Attack in Ukraine

@no1marauder said
NATO itself engages in "offense". In Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan, for example; it put "advisors" in Iraq in 2004, just one year after the invasion, to help train an army to prop up the US-installed puppet regime.

Let's talk facts for a change.

@kevcvs57 said
NATO countries or NATO alliance?
I take your fine with what Russia is up to in Syria. Why the sanctimonious BS about NATO? If everyone is bad I’ll take the bad guys that are the least likely to attack me. The idea that we leave the Eastern European’s to the tender mercies of a man that has invaded a relatively defenceless neighbour is surreal.
Given the attitude that trump ...[text shortened]... nato the UK and EU should massively expand their defence spending including their nuclear stockpile.

@shavixmir said
Are you a fukking retard or something?
I said: AFTER THE USSR AND THE WARSHAW PACT WAS DISMANTLED.

You’ve got your head so far up Boris’ arse you can’t even read anymore.

2% of GDP per country in NATO.
And NATO does nothing. Except spend that money on weapons.

Moron.

@ullr said
Two points:

1. Spending money on weapons is kind of the point. Can you imagine a defensive military alliance that doesn't spend money on weapons?

2. Doing nothing is what you hope happens with a defensive alliance. It's supposed to be a detterence against an attack against a member nation. If you wind up having to do nothing except spend money on weapons for 73 years then it has worked to perfection.

@Metal-Brain
You keep saying THEY when you actually mean WE, including yourself on the Putin side.

@no1marauder said
Money spent on weapons is almost always more usefully spent on other things.

Your reasoning reminds me of an old George in the Jungle cartoon exchange:

Other Character: George, what's that charm for?

George: It keeps away polar bears.

OC: But this is equatorial Africa! There's no polar bears for thousands of miles!

George (grinning): See how well it works?

@ullr said
Oh yeah exactly like that ..... well except for the fact that Putin isn't exactly thousands of miles away from where these weapons are being deployed is he?

Edit: Okay setting aside this really dumb analogy you just made. Do you really not believe that NATO members should invest money in weaponry? Do you believe NATO should be disbanded or do you just have a problem with it's expansion into Eastern Europe? I'm trying to understand your argument against it.

@sh76 said
Maybe it's phony, but they have the blue checkmark.

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts

@no1marauder said
My little story was meant to make the point that some expenses are not worth it IF they are spent to guard against an extremely unlikely scenario. Russian troops pouring across the borders of Western Europe is such an eventuality and an artificial expenditure of 2% of GDP to combat it is a waste of money.

NATO should have been disbanded when the reason for its existenc ...[text shortened]... ervice to neocon ideology particularly that in the US. It's a hammer constantly in search of a nail.

@shavixmir said
Are you a fukking retard or something?
I said: AFTER THE USSR AND THE WARSHAW PACT WAS DISMANTLED.

You’ve got your head so far up Boris’ arse you can’t even read anymore.

2% of GDP per country in NATO.
And NATO does nothing. Except spend that money on weapons.

Moron.

@kevcvs57 said
I’m pretty sure you are the retarded pantry wetter.
The Soviet Union withered on the vine because of nato constantly pushing back.
Russia clearly has not dropped its belligerent empire building attitude to Europe in particular,
But I’m forgetting your one of the retardant white flag waving 💩 for brains who was convinced that Russia was not going to invade Ukraine 🙄
Your ...[text shortened]... rs on these forums.
Russia must fail and Putin must be removed
preferably by the Russian people.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
You keep saying THEY when you actually mean WE, including yourself on the Putin side.

@sh76 said
That has nothing to do with NATO. That the US (and UK, etc.) invaded Iraq is not about NATO. NATO didn't require its member countries to join in the attack (and most did not). As upset as some people were with France for opposing the 2003 Iraq invasion, I don't recall anyone arguing that France was violating its duties under NATO (and if anyone did, they were clearly wrong).

...[text shortened]... f course NATO is about defense. That its members also engage in offense has nothing to do with NATO.

@sh76 said
Ukraine's (apparent) official Twitter account (it has the blue checkmark, meaning at least the people at Twitter think it's legit) responded:

"thanx, appreciate it"

This is truly a Gen Z war. Instead of top-secret international diplomacy, the combatants can't even be bothered to write out the whole words.

@no1marauder said
Go ahead and waste your money based on your paranoid delusions.

The US has been doing so for 75+ years.