• indexOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Open and read the links instead of skipping them and perhaps you will understand and get a better picture of what nato is and what they do. What you are dismissing as “vague hereditary claims” are court cases in italy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_and_allegations_involving_Silvio_Berlusconi#Propaganda_Due_(P2)_trial:_False_testimony_(1989)

    Not sure why you’re including an exercise as proof of NATO being “pro-war” but ok.

    Practicing war and wasting billions in doing it through all the year to me enter in the definition of being pro-war or i’m gonna assume during these exercises they practice hugging and making peace with each others.

    Missile strikes in Yemen weren’t NATO, and were justified defense against attacks on cargo ships.

    Not NATO but a coalition of countries members of NATO which means that if the houthis attack them back they are attacking NATO…

    And then a wikileaks link with nothing of substance.

    “Nothing substance” that points out yet another wrongdoing of an organization you are claiming to be good.

    • zenitsu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I didn’t claim “everything NATO ever did is good”, nothing meets that standard. You’re the one still failing to prove they’re “pro-war” and dodged the question about Russia. Nice try vatnik.