this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
-16 points (45.3% liked)
World News
32283 readers
705 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Some Presidents should stick to declaring only things they have control over.
Some NATO officials should stick to avoiding nuclear holocaust over some theoretical pissing contest.
There is only one country that is constantly threatening a nuclear attack. That country is not in NATO.
The only country in the world with an official "first strike" nuclear policy is the United States.
Not arguing there. But this was 80 years ago. You would think that making threats of this nature would be something that you would show restraint considering we have a history.
The U.S. is the only country on the planet that has a first-strike policy, i.e., that as a standing matter threatens to use nukes. This is not 80 years ago, this is right now.
There is only one country that used nukes against a live target, ever, and they did it twice, to civilian population centers in the middle of active peace negotiations.
There is only one country with nuclear capabilities deployed in over 80 countries under its direct control. There is only one country that has unilaterally pulled out of every nuclear treaty in history. There is only one country that publishes news articles about and has leadership in press conferences talking about winning nuclear war and about developing mini nukes. There is only one country working to undermine the MAD doctrine. There is only one country that just sent a nuclear-armed submarine to one its vassal states as a show of willingness.
You are mistaken. The US is in NATO. Unless you mean to tell me their 1000 military bases encircling Russia and China are somehow not a provocation?
So you would be ok if Turkey says "we only invaded those greek islands because they had greek military bases in them"? I am just wondering, since when having military bases(your own or of allies), in your own sovereign, internationally recognized territory is an acceptable casus belli for you.
Would you be ok if the US invaded Cuba, if Cuba had russian bases? Is this what you are saying? How something like this justifies invasion?
Name them?
Oh you hate US Imperialism? Name every troop
I'm pretty positive even the u.s military struggles to know where all of its military bases are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
Sooo no names eh. I don't believe there is any tbh.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The number of around 1000 US foreign military bases is well collaborated, even by US professors and researchers. The existence of organisations like AFRICOM and US foreign troop deployments to countries like Germany and South Korea is well known. It's not a matter of belief.
The fact you have to ask questions your own intellect.
Lmao go back to reddit you debatelord loser
Naval Facility Okinawa is one of the more controversial. There's also Fort Magsaysay in the Philippines, along with others in the region. The US really does have China surrounded on multiple fronts.
The largest American overseas base is Camp Humphreys in South Korea, which comprises of over 500 individual buildings and cost $11 billion.
Name 1000 military bases? How about viewing the major ones: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyafNUuWIAA_Iz9.jpg
Of course you'll now say there's something wrong with the picture and lalala your way out.
OFC I don't care. Russia has troops in Belarus waiting to attack Ukraine.
Thank you for proving to be a jingoist wilful varlet.