this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2025
89 points (68.0% liked)

Memes

51299 readers
1020 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

Ah, Yugoslavia. How dare anyone disturb that genocide.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why doesn't NATO disturb the current genocide in Gaza?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So your issue isn't them stopping a genocide but not stopping more genocides?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There was intense conflict along ethnic lines on both sides. NATO didn't intervene to "stop a genocide," it bombed hundreds of state-owned factories and murdered over 2000 civilians (including 300 Albanians, which NATO claimed to be "protecting"). The real drive was to destroy a nation that dared to be a part of the Non-Aligned Movement, and make them subservient to western interests, opened up for foreign plundering.

The ethnic violence was horrible, but NATO didn't really fix it, it took advantage of it as a reason to get involved and achieve the aims of western powers economically.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

Yeah, who do they think they are? NATO?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nope.

Those questions are not tough for them at all. The propaganda has it covered and they will give some version of "we tried our gosh darned best to bring the savages freedom and democracy but their barbarian culture was simply too primitive".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That list of nations is very short.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

NATO wasn't involved in Iraq were they?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Bush desperately tried to tie saddam to al-qaeda so he could trigger article 5 by claiming 9/11 was an act of aggression. That didn't pan out but the empires most loyal dogs still went with the us on their massmurder campaign. See the "coalition of the willing"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not NATO, countries that just so happen to be members of NATO for completely unrelated reasons don’t even worry about it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Gotta love 2025. Is this an alt-right post or an alt-left post? No one can tell. Horseshoe theory, etc etc.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The right is pro-NATO, as NATO is the main millitant arm propping up western imperialism, and the left is anti-NATO for the same reasons. There's no "alt-left," lol.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anyone against NATO is against Western imperialism and would be considered a "leftist" by Western standards (just humane and ethical for the rest of the world). I don't see what can be misunderstood here.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Plenty of far-right people would be leftist then. Interesting

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You're just saying words now, lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›