A country that is threatening with the use of nuclear missiles is never a stable situation. I don’t think that’s a good argument to avoid protecting vulnerable states from those countries.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
I don’t know which mod removed the comment, but I’m not happy about it. You can’t argue against those people if the mods remove their comments. I want to convince those people that they’re wrong, not push them further into their delusion.
You may want to humor them, but once a poster starts spreading misinformation, not just stupid conclusions from actual facts, I ban and remove their content. Wherever that kind of debate belongs, it ain’t here.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
That’s you not ‘just relaying the message’.
Plus, I think “defence” pact is a bit much given what NATO has done in Yugoslavia.
Removed by mod
So, it’s not “destabilizing the region”, it’s making russia mad.
Removed by mod
They have been at war for 3 years. Nothing about the situation is stable.
In fact, letting Ukraine join NATO would bring stability, since that would prevent Putin from invading again.
But Putin doesn’t want that, because Putin wants to invade Ukraine even more.
Removed by mod
A country that is threatening with the use of nuclear missiles is never a stable situation. I don’t think that’s a good argument to avoid protecting vulnerable states from those countries.
Removed by mod
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
Removed by mod
I don’t know which mod removed the comment, but I’m not happy about it. You can’t argue against those people if the mods remove their comments. I want to convince those people that they’re wrong, not push them further into their delusion.
It was me.
You may want to humor them, but once a poster starts spreading misinformation, not just stupid conclusions from actual facts, I ban and remove their content. Wherever that kind of debate belongs, it ain’t here.
“Proposing that a country join a defence pact only activated in case of an attack on the country is aggravating any potential aggressors”
Jesus Christ.
“Cartels murdering people in your town? Just don’t talk to the cops, that’s how you stay safe.”
Removed by mod
That’s you not ‘just relaying the message’.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Removed by mod