• yucandu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    No, they are an alliance for defense. Nothing peaceful about it, they will fuck you up with military force if you mess with any one of their member states.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      No, they are an alliance for defense. Nothing peaceful about it, they will fuck you up with military force if you mess with any one of the US’s economic interests.

      There, FTFY

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        But that’s not true. Why do you guys repeat such propaganda without question? Countless nations have messed with the US’s economic interests throughout history, how many times has NATO gotten involved?

        • 0x0@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The point is that “NATO” is an umbrella term for “US’s interests” or “US military”.
          The US can and absolutely does wreck shit up for the sake of their own interests, regardless of international law. “NATO” only comes into play when either other countries are willing to step in or the US might need a veneer of legitimacy.

          • yucandu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The point is that “NATO” is an umbrella term for “US’s interests” or “US military”.

            Well if we’re just misusing words and making things up, shit, why not say “DPRK” is an umbrella term for “US’s interests”?

            I think you might need to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether you may have been influenced by Russian/Chinese propaganda. There is no rational reason to have a problem with the existence of NATO.