On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 15:19:57 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/7/23 1:58 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 02:52:14 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Might apply, if someone could show that NATO ever did it.
>>> On the other hand, Russia has always acted as an aggressor.
>>
>> While it wasn't a NATO operation several NATO members beyond the US
>> took part in Iraq 1991 and 2003.
>>
>> And both of those WERE offensive operations launched against a rogue
>> regime.
>>
>
>Sure. But NATO did not join in in any way, shape or form.
>NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the
>campaign or to conduct it.

Uh I think I just said that - and carefully said "several NATO
members" - besides the US, the UK, Spain, Italy, Poland and Turkey.
That enough to justify use of the word 'several'? (Non-NATO states
Australia, Ukraine, Georgia) - not a complete list

On 10/9/23 2:54 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 15:19:57 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/23 1:58 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 02:52:14 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Might apply, if someone could show that NATO ever did it.
>>>> On the other hand, Russia has always acted as an aggressor.
>>>
>>> While it wasn't a NATO operation several NATO members beyond the US
>>> took part in Iraq 1991 and 2003.
>>>
>>> And both of those WERE offensive operations launched against a rogue
>>> regime.
>>>
>>
>> Sure. But NATO did not join in in any way, shape or form.
>> NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the
>> campaign or to conduct it.
>
> Uh I think I just said that - and carefully said "several NATO
> members" - besides the US, the UK, Spain, Italy, Poland and Turkey.
> That enough to justify use of the word 'several'? (Non-NATO states
> Australia, Ukraine, Georgia) - not a complete list
>

Ironically, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first (and only) time in its
history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:53:23 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/4/2023 6:47 PM, chromebook test wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:39:05 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2023 4:26 PM, shawn wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:56:10 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/4/2023 12:44 PM, shawn wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:33:04 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/4/2023 11:23 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:38:55 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
> >>>>>>>> arsenal? ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh? Is Cuba producing nukes? I can't imagine Putin wanting to export
> >>>>>>> nukes at the present time (as opposed to 60 years ago)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed's contention, afaics, was that Russia had no right to deny Ukraine
> >>>>>> NATO membership. I asked why the U.S. had a right re Cuban missiles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The same reason Ukraine wants to join NATO. Russia (or more precisely
> >>>>> Putin) would like to return to the days of the Soviet Union and expand
> >>>>> the territory currently held by Russia. So Ukraine wants to join NATO
> >>>>> in the hopes of limiting Russia's advances while the US saw the Cuban
> >>>>> missiles as the threat Russia intended.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So Russia can complain about Ukraine wanting to join NATO all it wants
> >>>>> but it's only because of Russia's clear threat to Ukraine's
> >>>>> sovereignty that they are pushing for it. Look at all the other
> >>>>> countries that have suddenly thought joining NATO might not be a bad
> >>>>> idea. For all that Russia complains NATO isn't a threat to Russia, but
> >>>>> it is a threat to Putin's wish to expand the Russia territory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, but doesn't that amount to "Because we're the good guys"? Though
> >>>> it seems obvious that we indeed are, would that stand up in court?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Who is going to take any of us to court and do you think the USA or
> >>> Russia is going to care what any court says?
> >
> >> I mean "stand up in court" figuratively. Do we justify our actions with
> >> at least the appearance of principle, or merely with military might?

“Anywhere else, attacking civilian infrastructure and deliberately starving an entire population of food, water, basic necessities would be condemned, accountability would be enforced,” said King Abdullah. “International law loses all value if it is implemented selectively.”

Palestinians have criticized Western capitals for not expressing outrage over the bombing of Gaza similar to their labeling of Russian missile attacks against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure as “barbaric” and “crimes against humanity.”

When the war in Ukraine first broke out, Palestinians were elated by the tough stance taken by Western capitals against one country occupying another’s land, said Nour Odeh, a Ramallah-based Palestinian political commentator. “But it seems that occupation is only bad if the guys who are not on your side are doing it.”

> > The indispensable empire makes the rules, and breaks them when it sees fit to secure the empire

Developing World Sees Double Standard in West’s Actions in Gaza and Ukraine
Neil MacFarquhar Oct. 23, 2023,
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/us/ukraine-gaza-global-south-hypocrisy.html