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.
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20241225164949/https://www.rawstory.com/greenland-2670671719/
SpinScore: https://spinscore.io/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Fgreenland-2670671719%2F
The primary purpose of NATO is to maintain western hegemony over the global south to better extract resources and profit from it. It being gone is a net good
Yes, the primary issue I mention is the purpose you are talking about. Thank you for repeating what I said. It being disbanded wouldn’t automatically be net positive, since despite the issues it creates, it does serve other valid purposes. You need to address systemic issues, not manifestations of those issues to solve anything. Because if not NATO, it would be another 4 letter organization doing exactly the same thing by exactly the same people.
Name one
How is any of that positive for humanity?
Because any war leads to human losses, so prevention of war is a good thing, not bad.
NATO does not prevent war. The term “defensive pact” is bullshit. NATO has always been a geopoltical aggressor. Its an appendage if US empire
Don’t you hate it when your war prevention alliance has been at war for thirty years straight
Its literally the worst war prevention alliance ever, but of course, the actual purpose of a thing is what it does
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.
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.
You are not describing other purposes, you are describing means by which NATO pursues it’s one purpose. Also, what is your understanding of the word “imperialism”?
Yet another lib who thinks imperialism means expanding territory/any invasion
Obviously things are imperialism when Russians do them. Imps are closely related creatures to orcs and goblins.
Should be self-explanatory.
It’s not. What is your understanding of the word “imperialism”?
Merriam-Webster tankie
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism
Right, Miriam webster, that’s what I thought. So using that definition opens up gaping holes in your ideology.
If Palestine manages to push out the zionists and take back some of their land, will that be imperialism? Because according to this it will.
So then every economic bloc is imperialist, every capitalist organization is imperialist (always gotta capture a bigger market share!), every political party is imperialist, and any sufficiently influential cultural product is imperialism (what is pop culture if not a form of indirect political control?).
Your definition, and mirriam webster’s boils down to “imperialism is when a government exerts control over something”. It has the same problem as all liberal concepts: it’s flat and unmoving, a child’s diorama view of the world where all things are eternal and contextless, without beginning or end. Our violence, the violence of that capitalist bloc, is just a fact of nature, while violence against us is an unforgivable aberration. To see this play out in microcosm, look at how the media is treating Luigi Mangione. Our profitable mass murder of thousands is Just How Things Are, while the revenge killing of one of the figureheads of this industry is unthinkable. America’s constant aggression, genocidal crimes and nuclear brinksmanship are just the order of things, while any moves by Russia/Iran/China/Venezuela/Cuba/North Korea/whoever to protect themselves from us is warmongering, and they must be punished like children.
Simply put, if we accept the definition you’ve given, then we have to answer the questions it raises, questions like “why should I, a citizen of the country that perpetrates the very worst of these crimes as a matter of daily business, believe anything it says about it’s enemies? Why are you choosing to apply your definition only to those countries that the US has made it expedient to hate? If you genuinely hold anti-imperialist convictions, what makes you think supporting your imperialists at home instead of fighting them is an effective way to act on that? What are you actually accomplishing with your “Neither Washington nor Moscow, but actually Washington” faux-anti authority that every communist has witness four trillion times before?”