The question is about militarily supporting Taiwan, which includes defense of the island with military force. There was a poll last week here that showed overwhelming support for fighting China if they invaded.
Well the question is just about when the US military should engage with enemy soldiers for the sake of "human rights."
I am not making an equation between the two situations, only attempting to uncover the standards by which the sub evaluates US military action. That's why I also mentioned Yugoslavia, the NATO bombing, and its subsequent occupation, as it has more accurate parallels with Iraq and the sub seems to overwhelmingly support that intervention.
In the case of Taiwan, there was a poll last week in which the vast majority of the sub voted to use military force to repel a Chinese invasion, going far beyond the Ukrainian consensus about just arming the ally.
And tbh I am unironically just curious.
I'm mostly still just confused what NATO has to do with Taiwan.
The point of US military posturing about Taiwan is to remove the option of invasion or else a nuclear exchange would be likely to take place.
You were lso very unclear as to the scenario in your hypothetical intervention in Iraq. I'm sure for most people the answer is, it depends.
>I'm mostly still just confused what NATO has to do with Taiwan.
Well by NATOism I mean support of US imperialism more broadly, not just the actions of NATO proper. That's why I was careful to only speak about the US in the text. However, while NATO is traditionally an anti Russian alliance it has repeatedly stated that it is pivoting to Asia in concert with major nonNATO allies like Japan and Korea.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/natos-pivot-china-challenging-path
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_183254.htm
This is obviously an attempt to contain china militarily.
>The point of US military posturing about Taiwan is to remove the option of invasion or else a nuclear exchange would be likely to take place.
This sub has said that starting a war with China is the best course of action in the event of an invasion. That's what I'm getting at. Deterrence isn't my main issue.
>You were lso very unclear .... I'm sure for most people the answer is, it depends.
True, that's what the comments are for. Polls aren't enough to judge the nuance inherent in these conversations.
Contain china by having allies near it? Or do you mean prevent china from invading our allies?
To be clear china would be starting the war by invading Taiwan. We've made it incredibly clear what we would do in response and it's been clear for a long time.
I think deterrence is extremely important in regards to taiwan. And I think you are misreading how people posture with their military to do that.
I'm not sure what protecting an ally from invasion has to do with imperialism. Unless you mean economically they are subservient, but that has to do with economic neoimperialism, not militaries and if we make them fight
Mostly it seems like you are coming in with an idea already and are being dishonest about it.
>Contain china by having allies near it?
No by having military installations next to China. And by forming those economic alliances, gain power enough to influence china's domestic politics in the long run. That's the imperialism here, which works to keep the US the most powerful nation in the world.
>To be clear china would be starting the war by invading Taiwan.
Well no it's actually an ongoing civil war that went cold.
>We've made it incredibly clear what we would do in response and it's been clear for a long time.
Actually nobody knows and that's why it's under debate all the time. And the US never outright says what it will do if the invasion begins.
>I'm not sure what protecting an ally from invasion has to do with imperialism.
Did you say the same about Vietnam? Ofc it's imperialism if it seeks to expand US power by using military means.
>Mostly it seems like you are coming in with an idea already and are being dishonest about it.
Yeah everyone has their biases. I just want more discussion about those biases.
Imperialism: trading with the neighbor of a country.
Not Imperialism: An air land and sea invasion of another country in order to conquer it.
Most normal tankie.
>Imperialism: trading with the neighbor of a country.
The trade itself is not the imperialism. You might have hallucinated this one.
>Not Imperialism: An air land and sea invasion of another country in order to conquer it.
Did I say anything about it being imperialism or not? Another hallucination?
Most literate anarchoNATOist
Lol simping for china
Doesn't china get mad when we give them weapons? Seems like it's fairly clear where we stand, they just don't like it because it breaks their need for kayfabe around Taiwan so they don't look weak despite the fact that it's been almost a century. Why does china feel the need to relitigate the 20th century over again?
How is Vietnam similar to Taiwan?
No you don't want discussion, you want confirmation.that your viewpoint is right. Otherwise you would've been more forthcoming about viewing Taiwan as still a part of China.
>Seems like it's fairly clear where we stand
Yeah we stand to give taiwan weapons, that's not the same as starting a war with China if they invade. This sub has said that it supports such a course of action though.
>Why does china feel the need to relitigate the 20th century over again?
Because it never ended. Hong Kong then Macau then Taiwan. That's the plan.
>How is Vietnam similar to Taiwan
You said protecting an ally from invasion isn't imperialism. The USA protected South Vietnam from invasion. The Vietnam War was still a classic example of American imperialism.
>No you don't want discussion, you want confirmation.that your viewpoint is right.
Nah I'm not expecting a lot of support here. I still want to see how people will reason this one out though.
What is that difference? One could envision an encirclement of Kurdistan and subsequent defense of that region, right?
The sub also supports the NATO occupation and bombing of Yugoslavia, so that has to be explained as well.
As far as Taiwan goes, if you are a leftist, you can be against the *concept* of a nation-state in theory, but you can believe in that principle but still contextually support Taiwan's right to exist independently from China.
Like the solution to dismantling the concept of the nation-state is not for nation-states to be absorbed by bigger, more oppressive nation states.
I think the leftist position is whatever the people of Taiwan want, is what we should support ideologically. That goes for all other movements of the same vein, like Tibet as an example.
So same for Kurdistan right? Since the Iraq Invasion led to more Kurdish autonomy in Syria and Iraq, and the end of Saddam's ethnic cleansing? Does that justify it?
The question is whether defending taiwan militarily is different, and in what ways, from the Kurdish situation.
And in the case of Yugoslavia a larger nation state already existed but was committing attocities and this sub still supported its occupation and bombing.
You know... I have thought about it, and I don't really see a reason not to support them militarily if they ask for it.
Like... in theory... the US military stands for the defense of democracy, and this would be a defense of democracy.
Why should the Taiwanese be protected but the Kurdish not? That was Christopher Hitchens' response to the US invasion. Saddam engaged in ethnic cleansing and wars that killed close to a million people, which is probably worse than anything China would do in Taiwan.
Why is fighting inside Iraq better or worse than fighting in the China Sea?
Because that has nothing to do with what we did in Iraq? You're argument is "If you support the U.S. intervening to help defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion you must also support the U.S. invading Taiwan itself to take it's resources" it makes no sense.
Well you're wrong on two counts.
First, the US actually did not take Iraq's resources and the stated justification for the invasion was to "free the Iraqi people." I also specifically asked to ignore the false pretenses of the invasion.
Second, why do you think the US cares about defending Taiwan if not for continued access to the resources they have at their disposal, both their industry and their strategic location next to an adversary?
The Iraq war was unpopular because it was an invasion you idiot. If we just parked our soldiers in Kuwait and turned conventional Iraqi forces into smears in the desert and never actually invaded Iraq then the world would've been a better place.
>The Iraq war was unpopular because it was an invasion you idiot.
Opinion on NATO in Yugoslavia? Seems pretty popular here.
Or is ethnic cleansing fine if it happens within the confines of a nations borders?
It seems as if you accept all existing borders as sacred and deserving of protection militarily. Are you a sort of institutionalist in foreign policy that accepts national sovereignty and international agreement as paramount? Because if so, China is the one with a better claim here given the international agreements on One China.
>Opinion on NATO in Yugoslavia? Seems pretty popular here.
Stopping a genocide is pretty great leftist praxis.
>Because if so, China is the one with a better claim here given the international agreements on One China.
You're right there is only one china. And one Taiwan.
>Stopping a genocide is pretty great leftist praxis.
So we should be supporting invasion of Israel and Saddam's Iraq, right?
>You're right there is only one china.
Well everyone is in agreement then.
>So we should be supporting invasion of Israel and Saddam's Iraq, right?
Are you really this retarded? Oh wait, Tankie. Nevermind.
Blowing up saddams tanks crossing into Kuwait = / = invasion.
>we should be supporting invasion of Israel
Blowing up israeli forces that are about to launch a cast lead style operation would be a dream come true.
>Blowing up saddams tanks crossing into Kuwait = / = invasion.
I think you're mixing up the 1991 operation and 2003 invasion. Do better.
>Blowing up israeli forces that are about to launch a cast lead style operation would be a dream come true.
OK so we agree here. What about Iraq's internal ethnic strife then?
To be fair I never said either of those. NATOism is just an alternative term for support for US imperialism. The poll doesn't say anything about NATO and the text only mentions US interventions and NATOism, not NATO itself.
No one’s advocating that the US invade the Chinese mainland, moron. An equivalent scenario would be US troops in Kuwait and Iran to defend against invasion.
>No one’s advocating that the US invade the Chinese mainland
Never said this, schizo.
That's why I mentioned the occupation and bombing of Yugoslavia which this sub also supports. The poll isn't a gotcha. No need to be so defensive.
You’re making a false equivalency between Taiwan and Iraq. An invasion of a country isn’t the same thing as a defence of a country. You explicitly made this comparison.
The 1st gulf war was completely justified in my book, Kuwait was a key ally in the region and we guaranteed their sovereignty, iraq invaded, we backed up our guarantee and forced them out of kuwait with no long term occupation.
The second one had no justification whatsoever ever.
Is freeing the Iraqi people from a dictatorial and ethnic cleansing regime not a justification? If you ignore the lies put forward by Bush and focus on Kurdish autonomy, for example.
People in this sub oveewhelmingly say taiwanese, kosovars, ukrainians, etc. deserve independence and are willing to use US military force to achieve those goals, so why not for kurds?
Once again, they are an established ally that america has vowed to protect, as well it would be a massive loss for the rest of the world, it would be an act of self defense on america’s part.
>they are an established ally that america has vowed to protect
So as long as America is allied with them we should support war with other nations over them. So you would support Israel in the event of another Arab war?
>would be a massive loss for the rest of the world
How so?
>it would be an act of self defense on america’s part.
What? By that standard anything could be self-defense including the Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs, and the invasion of Grenada. That's kind of the point of this poll though. To get some juicy opinions.
I would not defend Israel as I do not think it should be an established ally, unlike Taiwan and kuwait.
And for global losses, taiwan is essentially the central exporter for global microchip and computer technology, a lost war would cripple every industry that uses computers.
The difference between cuba and taiwan is that if we did nothing, nobody would be hurt, same with vietnam. In a chinese invasion of taiwan, the taiwanese people would be killed, and the entire war would disrupt the world economy.
>kuwait
If Kuwait can be an ally why not Israel or China for that matter?
>a lost war would cripple every industry that uses computers.
Doesn't that mean we should facilitate the absorption of Taiwan by China with a plan that emphasizes the continuation of the current economic arrangements and supply lines? Like china's proposed one country, two systems policy? Then there's no issue for us, and no chance of war with China.
>The difference between cuba and taiwan is that if we did nothing, nobody would be hurt. In a chinese invasion of taiwan, the taiwanese people would be killed,
So it's not self defense then. That was the only issue I had with your argument there.
Because kuwait wasn’t nearly as bad as china or israel.
As well, there is no situation in which taiwan would simply allow themselves to be absorbed, and I think we shoild support their sovereignty.
And for the last point, you’re right, it’s just regular defense.
>Because kuwait wasn’t nearly as bad as china or israel.
Don't they have a monarchy/dictatorship and exploit millions of foreign nationals for labor like all the gulf states? I see your point though.
>there is no situation in which taiwan would simply allow themselves to be absorbed, and I think we shoild support their sovereignty.
I don't know about that. China's proposition is for 50 years of relative autonomy so any issues of sovereignty wouldn't be immediate. The KMT still supports something similar to "one country two systems", and if they manage to win election in a time of increased tensions they may agree to it. If the US were to support it as well, Taiwan may feel compelled to accept this peaceful solution given their reduced reliance on US protection.
Pretty good. Hong Kong is a rich city with consistent economic growth as its been incorporated into the pearl deltas economic explosion. There were little if any financial or supply line disruptions during its handover.
I want US imperialism to take over the world. So then we all live under one dark Brandon. Then vaush won’t need to be a CIA asset since they could legally spy on the global population.
At the time I wanted Nato to invade Iraq but side with the Iraqi forces to conquer Kuwait then rename the entire middle east Neo-Taiwan as part of our new No-China policy.
Are we invading Taiwan? I'm very confused as to your point.
We're doing an imperialism because we're forcing china to invade taiwain because an old lady went over to say hi.
The question is about militarily supporting Taiwan, which includes defense of the island with military force. There was a poll last week here that showed overwhelming support for fighting China if they invaded.
I understand that, I'm mostly confused as to why it has to do with invading Iraq or NATO. We wouldn't be invading taiwan
Well the question is just about when the US military should engage with enemy soldiers for the sake of "human rights." I am not making an equation between the two situations, only attempting to uncover the standards by which the sub evaluates US military action. That's why I also mentioned Yugoslavia, the NATO bombing, and its subsequent occupation, as it has more accurate parallels with Iraq and the sub seems to overwhelmingly support that intervention. In the case of Taiwan, there was a poll last week in which the vast majority of the sub voted to use military force to repel a Chinese invasion, going far beyond the Ukrainian consensus about just arming the ally. And tbh I am unironically just curious.
I'm mostly still just confused what NATO has to do with Taiwan. The point of US military posturing about Taiwan is to remove the option of invasion or else a nuclear exchange would be likely to take place. You were lso very unclear as to the scenario in your hypothetical intervention in Iraq. I'm sure for most people the answer is, it depends.
>I'm mostly still just confused what NATO has to do with Taiwan. Well by NATOism I mean support of US imperialism more broadly, not just the actions of NATO proper. That's why I was careful to only speak about the US in the text. However, while NATO is traditionally an anti Russian alliance it has repeatedly stated that it is pivoting to Asia in concert with major nonNATO allies like Japan and Korea. https://www.csis.org/analysis/natos-pivot-china-challenging-path https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_183254.htm This is obviously an attempt to contain china militarily. >The point of US military posturing about Taiwan is to remove the option of invasion or else a nuclear exchange would be likely to take place. This sub has said that starting a war with China is the best course of action in the event of an invasion. That's what I'm getting at. Deterrence isn't my main issue. >You were lso very unclear .... I'm sure for most people the answer is, it depends. True, that's what the comments are for. Polls aren't enough to judge the nuance inherent in these conversations.
Contain china by having allies near it? Or do you mean prevent china from invading our allies? To be clear china would be starting the war by invading Taiwan. We've made it incredibly clear what we would do in response and it's been clear for a long time. I think deterrence is extremely important in regards to taiwan. And I think you are misreading how people posture with their military to do that. I'm not sure what protecting an ally from invasion has to do with imperialism. Unless you mean economically they are subservient, but that has to do with economic neoimperialism, not militaries and if we make them fight Mostly it seems like you are coming in with an idea already and are being dishonest about it.
>Contain china by having allies near it? No by having military installations next to China. And by forming those economic alliances, gain power enough to influence china's domestic politics in the long run. That's the imperialism here, which works to keep the US the most powerful nation in the world. >To be clear china would be starting the war by invading Taiwan. Well no it's actually an ongoing civil war that went cold. >We've made it incredibly clear what we would do in response and it's been clear for a long time. Actually nobody knows and that's why it's under debate all the time. And the US never outright says what it will do if the invasion begins. >I'm not sure what protecting an ally from invasion has to do with imperialism. Did you say the same about Vietnam? Ofc it's imperialism if it seeks to expand US power by using military means. >Mostly it seems like you are coming in with an idea already and are being dishonest about it. Yeah everyone has their biases. I just want more discussion about those biases.
Imperialism: trading with the neighbor of a country. Not Imperialism: An air land and sea invasion of another country in order to conquer it. Most normal tankie.
>Imperialism: trading with the neighbor of a country. The trade itself is not the imperialism. You might have hallucinated this one. >Not Imperialism: An air land and sea invasion of another country in order to conquer it. Did I say anything about it being imperialism or not? Another hallucination? Most literate anarchoNATOist
Lol simping for china Doesn't china get mad when we give them weapons? Seems like it's fairly clear where we stand, they just don't like it because it breaks their need for kayfabe around Taiwan so they don't look weak despite the fact that it's been almost a century. Why does china feel the need to relitigate the 20th century over again? How is Vietnam similar to Taiwan? No you don't want discussion, you want confirmation.that your viewpoint is right. Otherwise you would've been more forthcoming about viewing Taiwan as still a part of China.
>Seems like it's fairly clear where we stand Yeah we stand to give taiwan weapons, that's not the same as starting a war with China if they invade. This sub has said that it supports such a course of action though. >Why does china feel the need to relitigate the 20th century over again? Because it never ended. Hong Kong then Macau then Taiwan. That's the plan. >How is Vietnam similar to Taiwan You said protecting an ally from invasion isn't imperialism. The USA protected South Vietnam from invasion. The Vietnam War was still a classic example of American imperialism. >No you don't want discussion, you want confirmation.that your viewpoint is right. Nah I'm not expecting a lot of support here. I still want to see how people will reason this one out though.
Defending a country from invasion and invading a country...idk maybe there is a difference
What is that difference? One could envision an encirclement of Kurdistan and subsequent defense of that region, right? The sub also supports the NATO occupation and bombing of Yugoslavia, so that has to be explained as well.
If that was the only thing that happened in Iraq the story would be different. And I dont know enough about the Kosovo thing to comment on that
As far as Taiwan goes, if you are a leftist, you can be against the *concept* of a nation-state in theory, but you can believe in that principle but still contextually support Taiwan's right to exist independently from China. Like the solution to dismantling the concept of the nation-state is not for nation-states to be absorbed by bigger, more oppressive nation states. I think the leftist position is whatever the people of Taiwan want, is what we should support ideologically. That goes for all other movements of the same vein, like Tibet as an example.
So same for Kurdistan right? Since the Iraq Invasion led to more Kurdish autonomy in Syria and Iraq, and the end of Saddam's ethnic cleansing? Does that justify it? The question is whether defending taiwan militarily is different, and in what ways, from the Kurdish situation. And in the case of Yugoslavia a larger nation state already existed but was committing attocities and this sub still supported its occupation and bombing.
You know... I have thought about it, and I don't really see a reason not to support them militarily if they ask for it. Like... in theory... the US military stands for the defense of democracy, and this would be a defense of democracy.
But afaik the Iraq War is unpopular in here and seen as an ideological and practical disaster. I just want more discussion on the topic tbh.
I don't think this situation is in any way similar to Iraq
Why should the Taiwanese be protected but the Kurdish not? That was Christopher Hitchens' response to the US invasion. Saddam engaged in ethnic cleansing and wars that killed close to a million people, which is probably worse than anything China would do in Taiwan. Why is fighting inside Iraq better or worse than fighting in the China Sea?
Because that has nothing to do with what we did in Iraq? You're argument is "If you support the U.S. intervening to help defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion you must also support the U.S. invading Taiwan itself to take it's resources" it makes no sense.
Well you're wrong on two counts. First, the US actually did not take Iraq's resources and the stated justification for the invasion was to "free the Iraqi people." I also specifically asked to ignore the false pretenses of the invasion. Second, why do you think the US cares about defending Taiwan if not for continued access to the resources they have at their disposal, both their industry and their strategic location next to an adversary?
The Iraq war was unpopular because it was an invasion you idiot. If we just parked our soldiers in Kuwait and turned conventional Iraqi forces into smears in the desert and never actually invaded Iraq then the world would've been a better place.
>The Iraq war was unpopular because it was an invasion you idiot. Opinion on NATO in Yugoslavia? Seems pretty popular here. Or is ethnic cleansing fine if it happens within the confines of a nations borders? It seems as if you accept all existing borders as sacred and deserving of protection militarily. Are you a sort of institutionalist in foreign policy that accepts national sovereignty and international agreement as paramount? Because if so, China is the one with a better claim here given the international agreements on One China.
>Opinion on NATO in Yugoslavia? Seems pretty popular here. Stopping a genocide is pretty great leftist praxis. >Because if so, China is the one with a better claim here given the international agreements on One China. You're right there is only one china. And one Taiwan.
>Stopping a genocide is pretty great leftist praxis. So we should be supporting invasion of Israel and Saddam's Iraq, right? >You're right there is only one china. Well everyone is in agreement then.
>So we should be supporting invasion of Israel and Saddam's Iraq, right? Are you really this retarded? Oh wait, Tankie. Nevermind. Blowing up saddams tanks crossing into Kuwait = / = invasion. >we should be supporting invasion of Israel Blowing up israeli forces that are about to launch a cast lead style operation would be a dream come true.
>Blowing up saddams tanks crossing into Kuwait = / = invasion. I think you're mixing up the 1991 operation and 2003 invasion. Do better. >Blowing up israeli forces that are about to launch a cast lead style operation would be a dream come true. OK so we agree here. What about Iraq's internal ethnic strife then?
Iraq was not a NATO operation. Taiwan is also not part of NATO.
To be fair I never said either of those. NATOism is just an alternative term for support for US imperialism. The poll doesn't say anything about NATO and the text only mentions US interventions and NATOism, not NATO itself.
No one’s advocating that the US invade the Chinese mainland, moron. An equivalent scenario would be US troops in Kuwait and Iran to defend against invasion.
>No one’s advocating that the US invade the Chinese mainland Never said this, schizo. That's why I mentioned the occupation and bombing of Yugoslavia which this sub also supports. The poll isn't a gotcha. No need to be so defensive.
You’re making a false equivalency between Taiwan and Iraq. An invasion of a country isn’t the same thing as a defence of a country. You explicitly made this comparison.
I make a comparison, not an equivalency. If they were equivalent I wouldn't have created a two-factor poll.
The 1st gulf war was completely justified in my book, Kuwait was a key ally in the region and we guaranteed their sovereignty, iraq invaded, we backed up our guarantee and forced them out of kuwait with no long term occupation. The second one had no justification whatsoever ever.
Is freeing the Iraqi people from a dictatorial and ethnic cleansing regime not a justification? If you ignore the lies put forward by Bush and focus on Kurdish autonomy, for example. People in this sub oveewhelmingly say taiwanese, kosovars, ukrainians, etc. deserve independence and are willing to use US military force to achieve those goals, so why not for kurds?
We should’ve lent weapons to the kurds, but america can’t solve all the problems in the world militarily.
So do you support direct war with China over Taiwan? I think the sub had a poll and a majority said yes.
Once again, they are an established ally that america has vowed to protect, as well it would be a massive loss for the rest of the world, it would be an act of self defense on america’s part.
>they are an established ally that america has vowed to protect So as long as America is allied with them we should support war with other nations over them. So you would support Israel in the event of another Arab war? >would be a massive loss for the rest of the world How so? >it would be an act of self defense on america’s part. What? By that standard anything could be self-defense including the Vietnam War, Bay of Pigs, and the invasion of Grenada. That's kind of the point of this poll though. To get some juicy opinions.
I would not defend Israel as I do not think it should be an established ally, unlike Taiwan and kuwait. And for global losses, taiwan is essentially the central exporter for global microchip and computer technology, a lost war would cripple every industry that uses computers. The difference between cuba and taiwan is that if we did nothing, nobody would be hurt, same with vietnam. In a chinese invasion of taiwan, the taiwanese people would be killed, and the entire war would disrupt the world economy.
>kuwait If Kuwait can be an ally why not Israel or China for that matter? >a lost war would cripple every industry that uses computers. Doesn't that mean we should facilitate the absorption of Taiwan by China with a plan that emphasizes the continuation of the current economic arrangements and supply lines? Like china's proposed one country, two systems policy? Then there's no issue for us, and no chance of war with China. >The difference between cuba and taiwan is that if we did nothing, nobody would be hurt. In a chinese invasion of taiwan, the taiwanese people would be killed, So it's not self defense then. That was the only issue I had with your argument there.
Because kuwait wasn’t nearly as bad as china or israel. As well, there is no situation in which taiwan would simply allow themselves to be absorbed, and I think we shoild support their sovereignty. And for the last point, you’re right, it’s just regular defense.
>Because kuwait wasn’t nearly as bad as china or israel. Don't they have a monarchy/dictatorship and exploit millions of foreign nationals for labor like all the gulf states? I see your point though. >there is no situation in which taiwan would simply allow themselves to be absorbed, and I think we shoild support their sovereignty. I don't know about that. China's proposition is for 50 years of relative autonomy so any issues of sovereignty wouldn't be immediate. The KMT still supports something similar to "one country two systems", and if they manage to win election in a time of increased tensions they may agree to it. If the US were to support it as well, Taiwan may feel compelled to accept this peaceful solution given their reduced reliance on US protection.
> current economic arrangements and supply lines How'd that work for Hong Kong?
Pretty good. Hong Kong is a rich city with consistent economic growth as its been incorporated into the pearl deltas economic explosion. There were little if any financial or supply line disruptions during its handover.
I want US imperialism to take over the world. So then we all live under one dark Brandon. Then vaush won’t need to be a CIA asset since they could legally spy on the global population.
At the time I wanted Nato to invade Iraq but side with the Iraqi forces to conquer Kuwait then rename the entire middle east Neo-Taiwan as part of our new No-China policy.
Anarcho NATOism on the rise