Comments by "0IIIIII" (@0IIIIII) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
154
-
89
-
86
-
60
-
57
-
51
-
48
-
42
-
40
-
39
-
36
-
31
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
SS Crimea was annexed by Russia. Crimea may have petitioned Russia for annexation, but Russia annexed them all the same. And really, who starts what is difficult to pin down. I'd argue that Russia started Euromaiden, by manipulating his puppet, former president Viktor Yanukovych, to stay away from the EU, and to pull itself into Russia's sphere of influence and tyranny, against the will of the people in Ukraine. And remember, he was legally impeached by a legitimate parliament. And really, it doesn't matter if the US started it all. Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's a poor and corrupt tyranny with fewer and weaker civil rights. The world would be better off if Russia would Westernize and until then, they have chosen to be the enemies of freedom and liberty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheSympathize
-Putin's political opponents? You mean like Boris Nemstov? I rest my case.
-I guess it's only an opinion that stronger civil liberties are what make a country better, but it's an opinion that I'm sure most people share, you especially. Ask yourself if you could so easily mouth off to the government if you were Russian or Chinese, where the media, Internet, and political parties are censored and suppressed? That the US allows you to actively criticize it, run in public office, or vote for an obscure third party who shares your interests, is proof that the US is a better country. You can't do any of that as easily in Russia, and especially not China.
-When I say Bush, I mean also his administration and inner circle. They were the ones who lied, or ignored and turned a blind eye to evidence to the contrary. Nobody else is directly responsible. And there were people and politicians who opposed the Iraq War right from the beginning. In any case Bush's lying was surprising and most people did not imagine that they were lying. That is not the same as being in cahoots or orchestrating the Iraq War alongside him.
-The Patriot Act was arguably necessary after the fact. And it is a moot point because other countries, including Russia and China, spy on their citizens as well, and unlike Russia and China, there are also those in America who actively oppose the Patriot Act, such as the ACLU.
https://www.aclu.org/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act
Last I checked there are no major civil liberties or interest groups active/legitimized in either Russia or China, so the US is better in this respect.
-The Afghanistan War was not a bad war. It was necessary and appropriate after 9/11, and the Taliban were illegitimate pariahs.
-Snowden? Snowden was not a hero. His whistleblowing damaged national security, put American, British, and other agents acting abroad in danger, and tipped off our enemies about how the US gathers intelligence. There were better ways to protest what the country is doing besides damaging it. The public was also not as blind as you figure. I remember my highschool teacher telling us about how the government spies on its citizens. Politically savy people already knew before Snowden.
-Give Obama a break, he's not a god. He can't just undue everything Bush or other predecessors have put in motion. If he could end the NSA-spying and the Patriot Act cold-turkey, then I'm sure he would. Politics are seldom so simple however.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheSympathize You're selecting the bad and ignoring all the good. The US protects its far flung and democratic allies, even those in proximity to Russia and China, and prevents them from falling under their spheres of influences. The US allows these countries to keep existing as they do, free, liberal, and unmolested. The US makes (most) alliances in good faith and her allies reciprocate in kind. Without the US, such countries would either be invaded, sanctioned, and walked all over, and local conflicts would be prominent without a hegamon to bring order. The US preserves peace, stability, and from there the flow of money and business. That is all the good, and it far outweighs all those examples, which are either old or insignificant.
Comparing the American and Chinese civil wars is a major oversimplification.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TurboPummel Oh but you are wrong. Haven't you heard of "For the People by the People"? Democracies like the US and NATO members are accountable to their people and subscribe to global interdependence, world wide peace and civil liberties. Russia and China however, are governed by the few elites and suppress civil liberties. Check out the gap between the rich and poor in China and Russia, it's bigger than in the US, via the Inequality-Adjusted Development Index. That is why the US and West is better and has the moral highground over Russia and China.
The US and West subscribe to the Democratic Peace Theory. War is expensive, and against a large trading partner like China, it's suicide. This does not mean the US is hypocritical, it just means their ideology is tempered by reality. To be sure the US would convert China if it was possible, even if it is "just for money", but it's not possible, that's why they don't do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TurboPummel First of all, you need to consider why NATO expanded in the first place, after the fall of the USSR, in 1989. Countries like Poland, the Baltics, they ran from Russia and ran into NATO. They elected pro-NATO and pro-West political parties to get in. Because they were afraid of Russia and no longer wanted to be in the oppressive Eastern Bloc. Expansion of NATO is democratic, and is the will of the people. Ukraine is now no different. And furthermore, NATO is strictly a defensive alliance. If Russia is scared of NATO, then it has chosen to be an enemy of the West, and therefore an enemy of all of the freedoms that you hold dear.
Secondly, Russia will always pose a threat so long as it is undemocratic. NATO will stop them. NATO stops wars, Russia creates them, and NATO expansion will be Russia's undoing, or its catalyst to liberalize. If the West lets Russia get away with Ukraine and Crimea, then it will set a dangerous example that we will not defend our non-NATO allies, like Australia, Japan, or Taiwan.
1
-
TurboPummel How you can you use your freedom of speech to defend the existence or Russia, which actively seeks to limit it? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite, and an ingrate? The civil liberites Germany affords you would not be given if you were living in Russia. You're treating Russia and the West with a moral equivalence, but there's no reason for you to do that. US, Germany, and NATO are strong, stable, and democratic, Russia is not. Democracy is good, tyranny is bad. The US and NATO are good, and Russia is bad. It's that simple. US may have problems with lobbying as you describe, but it's minor compared to Russia which basically only has one party in control, and much worse corruption/lobbying, and unlike in Russia, there are significant amounts those in the US, such as myself, who want to see lobbying tamed and regulated.
You're also making very broad simplifications, most Westerners view the US very well. As you can see here.
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/
1
-
TurboPummel If a majority of North Koreans approve of Kim Jong Un, does that mean we should abandon all hope of overthrowing the regime? Of course not, because the people don't know better and because their opinions are merit-less. The thing about Russia is that Putin also lies to his citizens and feeds them false information, and only his party, United Russia is in control. So Russians can't really vote for anyone they want, and they are being deceived. Putin also suppresses political opposition, and some, like Boris Nemstov, get killed trying for trying to speak up. And as I recall watching aren't most Germans in favor of accepting all 800,000 refugees, albeit perhaps begrudgingly? And I'm sure you're speaking out of context, you probably can make yourself an enemy of the plan to accept refugees. What you can't do however, is promote hate speech, I assume you mean. In any case, you should come to the US if you're so worried about not being able to say what you want, and you definitely shouldn't look to Russia as a shining example. In Russia you'd be arrested for saying things less controversial. Also I'm pretty sure that Israel and Turkey are each bigger allies in the Middle East than Saudi Arabia, but so what? With Saudi Arabia as a US ally, the US can work with them, put them on the path to becoming a democracy, and at least stop them from fighting the US, Germany, and the rest of NATO & the West. That's preferable to Saudi Arabia becoming a Russian ally, like Assad and his Syrian Baathists. Honestly I don't understand why you are selfishly rebuking those Eastern Bloc countries for joining NATO. That's selfish of you. And also shortsighted. NATO has prevented wars from ever happening, by acting as a deterrent. Who knows how many Georgias or Crimeas Russians would try to pull if the US and a United Europe wasn't there to stop them?
1
-
TurboPummel Well, basically, yes, I'm pretty sure we would. Well, we would have to be sure that Russia's intentions were sincere, and that they were not trying to sabotage NATO and the European Project from within. There was talk back in the 90s, believe it or not, about Russia potentially joining or strengthening relations with NATO. But it didn't amount to much. There are Western concerns that Russia would join NATO, and like with the UN Security Council, use its might to veto and obstruct NATO's democratic ambitions, and get the West off of Russia's back. What a predicament the US would be in if Russia wanted to meddle with a non-NATO country like Georgia, Japan, Israel, or Ukraine, and then we must choose to either support Russia and give it a free pass to dominate, or side with those countries and undermine the whole alliance. Perhaps leading to its eventual breakup even, like some sort of Russian master plan? And of course, adding Russia would also open up a new front with China, which would probably be a whole nother mess. Also with Saudi Arabia, the situation is complicated and democracy can take decades to implement, such as with Taiwan and South Korea. But by being a US ally, they are moving in the right direction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hattar00 You should brush up on your history, especially regarding Afghanistan. In case you've forgotten, almost of all of Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban before the US came and liberated it. Today, Afghans rate the US as their most favorite country in several polls. US has since given more than 65 billion dollars to the Afghan government to keep the state stable and encourage development. Even in Iraq, progress has been made since the removal of Saddam Hussein. ISIS is not quite the scourge the media makes it seem. Iraqi Kurdistan in the north, and most of southern Iraq are relatively safe and free of extremists such as ISIS. Iraqi Kurdistan has especially prospered, the Kurds there were among the most persecuted in Iraq under Saddam, today the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan is one of the most progressive and prosperous states in the entire Middle East. US will take its due credit there, and the Kurds are most grateful for the Iraq War, despite how controversial it proved. You are making a false equivalence with the Iran-Iraq War, and there is also nothing wrong with arming and guiding the FSA,as they are among the most liberal and promising factions vying for control within Syria.
1
-
hattar00 No, the Mujaheddin were propped up by the US, which included many factions such as the progressive Northern Alliance, and at that point the Taliban did not exist and Al-Qaeda was in its infancy. After the Soviet War in Afghanistan ended, the US supported the Northern Alliance in their fight against the Taliban and fundamentalists. Then after 9/11, when the War in Afghanistan began and the US defeated the Taliban, the groups and individuals in the Northern Alliance, including Karzai, were democratically installed. Look it up if you don't believe me, southern Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan are not directly affected by ISIS, and Iraqi Kurdistan especially has benefited greatly from the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MCMeru Yes, I believe that longterm American presence, over decades, is necessary for stability, and that payoff will be worth it. ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, none will find purchase in Iraq and Afghanistan if things keep going as they are, because the end result will be a stable democracy. US will also acquire steadfast allies in Middle East /Central Asia and prove its commitment to democracy and nation building to to the world. Maybe it's not worth the wars itself in the first place, but now that they've happened, US can and should make the best of things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Willy Stroker Even if your claim about black gangsters in Detroit being killed were true, it does not mean that those gangsters' lives are worth less than anyone else's as you implied. I also want to emphasize that being in a gang is not in itself illegal, it is protected under the Right to Assemble under the First Amendment. You are also generalizing far too much. Those refugees from the Middle East are mostly civilians, not extremists. Resettling them is not merely a moral obligation, it is also a political one that serves the US's best interests in the long term. Also, the US has a long history of admitting refugees from around the world, so this current crisis with Syria for instance is really nothing new and shouldn't be so jarring as if it were. Most recently in 2008, the US government admitted and resettled more than 60,000 refugees from Bhutan and Nepal, in the wake of the Nepalese Civil War, yet no one seems to protest that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheSympathize Yes they did start it, they annexed Ukraine, which was bad. They gave funding, volunteers, government agents, tanks, and heavy weapons to Ukrainian separatists, which was also bad. Russia is not comparable to NATO. NATO is safe, stable, and democratic, Russia is not. Russia has no leg to stand on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Games Cooky I'd like to hear whatever amusing nonsense you believe in. Get your head out of your ass, Obama is worlds better than Putin, read the Democracy Index, the Development Index, and compare where the US, NATO, and EU members are, and then compare that to where Russia places. Use your head too. Russia is riddled with organized crime, persecutes gays, and has a failure of a government that is corrupt, assassinates minority leaders such as Nemstov, and cannot so much as protect its people from crime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1