Dolan wrote:But NATO is a military organisation, what would you expect it to be? The UN? How could they describe themselves? "We are a military organisation that will attack any state that attacks any member of our organisation". This is just official talk, official-ese, it's just a political statement, it's not part of the treaty. The treaty only talks about the members' obligations, not about the organisation's obligations to the world. It's a mutual defence organisation, not a defence charity.
And obviously, every organisation will try to describe itself in the most favourable terms on its own website. You have to look at the facts, though. Russia is the country that annexed and attacked sovereign states like Ukraine and Czechoslovakia in 1968, so history shows Russia has an expansionist policy towards its neighbours. So, NATO's enlargement in Eastern Europe was part of a historical reparation. Western Europe and the USA abandoned the East at the end of WW2 and left it under the control of the USSR. Churchill divided Europe's spheres of influence on a napkin, in a negotiation session with Stalin. Then Stalin invaded Romania under the pretext of "liberating" it from the Axes, even though Romania was already liberated. This is how they brought Communism here, by the force of tanks. And this has meant more than 42 years of demented social experiments that set the country back by decades and destroyed the lives of millions of people. What would you know about this, when you lived in a country far away from Russia?
- It is a military organisation, sure. It doesnt have to be a defense charity. Im just pointing out that what the NATO and their country members say and claim to stand for, is imo not in line with their actions. This is used by everyone to describe what the NATO is and does.
- Sure every organisation tries to describe itself in the most favorable way and there is 'offical' and 'political' talk . But that doesnt make it a good thing now does it, especially when its quite different from actual actions.
- I do look at the facts, what they have done rather than what they have said or claim to do. Same with every politician or organization. I never said Russia is doing everything by the book and in an ethical way, do NOT insinuate things please. I was merely pointing out that most people in "the west" are so brainwashed and propagated towards a negative look of Russia etc, that they are not even thinking about what "our west" has done or is actually doing, for fair comparison.
- In all your posts you like to rattle on about specific events and small stories that you have quickly looked up or perhaps ready in your mind. You could just be shorter with only the arguments and their neccessary support.
- Again, as i said above. I dont think Russia is "good" and does it all right. But you are just looking at it from one side, thats my issue. Sure the 'demented social experiments" etc is a bad thing. But do you have any idea what other western countries have done? For starters, dive into the history of colonialism and slavery.
- Dont come with just Russia attacked this and that, be honest and realize that NATO countries are doing the same thing, just in a slightly different, more sneaky way. Look at Iraq for example.
- I live (not lived, im still here
), in a country called the Netherlands. We have had a lot of issues with a guy called "Hitler", the loss of many lives via war, gas rooms and social experiments as well. And i also realize that Russia played a big role, taking lots of losses, in pushing him back to eventually free everyone. So idk why you would come with this.
Dolan wrote:And how did NATO break that commitment? Can you prove NATO installed the Ukrainian government? Did they simulate their elections too?
- By being so aggressive (even before Russia taking Crimea (back?)), more military bases close by, etc, they are imo breaking that committment of countries sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and stimulating peace and democracy. I have said this already...
- I hope you still trust BBC news, have a look here about the involvement of NATO countries:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957. Which just demonstrates my point. Now, after the whole debacle ofc things got harder to pull off. However, whether its coincidence or still orchestrated in a way is hard to find out, fact remains that a few months later the guy they wanted out was forced out by sudden revolt and the guy they wanted in was then the new leader.
Dolan wrote:Veni, stop with this arrogant BS (ie, "Let me correct this for you", "very applicable here, to you, and to most"). I studied political science at the university. But I don't claim that I know some kind of cognitive bias that applies to "you and most people" because I'm so much smarter and it doesn't apply to me... Why would you assume this air of condescension with me? Did you study politics? Worked in politics? I did both.
- I do feel that it is very applicable. Actually everyone is in a way trapped by this, me too. You just have to get out of it and open your mind and seek the truth, which isnt easy I know.
- Whether you are smarter or not remains to be seen. I dont think you are stupid, but this is besides the issue. Smart and stupid is not even defined by just IQ and some studies anyway imo. I have studied politics, not worked in it gladly. But the fact that you have done both it seems, is perhaps part of the issue, and does refer to the cognitive dissonance subject btw.
Dolan wrote:What kind of "cognitive dissonance" did you identify in my arguments? Any examples? A dissonance between what and what? I agree with the rest of the argument that one should make an effort to seek out facts and think for oneself, instead of just being a follower. Though I wouldn't demonise the media so much, it just sounds too much like conspiracy theory BS.
- While it seems you are reading into stuff and at least thinking about it, it also seems you are not openly considering other options or at least researching them. One example is the Ukrainian issue which is just out there to read from all kind of 'official sources' as well. But instead of you reading about it, i have to dig it up and point it out.
- You can always disagree imo, but then you have to read and thought about both sides of the story and come with proper arguments.
- Wouldnt demonise the media? Sure not everything is bad, but there are plenty of examples which were/are falsely reported over and over. Take the IRAQ WMD for example.
People calling other people conspiracy theorists are usually the ones that are a) too naive b) not openly thinking about arguments and proof from the other side of the story c) end up with no more arguments or reasoning and then resort to blaming the other for a 'conspiracy theorist' or d) part of the 'conspiracy' itself
I'll leave it at this. Since I feel I have to repeat too much again, and even though you seem to make the effort into researching, I think its at least time to also read into arguments from the other side of stories and do some digging yourself, rather than just accept the more general propagated (and easier to find) answer. Until that point, you will remain convinced of things which are not neccessarily true imo. Whether its about west or east or usa or russia.