Now your not arguing in good faith. Saying I said things that I didn't, or even said the opposite of.
Destroying Serbia and Libya were NATO defensive wars of convenience. I didn't say anything of the sort. I specifically and directly said the opposite that they were not defensive of NATO. (They were attempts at defense of people who it was thought would otherwise be slaughtered, but on the level of nations alone, not considering people inside nations they were aggressive acts by NATO)
The US Army fighting against Hitler was morally the same as Finland fighting WITH Hitler Similar, not identical. Some of the important points were the same. Both the US and Finland were attacked, and both retaliated against their attacker. Also both allied with horrible regimes as part of the war effort that followed. But not everything was the same, the most important difference was that Finland had been forced in to an unfavorable peace treaty and wasn't actively being attacked when it resumed war on the USSR (it was however facing threats and demand for more land to be turned over, which in the context of the fact that the USSR had recently attacked them and grabbed land from them made their actions morally reasonable if arguably practically unwise). Another difference going the other way is that the US had embargoed Japan while I'm pretty sure Finland had not embargoed the USSR (and it wouldn't' have been massively significant if it did), but I don't find that to be a very significant point. Refusing to trade isn't an act of war.
German Nazis didn’t either No, they definitely did an I never said or suggested otherwise.
“Weakening” - meaning, trying to destroy Russia - is the “declared” policy of Nato since Gen Austen said so.
Weakening != destroying. Also having an intention to cause some country to be weaker is not an act of war, and is something Putin presumably has, and long has had, about the US and NATO. Even wanting to destroy the other side is not an act of war. |
