this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38671 readers
2533 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bumphot@lemy.lol 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They are not independent, that is the point. NATO military is still present in most of them or have puppet governments or are still at war.

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] bumphot@lemy.lol 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

There is this wikipedia article with a list of all the countires in the world with their military presence outside of their countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases You can google for each of these countries as well, such as France and their presence in Africa, as well as other "past"-colonial forces, US with their presence in Kosovo, Turkey with their presence in a lot of Balkan countries (also previous colonies of Ottoman empire). There is a lot of countries in the World that where past colonies that never got rid completly of their imperialist rulers. In fact during cold war they made an alliance just for that, that is where the term third world comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World Obviously imperialist didn't like that and the media propaganda changed the meaning of that term to the "developing country" to excuse them staying there while they "develop". Never actually leaving of course.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're conflating a lot of topics in your discourse but you clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Yes, many countries have military bases overseas. That is not controversial or new. They are used as means to expediently deploy troops and assets to various global positions. The fact that some of these countries happen to be part of NATO has nothing to do with your previous position.

[–] bumphot@lemy.lol 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It is more then just having a base. They often run the whole country. I simply tried to find a single list for all of it, but if you look into these cases, one by one, you can see what I mean. Take French troops in Africa, they are collonizers that never left and their government can't kick them out. Take NATO troops in Kosovo, they are completley dependent on US support to exist. Or Israel as well. Or many other places in Middle East. These are not volontery military presence in these locations, they are invasions which people can't get rid of, either under threat of antoher force taking over or because they just wont leave.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You're doing it again and at this point it feels intentional. You're taking five different things that are unrelated and mixing them but throwing enough vague terms hoping that something will stick:

  • French troops in Africa
  • Nato in Kosovo
  • Or Israel (whatever that means)
  • Or many other places in middle east (whatever that means)

This is a gish gallop

[–] bumphot@lemy.lol 1 points 6 months ago

Well if you don't see common western imperilism pattern, I can't help you.

[–] andxz@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

You deserve some sort of award for most incoherent post ever with this shit.

[–] FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So, link something else.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

Not defending the probable Russian shill, but Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source. What it is not is a primary source. But every claim has a source whose reliability can be assessed (and what counts as reliable is going to vary from person to person). So, no, if I'm writing an essay or a formal document, I'm not going to cite Wikipedia. But if I'm arguing with strangers on the internet, Wikipedia is a fairly credible place to start backing up your claims.