▲ 835 ▼ To be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be its ally is fatal (lemmy.ml) submitted 2 years ago* by Grapho@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 291 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ukraine was never an ally of the US either, by that metric. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and "signing a treaty" does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don't count because they were never allies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) a fairly significant sign they are an ally. And the US funding and training the other groups was "a fairly significant sign that they were allies," but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then "fairly significant signs" are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren't allied. You don't have to read into the signs, it's an objective fact. "Security guarantees" aren't alliances. Or if they are, then we're using the term informally, and it's therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people. Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don't get to have it both ways. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and "signing a treaty" does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don't count because they were never allies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) a fairly significant sign they are an ally. And the US funding and training the other groups was "a fairly significant sign that they were allies," but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then "fairly significant signs" are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren't allied. You don't have to read into the signs, it's an objective fact. "Security guarantees" aren't alliances. Or if they are, then we're using the term informally, and it's therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people. Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don't get to have it both ways. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and "signing a treaty" does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don't count because they were never allies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) a fairly significant sign they are an ally. And the US funding and training the other groups was "a fairly significant sign that they were allies," but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then "fairly significant signs" are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren't allied. You don't have to read into the signs, it's an objective fact. "Security guarantees" aren't alliances. Or if they are, then we're using the term informally, and it's therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people. Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don't get to have it both ways. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) a fairly significant sign they are an ally. And the US funding and training the other groups was "a fairly significant sign that they were allies," but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then "fairly significant signs" are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren't allied. You don't have to read into the signs, it's an objective fact. "Security guarantees" aren't alliances. Or if they are, then we're using the term informally, and it's therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people. Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don't get to have it both ways. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) a fairly significant sign they are an ally. And the US funding and training the other groups was "a fairly significant sign that they were allies," but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then "fairly significant signs" are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren't allied. You don't have to read into the signs, it's an objective fact. "Security guarantees" aren't alliances. Or if they are, then we're using the term informally, and it's therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people. Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don't get to have it both ways. permalink fedilink source parent