this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
1112 points (96.5% liked)

Political Memes

5479 readers
2618 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saleh@feddit.org -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?

That is your thesis. As can be seen with Russia invasion of Georgia and as it is understood by European politicians and experts, this thesis seems rather weak. This has nothing to do with whether Russias view is justified or not.

But again i'd like to invite the thought experiment. Imagine Mexico or Canada to join a military defense pact with Russia. How do you think the US would react? Which reaction would be justified in your eyes?

If you say that it is different because of how Russia has been using military violence to further its interests, which is a good point, how does that differ from the US invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?

If the US is expanding its influence towards the borders of other nations with power aspirations, it is not perceived any different how we would perceive their influence towards us. Case in point Ukraine. It is not just said, that Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine is a problem because it is an illegal invasion, but it is also said that Ukraine is defending "our" western freedom. But you can't have it both ways.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Iraq and Afghanistan are not and were never colonies or US owned. After W. Bush invaded Iraq for oil he was vilified and the opposition party got to replace them for 8 years, which were spent investing in peace and diplomacy in the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq were allowed to reassemble autonomously as long as they did so peacefully. Obama earned a nobel peace prize. Then, the next guy in office from the same party as Bush decided to withdraw troops and release thousands of captured militants which lead to an immediate collapse of middle eastern state of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Putin has been in power for decades and will continue to do so until he dies. He is attempting to expand Russia, take complete authority over neighboring states.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Are you seriously arguing, that no one should feel threatened by the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, because then the leadership of the US changed, while the occupations continued for two more decades?

With that sentiment it is no wonder, that most of the world that is not aligned with the US feel threatened by them. Also you should listen to Putins claims about Ukraine. It is the exact same bullshit. "It is just a special military operation". "We have to get rid of their corrupt leaders." "They will have freedom and self determination under us, if they are peaceful."

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If USA were out conquering Mexico or Canada then you could rightly call them out for their bullshit, but it is the epitomy of disingenous to compare Iraq to Ukraine.

Guess what the NATO response was to Iraq? Nothing. Guess what the NATO response was to Bay of Pigs Invasion? Nothing. NATO is not the USA and it does not protect aggressor member states. Its a mutual defense pact that has never been called upon because nobody has ever been stupid enough to attack its members.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Afghanistan was a NATO "intervention". The "Coalition of the willing" invading Iraq largely consisted of NATO members and was invoke by Bush at a NATO summit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

Again you need to differ between formal constitution and de facto actions and perception of them.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Saddam Hussain ruled Iraq for 24 years during which he invaded Iran to stop rebels from overthrowing the Iranian Sunni theocracy, killing a million people and almost successfully genocided the Kurdish people.

Then, 4 NATO nations invaded Iraq while 37 willingly provided non-combatant support troops. Some NATO nations did nothing and one member opposed the invasion completely.

The United Nations itself actually placed trade restrictions on Iraq without anybody vetoing or opposing it.

Saddam was tried by Iraqis in Iraq after his capture.

I'm willing to bet you simultaneously stand up for Saddam Hussain while you condemn Netanyahu, because Genocide is fine as long as its on your side, right?

And you know what could have prevented the USA's invasion? A Mutual Defence Pact.