• volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Actually that is a human right

    Source?

    Countries are free to ally with whatever country they want pending any previous agreements

    Free to do so, for sure, I’m not claiming illegality, I’m claiming it’s wrong. It leads historically to escalation, not to mitigation of tensions. Remember the missile crisis

    Eastern European countries made zero promises and had zero obligation to not join NATO

    Again, you’re not understanding me for some reason. I’m not putting the blame on those countries, I’m putting the blame on NATO itself. It’s not that these countries shouldn’t want to join a pre-existing military alliance, it’s that a supposedly defensive military alliance shouldn’t incorporate member countries ever closer to the declared enemy of the US of A.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with Mexico or Canada willfully joining an alliance with China

    I would have immense problems with China fostering military relations with the neighbouring countries of their geopolitical adversary, and if you don’t, I think you should rethink that.

    Maybe if Russia wasn’t such a shitty, untrustworthy neighbor, more countries would be willing to ally with them

    I don’t want any countries to ally militarily with Russia. I fully understand that Russia has a fascist aggressive government and I’m glad I don’t currently live next to it as a Spanish citizen. My whole point is that NATO isn’t a “purely defensive military alliance of independent countries”, it’s an organization subservient to the interests of the USA which has shown no remorse to act on foreign countries which didn’t threat military action against member states of NATO, as was the case in Libya and Yugoslavia, and unofficially in Iraq.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s a declaration of human rights, not a philosophical logical demonstration of why we are endowed with rights. The person was pointing out the silliness of your original question.

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            They literally said “Actually it is a human right”, referring to the right of a nation to join a particular military alliance. They are the ones defending that, not me.

            • TheFonz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              It might be a language issue. You asked for a source that nations have a right (some would argue a ‘human’ right) to join alliances:

              Actually that is a human right

              Source?

              So the question asking for a source on ‘human rights’ is kinda nonsensical, that’s why they responded the way they did. You can’t provide a source for ‘human rights’. That’s a philosophical / metaphysical question. There is no official source for human rights hence why the question makes no sense.

              On another note, are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine? Can’t remember. Hope you are all right if you are.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                are you the guy I was discussing a while back about conscription in Ukraine?

                No, but thanks for the good wishes anyway

                So the question asking for a source on ‘human rights’ is kinda nonsensical, that’s why they responded the way they did.

                The question would be nonsensical when brought up randomly, not when brought up in the context of asking someone who claimed “joining a particular military alliance is a human right” . I wouldn’t be asking that question if they didn’t say “actually it is a human right to join a military alliance”. When categorically affirming what is and what isn’t a human right, in my opinion, it’s understood that this would be the consensus of some international organization, or some resolution signed by almost every country on earth. Of course there’s dissent, and discussion is good, but saying that “joining a military alliance is a human right” is extremely fringe and, frankly, the first time I’ve seen it, so I’d like to see where they got that from.