owner-class ALONE decides inevitably who IS worthy of being these “philosopher kings”. Communism also adopted this but through one’s workplace in general. No matter how an ideal system is set up as a political institute, it eventually loses any virtue in the ‘intelligent’ factor when it transfers authority to those who have only arbitrary power through ‘ownership’. It favors mere inheritance (including ‘heritage’) in time and becomes the standard of who gets the right to speak freely.
I won’t be able to trust speaking further on anything of value to me here given I won’t be able to secure my content as MY OWN and without the politics of those who utilize sabotage of character that affects one’s reputation.
P.S. Has anyone checked BACK to my point about being deleted regardless of what I say on the Wikipedia page for Steady State? It’s been deleted! I saved both additions that I literally tested here but doubt that any of you cared to give a shit to follow to see if I was telling the truth. [If you hadn’t checked, you also steretyped me with the prejudice that doesn’t exactly make me feel like being respectful to you in return. So thanks again.]
On charge of what offensive military operation by NATO? Be specific.
NATO does not make law. They protect against breach of International law, of the kind what Russia is engaged in today. Russia is the aggressor, make no mistake about it.
Moreover, Russia is not just engaged in the acquisition of territory, it is engaged in genocide of the entire Ukrainian population.
There is no argument in favor of Russia’s actions. Putin’s actions by committing mass murder is exactly like Hitler’s attempt to exterminate all Jews.
Obviously you don’t watch these channels or you would know that FOX (Faux News) is totally opposed to CNN and BBC which still employ honorable news reporters.
Check your profile page with your postings. You may find it there. Then copy and paste it into the proper thread and subforum. Try that and see if any luck.
If your post is truly lost, then you cannot expect us to comment on it because it would be lost to all of us.
What’s that mean?
Are you claiming moderators here can alter and edit your post at will?
Are you accusing some one of stealing your Temple and Sacrifice theory?
I been here a long time, and yes, I’m slightly forgetful, but still I don’t recall any Temple and Sacrifice theory but if you hum a few bars, it might ring a memory.
Why would someone want to steal such a thing and what would they do with it?
There’s a difference between free speech and unhinged malicious deception!
Why don’t ‘we’ get to censor deliberate lies and malicious tactical deception?
And trump is who the Republicans created. So much for Socrates.
That sounds like some grandiose self-inflation.
Your words do enough to sabotage your character and believability,
such as, what in the world does your last paragraph have to do with previous one?
Just generally, an internet forum is not a place to compose abd store original material. Anything important would be stored on something you control and could be restored to the public place.
That’s true I don’t watch them much at all these days (I learned of their dishonesty over 20 years ago), I do scan their coverage from time to time, like Noam Chomsky I’m aware of their bias, often a pro-west bias when it comes to their coverage of geopolitics.
As for your grandiose claim of “honorable” that’s frankly laughable, that is if the facts matter, which for many people of course they don’t.
Take some time to read medialens, this is full of articles by genuinely honorable journalists who as you’ll see regulalry highlight the media bias in these and other large “news” organisations.
NATO (that is, member states) are subject to international law, that is NATO member states who are signatories to the UN charter are not released from their obligations simply because they are NATO members.
NATO has no UN authority to act as some kind of international police force.
I suggest you actually read the treaty, here’s a snippet from the text of the North Atlantic Treaty:
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
As you can see for yourself, NATO members agree explicitly to abide by international law as defined by the UN charter, nothing about NATO permits a member state to violate international law.
So if a NATO member states acts in a way that’s inconsistent with international law then its a crime, period, that’s pretty much that, if a nation is a UN member then it has consequent obligations, period.
When NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, it did so without any UN resolution permitting such bombing, bombing of a sovereign state, in this case Serbia.
e.g.
NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure.
moreover:
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.[34]
So that settles the matter, NATO and those members who participated acted illegally, no different from Russia today in Ukraine - attacking a sovereign nation militarily without a UN resolution approving that action, no different at all.
NATO does not “protect against breach of international law” it has no authority to usurp the UN, certainly not if they are signatories to the UN charter which they are. The UN can protect against such breaches and has an established democratic procedure namely - voting on resolutions.
To attack another country that has not itself attacked you, is quite simply a crime, article 51 is clear and does allow military responses by any UN member that has been attacked. In the case of NATO bombing Serbia it was a clear violation of the UN charter.
Russia may or may not be engaged in “genocide” that’s a matter for the UN to decide not Western propaganda, I’m assuming you understand the definition (The UN definition) of genocide, let me know if you’d like me tell you.
Now, please explain to us all why you think it is acceptable for NATO member states to act without UN authorization yet it is not acceptable for Russia to act without UN authorization?
You can’t break the law and then go around complaining when somebody else breaks the law.
You say:
There is no argument in favor of Russia’s actions. Putin’s actions by committing mass murder is exactly like Hitler’s attempt to exterminate all Jews.
But the Russian’s have many arguments in favor of what they are doing just as the US, UK and others had many arguments for attacking Serbia and bombing it for three months:
Not to mention that NATO also “accidentally” bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, but in all fairness they did apologize!
Unlike today and Russia however the biased Western media implicitly supported the crimes of the aggressor and the destruction. Serb victims were airbrushed away, no huge outpouring of sympathy, as I said hypocrisy is the norm here, the West are “good” and Russia, China etc are “evil” that’s pretty much how shallow your arguments are, just admit that’s how you see things and we can stop arguing.
International law is difficult to enforce. You over simplify these situations. The UN is not some neutral body with a clean track record. I don’t have a clear answer on who the police of the world are or should be. That doesn’t make me hypocritical.
You can stop posting any time you want. This is not much of a debate. Just repititous statements. Russia and China do a lot of evil things, so does the “West”. It’s not a contest where the winner gets a free pass.
And that counts as a crime committed by NATO? I’d call that a crime by Russia and China.
Did the US need permission from the United Nations to get rid of Russian offensive missiles in Cuba? Russia would have opposed any plea from the US with the United Nations.
Don’t engage in sophistry. Russia is a member of the United Nations. Does Putin give a hoot what the United Nations think about his invasion of Ukraine?
Do you actually disagree with something I wrote? if so what? Anyone who expresses sympathy for bombing victims on a selective basis is a hypocrite - in my opinion.
Note that nowhere have I said that the victims of Russian bombs do not deserve our sympathy and support, all I’ve said is that all victims of bombings deserve the same degree of sympathy and support.
But the Western media are selective in the amount of coverage they give to victims. Victims of Western war crimes get less attention than victims or Russian war crimes.
That’s hypocrisy if you think it isn’t then just say so.
