What does this nonsense post have to do with the notion that war cheerleaders 📣 should have personal experience before suggesting others fight for the globalist lie that is NATO? Agree??
There is no nonsense. Your premise (faulty) is that a war cheerleader (undefined) should have personal experience (of what?) before suggesting others fight for the “globalist lie that is NATO” (unexplained).
I have already explained to you that the real war cheerleader is one who condemns the attacked from defending itself, with that natural corollary that the attacker should not be opposed; or, should be defeated. The real war cheerleader subscribes to the end justifying the means.
And, what is this personal experience of which you speak? Does a man have to have his family threatened or even attacked and killed to conclude that an aggressor must be stopped? Does a woman have to be actually raped to take a position that rape is a heinous violation?
Finally, this “globalist lie that is NATO” is interesting. I mean, think of it: “globalist” means someone or something that subscribes to something beyond mere internationalism (which implies some degree of nationalism), and on to supranationalism (i.e., worldwide, sans borders); “lie” is a falsehood; “NATO” is, of course, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, currently comprised of 31 countries, and soon to be 32. So, in other words, you are saying that NATO is a supranational falsehood.
Yet, how can that be? NATO is not worldwide, or supranational; if it were, it would be all over the globe, and there would be no member states, just one big NATO comprised of all peoples everywhere (stateless, because states would have been abolished). And how has this vast, stateless and ubiquitous mass of people lied? And was it a little white lie, or an Everest-sized whopper?