politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Based on discourse online post the invasion of Ukraine, it seems there's a few Americans that don't know what NATO is/does, nor how it differentiates from how the US conducts its military. For starters, it's anti-militant—kind of the point—unless it has no other viable resort, and it's the threat of that last resort that bolsters the passive-security within NATO. It is safety in numbers and it fails if the herd scatters.
As a result, Article 5 has only needed to be acted upon once and the irony is that it was the US that raised the call for help and the other nations responded.
If Trump has his way, WW3 will kick off, everyone will suffer, and it'll end with the US saying, "Fucking hell. Wow. Let's not let that happen again. We need some sort of agreement to make sure of that."
I don't think humans have that much self-awarneess anymore, I think Trump can literally kill 12 million people with his bare hands and most people will say "Aww shucks" aside from a vocal minority, with the media calling such actions "Divisive" at worst
Anti-militant is a terrible mischaracterization. NATO is existentially militant, it's a super federation of militarized powers. What they are is a defensive pact. They don't conquer territory, western powers have been out of that business since before the formation of the alliance.
Putin's gambit that the herd might scatter is a really big bet for an empire that's already over-extended trying to protect force onto territory that isn't rightfully theirs. How long does he think he can keep paying off enough westerners to prevent a non-nato fraternal response?
Umm. Well. Are we including NATO-sponsored ~~invasions~~ err... peacekeeping conflict-resolution interventions?
NATO doesn't only operate in defense, there have been a long list of NATO-sponsored interventions outside NATO membership: Kuwait/Iraq, the Balkans, Libya. One can argue whether NATO operations were justified in those cases, but I don't think any of them could be described as anti-militant, or that there were no other viable options. Doing nothing was an option, for example.
With Article 4, they will respond to threats with enough recourse to prevent it or provide aid and assistance for operations focused toward peace. The "threat" being one the collective nations of NATO agree that a member of NATO will not be able to handle alone, thus its security will be compromised, and that would lead to Article 5 being invoked when it could've been avoided earlier.
I'm not even saying that I disagree with the decision to intervene in Kuwait, but it was certainly militant, and NATO nations certainly had other "resorts" to insure their own security. I'm having trouble coming up with any argument that Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, for example, threatened the security of a NATO member.