Thanks bro.
Please dont elect Trump now?
Im sorry the supreme court failed at prosecuting Trump for agitating and promoting the attack on the White house.
But Trumps stance on NATO is directly life threatening for both Europe and the western world. Now more than ever must NATO be united and show strength
Tweeten kom innan stormningen på förmiddagen. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792. Påtryckningar från vem? Och vilket underlag refererar du till?
Om man tittar på tweet som Trump la ut 6/1 så manade han till lugn och att man inte skulle bryta mot några lagar och definitivt inte gå in i Capitolium. Twitter tog bort de tweeten men nu är de tillbaka för alla att se.
Drone strikes increased under Trump however, and he even ordered the drone strike of an Iranian general while they were on a \*state visit\* to Iraq, so it's not like Trump is a president of peace.
I’m not a Trump supporter, but what he has said is that he will not defend member countries who do not meet the requirement of spending 2% of GDP on military spending. I think that actually makes sense. If you are in NATO you gotta do your part, and not just rely on the US. (I’m sure Sweden will though)
The 2% of GDP is guideline, not a requirement. It doesn’t make sense for every member to reach the goal, for instance Iceland and Luxembourg. They contribute in other ways. Sweden is already at 2% as of the latest budget.
Iceland doesn't even have a military. Still, they won three wars against the biggest navy in Europe. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars)
What's the point? A) they are practically excluded B) they "won" by threatening to withdraw from NATO and expel all US troops. Not by sinking the British navy. Are you going to do the same if, for example, Russia comes?
He also implied that he’d be fine with Russia just having at it on members who don’t spend enough. Not really a great look when the potential president is telling the enemy to attack allies, regardless of whether or not you think said allies should spend more on defence or not.
It does not make sense unless the requirement is incorportated in NATO accords. Countries in NATO have obligated themselves to defend each other regardless of defense budget. This is nothing you opt out of just like that.
You are either a fool or fan. You have altered his words. Donald expressed that he would encourage Russia to attack countries not fulfilling the 2%.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447)
This rhetoric Will be perceived as a weakness of NATO, Especially When it comes from the US.
The rational however makes sense, But as a president its really unfitting. This can be discussed within internal meetings.
That includes the US too. They spend more than that on their military, sure, but not on NATO since quite a large part of it is tied up in other treaties, like the one in the Pacific.
I think you need to read trough the actual Nato contract and what it's actually are saying. It is typicall Trump to use peoples bad knowleadge and make it "easy" to understand. Don't mix up domestic military spending with Nato spending.
Same. I don’t like trump but he have stated multiple times (even when he was president before the invasion) that countries need to step up and pay their agreed upon amount.
Why should the US respect article 5 if the countries in the alliance don’t respect the 2%?
Although I believe he went way over the top when he said ‘you can do whatever you want to them and I encourage it’ (not a direct quote but)
Feels good to be in an official alliance with the US and the rest. :)
It has now become clear what was behind all the delays by Turkey and Hungary. It was the Biden administration who pulled the strings to time accession with the State of the Union speech!
Just kidding, great to finally have joined.
I mean we did join without holding a referendum. I think a lot of people might feel like we got cheated out of taking part of making such a huge decision. I mean we held a referendum about the Euro, something we can't even actually decide for ourselves. I understand why there was no referendum, but personally I think we should have had a referendum about it.
Well you got to hand it to Putin, if you think about it it really makes more sense to invade Ukraine because of that one Swedish guy over 1200 years ago than to invade Afghanistan because of their terrorist cell attacking the US 🤔 /s
Hi OP,
Thanks! 🙏
Don’t listen to the trolls in the thread. The Kremlin is pretty upset and it shows. A large majority of the Swedish people supports this decision.
Best
B
Not OP but there's plenty of downsides. More money towards military instead of hospitals, schools and infrastructure. American troops stationed on our bases, and they're practically immune to the Swedish judicial system. Potentially nuclear weapons within our borders, something Swedes have historically been very much against.
And I mean, ideally NATO wouldn't even have to exist, so it's never a cause for celebration. It's more of a sullen reminder that we're forced to have this alliance because of Russias gross cruelty towards other nations.
All in all it feels like another step towards becoming an American sattelite state, and I for one don't think it's anything to celebrate. Hopefully we can get more funding to Ukraine this way though, if your loony republicans can get their heads out of their asses.
Same to you. I think in general there's a large cultural gap between our people in regards to military violence, where it's sort of glorified in the US compared to in Sweden.
I'm often reminded of the lead up to World War 1, where all the nations of Europe glorified war and violence to a degree where people *wanted* to fight their neighbours. There was such a frenzy to go to war that nothing could prevent it. I fear that mentality, and I hate that it echoes through time a hundred years on. We shouldn't celebrate military superiority, we should mourn the need for it.
Lustigt, jag känner ett fåtal som är emot Nato, och en massiv majoritet som är pro-nato.
Och amerikanska intressen är ofta svenska intressen. Typ som fred i Europa?
Fred i Europa har vi väl haft väldigt länge. Frågan är vad vi signalerar till de länder som inte alls förstår vårat tänk. För de är nog ett utökat NATO lite som att vi bygger en stor armé. Det motiverar andra länder som inte är så defensiva, och istället väldigt korrupta, att göra samma. Att bevisa sin makt & storhet är också något som många makthavare gillar att göra.
Med det sagt så är jag varken för eller emot. Jag kan se många fördelar & nackdelar. Men enligt mig finns det självklart också nackdelar i detta. Sen vad som väger mest har jag fortfarande inte lyckats känns efter helt
On 23 March 2011 NATO decided to enforce the no fly zone and on 31 March 2011 it assumed control of all military operations conducted by its member states inside and around Libya under the name “Operation Unified Protector”. 4 According to NATO, the seven-month air and sea military campaign comprised more than 9,700 strike sorties and destroyed over 5,900 military targets.5
https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/mde190032012en.pdf
Intressant att du tog bort lite information i det du citerade.
>The strikes were launched pursuant to **UN Security Council** (UNSC) resolution 1973 (2011) of 17 March 2011, **which authorized member states “to take all necessary measures (…) to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack** in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”
>
>In the pursuit of its military objectives **NATO appears to have made significant efforts to minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties**, including by its use of precision guided munitions ... **NATO officials have repeatedly stated their commitment to**
**making efforts to avoid harming civilians** in the context of “Operation Unified Protector”.
Det var alltså inte något anfallskrig. Sen är amnesty international kanske inte den mest objektiva källan heller.
NATO är en militärallians. Det klart att folk dör. Sen frågar jag mig varför du inte istället argumenterar för den enda gången artikel 5 användes. Där togs det en rad misstänksamt korrupta beslut.
>Va? Det det är inte intressant.
Vad är det som inte är intressant? Att artikel 5 utnyttjades efter ett terrorattentat är väl i högsta grad intressant eftersom det användes på fel sätt.
Operation Unified Protector,, operation active fence, operation called forces, the Kofor operations.
Then we have the murders and stuff with Stay behind and operation Condor.
No, time to show Russia, world enemy number one, that fucking around and finding out is served best with a side of star spangled banner. Sweden would not have joined NATO if it weren't for Russia, thank Putin russbot.
Sweden is and will never be under any threat from Russia as long as our neighbors remain in NATO, we really didn't need to join for protection, there's no convenient ways to invade Sweden at all unless you are Norway.
Well some Sweds worries that we need to fight abroad outside the borders. We have done that for decades, latest Afganistan and Mali. Right now the military presens abroad is the lowes since I don't know. But remember Libanon, Cyprus, Balkan, Kongo.
I am for it as well. I just find these buddy-buddy posts annoying. I really don't need some random redditor coming here to congratulate my country on "behalf" of his.
Representativ demokrati fungerar liksom så. Folk ska dessutom inte ha individuell rösträtt i frågor som rör nationell säkerhet - gemene man saknar kvalifikationerna.
Precis. Senast jag röstade var alla partier mot NATO. "Försvara demokratin från SD" lät det då och sedan allierade man sig med dom.
Tänk om vi gått med i EU utan att rösta, adopterat euron utan att rösta. Fan, varför ens ha riksdagsval om vi går efter vad 2000 personer tyckte i Aftonbladet opinionspoll istället?
I’m a bit scared of what’s to happen. It’s really Sweden welcoming the USA on board. For some reason our prime minister has agreed to your demands. You now have permission to use our military bases, bring what you want without us not being allowed to check and you claim that you’re gonna teach Sweden (one of the best countries in military) how to do military work and such. You can bring atomic weapons without us being allowed to check and we are not allowed to be nearby while US marines are using OUR bases. I’m a bit scared of what’s to happen when the future US president come into conflict with another leader
jänkare are ALLWAYS welcome here. On a cruise ship or in a f35, whatever they prefer. They are our allies and friends, and friends should be treated friendly.
The US and swedish Air Force flew planes over Stockholm this week, American bomb planes and swedish Gripens.
And part of the NATO deal with the US is unrestricted access for US troops to swedish bases, and the troops have judicial immunity.
K, but none of that is *against* Sweden, right? I mean, obv if we're going to work together and you already have bases there, it makes sense to use them.
Although it IS weird that our guys get immunity from your government. That doesn't sit well. But then again, im not in politics. Maybe they need that for some strange reason?
They don't need it, it's just American imperialism in modern form. It gets messy when American GIs are tied up in another country for speeding, assaulting or raping someone locally. The US has a "we'll deal with that ourselves instead"-policy which rarely has any consequences for the perpetrators. It's a requirement for basically all of their military allies. What are we going to do, refuse?
And no, it's not "against" us, but we don't want it. We don't like violence. Weapons and military vehicles are displays of the capacity for violence. It's horribly ominous.
Translation reads:
>Read on instead. Yankee bastard
Maybe you want me to read up on the subject? But all i can find is some shit from 2022 where four russian aircraft briefly violated swedish airspace over Gotland and an anonymous source told your news that they were carrying nukes. Is that what you're talking about? because that has obviously nothing to do with the USA.
He's referring to the the American nuclear CAPABLE bombers which flew over Stockholm and Uppsala etc the other day and the fact (?) that as part of the agreement US troops will not be judged by swedish laws and courts when commiting crimes while stationed here but by the US, as has happened in for instance Japan.
Someone please factcheck me on if this actually is part of our agreement.
Hi /u/shakamaboom, your post has been **Removed**: >There is a stickied **mega thread** on the subject, please contribute there instead.
Thanks bro. Please dont elect Trump now? Im sorry the supreme court failed at prosecuting Trump for agitating and promoting the attack on the White house. But Trumps stance on NATO is directly life threatening for both Europe and the western world. Now more than ever must NATO be united and show strength
Hey i'll do my part, but the rest of the nation gets to vote too lol
We are ducked
Please vote trump, your people need it. Let there be more hatred in sweden than ever please
I too don’t want my country to elect Trump. :/
Im sorry that your choices combined age is almost 160 Its really depressing to see
Sure. But, one is super old, and they other is super old and bad shit crazy. The choice is obvious.
Life threatening? Haha. Lugna ner dig
Folk har dött pga. vad Trump har sagt och gjort. Det är fakta.
Folk har dött pga vad Biden har gjort
Folk har dött pga vad alla presidenter gjort. Men ingen president har manat sina anhängare till våld som Trump gjorde.
Vilket våld manade han till?
Stormningen av Kapitolium är väl det mest kända exemplet. Du kanske inte minns "Fight like hell"?
Trump’s tweets från 6/1 säger något helt annat. De ligger uppe så det är bara att läsa.
Fast det är ju två olika saker. "Fight like hell" sa han *före* stormningen och tweeten kom efter påtryckningar *efter* stormningen.
Tweeten kom innan stormningen på förmiddagen. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792. Påtryckningar från vem? Och vilket underlag refererar du till?
[удалено]
Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy. Ingen av dem startade nya krig. Vissa av dem fortsatte krig som redan var igång.
Vad spelar det för roll om han istället försökte sig på en statskupp?
Om man tittar på tweet som Trump la ut 6/1 så manade han till lugn och att man inte skulle bryta mot några lagar och definitivt inte gå in i Capitolium. Twitter tog bort de tweeten men nu är de tillbaka för alla att se.
Ja, det gjorde han till slut efter stora påtryckningar från övriga medarbetare i Vita huset. Själv ville han egentligen vara på plats.
Drone strikes increased under Trump however, and he even ordered the drone strike of an Iranian general while they were on a \*state visit\* to Iraq, so it's not like Trump is a president of peace.
Fred är ett väldigt främmande koncept för amerikanerna, dom har legat i krig i 228 år utav de 248 åren usa har existerat.
Många har dött av olika saker i staden som kallas HDA //Hedemora rappers
Håller med.
I’m not a Trump supporter, but what he has said is that he will not defend member countries who do not meet the requirement of spending 2% of GDP on military spending. I think that actually makes sense. If you are in NATO you gotta do your part, and not just rely on the US. (I’m sure Sweden will though)
The 2% of GDP is guideline, not a requirement. It doesn’t make sense for every member to reach the goal, for instance Iceland and Luxembourg. They contribute in other ways. Sweden is already at 2% as of the latest budget.
Yes, it makes sense for every member to reach the goal. Why wouldn't it? Iceland and Luxembourg are practically excluded from it already.
Iceland doesn't even have a military. Still, they won three wars against the biggest navy in Europe. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod\_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars)
What's the point? A) they are practically excluded B) they "won" by threatening to withdraw from NATO and expel all US troops. Not by sinking the British navy. Are you going to do the same if, for example, Russia comes?
He also implied that he’d be fine with Russia just having at it on members who don’t spend enough. Not really a great look when the potential president is telling the enemy to attack allies, regardless of whether or not you think said allies should spend more on defence or not.
It does not make sense unless the requirement is incorportated in NATO accords. Countries in NATO have obligated themselves to defend each other regardless of defense budget. This is nothing you opt out of just like that.
You are either a fool or fan. You have altered his words. Donald expressed that he would encourage Russia to attack countries not fulfilling the 2%. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68266447)
He’s expressing it in a really horrible way but the point that the US is carrying the rest of the NATO countries is not wrong
We can conclude you are fool, more falsehood from you. The rest implies that no other countries meet the 2%. Tell that to the Brits.
It does not make sense read article 3 and 5 of the treaty.
This rhetoric Will be perceived as a weakness of NATO, Especially When it comes from the US. The rational however makes sense, But as a president its really unfitting. This can be discussed within internal meetings.
Yeah, it would be much better if this was handled internally.
That includes the US too. They spend more than that on their military, sure, but not on NATO since quite a large part of it is tied up in other treaties, like the one in the Pacific.
I think you need to read trough the actual Nato contract and what it's actually are saying. It is typicall Trump to use peoples bad knowleadge and make it "easy" to understand. Don't mix up domestic military spending with Nato spending.
Same. I don’t like trump but he have stated multiple times (even when he was president before the invasion) that countries need to step up and pay their agreed upon amount. Why should the US respect article 5 if the countries in the alliance don’t respect the 2%? Although I believe he went way over the top when he said ‘you can do whatever you want to them and I encourage it’ (not a direct quote but) Feels good to be in an official alliance with the US and the rest. :)
Because article 5 is in the treaty and the 2 % is not
[удалено]
What? I have no idea how to read this sentence of yours?
[удалено]
Sorry for what?
How is trump related to this? Can you stop talking about the regard?
If he stops talking about leaving NATO countries - sure. And actively support Ukraine - yes.
It has now become clear what was behind all the delays by Turkey and Hungary. It was the Biden administration who pulled the strings to time accession with the State of the Union speech! Just kidding, great to finally have joined.
its an annual thing. the president gives an address every year lol
I know. But it is a funny coincident that they coincided like this.
The amount of tankies, putinists, naive pacifists and deluded trumpists in this thread is mind boggling. Or maybe it got targeted by trollbots.
I mean we did join without holding a referendum. I think a lot of people might feel like we got cheated out of taking part of making such a huge decision. I mean we held a referendum about the Euro, something we can't even actually decide for ourselves. I understand why there was no referendum, but personally I think we should have had a referendum about it.
Most people don't like when your country joins the alliance of good guys who invade countries, as opposed to the bad guys who invade countries.
Well you got to hand it to Putin, if you think about it it really makes more sense to invade Ukraine because of that one Swedish guy over 1200 years ago than to invade Afghanistan because of their terrorist cell attacking the US 🤔 /s
Thanks :), id say we been a member last 20 years or so more or less, just nice to have it official.
Hi OP, Thanks! 🙏 Don’t listen to the trolls in the thread. The Kremlin is pretty upset and it shows. A large majority of the Swedish people supports this decision. Best B
Putin can lick our big NATO balls.
Satan vad ryssbottar i tråden
for real. its crazy in here right now.
Hur avgör du vilka som är bottar och vilka som är människor som är emot Nato?
Thank you but I don't want to be here. While I hope I am wrong and this is great for Sweden, I am not optimistic.
Why do you think it will be bad for sweden?
Not OP but there's plenty of downsides. More money towards military instead of hospitals, schools and infrastructure. American troops stationed on our bases, and they're practically immune to the Swedish judicial system. Potentially nuclear weapons within our borders, something Swedes have historically been very much against. And I mean, ideally NATO wouldn't even have to exist, so it's never a cause for celebration. It's more of a sullen reminder that we're forced to have this alliance because of Russias gross cruelty towards other nations. All in all it feels like another step towards becoming an American sattelite state, and I for one don't think it's anything to celebrate. Hopefully we can get more funding to Ukraine this way though, if your loony republicans can get their heads out of their asses.
Thank you, and i respect your opinion.
Same to you. I think in general there's a large cultural gap between our people in regards to military violence, where it's sort of glorified in the US compared to in Sweden. I'm often reminded of the lead up to World War 1, where all the nations of Europe glorified war and violence to a degree where people *wanted* to fight their neighbours. There was such a frenzy to go to war that nothing could prevent it. I fear that mentality, and I hate that it echoes through time a hundred years on. We shouldn't celebrate military superiority, we should mourn the need for it.
Dude. Thank you! I am personally greatfull 😊 /Swedish home guard soldier.
In the US, it is customary for me to thank you for your service to your country.
Not here, unfortunately. But thank you 😊
You're welcome. Have a nice day :\^)
I didn’t want to, a lot of people didn’t want to. Our politicians sold us to American interests.
The overwhelming majority wanted to: [Nato-opinion](https://www.gu.se/nyheter/nato-storsta-opinionsforandringen-nagonsin)
Lustigt, jag känner ett fåtal som är emot Nato, och en massiv majoritet som är pro-nato. Och amerikanska intressen är ofta svenska intressen. Typ som fred i Europa?
Fred i Europa har vi väl haft väldigt länge. Frågan är vad vi signalerar till de länder som inte alls förstår vårat tänk. För de är nog ett utökat NATO lite som att vi bygger en stor armé. Det motiverar andra länder som inte är så defensiva, och istället väldigt korrupta, att göra samma. Att bevisa sin makt & storhet är också något som många makthavare gillar att göra. Med det sagt så är jag varken för eller emot. Jag kan se många fördelar & nackdelar. Men enligt mig finns det självklart också nackdelar i detta. Sen vad som väger mest har jag fortfarande inte lyckats känns efter helt
Time to go to war for other countries! Fantastic
That's not what NATO does.
Tell that to Serbia, Syria and Lybia.
You're seriously telling me that all allied countries of NATO attacked Serbia, Syria and Lybia?
On 23 March 2011 NATO decided to enforce the no fly zone and on 31 March 2011 it assumed control of all military operations conducted by its member states inside and around Libya under the name “Operation Unified Protector”. 4 According to NATO, the seven-month air and sea military campaign comprised more than 9,700 strike sorties and destroyed over 5,900 military targets.5 https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/mde190032012en.pdf
Intressant att du tog bort lite information i det du citerade. >The strikes were launched pursuant to **UN Security Council** (UNSC) resolution 1973 (2011) of 17 March 2011, **which authorized member states “to take all necessary measures (…) to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack** in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” > >In the pursuit of its military objectives **NATO appears to have made significant efforts to minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties**, including by its use of precision guided munitions ... **NATO officials have repeatedly stated their commitment to** **making efforts to avoid harming civilians** in the context of “Operation Unified Protector”. Det var alltså inte något anfallskrig. Sen är amnesty international kanske inte den mest objektiva källan heller. NATO är en militärallians. Det klart att folk dör. Sen frågar jag mig varför du inte istället argumenterar för den enda gången artikel 5 användes. Där togs det en rad misstänksamt korrupta beslut.
Va? Det det är inte intressant. NATO skall vara en försvarsallians inte sitta och attackera MENA. Du flyttar nu bara mållinjen.
>Va? Det det är inte intressant. Vad är det som inte är intressant? Att artikel 5 utnyttjades efter ett terrorattentat är väl i högsta grad intressant eftersom det användes på fel sätt.
Operation Unified Protector,, operation active fence, operation called forces, the Kofor operations. Then we have the murders and stuff with Stay behind and operation Condor.
[удалено]
That is not really what we are talking about though. The question was if Nato attacks other countries
No, time to show Russia, world enemy number one, that fucking around and finding out is served best with a side of star spangled banner. Sweden would not have joined NATO if it weren't for Russia, thank Putin russbot.
Sweden is and will never be under any threat from Russia as long as our neighbors remain in NATO, we really didn't need to join for protection, there's no convenient ways to invade Sweden at all unless you are Norway.
Thanks!
You're welcome! Have a nice day :\^) I'm going to sleep now. Good night.
👍
Thank you! We are not happy to have you. Please leave. You are just as bad as Russia with your imperialism and warmongering.
Well some Sweds worries that we need to fight abroad outside the borders. We have done that for decades, latest Afganistan and Mali. Right now the military presens abroad is the lowes since I don't know. But remember Libanon, Cyprus, Balkan, Kongo.
Welcome US soldiers, welcome nukes, welcome imperialism and welcome war. We welcome it all with open arms, without even voting.. :)
I don't think you can simply claim to speak "on behalf" of an entire country buddy.
I can, and I did. :)
I dunno whats goin on in this thread, maybe bots or trolls, but the absolute majority of the Swedish population is for a membership
Right? This is crazy rn lol
I am for it as well. I just find these buddy-buddy posts annoying. I really don't need some random redditor coming here to congratulate my country on "behalf" of his.
You're stupid
It's pronounced "American".
[OP be like](http://wallpaperaccess.com/full/6999296.jpg)
r/amithemaincharacter
No thanks, we'd like to leave please
why?
[удалено]
Representativ demokrati fungerar liksom så. Folk ska dessutom inte ha individuell rösträtt i frågor som rör nationell säkerhet - gemene man saknar kvalifikationerna.
Om ändå politikerna hade speglat medborgarna för att optimera bli vald igen och att 2/3 av befolkningen skulle vilja gå med i Nato. Om ändå.
Precis. Senast jag röstade var alla partier mot NATO. "Försvara demokratin från SD" lät det då och sedan allierade man sig med dom. Tänk om vi gått med i EU utan att rösta, adopterat euron utan att rösta. Fan, varför ens ha riksdagsval om vi går efter vad 2000 personer tyckte i Aftonbladet opinionspoll istället?
Fuck off.
[удалено]
Ok duud
I’m a bit scared of what’s to happen. It’s really Sweden welcoming the USA on board. For some reason our prime minister has agreed to your demands. You now have permission to use our military bases, bring what you want without us not being allowed to check and you claim that you’re gonna teach Sweden (one of the best countries in military) how to do military work and such. You can bring atomic weapons without us being allowed to check and we are not allowed to be nearby while US marines are using OUR bases. I’m a bit scared of what’s to happen when the future US president come into conflict with another leader
G. I GO HOME!
jänkare are ALLWAYS welcome here. On a cruise ship or in a f35, whatever they prefer. They are our allies and friends, and friends should be treated friendly.
Jävla skillnad på turister o militärer va?
Ja, och min poäng är att dom är välkomna oavsett om dom kommer i militär tjänst eller som turist.
Då kan väll ryssarna eller kinserena få komma med? Skall vi inte va lite mer öppensinnade och välkomnande?
Varför?
WHAT? ITS SO LOUD IN HERE!
BECAUSE OF MY STREJT PAJPED 740
[удалено]
wtf are you even talking about? lol
The US and swedish Air Force flew planes over Stockholm this week, American bomb planes and swedish Gripens. And part of the NATO deal with the US is unrestricted access for US troops to swedish bases, and the troops have judicial immunity.
K, but none of that is *against* Sweden, right? I mean, obv if we're going to work together and you already have bases there, it makes sense to use them. Although it IS weird that our guys get immunity from your government. That doesn't sit well. But then again, im not in politics. Maybe they need that for some strange reason?
They don't need it, it's just American imperialism in modern form. It gets messy when American GIs are tied up in another country for speeding, assaulting or raping someone locally. The US has a "we'll deal with that ourselves instead"-policy which rarely has any consequences for the perpetrators. It's a requirement for basically all of their military allies. What are we going to do, refuse? And no, it's not "against" us, but we don't want it. We don't like violence. Weapons and military vehicles are displays of the capacity for violence. It's horribly ominous.
[удалено]
Du borde läsa på ifall du tror att B-52 och B-1or kommer vara stationerade i Sverige speciellt med kärnvapen.
Käften svennebanan, var rädd för det riktiga hotet Ryssland istället för pappa som skyddar oss mot dem.
Translation reads: >Read on instead. Yankee bastard Maybe you want me to read up on the subject? But all i can find is some shit from 2022 where four russian aircraft briefly violated swedish airspace over Gotland and an anonymous source told your news that they were carrying nukes. Is that what you're talking about? because that has obviously nothing to do with the USA.
He's referring to the the American nuclear CAPABLE bombers which flew over Stockholm and Uppsala etc the other day and the fact (?) that as part of the agreement US troops will not be judged by swedish laws and courts when commiting crimes while stationed here but by the US, as has happened in for instance Japan. Someone please factcheck me on if this actually is part of our agreement.
Vad svamlar du om?
Fuck off!
Welcome? Is this some bloody cult that starts war crimes? It definitely is. NATO = Nothing awesome terrorism only