▲ 152 ▼ NATO could end if US takes over Greenland — Danish PM (www.dw.com) submitted 10 months ago by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago* (9 children) Many countries around the world Libya: The forgotten victims of NATO strikes - Amnesty International permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -5 points 10 months ago (8 children) Do you that think those strikes wouldn't have happened without NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (7 children) Yes, but even if it would have happened anyways the world would still be better off without NATO. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -5 points 10 months ago (6 children) That's a pretty difficult claim to support because it requires you to make some pretty insane assumptions about what would have happened without NATO. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (2 children) How so? Didn't NATO commit crimes? The fact other criminals exist doesn't mean one fewer criminal gang isn't an improvement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Which NATO country do you think couldn't have committed all those crimes without the rest of NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago None of them. I think they are all equally capable of committing the crimes, but a gang is more dangerous than individual criminals acting on their own. So the gang [NATO] disbanding is a net positive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children) It's not difficult (except for Europeans and their settler counterpart) to understand that the world would be better off without NATO, your whiteness. "If it weren't for NATO then it would've been anyone else!" isn't the convincing claim you think it is. The burden of supporting such chickenshit non-claim is on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 child) You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago Yes, what's your point? A terrorist organization ceasing to exist makes it slightly more difficult for European imperialist countries spearheaded by the largest imperialist, European settler-colony to collaborate and carry out their imperialist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -5 points 10 months ago (8 children) Do you that think those strikes wouldn't have happened without NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (7 children) Yes, but even if it would have happened anyways the world would still be better off without NATO. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -5 points 10 months ago (6 children) That's a pretty difficult claim to support because it requires you to make some pretty insane assumptions about what would have happened without NATO. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (2 children) How so? Didn't NATO commit crimes? The fact other criminals exist doesn't mean one fewer criminal gang isn't an improvement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Which NATO country do you think couldn't have committed all those crimes without the rest of NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago None of them. I think they are all equally capable of committing the crimes, but a gang is more dangerous than individual criminals acting on their own. So the gang [NATO] disbanding is a net positive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children) It's not difficult (except for Europeans and their settler counterpart) to understand that the world would be better off without NATO, your whiteness. "If it weren't for NATO then it would've been anyone else!" isn't the convincing claim you think it is. The burden of supporting such chickenshit non-claim is on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 child) You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago Yes, what's your point? A terrorist organization ceasing to exist makes it slightly more difficult for European imperialist countries spearheaded by the largest imperialist, European settler-colony to collaborate and carry out their imperialist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago (7 children) Yes, but even if it would have happened anyways the world would still be better off without NATO. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -5 points 10 months ago (6 children) That's a pretty difficult claim to support because it requires you to make some pretty insane assumptions about what would have happened without NATO. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (2 children) How so? Didn't NATO commit crimes? The fact other criminals exist doesn't mean one fewer criminal gang isn't an improvement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Which NATO country do you think couldn't have committed all those crimes without the rest of NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago None of them. I think they are all equally capable of committing the crimes, but a gang is more dangerous than individual criminals acting on their own. So the gang [NATO] disbanding is a net positive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children) It's not difficult (except for Europeans and their settler counterpart) to understand that the world would be better off without NATO, your whiteness. "If it weren't for NATO then it would've been anyone else!" isn't the convincing claim you think it is. The burden of supporting such chickenshit non-claim is on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 child) You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago Yes, what's your point? A terrorist organization ceasing to exist makes it slightly more difficult for European imperialist countries spearheaded by the largest imperialist, European settler-colony to collaborate and carry out their imperialist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -5 points 10 months ago (6 children) That's a pretty difficult claim to support because it requires you to make some pretty insane assumptions about what would have happened without NATO. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (2 children) How so? Didn't NATO commit crimes? The fact other criminals exist doesn't mean one fewer criminal gang isn't an improvement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Which NATO country do you think couldn't have committed all those crimes without the rest of NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago None of them. I think they are all equally capable of committing the crimes, but a gang is more dangerous than individual criminals acting on their own. So the gang [NATO] disbanding is a net positive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children) It's not difficult (except for Europeans and their settler counterpart) to understand that the world would be better off without NATO, your whiteness. "If it weren't for NATO then it would've been anyone else!" isn't the convincing claim you think it is. The burden of supporting such chickenshit non-claim is on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 child) You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago Yes, what's your point? A terrorist organization ceasing to exist makes it slightly more difficult for European imperialist countries spearheaded by the largest imperialist, European settler-colony to collaborate and carry out their imperialist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (2 children) How so? Didn't NATO commit crimes? The fact other criminals exist doesn't mean one fewer criminal gang isn't an improvement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Which NATO country do you think couldn't have committed all those crimes without the rest of NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago None of them. I think they are all equally capable of committing the crimes, but a gang is more dangerous than individual criminals acting on their own. So the gang [NATO] disbanding is a net positive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 child) Which NATO country do you think couldn't have committed all those crimes without the rest of NATO? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago None of them. I think they are all equally capable of committing the crimes, but a gang is more dangerous than individual criminals acting on their own. So the gang [NATO] disbanding is a net positive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago None of them. I think they are all equally capable of committing the crimes, but a gang is more dangerous than individual criminals acting on their own. So the gang [NATO] disbanding is a net positive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children) It's not difficult (except for Europeans and their settler counterpart) to understand that the world would be better off without NATO, your whiteness. "If it weren't for NATO then it would've been anyone else!" isn't the convincing claim you think it is. The burden of supporting such chickenshit non-claim is on you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 child) You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago Yes, what's your point? A terrorist organization ceasing to exist makes it slightly more difficult for European imperialist countries spearheaded by the largest imperialist, European settler-colony to collaborate and carry out their imperialist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 child) You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago Yes, what's your point? A terrorist organization ceasing to exist makes it slightly more difficult for European imperialist countries spearheaded by the largest imperialist, European settler-colony to collaborate and carry out their imperialist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago Yes, what's your point? A terrorist organization ceasing to exist makes it slightly more difficult for European imperialist countries spearheaded by the largest imperialist, European settler-colony to collaborate and carry out their imperialist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent