dschingis27 wrote: ↑03 March 2023, 10:30
player1772 wrote: ↑02 March 2023, 22:11
Please think logically and not emotionally about this.
Thinking logically includes not leaving out important facts. The eastern European countries were joining NATO at their own will exactly
because they are threatened by Russia. They have not been conquered by a Western power. If you look at the politics in those countries, they are definitely souvereign and not ruled by Western overlords. And Ukraine joining NATO was not really a thing at all before Russia attacked.
Also in your example, if USA invaded Mexico just because they have an alliance with Russia, Mexico would have all the right in the world to defend their country, also with the help of Russia. You think if USA went nuts and suddenly wants to conquer Canada and Mexico, the rest of the world should stay silent and accept it?
Thank you for your reply dschingis27. During the Cuban missile crisis, the United States was faced with a very similar dilemma. The US told the Russians to get their nukes out of Cuba, or else they would invade. This doesn't mean that the country is going "nuts" as you put it. It is just an example that countries will resort to extreme measures to eliminate existential threats to their homeland. Add to this the fact that Cuba doesn't even border the United States since it is an island. Mexico joining an enemy alliance would be a far greater threat than the Cuban/Russian threat from years ago.
The US has been at war for roughly 229 out of 246 years since 1776. That means we have only been at peace for 17 years since the founding of our country. See below for some interesting information found on Wikipedia regarding the American-led Iraq invasion.
According to Wikipedia:
"Political leaders of the US and UK, which led the arguments leading to the invasion, have claimed that the war was legal;[1] however, legal experts, including John Chilcot, who, acting as chairman for the British public inquiry into Iraq, also known as the Iraq Inquiry, led an investigation with hearings from November 24th, 2009, to February 2nd, 2011, concluded that the process of identifying the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the US and the UK have undermined the authority of the United Nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin[2][3] stated that the war was unjustified and Deputy Prime Minister to Tony Blair, John Prescott,[4] has also argued that the invasion of Iraq lacked legality as examples. In a 2005 paper, Kramer & Michalowski argued that the war "violated the UN Charter and international humanitarian law".[5] Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a televised conference before a meeting with the US envoy to Iraq, said on 19 December 2003 that "The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognised as fair or justified."[6][2]
In September 2004, then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated, "I have indicated that it is not in accordance with the UN charter. From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal".[7][8]
US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[9] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[7][10][11]
The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so. The United States and the United Kingdom have veto power in the Security Council, so action by the Security Council is highly improbable even if the issue were to be raised. Despite this, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) may ask that the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—"the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" (Article 92)—give either an 'advisory opinion' or 'judgement' on the legality of the war."
