Why don't US/UK/Nato go to war with any strong nation?

[KingKhanWC]

Ive asked many Brits and others who supported the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya why not do the same in Ukraine, send Dads army to sort out the Russians?

This isnt about Russia or Ukraine but to see views of people who support those wars but arent lobbying or protesting their government when it comes to nations which are stronger, such as Russia or China.

If its because they have nukes, this means you are scared to be hit hard in return. Meaning you will only fight much weaker nations with little chance to return the pain. Surely this is cowardly? If these nation dont want to be in pain its better for them to be friends with those they cant beat instead of proxy wars.

 

[Technics 1210]

Good question.

The first defence from NATO apologist you will read will be along the lines of Ukraine is not a NATO member, but this excuse doesn't wash, as NATO can fast track membership (as they have with Sweden and Finland), not only this, Ukraine applied for NATO membership years ago, but computer said no!'

On to the second point, NATO has no problem picking on smaller nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria - I do not care if NATO apologists claim Iraq was not a NATO operation, NATO's 2 front runners - USA/UK - lead the wars in the ME, and as I have said, NATO is really a military complex of the JC alliance.

NATO targeted weaker nations with imposed sanctions, murdered millions, displaced 10s of Millions, ravaged the ME, installed puppet governments, gave rise to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, and ISIS, because war was not on the doorstep of the NATO border, so it was easier to wage wars sitting from their cosy leather armchairs while reaping the benefits

Like any bully NATO is weak, scared, when a nation with nukes, a resilient economy, united by nationalism steps up to Western bullying.

NATO knows full well that weak nations cannot retaliate but strong nations can, which is why NATO will not send in dad's army into Ukraine, instead, fund Ukraine with dirty money and weapons.

NATO has NEVER had to defend its borders, until now. NATO doesn't have a game plan, the sanctions failed miserably, and the only option NATO has is to rely on its propaganda arm - ZMSM - to maintain the illusion that NATO is winning this war. So powerful is this propaganda that NATO apologists do not realise the longer the war goes on the more detrimental it is for Europe (once again Amreeka sitting comfortably away) amd more beneficial for Russia, just like NATO were in Afghanistan for 20 years! War is an economy.

Russia on the other hand is building new trade routes, circumventing SWIFT, killing the USD hemogeny, and building a new alliance, BRICS+ which will include China, India, Iran to name but a few nations who have had enough of western economic and political bullying.

Bottom line, NATO is bricking it, and Putin knows it. He is playing on NATO's fear and has outsmarted the West at every juncture, which why NATO is not sending dad's army cos they will be home on body bags.

 

[ElRaja]

because a european theatre war would put the onus of the offensive on Germany and France, two countries with virtually zero experience in modern warfare. it is more than likely any full on engagement of such sort would be met by staunch domestic resistance within both countries, and would threaten the functioning, if not the existance of NATO.

the requirement of defensive warfare to engage, i.e. direct attack on a NATO member allows the theatre to be strictly confined to one or two nations, and approval for retaliation is likely to be much easier in the event a nation is attacked.

finally becuase there is no need to, there is nothing NATO can gain from direct engagement with the Russians which it cannot from continuing to keeping them occupied in Ukraine. Putins own aims were regime change and bringing Ukraine back within the Russian sphere of infuence. The attack on Kiev was a disaster and hes ensured not a single Ukrainian for generations will have any sympathy towards Russia.

By taking the war to Russia you allow them the opporunity to spin a narrative of defensive victory regardless of the outcome of the Ukraine war whereas at the moment making an arugment that Russia is losing is very easy.

 

[KingKhanWC]

because a european theatre war would put the onus of the offensive on Germany and France, two countries with virtually zero experience in modern warfare. it is more than likely any full on engagement of such sort would be met by staunch domestic resistance within both countries, and would threaten the functioning, if not the existance of NATO.

the requirement of defensive warfare to engage, i.e. direct attack on a NATO member allows the theatre to be strictly confined to one or two nations, and approval for retaliation is likely to be much easier in the event a nation is attacked.

finally becuase there is no need to, there is nothing NATO can gain from direct engagement with the Russians which it cannot from continuing to keeping them occupied in Ukraine. Putins own aims were regime change and bringing Ukraine back within the Russian sphere of infuence. The attack on Kiev was a disaster and hes ensured not a single Ukrainian for generations will have any sympathy towards Russia.

By taking the war to Russia you allow them the opporunity to spin a narrative of defensive victory regardless of the outcome of the Ukraine war whereas at the moment making an arugment that Russia is losing is very easy.

Dont really accept these reasons but good points.

They want Ukraine in Nato so no reason to make an excuse they are not Nato yet. Besides Yanks dont need Nato , they love bombing on their own with little poodle Britain in their land rovers driving around underneath.

There is nothing to gain from a proxy war, which it is. Its doing more damage, Putin is wining both in military and economic terms.

Lets be real bro, bulllies only attack those who are weaker. You'll never see a bully fight someone their own size, no difference here.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Good question.

The first defence from NATO apologist you will read will be along the lines of Ukraine is not a NATO member, but this excuse doesn't wash, as NATO can fast track membership (as they have with Sweden and Finland), not only this, Ukraine applied for NATO membership years ago, but computer said no!'

On to the second point, NATO has no problem picking on smaller nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria - I do not care if NATO apologists claim Iraq was not a NATO operation, NATO's 2 front runners - USA/UK - lead the wars in the ME, and as I have said, NATO is really a military complex of the JC alliance.

NATO targeted weaker nations with imposed sanctions, murdered millions, displaced 10s of Millions, ravaged the ME, installed puppet governments, gave rise to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, and ISIS, because war was not on the doorstep of the NATO border, so it was easier to wage wars sitting from their cosy leather armchairs while reaping the benefits

Like any bully NATO is weak, scared, when a nation with nukes, a resilient economy, united by nationalism steps up to Western bullying.

NATO knows full well that weak nations cannot retaliate but strong nations can, which is why NATO will not send in dad's army into Ukraine, instead, fund Ukraine with dirty money and weapons.

NATO has NEVER had to defend its borders, until now. NATO doesn't have a game plan, the sanctions failed miserably, and the only option NATO has is to rely on its propaganda arm - ZMSM - to maintain the illusion that NATO is winning this war. So powerful is this propaganda that NATO apologists do not realise the longer the war goes on the more detrimental it is for Europe (once again Amreeka sitting comfortably away) amd more beneficial for Russia, just like NATO were in Afghanistan for 20 years! War is an economy.

Russia on the other hand is building new trade routes, circumventing SWIFT, killing the USD hemogeny, and building a new alliance, BRICS+ which will include China, India, Iran to name but a few nations who have had enough of western economic and political bullying.

Bottom line, NATO is bricking it, and Putin knows it. He is playing on NATO's fear and has outsmarted the West at every juncture, which why NATO is not sending dad's army cos they will be home on body bags.

I think you've covered everything, wish more would accept this truth.

I would only add, due to recent escapades in Afghanistan and Iraq US/Nato realise their armies , soldiers arent actually that good. I followed the Afghan war closely, almost each time a battalion would hole up half a km from a village looking for 'terrorists'. They would start shooting at the village, those defending their people and land would fire their AK's back with a passion. The soldiers would then be scared, send in air support which would bomb the whole village, kids and goats too.

SAS and US special forces, Green Berets are elite no doubt about it. But the rest would be eaten up by the likes of the Chechen Special forces.

Also they wouldnt have the political support they once would. The world is more than Europe, US, Canada, Aus and Israel. The rest see US/UK/Nato as warmongers and cowards because of the last 20 years.

 

[Technics 1210]

I think you've covered everything, wish more would accept this truth.

I would only add, due to recent escapades in Afghanistan and Iraq US/Nato realise their armies , soldiers arent actually that good. I followed the Afghan war closely, almost each time a battalion would hole up half a km from a village looking for 'terrorists'. They would start shooting at the village, those defending their people and land would fire their AK's back with a passion. The soldiers would then be scared, send in air support which would bomb the whole village, kids and goats too.

SAS and US special forces, Green Berets are elite no doubt about it. But the rest would be eaten up by the likes of the Chechen Special forces.

Also they wouldnt have the political support they once would. The world is more than Europe, US, Canada, Aus and Israel. The rest see US/UK/Nato as warmongers and cowards because of the last 20 years.

NATO is weak anyway, in Europe, NATO is nothing without Amreeka. All NATO members in Europe have a depleated army and military because they rely on their Amreekan cousins to bail them out. This is why EU etc were crying when Trump simply mentioned USA would pull out of NATO.

Whats more, the West is struggling with inflation, struggling with food poverty, struggling with debts, but as if by magic, NATO members pulled out BILLIONS out of a hat to fund a losing war.

NATO = North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation

 

[ElRaja]

Dont really accept these reasons but good points.

They want Ukraine in Nato so no reason to make an excuse they are not Nato yet. Besides Yanks dont need Nato , they love bombing on their own with little poodle Britain in their land rovers driving around underneath.

its not an excuse, a NATO attack of Russia would be spun as a seperate war in Russia, which turn the narrative into one of defense, whereas regardless of the underlying political machinations of western influence in Ukrainian domestic politics, it was certainly a war of russian aggression, in which they have failed to complete their objectives yet.

There is nothing to gain from a proxy war, which it is. Its doing more damage, Putin is wining both in military and economic terms.

his objectives were clear, he has not achieved them.

as far as the economy goes hes made it significantly more reliant on China. China is the only winner in this conflict, it is slowly turning Russia into its captive market, and once chinese weapons start to replace russian weapons in the russian army, China is likely to be able to dictate even greater discounts than it currently getting on its oil imports, so contrary to your asseration, for China there is a lot to gain from a continued conflict.

 

[Technics 1210]

its not an excuse, a NATO attack of Russia would be spun as a seperate war in Russia, which turn the narrative into one of defense, whereas regardless of the underlying political machinations of western influence in Ukrainian domestic politics, it was certainly a war of russian aggression, in which they have failed to complete their objectives yet.



his objectives were clear, he has not achieved them.

as far as the economy goes hes made it significantly more reliant on China. China is the only winner in this conflict, it is slowly turning Russia into its captive market, and once chinese weapons start to replace russian weapons in the russian army, China is likely to be able to dictate even greater discounts than it currently getting on its oil imports, so contrary to your asseration, for China there is a lot to gain from a continued conflict.

The world economy is pretty much reliant on China, we know this after the China lockdowns brought the world economy to its knees and even today, supply chain issues persist.

 

[PakLFC]

Coz the Brits, Americans and NATO don't want to commit suicide. They won't pick on China, Russia or even an Iran or North Korea.

 

[KingKhanWC]

its not an excuse, a NATO attack of Russia would be spun as a seperate war in Russia, which turn the narrative into one of defense, whereas regardless of the underlying political machinations of western influence in Ukrainian domestic politics, it was certainly a war of russian aggression, in which they have failed to complete their objectives yet.



his objectives were clear, he has not achieved them.

as far as the economy goes hes made it significantly more reliant on China. China is the only winner in this conflict, it is slowly turning Russia into its captive market, and once chinese weapons start to replace russian weapons in the russian army, China is likely to be able to dictate even greater discounts than it currently getting on its oil imports, so contrary to your asseration, for China there is a lot to gain from a continued conflict.

Nato/US/UK dont care about leaving a life of good deeds. They knew everyone knew attacking Iraq was based on lies, war crimes werent hidden... I think you're giving them too much credit for caring about the narrative.

Objectives are in motion, its not ended yet. China arguably needs Russia more as it will be their supplier of natural resources which it will need esp if sanctions come into play using the Taiwan excuse.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Coz the Brits, Americans and NATO don't want to commit suicide. They won't pick on China, Russia or even an Iran or North Korea.

Pick up The Sun or NY times the story is always of the brave, strong nations who will defeat all evil. Cant be a suicide if you're so brave and strong?

 

[Technics 1210]

Pick up The Sun or NY times the story is always of the brave, strong nations who will defeat all evil. Cant be a suicide if you're so brave and strong?

It is not bravery, it is propaganda.

People have weak memories, USSR helped the Western alliance forces win WW1 and WW2, and NATO are not only riding that success but are goading the very nation they owe their freedom to.

 

[sweep_shot]

They may sustain a lot of casualties. That's the likeliest reason why they don't want to go head-to-head against Russia or China.

Russia and China can do real damages to USA and their allies.

 

[Robert]

Because war with Russia means the end of the world. A billion people will die very quickly and Europe, much of Russia and much of North American will become uninhabitable. Then nuclear winter will risk ecological collapse and everyone else will die too.

It’s pretty straightforward.

 

[Robert]

the requirement of defensive warfare to engage, i.e. direct attack on a NATO member allows the theatre to be strictly confined to one or two nations, and approval for retaliation is likely to be much easier in the event a nation is attacked.

The one way there will be war with Russia is if Putin encroaches onto a NATO state such as Latvia. Then Article Five will be declared by NATO members and his troops will be forced back to Russia’s borders.

He will not do it as at best he will suffer loss of face at home and be deposed, and at worst nuclear escalation will occur and Russia will be obliterated from the world.

This is called deterrence theory.

So instead he carries out alternative warfare such as propaganda and destabilising techniques:

- using social media troll houses to interfere in elections and weaken the resolve of his opponents by promoting Trump, Brexit and so on.

- corroding their institutions with oligarch money, flattering those Western politicians who like a lot of praise like Trump and Johnson and buying their way into the House of Lords for example

- stirring dissent among ethnic Russians in Western states, stoking grievances, fomenting strikes with FSB agents embedded in foreign trade unions, stirring up racism and so on.

 

[NishanKonar]

NATO should keep arming Ukraine and keep prolonging the war. Russian economy will not be able to sustain expensive war for long - given the level of sanctions. Once the ban on oil comes into place later this year - Russia's finances will get worse

As San Tzu famously said - the best way to win war is by not fighting the war. NATO triggered the collapse of USSR without actually fighting any war - by arming Afghan mujahideen and reducing oil prices in the 1980s using Saudis ( which bankrupt USSR finances )

NATO can do the same to Putin's Russia if they play the card well

 

[Robert]

NATO should keep arming Ukraine and keep prolonging the war. Russian economy will not be able to sustain expensive war for long - given the level of sanctions. Once the ban on oil comes into place later this year - Russia's finances will get worse

As San Tzu famously said - the best way to win war is by not fighting the war. NATO triggered the collapse of USSR without actually fighting any war - by arming Afghan mujahideen and reducing oil prices in the 1980s using Saudis ( which bankrupt USSR finances )

NATO can do the same to Putin's Russia if they play the card well

Let’s be clear on terms. NATO isn’t a government. Member states are imposing sanctions, as are some non-member states such as Ireland, Sweden and Finland.

Putin has been able to keep the cash flowing so far.

One factor which broke USSR was unwinnable war in Afghanistan. But it was not the only factor. Chernobyl was probably the bigger factor.

Putin has got himself into a quagmire in Ukraine though, against a determined and disciplined opponent who will not give up. He cannot win now. But he cannot withdraw, because he will lose face and be deposed.

 

[KingKhanWC]

So answer is Russia is strong, it will hit back and hit back hard with its weapons esp nukes. Afghans, Libyans couldnt so attacking a weak country is all the bravery they can show.

If you are a gang in a neighborhood and another gang who lives near you is just as strong, you make peace not war.

US/UK and Nato cant fight Russia so are using the blood of Ukrainians, this is as cowardly as one can be.

 

[PakLFC]

Pick up The Sun or NY times the story is always of the brave, strong nations who will defeat all evil. Cant be a suicide if you're so brave and strong?

The Sun and NYC are only good for wrapping up food! Nuff said!

 

[the Great Khan]

First rule of battle win without fighting. Also appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak. And finally those who wish to fight must first count the cost..

 

[KingKhanWC]

NATO should keep arming Ukraine and keep prolonging the war. Russian economy will not be able to sustain expensive war for long - given the level of sanctions. Once the ban on oil comes into place later this year - Russia's finances will get worse

As San Tzu famously said - the best way to win war is by not fighting the war. NATO triggered the collapse of USSR without actually fighting any war - by arming Afghan mujahideen and reducing oil prices in the 1980s using Saudis ( which bankrupt USSR finances )

NATO can do the same to Putin's Russia if they play the card well

Not sure which planet you're from but here on Earth the opposite is occurring, the longer this war continues, the stronger Russia, the weaker the West. In fact you are witnessing history, a change of power in world economics.

 

[NishanKonar]

First rule of battle win without fighting. Also appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak. And finally those who wish to fight must first count the cost..

This

The West always put on air of weakness which fools its worst enemies and lulls them into sense of overconfidence and force them into misadventures

Putin thought West has become weak , so he thought he could invade Ukraine , occupy the nation in 2 weeks and show the West the middle finger. Now 6 months into an expensive war showing no signs of ending - he wud be ruing his decision while his army suffer heavy losses ( both manpower and equipment ) at the hands of country not even one tenth their size

 

[Robert]

This

The West always put on air of weakness which fools its worst enemies and lulls them into sense of overconfidence and force them into misadventures

Putin thought West has become weak , so he thought he could invade Ukraine , occupy the nation in 2 weeks and show the West the middle finger. Now 6 months into an expensive war showing no signs of ending - he wud be ruing his decision while his army suffer heavy losses ( both manpower and equipment ) at the hands of country not even one tenth their size

Well, I think Putin was emboldened by some of his propaganda successes, helping Trump and Brexit to succeed with dark money and troll house propaganda.

The hard left in UK blames the West for this war but I think what tipped Putin’s hand in Ukraine was the agency of the Ukrainian people - those vast Euromaiden demonstrations against the sudden decision to join the Eurasian Economic Union instead of the planned EU Association Agreement.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Dont really accept these reasons but good points.

They want Ukraine in Nato so no reason to make an excuse they are not Nato yet. Besides Yanks dont need Nato , they love bombing on their own with little poodle Britain in their land rovers driving around underneath.

There is nothing to gain from a proxy war, which it is. Its doing more damage, Putin is wining both in military and economic terms.

Lets be real bro, bulllies only attack those who are weaker. You'll never see a bully fight someone their own size, no difference here.

The real irony is that by living in UK and paying taxes you are funding all this

 

[Robert]

The other thing about Putin is he knows he is getting old and had little time left to reinstate his vision of the Russian Empire, so is becoming more openly aggressive in addition to his highly successful alters warfare techniques.

 

[Technics 1210]

Such naivity displayed by NATO/Western apologists

Putin dies tomorrow, it will not be the end of Russia's vision, the next leader will ensure Russia's vision will continue, in the sane way no US president leads for more than 8 years, but the next President inline ensures Amreekan imperialism and NATO bombings continue, with the exception of Trump who reached out for peace.

 

[NishanKonar]

Such naivity displayed by NATO/Western apologists

Putin dies tomorrow, it will not be the end of Russia's vision, the next leader will ensure Russia's vision will continue, in the sane way no US president leads for more than 8 years, but the next President inline ensures Amreekan imperialism and NATO bombings continue, with the exception of Trump who reached out for peace.

A fundamental difference between Russia and USA. In Russia all power is concentrated in 1 man - Putin. If Putin dies - it will take his successor a long time to get that level of power. There is very high chance he will be a weak leader like Boris Yeltstin. So its difficult to say what happens next after Putin. After Putin situation in Russia is likely to be like Mughals after Aurangzeb. Or the Sikhs after Ranjit Singh

In contrast US is driven by institutions. Hence there is far more consistency in their policy making

 

[Technics 1210]

A fundamental difference between Russia and USA. In Russia all power is concentrated in 1 man - Putin. If Putin dies - it will take his successor a long time to get that level of power. There is very high chance he will be a weak leader like Boris Yeltstin. So its difficult to say what happens next after Putin. After Putin situation in Russia is likely to be like Mughals after Aurangzeb. Or the Sikhs after Ranjit Singh

In contrast US is driven by institutions. Hence there is far more consistency in their policy making

Nice story.

Doesn't change the fact an agenda is prolonged by subsequent leaders.

Oh, USSR setup is not the same as Russia.

 

[Technics 1210]

Should add, Amreekan Democrats and Republicans oppose each other on political and social values, except of course, when it comes to war.

 

[Robert]

A fundamental difference between Russia and USA. In Russia all power is concentrated in 1 man - Putin. If Putin dies - it will take his successor a long time to get that level of power. There is very high chance he will be a weak leader like Boris Yeltstin. So its difficult to say what happens next after Putin. After Putin situation in Russia is likely to be like Mughals after Aurangzeb. Or the Sikhs after Ranjit Singh

In contrast US is driven by institutions. Hence there is far more consistency in their policy making

It will be another oligarch, but we don't know which at this stage or how he is likely to behave. Who knows, he may instigate free and fair elections again, and set the nation back on the path of liberalism like Gorbachev before him.

 

[SalimBhai]

Is Putin dying?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Is Putin dying?

Salimbhai Putin is fit and healthy , did you mean Uncle Sam Biden? :

But here we go everyone , Dads Army is being prepared. Winston will be smiling in his grave and Brits on this forum will be waiting for the British army to turn the tide.

Ukraine war: British troops must prepare to fight in Europe once again, says new head of Army
The comments from Sir Patrick Sanders follow warnings from both the Prime Minister and NATO's General Secretary to be prepared to offer Ukraine its support long term.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-...ope-once-again-says-new-head-of-army-12636637

@cpliegh Happy now?

 

[Junaids]

To answer the OP, because NATO is a defensive alliance.

There is no mechanism for it to go and attack an innocent country.

 

[Robert]

To answer the OP, because NATO is a defensive alliance.

There is no mechanism for it to go and attack an innocent country.

There’s no point, mate. They just form some false equivalence about Iraq. I gave up a year ago. Save your energy for something positive.

 

[Robert]

Is Putin dying?

No, though as he gets older he will find it harder to rule by fear and eventually will be deposed. Hopefully the next guy will be more reasonable.

 

[Manunited18]

NATO is the axes of all evils. Anyone who denies that talks xxite and is of the hypocrites.

 

[KingKhanWC]

To answer the OP, because NATO is a defensive alliance.

There is no mechanism for it to go and attack an innocent country.

lol.

Yes and Iraq had WMDs which could hit UK in 45 mins.

Its not too late to accept your mistakes.

Nato is US and its poodles. Would you like me to educate you on the history of US state terrorism along with its poodles?

 

[Technics 1210]

When people say Palestinians are freedom fighters, NATO apologists say no, they are terrorists.

So why on earth should we accept NATO is a defensive alliance? Just because NATO apologists say so? No.

NATO is an agressive and provocative alliance, its history against Muslims is well documented, and its sole goal is to establish a new world order driven by the JC alliance and funded by the Zionists.

 

[Technics 1210]

Here's another Western liberal classic:

War with Russia means end of the world.

War with weaker nations means liberalism and democracy.

NATO is nothing but an insecure bully.

 

[Junaids]

lol.

Yes and Iraq had WMDs which could hit UK in 45 mins.

Its not too late to accept your mistakes.

Nato is US and its poodles. Would you like me to educate you on the history of US state terrorism along with its poodles?

NATO never attacked Iraq.

Some of its members did, but to accuse NATO of attacking Iraq has all the validity of accusing British Muslims of attacking Iraq.

 

[Robert]

NATO never attacked Iraq.

Some of its members did, but to accuse NATO of attacking Iraq has all the validity of accusing British Muslims of attacking Iraq.

Plenty of people still don’t comprehend what NATO is.

The Iraq War was never planned at NATO HQ in Brussels. Member states USA, UK and Poland took part, as did non-member Australia, but members Canada, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Iceland all refused, being unconvinced of the causus belli.

This is a matter of record for anyone who chooses to look, and bases their beliefs on evidence not conspiracy theory.

 

[NishanKonar]

Plenty of people still don’t comprehend what NATO is.

The Iraq War was never planned at NATO HQ in Brussels. Member states USA, UK and Poland took part, as did non-member Australia, but members Canada, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Iceland all refused, being unconvinced of the causus belli.

This is a matter of record for anyone who chooses to look, and bases their beliefs on evidence not conspiracy theory.

NATO did commit a big blunder in Libya ! Agree Iraq was a Bush & Cheney adventure

 

[ahsan17]

NATO never attacked Iraq.

Some of its members did, but to accuse NATO of attacking Iraq has all the validity of accusing British Muslims of attacking Iraq.

Plenty of people still don’t comprehend what NATO is.

The Iraq War was never planned at NATO HQ in Brussels. Member states USA, UK and Poland took part, as did non-member Australia, but members Canada, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Norway and Iceland all refused, being unconvinced of the causus belli.

This is a matter of record for anyone who chooses to look, and bases their beliefs on evidence not conspiracy theory.

This is all semantics though. You are right about NATO but OP also called out US and UK individually in the thread title. What do you guys have to say about US and UK only targeting weak nations?

 

[cpleigh]

Because no powerful country has attacked a member state.

It's that simple. But the loons in here and NATO haters will spin it another way

 

[Robert]

NATO did commit a big blunder in Libya !

That was after a UN Resolution, though. NATO cannot declare war because NATO is not a nation state.

Yes it was a blunder because the no-fly zone left Gaddafi unable to defend his nation against the fundamentalists who had seized control of the Arab Spring popular uprising.

So civilians were spared Gaddafi’s bombs, but the nation collapsed anyway.

 

[Robert]

This is all semantics though. You are right about NATO but OP also called out US and UK individually in the thread title. What do you guys have to say about US and UK only targeting weak nations?

I answered that further up.

Because fighting a rival superpower risks the end of the world.

That’s why Russia and China don’t fight NATO states. Russia picks on Afghanistan, South Ossetia, Ukraine instead of the big boys.

 

[SalimBhai]

Dude who is Russia fighting. Any big guys. Or Russia is ALSO fighting nobodies like the USA

 

[KingKhanWC]

NATO never attacked Iraq.

Some of its members did, but to accuse NATO of attacking Iraq has all the validity of accusing British Muslims of attacking Iraq.

Nato is US and its poodles, its very simple to understand yet you ignore this. Nothing can happen with Nato without US approval. US and UK attacked Iraq in official terms but Nato operations were used from 2004 to 2011 Nato officials were inside Iraq, check their own website.

You seem to swallow whatever BBC or British governments have fed you. Try to think logically with common sense, you will realise the name of the organistion isnt important, its the same people.

But sure lets ignore these facts, perhaps you can explain why the brave UK and US forces have only ever attacked weak, poor nations with little to no military. Afghanistan was the poorest, after 20 years ran out in the middle of the night like cowards.

Anyone who truly believes Western regimes are for the good of the world or are good decent people in general are deranged imo. Im sure nobody on here believes this, its only to save face.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Dude who is Russia fighting. Any big guys. Or Russia is ALSO fighting nobodies like the USA

Russia is defending its borders Salimbhai. Its not an expansionists warmongering nation.

Where are you from , it will help with giving you better context to understand basics of geo-politics?

 

[Technics 1210]

Nato is US and its poodles, its very simple to understand yet you ignore this. Nothing can happen with Nato without US approval. US and UK attacked Iraq in official terms but Nato operations were used from 2004 to 2011 Nato officials were inside Iraq, check their own website.

You seem to swallow whatever BBC or British governments have fed you. Try to think logically with common sense, you will realise the name of the organistion isnt important, its the same people.

But sure lets ignore these facts, perhaps you can explain why the brave UK and US forces have only ever attacked weak, poor nations with little to no military. Afghanistan was the poorest, after 20 years ran out in the middle of the night like cowards.

Anyone who truly believes Western regimes are for the good of the world or are good decent people in general are deranged imo. Im sure nobody on here believes this, its only to save face.

Lets not forget that NATO turned a blind eye on Muslim genocide within Europe. NATO apologists claim Bosnia wasn’t a member of NATO, but they do not realise that Ukraine is not a member of NATO either.

NATO is war machine, under pinned by the Judeo-Christian alliance, and funded by Zionists.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Lets not forget that NATO turned a blind eye on Muslim genocide within Europe. NATO apologists claim Bosnia wasn’t a member of NATO, but they do not realise that Ukraine is not a member of NATO either.

NATO is war machine, under pinned by the Judeo-Christian alliance, and funded by Zionists.

1000 civilians bombed but no war crimes trial to this day?

There is nothing defensive about Nato. A dog is always a dog even if it labels itself as a horse.

 

[Robert]

1000 civilians bombed but no war crimes trial to this day?

There is nothing defensive about Nato. A dog is always a dog even if it labels itself as a horse.

Let's discuss facts rather than horses and dogs.

NATO is a defensive alliance between member states. It cannot act unless all member states agree. They will not all agree to anything outside mutual defence - 17 out of 20 member states did not agree regarding the Iraq War for example.

However it has a very large and capable command and control facility in Brussels.

Remember those blue-helmeted UN troops in former Yugoslavia? They were sent by the UN to try to calm the situation down in 1992, soon after the war broke out between Bosnians, Croats and Serbs, because USA and EEC recognised Bosnia-Herzegovina. The UN troops came from many countries, but were disorganised and were not able to prevent much bloodshed.

The situation escalated and soon it became clear to the UN that the UN troops deployed could not prevent a genocide. So they asked the militaries of Europe and USA to intervene, and NATO HQ co-ordinated the campaign which halted the genocide. NATO troops are still there because fighting would certainly restart without them to keep the peace.

This is an extreme oversimplification which [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] can clarify but you get the gist. If you read Paddy Ashdown's diaries you will get this in much greater detail as he was there on the ground as a negotiator.

Some of the leaders who committed the genocide were tried at the Hague.

*********************************************************



Article Five was declared by NATO for the only time in its history after 9/11 - an attack on one is an attack on all. As per the UN Charter, USA was legally entitled to act in its own defence. NATO helped USA with Operation Eagle Assist , carrying out 130 air strikes in Afghanistan from thirteen NATO states.

Later in Afghanistan the UN asked many countries to send troops to support the new democratic state. Forty countries including Arab League states sent troops as part of the ISAF mission. This mission was co-ordinated through NATO HQ, though many of the nations sending troops were not NATO members.

 

[Technics 1210]

Article 5 declaration was daylight fraud.

Afghanistan did not attack Amreeka, this is a fact, so you can burn all your lefty diaries, opinions, and stables.

 

[Technics 1210]

1000 civilians bombed but no war crimes trial to this day?

There is nothing defensive about Nato. A dog is always a dog even if it labels itself as a horse.

Easy, the civilians were neither White, nor Christians.

And yes, NATO is a provocative alliance; NATO has been goading Russia for years, now they cry like a baby.

You reap what you sow.

 

[Markhor]

Let's discuss facts rather than horses and dogs.

NATO is a defensive alliance between member states. It cannot act unless all member states agree. They will not all agree to anything outside mutual defence - 17 out of 20 member states did not agree regarding the Iraq War for example.

However it has a very large and capable command and control facility in Brussels.

Remember those blue-helmeted UN troops in former Yugoslavia? They were sent by the UN to try to calm the situation down in 1992, soon after the war broke out between Bosnians, Croats and Serbs, because USA and EEC recognised Bosnia-Herzegovina. The UN troops came from many countries, but were disorganised and were not able to prevent much bloodshed.

The situation escalated and soon it became clear to the UN that the UN troops deployed could not prevent a genocide. So they asked the militaries of Europe and USA to intervene, and NATO HQ co-ordinated the campaign which halted the genocide. NATO troops are still there because fighting would certainly restart without them to keep the peace.

This is an extreme oversimplification which [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] can clarify but you get the gist. If you read Paddy Ashdown's diaries you will get this in much greater detail as he was there on the ground as a negotiator.

Some of the leaders who committed the genocide were tried at the Hague.

*********************************************************



Article Five was declared by NATO for the only time in its history after 9/11 - an attack on one is an attack on all. As per the UN Charter, USA was legally entitled to act in its own defence. NATO helped USA with Operation Eagle Assist , carrying out 130 air strikes in Afghanistan from thirteen NATO states.

Later in Afghanistan the UN asked many countries to send troops to support the new democratic state. Forty countries including Arab League states sent troops as part of the ISAF mission. This mission was co-ordinated through NATO HQ, though many of the nations sending troops were not NATO members.

NATO are guilty of crimes of action (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) and inaction in failing to stop the Bosnian genocide - the worst committed in Europe since the Holocaust. Most accept bloodshed as a fact of war, but Bosnia was a systematic effort on the part of Bosnian Serbs (backed by their leader in Belgrade), and for a brief time, Bosnian Croats (backed by their fascist sympathising leader in Croatia) to wipe out the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their cultural heritage. Civilian casualties were not incidental but deliberate.

Bosnian Muslims are some of the most secular Muslims on the planet who lived peacefully with their Christian neighbours for centuries. They were subject to the longest siege in modern human history (longer than Stalingrad) in Sarajevo; the guns of 80,000 JNA troops trained on them along with an assortment of thugs, organised criminals and football hooligans who behaved like animals. One would think this would be grounds for NATO intervention.

Instead America, still smarting from the disaster in Somalia, dithered while Europe (in particular Britain) time and again resisted NATO air strikes on the Bosnian Serbs despite Mladic's order to "shell the Muslims to the brink of madness."

The UN peacekeepers were a joke - namely the Dutch who simply watched while Mladic's army dragged innocents in Srebrenica (a UN protectorate) to the slaughterhouses. As was the UN arms embargo which disproportionately affected the Bosniaks who were the weakest army. John Major and his Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd (must be rhyming slang) resisted arming the Bosniaks because it'd create "a level killing field." Margaret Thatcher, who I'm no fan of, to her eternal credit opposed this madness. Pakistan, whose foreign policy I'm also no fan of, to their credit defied the UN embargo and armed the Bosniaks.

The British head of UNPROFOR Michael Rose (incredibly this creature was knighted) was a closet Islamophobe who openly sympathised with the Serbs. He said the civilians of Gorazde (another UN enclave) were "exaggerating" their plight. After the first Markale market massacre in 1994 that killed 68 - he believed the Bosniaks shelled their own for global sympathy. Straight outta the Gaza School of Victim Blaming.

John Major, today parading as Mr Voice of Reason, planned to withdraw British peacekeepers from Goradze too even after the Srebrenica Genocide ! After this carnage, Douglas Hurd, then Deputy Chairman of Natwest, brokered the privatisation of Serbian Telecoms handing Milosevic his Kosovo warchest.

When these two die, I hope they see the faces of the 60,000 Bosniaks, the 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica, who were slaughtered thanks to their inaction, and if there is a hell - join their friends Mladic, Milosevic and Karadzic - in the deepest, darkest, hottest crevice. I make no apologies for saying that.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

We nuked two cities in Japan to win a war. Two whole cities of life wiped out, babies, mothers, pet dogs and kittens. It's unimaginable, but we did it, and some of our senior posters will still defend it to this day because we won the war.

Imagine if North Korea or India had done this. Would we have accepted it?

 

[Robert]

We nuked two cities in Japan to win a war. Two whole cities of life wiped out, babies, mothers, pet dogs and kittens. It's unimaginable, but we did it, and some of our senior posters will still defend it to this day because we won the war.

To end the war. To stop the killing. The Imperial Japanese murdered ten million Chinese and Korean civilians, and yet some consider the Japanese the victims.

I don’t know why people get hung up on the nukes. Some of the thousand-bomber conventional raids were more destructive. Two cities, you say? Every major city in Germany was made rubble. Tokyo and Yokohama were incinerated.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

To end the war. To stop the killing. The Imperial Japanese murdered ten million Chinese and Korean civilians, and yet some consider the Japanese the victims.

I don’t know why people get hung up on the nukes. Some of the thousand-bomber conventional raids were more destructive. Two cities, you say? Every major city in Germany was made rubble. Tokyo and Yokohama were incinerated.

Why would we care about what happened in Japan or China back then? What did that have to do with us?

It just seems insane to me that we could justify dropping nukes on the other side of the world, yet we lay flowers for a girl or boy of our own who dies in a road accident.

 

[Robert]

NATO are guilty of crimes of action (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) and inaction in failing to stop the Bosnian genocide - the worst committed in Europe since the Holocaust. Most accept bloodshed as a fact of war, but Bosnia was a systematic effort on the part of Bosnian Serbs (backed by their leader in Belgrade), and for a brief time, Bosnian Croats (backed by their fascist sympathising leader in Croatia) to wipe out the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and their cultural heritage. Civilian casualties were not incidental but deliberate.

Bosnian Muslims are some of the most secular Muslims on the planet who lived peacefully with their Christian neighbours for centuries. They were subject to the longest siege in modern human history (longer than Stalingrad) in Sarajevo; the guns of 80,000 JNA troops trained on them along with an assortment of thugs, organised criminals and football hooligans who behaved like animals. One would think this would be grounds for NATO intervention.

Instead America, still smarting from the disaster in Somalia, dithered while Europe (in particular Britain) time and again resisted NATO air strikes on the Bosnian Serbs despite Mladic's order to "shell the Muslims to the brink of madness."

The UN peacekeepers were a joke - namely the Dutch who simply watched while Mladic's army dragged innocents in Srebrenica (a UN protectorate) to the slaughterhouses. As was the UN arms embargo which disproportionately affected the Bosniaks who were the weakest army. John Major and his Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd (must be rhyming slang) resisted arming the Bosniaks because it'd create "a level killing field." Margaret Thatcher, who I'm no fan of, to her eternal credit opposed this madness. Pakistan, whose foreign policy I'm also no fan of, to their credit defied the UN embargo and armed the Bosniaks.

The British head of UNPROFOR Michael Rose (incredibly this creature was knighted) was a closet Islamophobe who openly sympathised with the Serbs. He said the civilians of Gorazde (another UN enclave) were "exaggerating" their plight. After the first Markale market massacre in 1994 that killed 68 - he believed the Bosniaks shelled their own for global sympathy. Straight outta the Gaza School of Victim Blaming.

John Major, today parading as Mr Voice of Reason, planned to withdraw British peacekeepers from Goradze too even after the Srebrenica Genocide ! After this carnage, Douglas Hurd, then Deputy Chairman of Natwest, brokered the privatisation of Serbian Telecoms handing Milosevic his Kosovo warchest.

When these two die, I hope they see the faces of the 60,000 Bosniaks, the 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica, who were slaughtered thanks to their inaction, and if there is a hell - join their friends Mladic, Milosevic and Karadzic - in the deepest, darkest, hottest crevice. I make no apologies for saying that.

Good detail as expected [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] but remember that NATO was not involved in Iraq. Remember Blair flying around trying to get the Western states to join the US-led Coalition and only Poland did? Everyone else stayed well clear. Regime change is not a sufficient reason to trigger an Article Five declaration.

As for Major and Hurd I didn’t know that - though remember that these guys aren’t NATO, which is a building in Brussels staffed by military officers. The military do what their civilian governments tell them. Whereas NATO does what the UN tells it.

 

[Technics 1210]

NATO takes orders from the USA, not the UN.

Russia and China are permanent members of the UN security council. Let this sink in.

 

[Marshland]

Easy, the civilians were neither White, nor Christians.

And yes, NATO is a provocative alliance; NATO has been goading Russia for years, now they cry like a baby.

You reap what you sow.

The Russians, a population of a mere 140-odd million, control an enormous extent of territory that contains massive amounts of very important resources - all kinds of solids, liquids, and gases, including water-, making them a primary target for attack for many centuries now. It's not a surprise.

 

[Robert]

The Russians, a population of a mere 140-odd million, control an enormous extent of territory that contains massive amounts of very important resources - all kinds of solids, liquids, and gases, including water-, making them a primary target for attack for many centuries now. It's not a surprise.

I think you will find that, historically speaking,
Russia has done most of the attacking. Napoleon and Hitler apart. In the last century they attacked Poland, Finland, a dozen Eastern European states, Afghanistan, South Ossetia and now Ukraine.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why would we care about what happened in Japan or China back then? What did that have to do with us?

It just seems insane to me that we could justify dropping nukes on the other side of the world, yet we lay flowers for a girl or boy of our own who dies in a road accident.

Dwight D. Eisenhower who was in charge of plans to end WW2 and later became President, has stated on record the nuclear bomb wasnt needed at all. Japan had already decided to surrender , end the war.

US dropped not one but two nukes to scare others for their future imperialist plans. One of the biggest and most disgusting war crimes in history but until death, nobody has been punished.

Also nuclear bombs can leave danger for decades to follow, cant be compared with other big bombs.

 

[Technics 1210]

The Russians, a population of a mere 140-odd million, control an enormous extent of territory that contains massive amounts of very important resources - all kinds of solids, liquids, and gases, including water-, making them a primary target for attack for many centuries now. It's not a surprise.

Yup, and since the Judeo-Christian West cannot conquer Russia and its minerals, the JC alliance has decided to launch a mission to the moon.

 

[cpleigh]

Lets not forget that NATO turned a blind eye on Muslim genocide within Europe. NATO apologists claim Bosnia wasn’t a member of NATO, but they do not realise that Ukraine is not a member of NATO either.

NATO is war machine, under pinned by the Judeo-Christian alliance, and funded by Zionists.

You really are quite... weird. NATO do nothing 'turns a blind eye,... NATO does something 'NATO's an agressor'

Make your mind up

 

[cpleigh]

Russia is defending its borders Salimbhai. Its not an expansionists warmongering nation.

Where are you from , it will help with giving you better context to understand basics of geo-politics?

I presume thats sarcism? How many countries does it currently have troops in illegally and un invited?

I can count about 4 or 5? Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia have i missed any?

 

[Technics 1210]

You really are quite... weird. NATO do nothing 'turns a blind eye,... NATO does something 'NATO's an agressor'

Make your mind up

Bosnia.

You've been schooled already, no need for anymore free education. Those days are long gone before you were born.

Come back when your Navy has an operational warship, NATO bot.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I presume thats sarcism? How many countries does it currently have troops in illegally and un invited?

I can count about 4 or 5? Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia have i missed any?

Grab a world map and see the locations while doing some independent research as to why there was conflicts.

Then look up the Commonwealth number of nations and look up the covert and overt attacks on governments from US. Its baffling if you think Russia is imperial but US/UK are not lol.

 

[cpleigh]

Grab a world map and see the locations while doing some independent research as to why there was conflicts.

Then look up the Commonwealth number of nations and look up the covert and overt attacks on governments from US. Its baffling if you think Russia is imperial but US/UK are not lol.

What has the UK and USA got to do with the statement? Somebody tried to say Russia isn't an empire builder... Which is clearly wrong and a lie

 

[cpleigh]

Bosnia.

You've been schooled already, no need for anymore free education. Those days are long gone before you were born.

Come back when your Navy has an operational warship, NATO bot.

Ah... So when NATO did intervene to protect kosovo Muslims... Does that not count? Also they did intervene in Bosnia, so I really don't get what u are saying anyway.

Quite sad really ... The country you idolise was the ONE country that could have prevented the Bosnian genocide but chose to ignore it

 

[Technics 1210]

Ah... So when NATO did intervene to protect kosovo Muslims... Does that not count? Also they did intervene in Bosnia, so I really don't get what u are saying anyway.

Quite sad really ... The country you idolise was the ONE country that could have prevented the Bosnian genocide but chose to ignore it

All too late, we've been through this before. NATO turned a blind eye.

The alliance you worship could have prevented Muslim genocide in Europe, but hey, MSM commands you to only care about Jewish genocide.

 

[cpleigh]

Bosnia.

You've been schooled already, no need for anymore free education. Those days are long gone before you were born.

Come back when your Navy has an operational warship, NATO bot.

All too late, we've been through this before. NATO turned a blind eye.

The alliance you worship could have prevented Muslim genocide in Europe, but hey, MSM commands you to only care about Jewish genocide.

You've done it again.... Ignored the Russia part. They could have stopped it.

Do you hate all military alliances?

 

[KingKhanWC]

What has the UK and USA got to do with the statement? Somebody tried to say Russia isn't an empire builder... Which is clearly wrong and a lie

Study some basic history you'll be informed. Russia's empire since the collapse of the SU hasnt seen 1% of the imperialism by UK and US.

Are you trolling us as I cant believe someone is so blind to US/UK crimes over the last 300 years.

 

[Robert]

Dwight D. Eisenhower who was in charge of plans to end WW2 and later became President, has stated on record the nuclear bomb wasnt needed at all. Japan had already decided to surrender , end the war.

US dropped not one but two nukes to scare others for their future imperialist plans. One of the biggest and most disgusting war crimes in history but until death, nobody has been punished.

Also nuclear bombs can leave danger for decades to follow, cant be compared with other big bombs.

Actually no, the prompt radiation, heat and blast would have killed many, fallout many more, but after the fallout got rained out of the sky there was no further damage. Look at the two thriving cities today.

In your scenario Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been erased by thousand-bomber conventional raids instead, and an equal number of people would have died.

 

[Technics 1210]

You've done it again.... Ignored the Russia part. They could have stopped it.

Do you hate all military alliances?

Bosnia Muslim genocide occurred before you were born.

Nuff said.

Still the MSM zionist propaganda is strong, the moment a Jewish life is under threat, you bots come out in your droves.

You know why they call a TV show a program? Program to brainwash.

 

[Technics 1210]

Study some basic history you'll be informed. Russia's empire since the collapse of the SU hasnt seen 1% of the imperialism by UK and US.

Are you trolling us as I cant believe someone is so blind to US/UK crimes over the last 300 years.

Do not bother, UK crimes against humanity are not taught in schools, just the bit where UK was perceived to be winning, this to, with the help of USSR during WW1/2.

 

[JaDed]

Nukes were completely wrong but many Japanese blame themselves than play victims , a trait which is basically taking responsibility and that’s why inspite of that the nation bounced back and not only survived but absolutely thrived.

The best thing about Japanese and Germans is how they never play the victim but motivated themselves to do better.

 

[cpleigh]

Study some basic history you'll be informed. Russia's empire since the collapse of the SU hasnt seen 1% of the imperialism by UK and US.

Are you trolling us as I cant believe someone is so blind to US/UK crimes over the last 300 years.

Wait.... What?!? So a Russian empire collapsed... Hence proving they are imperialists... And in that time the UK empire has shrunk and since then Russia has started on another imperial quest..

What history are you asking me to study??

 

[KingKhanWC]

Actually no, the prompt radiation, heat and blast would have killed many, fallout many more, but after the fallout got rained out of the sky there was no further damage. Look at the two thriving cities today.

In your scenario Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been erased by thousand-bomber conventional raids instead, and an equal number of people would have died.

I wasnt referring to those two but in general. Cities are fine now but in the aftermath many died as a result of the radiation.

To use nukes you have to be evil, unless they have been used against you.

 

[Technics 1210]

You have to be deaf, dumb, and blind, to ignore the ambition of White JC imperialism post WW2.