I was responding to a comparison between Western and Eastern Europe, the Nazis did a War of Annihilation on Eastern Europe, it was waged differently.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
It's Not Just Mainstream Press that is Broken: Co-founder of The Intercept Decides to Dabble in Genocide Denialism to Shift Focus From Russia to NATO
- Thread starter excelsiorlef
- Start date
I was responding to a comparison between Western and Eastern Europe, the Nazis did a War of Annihilation on Eastern Europe, it was waged differently.
Not according to what you said. Because they share "values" and they are "willing to die" for one another. This means that NATO countries are pretty much okay with the unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral actions of their members. So even if techinically it's not NATO, it doesn't matter because they won't stop each other from fucking the world because they're allies.
Would you feel comfortable, for example, having current day Russia as a member that you would have to go and defend if they are attacked, specially knowing how big of a liar that State is? I wouldn't.
And the thing is, being a "democracy" and having a "open market" doesn't exclude your state from becoming a threat like that. The US is a dead horse by this point, but it has already proven to be on the brink of being a fascist state.
Having those values stated means nothing in terms of safety to the other states. It only matters as an ideological statement, and yes, that's problematic when its about world peace. Currently, NATO just looks like the lesser evil on the face of Putin's action, of course. But I am really weirded by having the world trusting NATO and its members like its nothing.
While the legal definition of wanting a people destroyed might not have been met, it still qualifies as ethnic cleansing and one that had no qualms about murdering people. At that point the distinction from genocide feels pretty moot anyway and mostly of legalistic interest. It's still a crime against humanity, and it's still the case that the US intervention saved countless lives.
So I see this war is going to be used as a cudgel against those of us who do not like NATO.
NATO and its member nations killed so many people around the world so you guys spare us the outrage.
Fuck nato
Fuck russian armed forces
Gigafuck the US armed forces
A nato member killed at least a million people and displaced 40 million others in the levant and Afghanistan during the last 25 years. And now we have to say nato is good? Fuck that!
NATO and its member nations killed so many people around the world so you guys spare us the outrage.
Fuck nato
Fuck russian armed forces
Gigafuck the US armed forces
A nato member killed at least a million people and displaced 40 million others in the levant and Afghanistan during the last 25 years. And now we have to say nato is good? Fuck that!
What are you talking about? NATO members have criticized and denounced the actions of other NATO members. You think the U.S. is happy with Erdogan's crackdowns? Do know know how many NATO countries criticized Bush's invasion of Iraq? Do you know that it was the U.S. that pressured UK and France to end their joint-war with Israel against Egypt during the Suez Canal Crisis? Who do you think also pressured France to end their war in Algeria? Like do you even know history? I could go on and on.
Just because a county is a NATO member doesn't immunize them from critique or pressure from other NATO members due to their actions.
Ah, so once again any action by one NATO member is tied to all even though the other member states did not support the action, right?
That's absolutely not why the French administration started the whole thing.
Might as well argue that the UN should be dissolved because its members can be shitty.
Do you want to dissolve WHO because some of its member states dabbled into antivax propaganda or something?
That's just diplomacy as usual. Critique and public pressure means nothing when you see now examples of coordinated actions against Russia to stop the war. We have ongoing crisis in Israel for example and NATO countries won't do much, because it's a key partner from the biggest and most important members. There is a lot more to be done. There is a lot more that won't be done. Criticism and "pressure" already lost it's meaning. And we haven't even touched Afghanistan.
And yes, I don't think the US really has an issue with Erdogan's crackdowns or other problems of the world. Other than looking angry on TV, I don't believe it. I don't have a reason to believe it. NATO countries had issues with Trump, and were in alert in regards to what he would do with NATO for obvious reasons, it was a threat to the longevity of the pact, but other than that, I seriously doubt anything else would have been done. NATO countries still need the US too much.
Last edited:
We weren't talking about the French nor how it started though?
You said the US was "suckered" into getting involved in Libya against their own best interests, and I'm suggesting their interest was securing a sizeable stake in Libyan oil. Countries don't tend to get involved in conflicts unless it benefits them.
You're all over the place here and I have no idea where you are even going.
Those actions between NATO members was just "diplomacy as usual," but also "critique and public pressure means nothing" but the "coordinated actions against Russia" which is "critique and public pressure" and not military action is a big threat? US doesn't care about what Turkey does despite the fact that we sanctioned them in late 2020, although admittedly over Russian weapons purchases?
I've lost the plot.
US pressure against UK and France directly led to the ending of the Suez Crisis. I'm not sure how the fact that NATO (or any individual member) hasn't somehow resolved the Israel-Palestinian situation is a slam against the organization. Whether NATO existed or not, no major power, not even Russia, is seeking to seriously crack down on Israel; for better or worse. They are all complicit in ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. Hell, Russia and China would love for us to isolate Israel so they can swoop in and get the upper hand in that relationship. So again, not sure what NATO has to do with that conflict.
Seriously, I've lost the plot at what you're getting at.
I certainly am.
The US wouldn't have been there otherwise.
The urgent business of dealing with Gaddafi wasn't an American concern.
Russia became completely isolated and their economy is taking hard. All in a matter of days. That's not "critique and public pressure" and usual diplomacy, those are concrete and coordinated actions that the world and NATO countries are using, but the fact that haven't been used in the same level in other instances is just because Russia is an adversary in the world stage. So, yeah, that they use usual diplomacy, critique and public pressure between them, means nothing now. And when we have other conflicts that are just as serious in other places of the world, and these same countries don't take the same action, it confirms that NATO countries act based on ideological and geopolitical goals, not because they are a force for good in the world, which is troublesome since those ideological and geopolitical goals aren't good by themselves just for being themselves, and countries can be decieved into taking action when the reasons and results will be fucked up. So that answers your question of why isn't good that NATO has those ideals as a principle to join. Have they sometimes taken actions that were correct ones? Sure, not everything is black or white. But that doesn't mean they're the beacon of justice, freedom and democracy they claim to be.
That sanction you mention proves my point. They sanction Erdogan because of buying weapons from an adversary. They can accept everything else, but the line is drawn at dealing with their rival. So no, the US doesn't care about the rest as long as it doesn't hurt them.
Or perhaps it is because those other instances are murky, complex geopolitical situations and not a clear instance of one aggressor state invading the territory of another sovereign state for no reason other than wanting the territory. You know, something not seen in Europe since WWII? Why do you think the ENTIRE WORLD is mostly against Russia and not just NATO.
That depends on how much you want to justify them.
A simpler answer it's because they're allied. I will tell my friend he's acting like an ass, but won't go and take action into my hands like I would with someone I'm having problems with.
Many places of the world has had issues with the rest of the countries. On the world stage though, it doesn't matter as long as the big dogs are fine with each other.
OP
OP
I think it's more Russia has nukes so this is all they can do
Outside of Israel/Palestine this kind of thing usually leads to military intervention which is worse
Though arguably without the threat of nuclear this current invasion might be one of the few times one could actually make a solid case that intervention is justified.
Does it though.
The fact that no one has been able to come up with an apt comparison kind of points to the opposite (and no, answering "Palestine" or "Yemen" automatically disqualifies you).
Israel is a clear aggressor state invading territory of another sovereign state because they want the territory.
I mean, no?
First, as I already cited with numerous examples, NATO members have repeatedly refused to support, pressured, and/or called out other members for their actions with successful results.
Second, I will repeat that there is a reason the majority of the world is against Russia, because the situation is clear cut. Please tell me how the Israeli-Palestinian question is simple. Seriously, tell me how would you resolve that conflict? A return to the 1967 borders? Does Palestine get to become a fully sovereign state with a right to their own military? What about Jerusalem, how is that decided? Do you split the city up between both sides? Make it an independent free city? What about the rights of citizens in each other respective territories? What do you do with Israeli settlements in Palestine? Are reparations to also be dealt with? How much? For how long? I could keep going.
I have my own views, but no solution is simple and doesn't involve pissing people off on both sides.
On the other hand, the Ukraine-Russia conflict is pretty simple. What is the solution? Russia stops its invasion and withdraws from the country. Easy. Simple.
The UN is not a military alliance. And no it's not only one member the alliance itself went into the offensive multiple times.
See above.
Unless you are claiming Israel has no right to exist, then the situation is FAR more complex.
It's not that complex if the goal is to get them to stop invading sovereign territory currently. Sanction them as we have with Russia until they stop removing Palestinians from their homes and making settlements.
This doesn't solve the problem altogether because it is complex but it will stop the current invasion.
This as well.
Binational country. If the UN is justified and able in partitioning Palestine it's justified and able to force a Binational country with refugee right of return be upheld.
Israel has no right to exist as an ethnically pure country in a land without the people who were there before 1948.
Israel has the right to exist as a country to both people.
The UN is largely incapable of dealing with any conflict between the major players.
Heck it didn't even manage to mediate the Suez canal when the 2 superpowers at the time agreed on something for once.
That doesn't mean it's useless either.
NATO is a rather limited alliance that is just another tool a state will use to further its interests.
Sometimes, the countriy's interests are shit *gestures wildly at anything Francafrique" but frankly in light of its lifetime's achivements, it's far from the worst thing out there.
Oh I'm not saying it's not enough or something. I'm saying that it's bigger than other actions.
This kind of stuff ends up in intervention (or full support of the agressor) when it's in the "third world". Israel is not seen as that and personally I think there's a lot of racism involved in how much the north/west hemisphere cares.
Afghanistan.
Sure, planting the US flag and calling it their own territory wasn't a goal. But that's because the US long ago realized it's better to have puppet states than conquering for themselves.
Sanctioning them to stop violent occupation wouldn't be that hard it seems. Even if it solving the core problems is different, stopping the country from being an agressor clearly is an option.
So, in other words not a solution but a band-aid to stop Israel's continual land-grabs? Listen, I'm right here with you about this. But again, that is not a solution to the conflict. It is merely an action to stop Israel's current encroachment. Thus the situation is not analogous to the Ukraine-Russia conflict which is far easier to deal with and has a clear solution hence why the whole world is on-board.
And who is going to force this binational country when neither party agrees to it? You sending in troops to enforce it? The UN couldn't even enforce their own stupid partitioning of Palestine in the first place, you want them to try again?
It's not a solution to the conflict as a whole, no, but it stops the aggression which is what we should be doing.
Isn't that what is happening in Ukraine? The diplomatic solutions were likely going to be Russian keeping two of the "Separatist" occupied territories. This doesn't mean Russia leaves Ukraine alone altogether. And it would still be ripe for a conflict later on. Even if Russia left today, this doesn't solve the conflict over Crimea and other regions. It stops the current aggression.
Last edited:
No one ever brings up Palestine's right to exist. Ever. They just get shit end of the stick and have been beaten by ~Israel has the right to exist~ stick for 60 years.
Sorry just a digression.
I mean these are all hypothetical discussions. America can tomorrow enforce the 1967 Green Line and put Israel on blast, problem is solved, a position they ostensibly support! America never recognized the legitimacy of Israeli settlements. But our presidents and politicians will not let us do that. We came so close to Bernie Sanders becoming President and following through on this. It was a once in lifetime moment and we lost it. Might have to wait another 100 years for it and by then Palestinians will be all ethnically cleansed.
That was a part of the cable leaks that was pretty telling when it could be summed up as :
Palestine offers everything and the kitchen sink,
Israel isn't even willing to accept anything from Palestine.
The last 30 years of this conflict is a black eye on the international community, the West and most of all Israel.
It really wasn't that close....both times.
All is not lost forever, if GoP managed to survive changing its position to proRussia in 2016, the Dems can change its position toward Israel to accomodate a candidate.
Now the issue is getting a serious candidate who cares about Palestine past the primaries.
Since it's now a good and useful organisation that nobody should be allowed to be against, maybe NATO?
Also lol@sending troops, the west's(eu/us/nato)'s support to Israel is just shy of sending troops already.
GOP went pro Russia because they profit from it, and Trump made it okay to be pro Russia. Russia is still a powerful global presence, an oil rich nation with advanced spying and intelligence apparatus (hacking and fuck with social media capabilities). Palestine unfortunately is nothing of that and no American politician benefits from being pro-Palestine. I don't know who can unite the Dems while being pro-Palestine. It has to be someone from outside the fold and if it has to happen, it will be someone like Jon Stewart. But I don't think he ever wants to be a politician.
It's strange how NATO is both bad for using its military force to address humanitarian issues, and NOT using its military force to address humanitarian issues.
You certainly weren't before. Moving goalposts is pretty bad faith and makes discussion a bit of a chore.
Regardless, oil is a US 'concern'. No one would've given half a rat's shit about Gaddafi - including France - if he wasn't sitting on the 9th largest oil reserve in the world and spoils to divvy up. Russia, US, NATO, anyone who says that a war or conflict is a 'humanitarian intervention' is lying.
It's as if there's a hypocrisy going on.
NATO is bad for what it did to lybia among others.
Oh I absolutely agree there is clearly hypocrisy going on here.
Come on, you know the situation is far more complex than Ukraine and Russia. For one, what borders are we even agreeing on? Second, Israel is far "smarter" in their aggression than Russia. They don't just stroll in militarily and gobble up large portions of land. Instead they have slowly allowed settlements to be built in these disputed territories. Now they condemn them at first, but once they're built the population there begin to rile up the local Palestinians. And then when things get tense enough for their liking they plea to the government who are of course ready to put some boots on the ground to ensure the "safety" of their citizens. And in doing so have effectively annexed another small portion of territory.
This is all wrong, but is far more murky and harder to garner international support to sanction such actions when the entire situation is a mess from start to finish beginning with the UN's initial partition plan.
I mean if it was politically expedient for a US politician to be pro Palestinian we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Still my point is more that had Sanders won, Dem's position on Israel would have changed.
I don't think anyone should hope for an 'internal' candidate to do anything on that front.
What are you talking about
It was sitting on the 9th largest oil reserve forever but somehow the US got that critical information in the XXIth century?
It never was a humanitarian intervention in anyone's but a rando French "philosopher"'s mind.
Fyi, not aure if it was your intentions but I wouldnt treat Libya as legitimate. There was a lot of fuckery by NATO sidestepping both the UN in ways but more importantly fucking over the AUs plans which only made Africa as a whole weaker. Because of Libya we got the Malian crisis in part.
It is more complex. I'm not arguing it isn't. I'm saying we can sanction Israel for their current aggression just as we are Russia. The point of the Russian sanctions is to stop current aggression. Do the same to Israel to stop the current aggression. This doesn't solve the entire situation, but it will help. Just as current sanction won't solve all of the problems with Russia and Ukraine.
It's harder to garner international support because most of the international community supports Israel for various reasons, not because the situation is more murky. The US doesn't go against Israel and continues to help them because they want a foothold in the Middle East, that and some stuff about Doomsday. It's not because the situation is complex but because the current situation benefits them.
I really do not think it's complex. Arab nations attacked Israel, Israel defeated them, the world agreed on the armistice lines (Green Line). they tried to take it back in six day war in 1967, failed again and Israel captured Gaza from Egypt and West Bank from Transjordan in violation of armistice agreements. They need to remove themselves from those lines, that's all. But Israel is not disengaging and forcibly cleansing the population living in those captured areas ever since. Israel wants all of the land, including East Jerusalem which is also in violation of armistice agreements.
Israel is in violation of various UN resolutions to be honest, most importantly, it's also in violation of Article 49 of the Geneva conventions. You should not build settlements on occupied land. That is as clear cut as possible. The reason Israel gets away is because America sponsors it, end of story. America and Russia are enemies, so it's easy for America to throw shit at Russia. There has been real absolute bald faced lies and hypocrisy coming out of the state department about how annexing territories is illegal and everyone should follow UN resolutions. But come Israel, suddenly UN is being mean to Israel, Amnesty is being mean to Israel, there is nothing going on there. Palestinians are terrorists and IDF is the most moral army in the world and Israel is the only democracy.
Edit: one of the ways Israel is able to prolong the conflict is to tell the world "its complicated" and that's why the world at large shrugs off the occupation as "complicated". It's not. It's very similar to Russia going into a land that does belong to them right now.
I actually don't think this is true. Not that the US isn't an enabler for Israel's actions, they of course are. But if it wasn't the US, it would just be someone else filling that role, be it the UK or France or Russia.
Sure but none are anywhere near as powerful an ally as the US, a country that's shielding a non p5 nuclear power while at the same time sanctioning Iran for its nuclear ambitions.
I would disagree on this point because US has been running the racket on who it wants to be ostracized versus who it wants to be exempt at the world stage for decades now. It comes with being the only country that spends close to a fucking trillion dollars on defense every year. If I remember correctly, France Russia, UK all have condemned Israel's actions except US and have signed on resolutions calling out Israel over its violations. The most it does is abstains. Besides, US also provides billions in aid to Israel as well as towards their military arsenal.
I mean, all countries are doing that. India and Pakistan also get away with having nukes.
See above, this is not a sin the US is guiltily of alone. I'd go as far to say all nations are. That's international politics.
And honestly France, Russia, the UK get to vote for resolutions against Israel because they know those resolutions will never pass. I'm saying in a world where the US veto wasn't guaranteed, one of them would just do it instead. And other western and non-western nations provide Israel with military assistance as well.
Again, to be very clear, this is not to absolve the US of responsibility for its actions. They are absolutely wrong, and Israel is an oppressive state that should not be supported internationally like it is. But this sin is not nearly one the US alone carries alone, and I honestly don't think the US is the only one standing in the way of real change for Palestine.
I think you're forgetting some history before this you know like the original UN partition plan in 1947 which created Israel and immediately sparked a war. And then the Nakba which displaced 700,000 Palestinians from their home when Israel created their state. The end result being Israel in control of 60% more of the territory the UN originally proposed and what was supposed to be the new Arab state, not that their original partition plan was any good.
So you saying just go back to the 1967 borders is not a solution since those borders themselves were disputed.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT:
How did we get sidetracked into talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when we are talking about NATO stopping Russia from unilaterally invading and annexing territory of another sovereign nation? And how actually NATO is bad because it doesn't solve world peace?
NATO isn't bad because it didn't lead to world peace, it's bad because it actively, and on the behest of some of its more powerful members, destroyed countries with war.
We got sidetracked talking about Palestine because nato is not an independent entity that exists in a vacuum. It's made up and sustained by member states, and it's important to highlight the most powerful one of them'e policies, policies that dictate how NATO conducts itself.
If you can't follow our exchange and see what I'm talking about, I don't know what to tell you… 🤷🏽♂️
I'm not sure what point you're making here;
the US have had oil interests in Libya since the first reserves were discovered in the 1960s.
That's incorrect. The UN passed a resolution (1970 or 1971, I think?) to set up an initial no-fly zone ostensibly to "protect civilians".
You're weird, you cut my message in your first reply then you claim a part of the context is somehow missing?
And then you accuse others of arguing in bad faith.
Yeah not gonna bother with you.