A massive increase in defense spending is set to hit Greenland in a move that would allow the Artic territory to fortify its military’s strength.The announcement came just hours after President-elect Donald Trump again insisted that the United States should acquire the semi-autonomous part of Denmar...
  • BrikoXOPMEnglish
    82·
    2 days ago

    Because any war leads to human losses, so prevention of war is a good thing, not bad.

      • BrikoXOPMEnglish
        32·
        2 days ago

        You are arguing against something I haven’t said. Yes, US missuses NATO for their own purposes, I stated that in the first comment in this thread…

        But that won’t change just because NATO gets disbanded without changing the systemic issues that created NATO in the first place. Because it will just be re-born under a different name with the same stated goals and the same US in the driver seat. So instead of that lets address the root causes so that NATO becomes obsolete and makes it useless vehicle hence preventing US from using it as a vehicle for their aggression and imperialism.

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          102·
          2 days ago

          the systemic issues that created NATO in the first place

          The systemic issue that created it in the furst place is US imperialism. The US doesn’t misuse NATO because its will is the only point of NATO.

          What do you think the systemic issue is? You keep refering to it without naming it and act as if it deflects critisism of NATO instead of condemning it, which does not seem obvious to me.

          • BrikoXOPMEnglish
            12·
            2 days ago

            What do you think the systemic issue is?

            Read the full comment. It literally answers it.

            <…> act as if it deflects critisism of NATO instead of condemning it <…>

            Nowhere did I deflect from the harm NATO has done. It’s your position that maintaining status quo is preferable to addressing the root cause since it’s fine with you if new NATO is born with a new name (lets call it MATO) as long as NATO specifically is dead.

            • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              10·
              2 days ago

              Read the full comment. It literally answers it.

              No it doesnt. You just say systemic issues and root causes and that they need to be addressed, you never say what they are. I said what i think the issue is its the US, i have no clue what you think it is

              It’s your position that maintaining status quo is preferable to addressing the root cause since it’s fine with you if new NATO is born with a new name (lets call it MATO) as long as NATO specifically is dead.

              That’s not my position lol. That’s the most overly simplistic read of my saying Death to NATO you could possibly take. “Death to NATO - I’m totally for the status quo though just as long as its not called NATO.” I wonder what you think it means when we say Death to America lol