but what are they doing in iraq? or occupation of allegedly sovereign nation is now in the defensive category of military actions? how is it in nato scope to sit in iraq, in lib parlance? i understnad perfectly well they are usa doggies training to kill people and share burdens of empire, i want a lib answer

[–] Bazell@lemmy.zip 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I am not sure to which category belongs my next reply, but I will share my thoughts.

It is all about controll. NATO has positioned itself as a balancing force of military in the World, so this gave it the right to place its military units in places of interest that are considered spicy(as this makes such actions more legitimate). But since a big part of NATO's military power is held by the USA alone, it kinda acted as a leader forcing others to do what it wants. And despite all other countries acted mostly like the subordinates to the USA, they were smart enough to not engage in direct aggression towards Iran. Especially since it doesn't benefit them both politically and economically. If we consider current trend in which Europe tries to distant itself from the USA in different spheres of life(IT, banking systems, social media), it is very much possible that NATO may collapse in union or unions without the USA included.

[–] la_tasalana_intissari_mata@hexbear.net 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

still hasn't answered why it was doing in Iraq

[–] casskaydee@hexbear.net 8 points 18 hours ago

They've answered your question on how libs would respond though, by changing the subject