World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
isn't NATO a defensive treaty? which would mean no obligation to participate in actions of aggression?
It absolutely is; this guy is either an idiot or deliberately misleading.
Article V has been invoked exactly one time, by the United States after the September 11 attacks. The direct outcomes of this were two operations: Operation Eagle Assist, where NATO forces helped patrol and monitor US airspace in the immediate months after 9/11, and Operation Active Endeavour, a maritime operation where NATO ships patrolled and secured shipping lines in the Mediterranean. NATO itself was not directly involved under Article V in the Iraq invasion, though some members did voluntarily participate (hence Bush's "coalition of the willing").
There have been NATO operations in the Middle East under Article IV invoked by Turkey, which mandates only military consultation from members, not direct intervention, though they may voluntarily participate if they want. Likewise, NATO was involved in Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, is not in the Middle East) and Libya in a similar voluntary capacity. It should be noted that, despite not being a member, Sweden did participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan, voluntarily.
Sweden is only obligated to participate in military action if a member state is actively attacked. Otherwise, it's able to voluntarily participate in other NATO operations, as it has already done in the past. That NATO is a tightly organized and coordinated international military organization makes it really useful for large international operations - generally directed by the UN - but outside of defensive invocations of Article V, these are strictly optional, and members very much have refused to participate in American-led operations that they don't agree with (see Iraq).
Only on paper. In practice there are many financial and military infulence that US gets when a country joins NATO that result in joining wars in Middle East.
Such as when America tried to lead everyone into a predictably disastrous invasion of Iraq, resulting in most of Europe telling us to fuck off?
Truly, the 'infulence' of America is mighty and all must tremble before it.
They actually did get Europe involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Training_Mission_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Other_NATO_Contributions Germany,France,Spain,Poland,Norway all of them ended up training armies for US oil companies invasions. Influence is there.
This was all after the invasion to support the fledgling new Iraqi government.
If ten trainers from Norway training the Iraqi military to resist terrorist attacks is your idea of an example of gross western imperialism, you'll have to forgive me for not being hugely convinced.
You took it out of a context of a bigger picture. Of course on it self it is not the end of the World, but it was a simple show of how US influneced NATO states to do its bidding to get oil. Other horrible things that they are doing around the World and other NATO invasions are what really puts it all toghether.
No, it is not, and I'm not going to allow you to just walk back your claims after some inconvenience. To quote you yourself:
No, it doesn't. NATO membership does not mean that anyone is forced to fight wars in the Middle East. If that were the case, all of NATO would have been roped into the Iraq invasion, but they weren't. The vast majority told America to fuck off during the invasion, and only lightly participated in some minor training operations with the Iraqi military afterwards.
And again, Sweden not being in NATO did not prevent it from participating in other NATO campaigns in a voluntary capacity. Your claim that Sweden joining NATO means that it's going to be forced to participate in all these Middle Eastern wars against its will simply does not stand up to even a cursory look at actual reality. You can believe whatever you like since it appears that you're immune to facts, but anyone else reading this should know that you're not saying anything based in actual evidence.
Also, if you really think that ten Norwegians trying to teach Iraqi soldiers how to resist the groups that later became ISIS is an example of the "horrible things" that NATO does, that says much more about you than it does about NATO. The world is actually more complicated than "US brainwashes the world into killing the third world because oil".
Cheers.
They are not forced legally but practically indirectly. It is as voluntary as someone agreeing to landlords terms or those of your employer. Legally speaking, yes no one is forcing you, practically speaking you don't really have a choice and such a system was created on purpose so you can't have a choice. Once you start depending on US for their support in your defense, you need to scratch their back in doing an invasion or two so they keep supplying your weapons.
What's your source on that?
If none go spread your propaganda somewhere else, you're either a russian bot or a sympathiser. Either way you will find no friends here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations All of NATO wars were in non-NATO countries, all where offensive invasitions. They fight in MIddle East for oil companies. I do not sympathize with Russian government, they are just as bad when given the chance. But NATO is scarier. Calling people to support Russia when they critisize your government is insane.
And again, the only mandatory after Article V have been monitoring and patrolling US airspace for a few months after 9/11 and some maritime operations in the Mediterranean to protect shipping and prevent terrorism and smuggling. All those other NATO operations were voluntary, and other NATO countries have happily told the US to fuck off when they don't want to be involved.
Also, Sweden, despite not being in NATO, also participated in operations in Afghanistan. Your premise that being in NATO necessarily causes you to be involuntarily dragged into gallivanting around the Middle East is simply false. Other nations have autonomy and agency, actually. Not everything is about America.
Sweden, like many other non-NATO states, are only officially not in NATO because of lack of popular support. These wars are used to pass these things officially. US influences many countries, being in NATO officailly makes this easier. As volontery as it might seem, people rarely give support for these things and politicains that do usually get funded by the US.
Just an FYI. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source.
Wikipedia has citations. I don't know what could you find as more reliable? What did you have in mind? Also I don't think this is fair. I gave you the source, it is just as reliable as any other, since it has citations for all of it. If the situtation was reversed and you saw wikipedia article that claimed the opposite and I replied exactly the way you did, how would you react? Be honest