you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You now all the countries that joined NATO would still exist without it, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent