What is the NATO?

[Estro Felino]

NATO didn't stab anyone in the back or "undo Libya and its ancient splendor". Italy joined the effort.

Not the people. Someone who did anything to make Italy betray Libya.
Now he is dead, and was judged and condemned by God. So my reward is to know that he's suffering for betraying his own country.

Russia is not better than NATO.

100,000 times better because Putin never pleads the fifth (as we saw in Carlson's interview) and never legitimizes double standards.
That is NATO is GOD and can do anything, whereas Russia is manure and can do nothing.

Nope. Things change. Russia initially had an agreement with Hitler. They only got involved because Hitler tried to invade them.

Someone from your country probably paid Hitler to invade Russia.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Heyo
I wonder what you think of the organization that colonized your country and turned it into a puppet state.

 

[Heyo]

@Heyo
I wonder what you think of the organization that colonized your country and turned it into a puppet state.

It should have been dismantled after the fall of the SU, failing that, we should have left.
Even though no member is required to participate in aggressive acts by other members, those aggressive acts make the aggressor likely to be retaliated on. Then we'd have to come to the aid of a bully who incentivized the actions against them.

 

[Estro Felino]

It should have been dismantled after the fall of the SU, failing that, we should have left.
Even though no member is required to participate in aggressive acts by other members, those aggressive acts make the aggressor likely to be retaliated on. Then we'd have to come to the aid of a bully who incentivized the actions against them.

Maybe you forget that Americans don't study European history.
So most of them don't even know what the Berlin Wall was and what its historic fall meant. They still think Russia is an expansionist power that wants to convert the "conquered countries" into socialistic states.

 

[Magic Man]

Not the people. Someone who did anything to make Italy betray Libya.
Now he is dead, and was judged and condemned by God. So my reward is to know that he's suffering for betraying his own country.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

100,000 times better because Putin never pleads the fifth (as we saw in Carlson's interview) and never legitimizes double standards.

Nope. Putin is a ruthless dictator who wants to expand his country and gain more power, and to do so he uses propaganda, sham elections and false pretexts for war. At absolute best he's no better than NATO. At worst, he's much worse than NATO.

And using an interview with lapdog Carlson to prove he never "pleads the fifth" is funny. He only did the interview because Tucker is his *****, and he could have him ask any questions he wants. He won't do interviews with actual journalists, because then he might have to answer real questions, not softballs. Just another example of you buying fully into his propaganda.

That is NATO is GOD and can do anything, whereas Russia is manure and can do nothing.

NATO is not god, and Russia isn't manure. But Russia definitely isn't better than NATO.

Someone from your country probably paid Hitler to invade Russia.

Obviously. That's the only answer. It couldn't possibly be that Hitler was just a terrible person and chose to do the things he did for his own purposes. It must have been America's fault.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe you forget that Americans don't study European history.
So most of them don't even know what the Berlin Wall was and what its historic fall meant. They still think Russia is an expansionist power that wants to convert the "conquered countries" into socialistic states.

Yes, a lot of us still realize Russia is an expansionist power that wants to control countries around it, especially ones that were formerly part of the USSR. I'm glad you understand that.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Better. Just some rant about a traitor from my country.

Nope. Putin is a ruthless dictator who wants to expand his country and gain more power, and to do so he uses propaganda, sham elections and false pretexts for war.

Okay, but it turns out that Russia has never bothered the Baltics, so the story of the expansion is really fanciful.

At absolute best he's no better than NATO. At worst, he's much worse than NATO.

The NATO is much worse. Want names?
Iraq, Libya. Syria, ...and many others.

And using an interview with lapdog Carlson to prove he never "pleads the fifth" is funny. He only did the interview because Tucker is his *****, and he could have him ask any questions he wants. He won't do interviews with actual journalists, because then he might have to answer real questions, not softballs. Just another example of you buying fully into his propaganda.

It turns out Megyn Kelly interviewed him too...and I have heard her media cut some parts.
This speaks volumes.

NATO is not god, and Russia isn't manure. But Russia definitely isn't better than NATO.

I expect the NATO to be much better than Russia. Not equal or worse.

Obviously. That's the only answer. It couldn't possibly be that Hitler was just a terrible person and chose to do the things he did for his own purposes. It must have been America's fault.

Not America's.
Some élites happen to live in America but they are stateless. Not American.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, a lot of us still realize Russia is an expansionist power that wants to control countries around it, especially ones that were formerly part of the USSR. I'm glad you understand that.

I have a solution to bring an end to this war.
1) Immediate ceasefire.
2) The four regions of Ukraine will become international territory under the UN jurisdiction
3) A UN Commission will ascertain whether these people want to remain in Ukraine or become parts of the Russian Federation.

Peace will triumph.

Tell me your take on my idea.

 

[Magic Man]

Better. Just some rant about a traitor from my country.

It would have helped to name the person you're talking about.

Okay, but it turns out that Russia has never bothered the Baltics, so the story of the expansion is really fanciful.

Of course. Since they never were aggressive with those 3 states, obviously the other examples of them being aggressive with former Soviet states are "fanciful". That's logical.

The NATO is much worse. Want names?
Iraq, Libya. Syria, ...and many others.

You'll need a whole lot more than that. You're welcome to present your case in detail.

It turns out Megyn Kelly interviewed him too...and I have heard her media cut some parts.
This speaks volumes.

Yes, another hard conservative who has spent years promoting the same propaganda Putin wants to present. That does speak volumes.

I expect the NATO to be much better than Russia. Not equal or worse.

I know. Because you buy into Russian propaganda. I'm speaking objectively here, which is why I say at best Russia is equally bad.

Not America's.
Some élites happen to live in America but they are stateless. Not American.

Of course. The whole ridiculous conspiracy theory aspect.

 

[Magic Man]

I have a solution to bring an end to this war.
1) Immediate ceasefire.
2) The four regions of Ukraine will become international territory under the UN jurisdiction
3) A UN Commission will ascertain whether these people want to remain in Ukraine or become parts of the Russian Federation.

Peace will triumph.

Tell me your take on my idea.

In other words, you want Russia to win. My solution is not pro-Russia.

1) Immediate ceasefire.
2) Russia goes home and vows never to meddle in other countries' affairs again.
3) Russia sends money and aid to help rebuild Ukraine.

Peace will triumph.

 

[Estro Felino]

It would have helped to name the person you're talking about.

His name doesn't matter.
It's a person who didn't serve the national interests.
The NATO's interests or maybe France's interests, for sure.

Of course. Since they never were aggressive with those 3 states, obviously the other examples of them being aggressive with former Soviet states are "fanciful". That's logical.

That makes sense. Because the Baltics are in the EU. That is why I want Ukraine to join the EU as soon as possible.
But they need to change their constitution radically, as the Baltics did before joining the EU.

You'll need a whole lot more than that. You're welcome to present your case in detail.

Sure. Libya was a country where Gaddafi used to implement socialism in order to bring justice and order.
In order to give employment to the poor, and to save many tribes in the desert from poverty.

But NATO didn't side with him. He sided with the radicals and the terrorists who entered the country and turned it into a medieval, backward and warlike divided country. Where people of different ideologies kill each other.

 

[Estro Felino]

In other words, you want Russia to win. My solution is not pro-Russia.

1) Immediate ceasefire.
2) Russia goes home and vows never to meddle in other countries' affairs again.
3) Russia sends money and aid to help rebuild Ukraine.

Peace will triumph.

Why don't you like my solution?
Don't you trust the UN?
The UN will administer those four regions. Not Russia.

 

[Magic Man]

His name doesn't matter.
It's a person who didn't serve the national interests.
The NATO's interests or maybe France's interests, for sure.

It does matter. You're calling him a traitor and using him as an attack on NATO. If you're not going to name him, then don't bring it up at all.

That makes sense. Because the Baltics are in the EU. That is why I want Ukraine to join the EU as soon as possible.
But they need to change their constitution radically, as the Baltics did before joining the EU.

Sure. Libya was a country where Gaddafi used to implement socialism in order to bring justice and order.
In order to give employment to the poor, and to save many tribes in the desert from poverty.

Then why did the Arab Springs happen, the cause of which was corruption and widespread unemployment?

Your sanitized version of Gaddafi isn't surprising, but it's just more of the same from you.

But NATO didn't side with him. He sided with the radicals and the terrorists who entered the country and turned it into a medieval, backward and warlike divided country. Where people of different ideologies kill each other.

Yet again, a wholly inaccurate view of things that just happens to be disproportionately anti-NATO. His own people revolted against him due to many problems, including him being an authoritarian dictator.

 

[Magic Man]

Why don't you like my solution?

Because it screws over Ukraine and gives Russia the victory.

Don't you trust the UN?
The UN will administer those four regions. Not Russia.

I'm a rational person, so I don't want the UN administering what is currently its own country. I want that country to stay its own country, because I'm not pro-Russia.

 

[Estro Felino]

Then why did the Arab Springs happen, the cause of which was corruption and widespread unemployment?

Because in countries like Egypt and Tunisia there was so much social injustice.
But Libya has nothing to do with these two countries. It has just 6 million people, and an incredibly huge territory.

Your sanitized version of Gaddafi isn't surprising, but it's just more of the same from you.

Hillary emails demonstrate that Gaddafi wanted to save Africa from poverty and from usurocracy.
I don't side with usurers.
I side with the likes of Gaddafi.

Yet again, a wholly inaccurate view of things that just happens to be disproportionately anti-NATO.

Imagine if those emails enter a courtroom.
Any lawyer would crush the defenders of NATO like a cockroach.

His own people revolted against him due to many problems, including him being an authoritarian dictator.

Not his own people. Just the radicals and the terrorists, aided by the NATO.

 

[Estro Felino]

Because it screws over Ukraine and gives Russia the victory.

Of course it does.
Because the UN will ascertain that Ukraine are the bad guy here and they persecuted Donbas people.
.

I'm a rational person, so I don't want the UN administering what is currently its own country. I want that country to stay its own country, because I'm not pro-Russia.

The UN is UN.
But I guess you sound like you do know that Ukraine is on the wrong side of history, and you are scared that the UN can ascertain that through an investigation.

 

[Magic Man]

Because in countries like Egypt and Tunisia there was so much social injustice.
But Libya has nothing to do with these two countries. It has just 6 million people, and an incredibly huge territory.

That doesn't answer the question. There was widespread corruption and unemployment, which is what caused the Arab Springs. If all Gaddafi did was help "the people" specifically with money and jobs, they wouldn't rise up against him for not having money and jobs.

Hillary emails demonstrate that Gaddafi wanted to save Africa from poverty and from usurocracy.

Riiiiiight. Yup, he was just a good, innocent guy who wanted to save an entirely different country's people. The propaganda runs deep with you.

I don't side with usurers.
I side with the likes of Gaddafi.

Yes, you side with dictators who abuse their people. We know.

Imagine if those emails enter a courtroom.
Any lawyer would crush the defenders of NATO like a cockroach.

Imagine if the emails in question showed anything close to what you think they do. Sadly for you they don't. It's just propaganda.

Not his own people. Just the radicals and the terrorists, aided by the NATO.

Obviously. They did things that go against your skewed narrative, so they must be radicals and terrorists aided by NATO. (Also, in English you just say NATO, not "the NATO".) This is what happens when you buy into propaganda and let your bias do your thinking. People who go against your narrative have to be bad and aided by the enemy. They can't possibly be normal people fed up with a terrible situation created by the guy you support.

 

[Balthazzar]

Russia was probably at the peak of their power in the years following WW2, even though they were still recovering from the devastation from that war. The rift between Russia and China, however, was advantageous to the West. Now, it seems the Russians and Chinese are working together again.

I don't think history necessarily repeats itself, but I think many often fail to learn the lessons of history. Countries and governments may tend to act in the same ways they've acted throughout history, but what changes are the kinds of weapons, industries, and technologies available. The World Wars were the culmination of 19th century thinking with 20th century technology. With the advent of nuclear weapons, along with other devastating weapons and tactics, humanity got to the point where it had to face the notion that "Either war is finished, or we are."

We also have cyber wars, along with new drone technologies. That NATO declaration also mentioned increasing the use of AI, so that could also add a new twist to things. Perhaps someday, we might either be plugged into the Matrix, or assimilated by the Borg (although I probably won't live to see that day).

We're always ending up in some type of conflict, and the conflicts are typically driven by economic/food needs and power plays. This has been going on since before humans began creating large civilizations. History repeats itself in this way and I don't see this coming to an end. Even other species have similar dynamics in play among their domains. That's life. We advance in our capabilities, obviously and I don't think Putin will stop at Ukraine, nor do I think China is rubbing shoulders with for a piece of the Ukraine pie. Who else is involved? Russia, China, North Korea are the top 3 concerns, but then there's also India and Hungary (NATO partner), Iran, etc. who have been or seem to be sympathetic to Russia's cause. Cyber wars, propaganda wars, psychological warfare, on to possible bio, germ, chem, etc. are all weaponized systems able to be utilized. Nukes? Geesh, they seem a bit counterproductive, but they remain in the realm of concern. I simply feel like we have a long one coming on one day and that negotiations may delay the inevitable but not prevent it. Where I'm from people are still creating controversy over cigarette tobacco and MJ reform. It's crazy.

 

[Stevicus]

We're always ending up in some type of conflict, and the conflicts are typically driven by economic/food needs and power plays. This has been going on since before humans began creating large civilizations. History repeats itself in this way and I don't see this coming to an end. Even other species have similar dynamics in play among their domains. That's life. We advance in our capabilities, obviously and I don't think Putin will stop at Ukraine, nor do I think China is rubbing shoulders with for a piece of the Ukraine pie. Who else is involved? Russia, China, North Korea are the top 3 concerns, but then there's also India and Hungary, Iran, etc. who have been or seem to be sympathetic to Russia's cause. Cyber wars, propaganda wars, psychological warfare, on to possible bio, germ, chem, etc. are all weaponized systems able to be utilized. Nukes? Geesh, they seem a bit counterproductive, but they remain in the realm of concern. I simply feel like we have a long one coming on one day and that negotiations may delay the inevitable but not prevent it. Where I'm from people are still creating controversy over cigarette tobacco and MJ reform. It's crazy.

Yes, there are power plays at work. The thing is, the West essentially conquered most of the world centuries ago. The United States of America is merely a product and outgrowth of that conquest and became the predominant hegemonic power in the Americas. France and Britain gained control over Africa and large parts of Asia, as well as all the sea routes. Clearly, they didn't want countries like Germany or Russia muscling in on their action.

Of course, it should be noted that, throughout most of history, if a country wanted to make a power play or grab territory, they just did it (if they thought they could win). They didn't have to invent any pretext, other than national glory and booty. In conquering the Americas, the Spanish battle cry was "Gold, Glory, and God." In the War of 1812, the battle cry in America was "On to Canada!" Nobody needed a reason; they just wanted it, so they were going to try to grab it (although America failed in that quest).

So, even if economic needs and power plays are a human constant, the emphasis on facades and obsession over maintaining an image of "legitimacy" is something relatively new to human history.

For example, after the overthrow of the US-backed Batista regime in Cuba, the U.S. wanted to get rid of Castro's communist regime and restore a US-friendly government. But they couldn't just invade outright, as that would make us look bad, so they had to cook up some scheme to make it look like it was Cubans themselves overthrowing their own government. If the US military had simply invaded outright, they could have won and taken over Cuba, but someone tied their hands, which led to the operation's failure.

So, it's true that the world largely operates the same way, with power plays and grabbing for land, power, resources, food, etc. It seems it's always been that way, for as long as recorded history. But what's different in more recent times is...the lie. The hypocrisy. The pretense of "enlightenment" where there is none.

 

[Magic Man]

Of course it does.
Because the UN will ascertain that Ukraine are the bad guy here and they persecuted Donbas people.
.

Right. This is the difference. You buy into this propaganda, and I don't. I realize Ukraine are not the bad guy here and did not persecute the Donbas people. That's why I'm actually anti-Russia on this, and it's why I'm giving a reasonable take based on facts, not Russian propaganda.

The UN is UN.
But I guess you sound like you do know that Ukraine is on the wrong side of history, and you are scared that the UN can ascertain that through an investigation.

Nope, I sound like I know that Ukraine is its own country and should not be taken over by Russia of the UN. If you want an investigation, go for it, but only with Ukraine left to be its country like it has been. You are on the wrong side of history. Russia is on the wrong side of history. Their propaganda that you're spreading is on the wrong side of history.