Look, I weakly challenged the original commenter on a basis which I actually observed in the real world.
Since then I only was challenged back in the forms of belittling and insults.
Not one word about why NATO would not be a defensive alliance. I left loooots of room for that in my initial response. But no, only insults, and now I am challenged because of the use of a nuanced english word that you people choose to not understand. This is ridiculous.
I was indifferent before, but after this experience I support defederating hexbear.
The last one I read about that told me indeed that NATO did the bombardment in Yugoslavia not for defense, but for a humanitarian clause that it also has in its preamble. I was surprised a bit that they have it in there, and how selective they choose to deploy that.
Nevertheless, in that situation there was foundation enough to understand the reasoning, and they did so only after the UN was not able to get together to effectively do something against concentration camps and genozidal tendencies by what was then Serbia.
Now the people who argue that NATO is an aggressive alliance have arguments like the Iraq war in their portfolio, which very clearly was not a nato operation.
Maybe kindly point me to a book that is worth reading, and I will put it on my list for consideration.
Among the synonyms: dogmatic, stubborn.
I think that carries an overall appropriate meaning.
you’re also “self-opinionated” the only difference is that the opinions you’re stubborn about are wrong
Look, I weakly challenged the original commenter on a basis which I actually observed in the real world.
Since then I only was challenged back in the forms of belittling and insults.
Not one word about why NATO would not be a defensive alliance. I left loooots of room for that in my initial response. But no, only insults, and now I am challenged because of the use of a nuanced english word that you people choose to not understand. This is ridiculous.
I was indifferent before, but after this experience I support defederating hexbear.
lmao
read a book you insufferable uninformed dweeb
The last one I read about that told me indeed that NATO did the bombardment in Yugoslavia not for defense, but for a humanitarian clause that it also has in its preamble. I was surprised a bit that they have it in there, and how selective they choose to deploy that.
Nevertheless, in that situation there was foundation enough to understand the reasoning, and they did so only after the UN was not able to get together to effectively do something against concentration camps and genozidal tendencies by what was then Serbia.
Now the people who argue that NATO is an aggressive alliance have arguments like the Iraq war in their portfolio, which very clearly was not a nato operation.
Maybe kindly point me to a book that is worth reading, and I will put it on my list for consideration.
I’d start with anything by Chuck Tingle. Pounded In The Butt By My Own Butt is the classic.