Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Warfronts" channel.

We didn't lose that before we began. All poll data from before around mid-2006 showed most Iraqis thought the invasion was worth it and only a minority supported attacks on coalition forces. We lost the "human terrain" when sectarian violence kicked into high gear (in mid-2006). They mass murdered each other and blamed Americans. That's the cold, hard, historical fact.
3
I know I shouldn’t be laughing but jeez, what a clusterf*ck 😆
2
Whenever I see the hatred the US has earned for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I always feel like I'm living in an Orwellian, dystopian alternate timeline. Young people may never be able to understand it, but Saddam Hussein was the Kim Jung Un of his time, a leader who was just...objectively evil from the world's perspective. Imagine how you'd feel if you saw your President overthrow Kim Jung Un, and give North Koreans the right to vote, and 20 years later he became one of the most despised men in the world because of it. When you live through that, it shifts your entire world. It's hard to believe in anything, not to be a total nihilist when it comes to foreign policy. So I have to say no, the US should not have intervened in Syria. I think, looking at history, we should pursue a policy of dealing with tyranny/genocide/terrorist the same way we dealt with Communism: containment. Don't squash it were it lives, just prevent it from crossing the borders. We did the right thing by containing Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. We messed up when we tried to squash him in his homeland.
2
@@cancermcaids7688 American imperialism isn't imperialism at all. Interventionism is not imperialism. Was it imperialism when the French and Spanish aided our fight against the British during the Revolution? Are we now part of the French Empire? No.
2
Denazification of a country with a Jewish President?
2
You don't know that. If we intervened in Rwanda, one of two things would have happened. 1) We would have stopped the genocide, but the Noam Chomskies of the world would say genocide was a false pretext and never would have happened on a large scale and we were just there to defend American corporate interests (and yes, you can spin literally anything the US does that way. Afghanistan was one of the most resource poor countries on Earth and people still said we were there for Cobalt or some nonsense). 2) US interventionism would have just delayed the inevitable, and generated more anger at the Tutsis we were intervening on behalf of. Once the US pulled out, the massacres would happen anyway. Far worse, people would spin it as America's fault, being unaware of what happened in the current timeline we inhabit where America didn't intervene. If the US can't even overthrow Saddam, who was basically the Kim Jung Un of his time (a leader considered unambiguously evil by 90% of the world), it's hard to imagine we could ever do anything that would earn the world's gratitude. The world's going to suck no matter what, at least if we stay out of it, people can't blame us for their problems.
2
@pakde8002 If we lived in an alternate timeline, and we had intervened where we hadn't and stayed home where we had, there is zero doubt in my mind you'd be saying those exact same words. You'd say "Why did America kill all those innocent people in Somalia and invade and occupy Rwanda under the false pretext of genocide! If we really cared about humanity we'd have toppled Saddam and the Taliban!" For God's sake, Saddam Hussein was the Kim Jung Un of his time, a leader 90% of the world considered unambiguously evil. If the US can't even overthrow Saddam and give Iraqis democracy without being despised for it, how can you believe ANYTHING we do can earn the world's gratitude?
2
Saddam Hussein was the Kim Jung Un of his time, a leader 90% of the world considered unambiguously evil. Yet the men who toppled him, Bush and Blair, became some of the most despised people in human history. It feels like we live in a surreal, dystopian, Orwellian alternate timeline, but its reality. When you live through sh*t like this, it's hard to believe we should approach the rest of the world with anything other than pure nihilsim and worry about anyone but ourselves.
1
If Biden declares himself autocrat for life and his son his heir, and the Arab world is going to restore our elections, then yes the Arab world should invade America.
1
We're actually both. Who helped Haiti after the quakes. Who helped the Pakistanis after the floods? Who curbed the AIDS crisis in Africa? America, America, and America.
1
Yep, the same people who cry about the US rigging elections in Iran and Chili more than 50 years ago or giving pocket change to dictators who fight our enemies told us democracy is just a completely arbitrary choice of lifestyle and if you assume foreigners would want it you're a Eurocentric Nazi Imperialists when we go to liberate Iraq.
1
@Potatismos33 Let us never forget that about 88% of innocent civilians in Iraq were killed by "insurgents, militia, and terrorists" according to John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count. Now those insurgents and their allies are portrayed as people who were "just defending their country". No event has been more distorted in human history to support an agenda of hate (anti-Americanism) than the Iraq War.
1
@Potatismos33 American troops were there to kill and capture the people who killed the vast majority of those innocent civilians.
1
This reminds me oddly of Eden’sGate in Far Cry 5.
1
The ANC is a party? I thought it was just their name for government.
1
@Rt7693b Oh right, the old "you can't trust the Western media (until they tell you something that makes America look bad then you can trust them 100%)" cop out. One of those polls was done by Gallup, which yes, is an American media company, but they're the same people who polled Crimeans in 2014 and found 90%+ of them thought Russia's referendum was legit, so its pretty unlikely they have a pro-American bias. People in Fallujah were probably always sympathetic to the insurgency, because Iraqis were very divided about the war based on demographics. But Iraqis in general didn't turn on the US until 2006.
1
"Have we learned anything yet?" Seriously? How do you not see the irony in the question? We've learned let if we intervene in the world's affairs we get called Nazis and imperialists.
1
@mattBLACKpunk From my experience they often are, at least they were during the Bush years. The same people crying that the US was doing nothing to stop genocide in Darfur (actually the US was doing more than any other country, but the media wasn't reporting that because they hated Bush) were the ones crying that we were in Iraq.
1
US minds its own business: "OMG how could you let those people die! You're heartless monsters!" US intervenes: "OMG look at the chaos you caused and all the people you murdered in collateral damage! You made everything worse! I hate you!" Or "Okay, fine, you fixed everything. But you only did it to protect your corporate interests! I hate you!" Or "Okay, fine, you fixed everything. But you didn't intervene in this other place. That's makes you hypocrites. I hate you!"
1
Regardless of whether we should or shouldn't have, there's no doubt in my mind people would have called us Nazis and imperialists and blamed us for everything bad that happened afterwards, indulging in the delusion that Syria would have been a peaceful paradise if America had just minded its own business.
1
No. If Biden declared himself autocrat for life and his son his heir, and someone invaded America with the promise of restoring our elections, I wouldn't even consider joining an insurgency.
1
Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, Liberia
1
It takes a lot of the burden, or at least sense of burden, off of us Americans. So thank you.
1
"Stopping the slaughter" is easier to said than done. We tried "stopping the slaughter" in Iraq (90% of the civilians in Iraq were killed by the insurgents, militia, and terrorists we were there to kill and capture, even though people still blame us for their deaths), but its never that simple.
1
@rufusshinra9124 "Sovereign" is a meaningless buzzword. If a dictator takes over his country, what makes him the sovereign leader exactly? Mite makes right? Because he said so? He has no moral basis for his authority, so what does it even mean to call his nation a "sovereign nation"? When people talk about a "sovereign nation", they're just spouting empty words. That's why I never use the word to form an argument when debating foreign policy.
1
Agreed, we throw the term around like confetti.
1
@symbiotezilla12345 If we lived in an alternate reality, where we stayed out of the countries at the top and intervened in the ones in the bottom, there's no doubt in my mind you'd be saying exactly the inverse. You can't hear the screams of people who died from wars we didn't wage, you can't see the dead children we didn't kill, so its so easy for you to say we should have gone to those places. How does it not occur to people how surreal, dystopian, and Orwellian it is that the US is so vilified for going into Iraq and Afghanistan? Saddam Hussein was the Kim Jung Un of his time, a leader considered by 90% of the planet to be unambiguously evil. The Taliban was...well, pretty much the same thing. If we can become hated for toppling them, there's no way I'll believe Rwanda, Syria, etc. couldn't have produced similar outcomes.
1
Wait sexual relations were forbidden? Wtf? So people joined a cult that would render the human race extinct based on the someone’s baseless claim was Jesus’ little brother?
1
@gastonalvarodorrego6559 There are few forces more merciless and uncompromising on the human mind than anti-Americanism.
1