General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Stephen Jenkins
RealLifeLore
comments

Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "RealLifeLore" channel.

@greenpill9567 Doesn't matter, this is the internet. Feels > Reality.
80
@4777hamza Dude, look up how the US forced the Iraqi government to sell their oil; the biggest buyers of Iraqi oil initially were the likes of Russia, China, and France -NOT the US or the allied nations that invaded Iraq. To the contrary, the US sought to rebuild Iraq into an allied nation it could depend on to crush Islamic extremism in the region. It sought to re-do the West Germany, Japan, and South Korea thing. Obviously it failed, but the idea that the US wanted cheap oil is so laughably debunkable that it only functions as an actual belief if you don't know anything about how the US occupation of Iraq functioned.
56
He meant that the geopolitical situation could change and Panama wanted no risks. Yeah modern Colombia doing it is laughable since there is good relations, but countries went from friendly to mortal enemies before.
47
@Pickchea People talk about Myanmar far more than Sudan tho
40
@meralEdwtDawlatly Uh, African Americans are in no way shape or form "native" to what can be considered the US. Indigenous people were, but they were not the founders of the US either, but were prior owners before being conquered by US settlers.
39
Iraq was "ruined" long b4 the US. But yeah, UK borders and all.
32
@FreeGame009 Yeah, the mighty petrodollar. You do realize that when Iraq threatened to drop the US $, that was looooong after the US attacked in the Gulf War, right? You also realize it was in RESPONSE to the US harassing Saddam Hussein about having WMDs, right? You also realize it was AFTER the US sanctions, right? By the logic of the petrodollar theory...the US attacked Iraq because Saddam threatened to drop the $. But the US was already gearing up to attack Iraq for geopolitical reasons prior to that. That doesn't even get into the other countries. The US didn't even want to attack Libya, that was France that led that mess. Seriously, there is nothing weirder than the petrodollar theory. But your profile name already suggests that you're pretty insane, so...yeah.
21
 @BucketOfDakka Many such cases where people whining about the MSM themselves are just ign or ant.
19
@mnm5165 You can't shove a media outlet down someone's throat. They can switch the channel or watch something else. Stop the copium.
19
@ Or maybe he just doesn't like Saudi Arabia. It doesn't have to be any more deep than that.
17
Sad part is Godi media has utterly br ai nw as hed the Indian populace.
15
 @myssoferia2191 The US didn't recognize it for years. It was Trump specifically that did that for support to Isrl. Calm down. 😂
15
@AJ-fj9rt You say that as if there aren't other major players like the UAE that he didn't mention. Chill out, dude. He was simply focusing on the players directly and overtly involved.
12
@mohammedkh4321 Looking at the statistics around it, no, Iraq was pretty shit prior to 2003. It was going in a downward spiral since 2001 and bottomed out in 2003, then got a massive bump in GDP per capita in 2004..far higher than in all of Iraq's history. Wanna know the greatest GDP per capita in Iraq's history? It was 2016. The "many tourists" and "lot of students" that came did so as rich guests; that does nothing for the wealth of the average Iraqi.
10
@olefella7561 So you're just ignoring how China grew from a small River Valley Civilization and colonized most of the East Asian lands, huh?
10
Your comment makes no sense. The point of fear of China causing conflict is that it adds on top of prior sins by other powers. It's making things worse. Why should we let things get worse? Why should China's neighbors just shrug and accept imperialism because someone else did it years ago?
9
Multiple wars with far higher death tolls: not genocide Israel waging war: genocide Nice try. But anyone with logic can see how hypocritical your logic is.
9
@TheZachary86 Russia backed Assad who released almost all of the terrorist groups that plagued the country to begin with. And the vast majority of civilian deaths in that war was caused by Assad and Russia to begin with. They were literally worse than the terrorists, which is why the revolt happened at all.
8
 @motionberg_agency Uh, this is blatantly untrue. Most of the most successful nations on Earth were backed by the US. Vietnam and Afghanisran were exceptions.
7
Not quite, if I recall. The US supported Iraq since the latter feared the Iranian Revolution; the US didn't encourage it. US support came BECAUSE of the war to combat Soviet influence.
7
If by "forced", you mean that Turkey demanded the rights to get the knowledge of the inner workings of the US' Patriot systems -something that almost no US allies are allowed to have. And when Erdogan tried to force the US' hands by going to Russia and buying their S400 system, the US refused to blink. Worse yet, Russia promised the inner workings of the S400, but they lied. So Turkey tried to play both sides but only severely damaged US trust in Turkey. If Turkey just wanted the Patriot missile defense systems, they could've received it without issue and the US was very willing. So nice try leaving that out.
5
@altrag US tried the Japan thing afterwards. In Iraq and Afghanistan. Turns out trying it in an unstable polity with corrupt government leaders just tends to reinforce that corruption in those countries. So you essentially just want to throw money away rather than solve anything. Edit: Also there are 100% people that argue that borders shouldn't exist. I met and talk to them.
5
@Nobody You massively overestimate the US' capability. What made Japan and Germany possible was that both were already united polities that had no external interference to prevent restructure or rebuilding. Iraq and Afghanistan were tribes or ethnic groups forced together by dictators with nothing holding them together except prior grievances. Worse yet, terrorist groups from foreign lands jumped in to attack American troops and bomb rebuilt infrastructure leading the people there to be caught in the middle of a constant war zone instead of the promised peace. Outside of literally smashing each and every single hostile MENA region nation and occupying the region for decades on end; there was nothing that can be done, really.
5
@mladenmamic187 Essentially yes. Of course, the US would by their own view "end the suffering of the Iraqi people", but that was obviously more a side hope than anything. If Iraq was isolated in the center of Africa without any geopolitical advantage to the US, it wouldn't bother with it. Like how the US didn't intervene to stop every genocide ever. A mix between idealism and pragmatism. Are you seriously trying to imply that Libya wasn't a French mission? You realize that the US was not at all involved in Libya until after France requested US support, right?
5
 @MsZeeZed That kind of stuff is frowned up these days.
4
@haroldinho9930 That's hardly fair. British aren't occupying anything of Ireland because Northern Ireland WANT to be a part of the UK. Who are you to force people to join your country?
4
 @yourrepicnoobie YT kinda makes comments go away if they contain certain words. It is what it is.
4
Multiple ethnic and religious groups have suffered consistent p o g r o m s in India. So idk what kind of secular state Indians are talking about?
4
@divyagupta5680 US has free public education. And Iraq's free public healthcare? Idk much about it, but I can tell you that Iraq's HDI was not anywhere near the US' in the 70's. Sorry, but you don't get to make up your own history by acting like the US pushed Saddam into anything; the man was an imperialist that did what he wanted regardless of US wishes. US did not give any promises to Iraq about Iran or Kuwait; that's just Post-Iraq War propaganda to justify Saddam's actions. Don't invade peaceful US allies if you don't want to get bombed. I hold little sympathy in this regard. US backing Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War was wrong, but its historical fact that it was Saddam already sought war and the US backed him after the fact. In fact, it was public knowledge that the US wanted them BOTH to lose. "U.S. government support for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open sessions of the Senate and House of Representatives.[252] American views toward Iraq were not enthusiastically supportive in its conflict with Iran, and activity in assistance was largely to prevent an Iranian victory. This was encapsulated by Henry Kissinger when he remarked, "It's a pity they both can't lose.":
4
@mladenmamic187 Actually, from what I see, I genuinely see countries have a war within themselves in acting between idealism and pragmatism. Idealism is not always a good thing, as idealism is what is leading Turkey for example to believe it can take everyone on without repercussion and is leading to the collapse of its currency. All because of some Neo-Ottoman dreams. Pragmatism just means realpolitik, but often times imperialism is as much idealism as pragmatism. It was not as realpolitik of the US to invade Iraq and nation-build afterwards; it was more idealistic. As for Libya? The US literally has no stake there, then or now. France is the one that had all of the geopolitical goals in North Africa, not the US. You're letting your bias get the better of you in thinking the US even has the means to get France to do something for them lol
4
@Zeitgeist2000 And here we see an example of a Canadian with an inferiority complex. An unfortunate stereotype writ large.
4
@AJ-fj9rt That doesn't sound like an agenda, it just sounds confused.
4
@pathwanderer1183 Hasn't that bit about McDonald's been debunked already? And to be blunt; the US has way too much waste -one of the biggest waste producing nations on the planet. Idk why you're claiming that waste is rarer than people think. If anything its far less than people think.
3
@Tv.Charlie Does that matter who lived first? Turks aren't native in Turkey either, and most peoples aren't native to their current lands. What matters is who is the recognized owners today. That being said, if people are so upset that they'd revolt and form their own country; then that means the owners were that cruel and pushed the minorities to do so. In which case, I'd support the Spanish speakers to an extent. And that applies to the Kurds in Turkey, if they're pushed that far.
3
@Tv.Charlie They don't want it. Who are you to tell them to do that? God? It's called self determination. Whatever a group of people want, its their decision, not yours.
3
@greatwolf5372 Pure cope. US has been generally very successful in cleaning up messes. Most nations do tend to make things worse.
3
@Enkabard Idk what that has to do with this conversation? But for the record, Central and South America is by far one of the most peaceful regions on the planet. While large swaths of Asia are in constant conflict, same with Eastern Europe and large parts of Africa - LatAm is quiet. Millions aren't made to disappear like in China. That doesn't change that the US has interfered in its politics, but you are intentionally only looking at the negative to paint a specific picture. U r not engaging in this honestly, u just want to bash the US. Not educate.
3
@Enkabard No, you're not. Because you blatantly misconstrued my statement. But thnx, again, for proving my point in how you just want to bash. Not educate.
3
@mladenmamic187 Wahhabism isn't the same as the extremism exhibited by the likes of Al Qaeda. If you recall, Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow the House of Saud for not being "Muslim enough" too. The US didn't support the Chechens at all, so the US generally doesn't support meaningless terrorism, no. Guerilla warfare is one thing, intentionally inciting attacks on civilians in a country because of religious reasons is bad all around/
3
@douseenow How? Multiple wars ongoing as wr speak has killed far more people than Israel ever does without people calling it genocide? So either you guys are already hypocrites, or you don't actually care. Either way, Israel is justified in its war, not in annexing Gaza though.
3
@turtleofpride4572 I'm a vet, and to be blunt, you are intentionally leaving out a lot of facts of what happened to paint a specific picture. Not the truth. The other dude is right.
3
Old imperial powers like the UAE and Saudi Arabia?
2
Good thing it isn't a genocide then. Unless every other war is now a genocide to you people?
2
Well, duh. India would be majority Hindu. Why wouldn't they want to lead a united India?
2
@HomerOJSimpson It didn't really stop them though, did it? They are still trying and a large chunk of the world is justifying it. Maybe in the future conquest will be in vogue again? Basically, it makes sense to hedge your bets rather than hoping for the goodness of another's heart.
2
@Homer-OJ-Simpson Everyone does interventions to an extent, its expected unfortunately, but outright conquest is something that big countries weren't supposed to do anymore. But Russia is not only breaking that taboo, but keeps working at it in this current war. What more taboos will be broken in the future? We don't know. LatAm has not been embroiled in any wars, thankfully, but why do you think it will always stay like that? Europe has been peaceful for years now too -but that peace was recently broken. My argument is literally just "we don't know the future, and praying for everyone to play nice hasn't worked for everyone". Nobody is saying anybody should be building a wall, but breaking down current walls may not be advisable either. Edit: For reference, I once had a conversation with a European who was saying the same exact things you were saying. That war was gone since it hadn't appeared for so long in his continent, so having militaries was redundant. He's probably kicking himself for being so naive by now.
2
@meliherdemaygun No African American wants to form their own country to begin with lmao. Your copium is hilarious.
2
Even if that were true, it doesn't change that Russia was the one that invaded in the first place and started the crisis for their own imperialist ambition.
2
@dgage1776 Eh, if I were you I'd be more sorry about deflecting for the imperialists literally invading a country and trying to erase the people's identity there.
2
@chipband8812 True, not as bad as Pakistan. But India's actions are pretty imp eri al ist. Their actions in Hyderabad and Kashmir points to that.
2
 @agentsmidt3209 US didn't fail in Korea or even Somalia, wut?
2
@7U57HTJRYGHG Its the same situation. And its not a defense, so much as its explaining the situation. The end result, in the end, is the same.
2
US long surpassed the British Empire before it crumbled, so nothing points to it becoming richer than the US.
2
@Doomer253 Clowns unironically have zero idea what is going on, and just say "oil" for everything when S Sudan doesn't even have a lot of oil lmao
2
@johndoe-ss9bz It doesn't matter what you call it; the Northern Irish WANT to be a part of the UK. Period. End of story. You don't get to choose for them, baby dictator.
2
That has been done to death already. There isn't enough focus on how LatAm countries were failing long before US interference and why they were failing long before US interference. L
2
@lamay1947 Because "food insecurity" is a term that accepts those who are "undernourished", including those that are by the definition of "poverty" are too close to being unable to afford food. There is a difference between food insecurity and actually having starving people. The US like all countries have some in the former, but unlike most of the world has none of the latter.
2
World was at the brink of famine back then too; everyone was forced to ration food to even maintain the war effort. Famines occurred everywhere during WW2, just not in the most developed nations which could afford the world's supply of food.
2
@sir.richard5346 Russian paramilitaries are only in Sudan because the stability of the country was so skewed that political leaders allowed them access to steal gold for support. Literally none of Sudan's issues would be issues if Sudan's political leadership wasn't selling their country for a quick buck. This is common sense. Your ignorance on this topic means that you are an example of why humanity is lost, so no biggie.
2
@CraftxTD I think the issue is that every strongest nation just acts out as every other nation WOULD act if they had the power. So if Canada was given the power the US had, it would just as likely become as hated because...it's a country with interests.
2
@rey_nemaattori That's because they actually had the chance to build their own societies. The ones which the British took over had a society pushed onto them.
2
@ellec7188 ...Except this doesn't give a middle finger to colonizers; just the inhabitants living there. At best, hurting their descendants.
2
Sure, but as things are now, they are.
2
Wasting resources helping randos across the world is a braindead way to cause crises in Western society. It isn't like Westerners opened their doors to white Balkan refugees after the Yugoslav Wars either -fact is that the Ukraine War only get so much Western support and attention do to it coming from Russia and it being right next door. If it was Georgia again, the support would be much more half-hearted. Cry harder if you must, but human empathy and attention only goes so far away from home.
1
@asmodeus3084 Not true, there are plenty of people like you who are butthurt about Iraq getting smashed who lie and claim that the US gave Saddam Hussein the go ahead to attack Kuwait. Besides, even if they did, that doesn't suddenly give Saddam Hussein the right to do so. Iraq got smashed and it deserved it.
1
@asmodeus3084 I was referring to the Gulf War in which you insinuated that Iraq attacked Kuwait with the permission of the US; which is an absurd conspiracy to justify Saddam Hussein. Also, the US did not take any oil from Iraq -Iraq sold it to the highest bidder which consisted of France, Russia, and China initially. So congrats in proving just how ignorant you are about what happened. You're like 99% of the internet; talking crap when they're full of garbage.
1
@asmodeus3084 When did the US say Saddam could invade Kuwait? Please inform me; and it better not be "he said/she said" business because that can be dismissed as propaganda. I don't need to defend the US, international law says that the US was 100% right to smash Iraq in the Gulf War. The UN even agreed to it. The US basically gets no oil from Iraq, genius. Iraqi oil is 1.9% of US imports in 2021 LOL Hey man, you're a part of the 90% that unironically believe that a paltry 1.9% of oil imports indicates the US controls Iraqi oil. Gotta love it.
1
@freepalestine7687 And would ya look at that, South America is among the most peaceful regions on the entire planet. I don't think that's the jab that you think it is lol
1
@Tom Bombadil Too late. That has been a thing for centuries now. 😁
1
@thesteelecrusader7778 Prolly because not everyone is obs*ssed like you are.
1
They literally are. They have talked about using n*kes the second they get it and have funded pr*xies that deleted hundreds of thousands of people in decades.
1
The numbers don't add up to believe that most want to go to those locations over the US. Even legal immigration has more Europeans or people from Oceania moving to the US rather than vice versa.
1
@agme8045 Oh, that's fair. No idea about your country's specific migration patterns. Apologies.
1
Has more to do with the fact that none of these countries want to make their trek easy. The countries they pass through generally hate migrants.
1
Shows how ignorant you might be if you think its better anywhere else lmao
1
 @慎壹 Terrorists lie. Who'd have thunk it???
1
Turkey has not been trustworthy enough to bother listening to it from a US standpoint. It keeps trying to play the US against Russia and having it blow up in its face.
1
I think he said anti-migrant policy. Either way that seems harsh considering the policies of 99% of nations aren't half as nice.
1
Hardly just Jews. Non-Muslims in general were ethnically cleansed from most of the MENA region.
1
@toplobster7714 Yeah, no, the US government 100% represents Americans. Stop coping. Nothing can 100% represent a people since the people's opinions shifts like the wind.
1
@hapaharley1706 Almost no Americans want to stop their government. Most Americans are in agreement on this.
1
@hapaharley1706 Opinion polls.
1
 @TrollPriestZandum Go away troll
1
@dgage1776 Ah yes, because America and Europe totally can control what Russia does. Funny how you ignore the literal invader in a new form of victim blaming. Its pathetic how you twist reality just to blame the West.
1
 @hisye0 Amazing bow 500k people dying is just a war, but Israel invades after a major attack with 20k dead is genocide.
1
@1wun1 Typical that the US gets criticized for both being wishy washy and for being a one party state at the same time.
1
@1wun1 Switches policies or positions. Europeans are saying that a lot especially. So, there is no logic to OP's claim. Well, tbh, they are prolly a bot.
1
@Dunpo-p1r 1964 Calcutta, 1983 Nellie, 1969 Gujarat, 1987 Hashimpura, and recently 2020 Delhi. I can name quite a few more.
1
@sanitygone-l9y Bruh, everyone does this kind of stuff, but only Americans get the shaft for it. I think they are excused from not caring anymore about the hyp*crisy.
1
@eustache_dauger So instead of bl@ming the actual Ayatollah or the Iranian people from following this path, you bl@me the Americans that are far distant from the conversation?
1
@NobleGamer889 And everyone knows domino theory is a joke. There are hundreds of factors that go into these. And if you didn't notice, at no point did Iran have to take this path; they CHOSE to do so.
1
@Organic_Chemistry_Junkie America did not, what??? 9 11 happened because of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism which rose due to the f@ll of Arb N@tion@lism. The USSR's actions in Afghanistan charged it up, not hte US'.
1
@Zemlja_je_ravna And that is how Iran and nations have functioned for all of history, but suddenly ya'll talk about it as if only the US played that game.
1
@David Blair They were extremely wealthy for the powerful elites, and often not in the way you envision it. The only difference between colonized regions and "free ones" is that the elites were dragged down to the lowest classes too and the region was forced to do nothing but resource extraction. THAT was the biggest issue of colonization. The resource extraction is what everyone did, but making nothing except resource extraction in very limited capacity meant that when freed; that's all the wealthy elites also wanted to do. Some broke free from that. Others did not. The colonizers were once colonized themselves, after all.
1
@altrag >intent was to build a puppet state for oil Imagine being this ignorant, geez. How exactly was the war for oil when the US received no oil and most of the oil rights were purchased by Russia, China, and France? And for the record, the US spent BILLIONS on construction in both countries. That's similar to the amount spent on Germany and Japan.
1
@davidblair9877 By the time of the Era of Discovery, the European middle class was rising -not exploding like during the Industrial Revolution, but not fully dependent on farming to the point that a single bad harvest would lead to mass starvation. I agree with your second paragraph.
1
@davidblair9877 Those "sizable middle classes" were a fraction of a fraction of society, just like in European ones. I'm not shilling for Europe, as the middle class that we think as "sizable" didn't appear until the 19th century.
1
@ohnonilu Uh, no. It would massively increase if anything. Many nations depend on the US to maintain peace, and theyvwoukd scramble for conflict without the US around. It's because of the US that many peace treaties were even brokered at all.
1
 @flaming_ace Objectivepy speaking, he prolly does more for world peace than you can imagine. Just saying.
1
@ohnonilu 1) US is not interested in resources, it helped Iraq sell its oil to the highest bidder and didn't steal any. It's interested in maintaining stability as well as keeping countries aligned to it. These goals clash sometimes, but blaming the US for b Yemen when Iran literally initiated the war there by coping the previous government is why I can't take you guys seriously. You insist the US is causing trouble and yet ignore when the US is reacting to others causing trouble. 2) I never claimed the US was perfect, just that it was critical to peace in many regions of the world. East Asia, Europe, and much of the Carribean depend on US power to dissuade foreign aggressors. 3) Israel is complicated, so how about this; every war ever has violated UN international laws. But Israel has violated a lot less of them than every war combatant in the past decade. This raging against Israel is not because of international law, otherwise people would rage far more against Ethiopia, Sudan, Myanmar, or Russia whom have cause WAAAAAY more deaths. No. It's because it's Israel and a lot of people already hated it. If anything, the US is to be commended for not abandoning an ally when the rest of the world shows off its hypocrisy.
1
I remember when Russians were saying the same thing about Ukraine lmao
1
ISIS has nothing to do with NATO, and very little to do with the US either. That was more the cause of Islamic radicals from across the MENA region including Turkey who took advantage of the chaos of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. You can blame the US for the weakening of Iraq, not for the formation of ISIS. Also, Turkey did a lot to aid ISIS in Syria anyway. This is why many Arabs call Turkey ISIS' greatest supporter.
1
@Enkabard I never claimed that, genius. But thanks for proving my point. You're not here to engage, you are here to spread h@te.
1
 @Native_Creation Very few. US only had 1k troops or so in the country near the end.
1
@Lucas_Antar Local news talks about the bigger events going on in Europe and the US, which tend to have international consequences. You'd know the difference between that and what the other dude said if you ever got an education above secondary level.
1
@kingleothesomethingsomethi285 Not to justify anything, no. West didn't do anything except try to stop the fighting in Sudanese civil war. It didn't exactly try to help South Sudan 🙄
1
Unless its a "Western" power being bad, the world doesn't care.
1
 @adriannebula2489 "Best friends" that suddenly become vicious enemies within a generation.
1
@IstvanSzabo-x3w That's like saying that most Americans are indigenous because a lot have Indigenious blood in them.
1
@kv4648 Exacerbated? No, nothing changed in Afghanistan, in the end. Besides turning Taliban against AQ and ISIS.
1
@gabeyacob547 No, you lot are just coping hard. We know all about the human rights violations of nations like Saudi Arabia more than we know of Iran's.
1
@johndoe-ss9bz Cite the claim that a majority of "English taxpayers" are for a united Ireland. Hell, even if you were right, that would just be the English, not all of the British people. The point is; unless the British and/or the Northern Irish WANT to join Ireland, you have no right to join NI to Ireland.
1
@chinavirus841 Fair, my apolohies.
1
Can't betray someone you're not aligned with. Helping the Kurds once does not mean the US has to bend itself into pretzels for it.
1
@koraybasak2626 Cultural genocide was an evil that was perpetuated in the past. The US does not do that anymore, neither does most civilized nations. China did it in the past does not mean they have the right to do it now; nor does anyone else. Nor does Turkey.
1
@Eduardo Patricio You are right that countries being in bad conditions doesn't make the US' actions any less bad. But the point is that you are purposefully making a specific narrative that avoids certain topics by wanting to talk about US coups, but not wanting to talk about native LatAm instability caused by internal issues. The reason I pointed it out is because they aspect is never brought up in the first place, while US actions in LatAm are brought up all the time in general. Why do you want to talk about it even more specifically with immigration? That's beating a dead horse when there is a wild one still running around that everyone ignores.
1
Your first mistake was thinking that in human history; the world wasn't always effectively a permanent mess of war, death, and destruction. That was the default. So if it makes you feel better; the fact that there are large periods of peace between many nations is proof that things have massively improved compared to the past.
1
@goodwork887 It means a lot if they're having an existential crisis about the lack of food when they ignore that his ancestors were cannibalizing themselves to survive :D
1
@goodwork887 Amazing how you're smelling the roses after initially complaining about losing your sanity.
1
@goopguy548 Wrong. The British officially ended the slave trade and slavery in the UK, but slavery continued in all but name in its colonies. And would likely continue in North America.
1
@nomanalirajput No matter what the US did, Iraqis would die due to the nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. What, should the US have just ignored Saddam Hussein? Such an experiment is impossible for the US since its a democracy already; but the future holds many possibilities, but in the future maybe the US is the one trying to protect Iraq? So maybe you're wishing ill on a country trying to protect yours in the future? Who knows?
1
That's a separate conversation. Besides, he'd have to mention Colombia's history of corruption dictatorships and how it crushed local autonomy and slaughtered Natives for power and land if he wants to place things into context.
1
@matrimhelmsgaard So is forgetting to mention the sheer amount of corruption and powerful military dictatorships that contributed to keeping the region poor. Why is your topic, which has been done to death across the internet and especially YouTube already more important than mine?
1
@alejandroldavidlagos Try reading my comment again.
1
And by "occupation", you mean you want an ethnic cleansing, right?
1
@hiyukelavie2396 People tend to ignore land grabs if they're small and contained -people generally ignored Russia's land grab in Georgia, Chechnya, and Ukraine 2014 too. Issue with China is that it claims too many things all at once; making it impossible to ignore and seem imperialist.
1
@ruedelta If China took the Senkaku Islands and occupied them for a long time without any real pushback; then it'd effectively be Chinese, yes.
1
@hiyukelavie2396 Not about amount; has to do with conflicting claims. And China's claims are by far the biggest and most conflicting amongst everyone's.
1
@hiyukelavie2396 Yes, it claims too many things at once that others claim. If China claimed a bunch of islands that nobody cared about; nobody would contest it. Sorry, I guess I didn't word that properly.
1
@ArcAngle1117 By this logic the British Empire gave their conquered people their countries too
1
@BasedAccountLmao Duh, the native groups were tiny compared to the overall US population so it'd be impossible to have an indigenous majority unless you pooled them in a single state. The real bad stuff was the attempted cultural genocide, which the Russians and Soviets both did. The point is that the USSR especially based everything it did on "anti-imperialism", while the US only sometimes did that lol
1
@sedargames8161 Western corporations give you some money for labor, Soviets just murder you for labor. But hey, I guess its better to be a slave in your eyes.
1
@SchrodingersCat8813 US may as well be a saint compared to Russia/USSR/Europe/China. US at worst did what it did to the Native Americans, but overall was mostly involved in neo-colonialism via economic exploitation. Everyone else did massive conquests and genocide on an absurd scale.
1
@BasedAccountLmao 1) The indigenous groups in North America were already spread out and tiny prior to European arrival due to the many tribes rather than centralized empires of MesoAmerica. 2) That already relatively small population was devastated by plague when the Europeans arrived. 3) When the Americans emerged those tribes could often only field armies in the hundreds, and the bigger tribes in the low thousands. They were tiny. 4) Russians did MASSIVE genocide across the Siberian Steppes. Like, we know this for a fact: "After its annexation by Russia in 1697, around 100,000 of 150,000 Itelmen and Koryaks died due to infectious diseases such as smallpox, mass suicides and the mass slaughters perpetrated by the Cossacks throughout the first decades of Russian rule.[6] The genocide by the Russian Cossacks devastated the native peoples of Kamchatka and exterminated much of their population.[7][8] In addition to committing genocide, the Cossacks also devastated the wildlife by slaughtering massive numbers of animals for fur.[9] Ninety percent of the Kamchadals and half of the Vogules were killed from the 18th to 19th centuries and the rapid genocide of the indigenous population led to entire ethnic groups being entirely wiped out, with around 12 exterminated groups which could be named by Nikolai Iadrintsev as of 1882. Much of the slaughter was brought on by the Siberian fur trade.[10]" The only time in US history were such depopulation occurred was during the California Genocide of Native peoples. The US drive west was almost uniformly ethnic cleansing via kicking the Natives out of their land or forcing them into reservations where they're forcefully assimilated. Terrible, but the Russians then and now attempts at Russification which is literally cultural genocide and actual genocide makes the Americans look like saints in comparison.
1
@sir.richard5346 There is no such thing as a location on Earth that doesn't have outside forces involved. You're just making excuses. Most nations don't break down because of external interference, it takes extreme internal instability to accomplish that.
1
 @Dumbrarere Agreed. But Trump already made the deal, and going back on it is impossible now.
1
LOL. Yeah ok. We totally believe you, 4channer.
1
No superpowers are contesting this, wut? China and Japan are; and neither are superpowers.
1
Plenty of hope. Things are much better now than back in the day; way less people dying.
1
Its amazing how utterly brainwashed some Turks are. As if the "West" is a united entity and as if the "West" wants a destabilized MENA region. There is no greater plan, and the times the US had the chance to take MENA region oil -it refused to do so. Turkey is just being imperialist and expanding in the region. That's all.
1
@Peizxcv I said support, not materials. I'm well aware of the things the US gave Iraq. I don' blame them, since...Cold War, but that doesn't make it moral at all.
1
Cute that Indians have all of these excuses for imp eri al ism when it's to their advantage like in Hyderabad. 🙄
1
Considering there haven't been more fires in food processing plants than normal this year, I'd say you need to stop listening to far-right crazies.
1
@MadChad1640 "Set by the colonial powers" Hold the phone here. First of all, China is itself a colonial power. It expanded from the Huang He river and pushed its Han culture on the surrounding peoples as it expanded. It economically exploited its neighbors via a tributary system. That's the first thing. Secondly, the issues in the South China Sea has much less to do with the years of European colonialism than it does with China's own imperialism via revanchism. Throughout all of time countries had different borders which "intrude" on modern borders. The reasonable thing is for people to let go of the past to look to the future; but China decided to ignore that to claim old territory via aggressively setting up military bases in what was considered international waters. That's REALLY aggressive. And these directly threaten everyone who relies on those waters; how is this "set up" by other powers? This is literally all Chinese actions. Did the "colonial powers" force China to build those bases in international waters? Did it force China to ram Philippines and Vietnamese ships? Did it aggressively talk down to these countries to not start trouble? China's literal modern borders were made by invading and conquering neighbors. It's "original" borders are in the Huang He river. Nobody is telling China to go back to that, just to respect the modern rules so that other countries don't have to fear China. Of course, big countries abuse these rules when it's their interests, the Americans have done the same, and so has China; but at some point you need to be pragmatic and see that giving lip service and not violating SOME rules goes a long way to not get everyone antsy. Look man, there is this weird tendency by the Chinese to just...dismiss everyone in this equation but the US and China. I get it; China is a big country now, but that will cause issues. I think its possible that the US will withdraw some if only out of growing isolationism at home, but just like China, the US is bound by the rules of the modern age. It can't act unilaterally as it used to, and many countries are going to push to use US power for their own ends as well. Basically; everyone has an agenda, and even the smaller countries when working together can achieve big things. Think the likes of Yugoslavia balancing itself between the US and USSR for its own benefit. Same deal, but now there are more actors that can play that game. China can't play the unilateral game. Nobody can. It needs to play the game smart, not hard. Edit: TLDR; this is all very complicated and we live in a different age. If China wants to secure its water way, a better strategy would be to subvert influence of other big countries in the Pacific instead of aggressively setting up bases. Force the other big countries to look the aggressor against innocent and friendly China. Win internationals support so that trust for China grows and its own soft power can grow.
1
@Rishi123456789 What? No. We should all try and NOT just tear apart another country. That would lead to massive world instability, firstly. Secondly, it would be immoral to the extreme. Thirdly, pragmatically, that would be impossible; the US would never support that, and that's impossible without US aid. Hell, prolly impossible even with US aid. Besides, a second Humiliation would be only happen in the midst of severe internal unrest. Subverting the country is the only feasible option. CCP control is predicated on the idea of its control over the country led to China's current prosperity. Subvert China's economy, and that will make the CCP lose face and force it to take more drastic actions -and in turn lose further international support. And in turn, lower the standing of the CCP within the country. Of course, that could lead to civil war, which is...terrible to hope for.
1
@alexzhangdragonn3438 Imperialism can take many forms. One can argue that imperialism can be the likes of the US' invasion of Iraq, despite no taking of territory. It can be France's control over Francafrique's currency. In this specific case, it can be China's militarization of the South China Sea. I just used the term "imperialism" to shorthand it. Eh, most in the region would call it imperialism. You can argue whether it is or not; but its perceived as very bad by the countries in the region since it hurts their own self-interest. And since it looks like China is starting conflict, China looks like an imperialist to a lot of the world. Of course, in a fashion you're right; many of China's neighbors can be considered imperialists. But its all about perception. And China's optics look dreadful and makes it look like the aggressor. China's recent diplomacy really does NOT help.
1
@alexzhangdragonn3438 China is also forcibly invading international waters, placing military bases that are still there to this day, and occupying it with soldiers. And the countries around China sure as hell feel like they're being invaded, if their rhetoric is to be believed. I gave you examples so that you can reflect it on your country, but you just chose to ignore it, which is a shame since that's how you improve -by looking at a mirror. Sailing into international waters is not aggressive, you know? It's expected. It's a right. Placing a military base and then declaring it yours? That is considered aggressive, yes. How is this appalling? One is a given right, the other is essentially stealing territory. Idk, maybe. But that's impossible to tell. What we can say definitively is that China's neighbors consider China to be an imperialist, and so many in unison about it ruins China's image and its future prospects. Again; smarter, not harder. You're going about this terribly.
1
@lyricofwise6894 Its almost like the people claiming to be ant* Z*on also tend to just dislike all Juice or something.
1
@rubenkoker1911 1) That is complete guesswork. The reasons the Ayatollahs won power are varied, but radicalism is a big one. Which easily would have happened regardless of 1953. 2) There is no reason for the Iranians to align with the Ayatollah to begin with.
1
@lyricofwise6894 Dude. Look at this comment section and look how many upvotes they have. If you want to claim that they are not the majority, then fine. But they are very significant still. Especially considering two trrist atks against Juice in the US within a week of each other just a few weeks ago.
1
 @NC-247 US literally was about to get multiple Arab states to make peace with Israel before Hamas initiated its attack. And you cry about the US causing instability? 🤡
1
That tends to be how most independence movements work. Minority winning over the status quo loving majority. Even the US was made that way.
1
@lincw920 US didn't want to destroy North Korea, it wanted to save Sourh Korea. You're right about Afghanistan and Vietnam, but do note that yoy forgot about Iraq, Kuwait, South Korea, Japan, Libya, Serbia, Kosovo, and a few more.
1
As far as we can tell, at least a massive minority of Russians supported Putin's conquest of Ukraine; so just hand waving it away as "nobody is guilty" really does nobody any favors. After Putin denied Ukraine's right to exist and claimed it as a lost part of Russia, nobody should have defended him -but generally the Russian people didn't care.
1
That's only the case if you life in a developing country. If you're not, then you're just being childish in that you will be forced to spend more on your luxury goods than expected.
1
@GalacticNovaOverlord Hope you realize that Marxists would crash and burn even harder under these conditions, right? In fact, they literally did crash and burn.
1
Prolly because despite everything the US is infinitely more preferable than almost anywhere else barring a few countries.
1
Considering the state of the region at the time, the only thing the Americans are guilty of is not stopping the Ayatollah due to how many they deleted over the decades. Iranians are guilty for not stopping this, and they are regretting that decision now.
1
 @maddog3685 Uh, there have been numerous po gr oms in India. How is it not true?
1
@azulaquaza4916 Its more that the US doesn't care who its buying the resources from, as long as the resources flow. It bought from the DRC, it will buy it from Rwanda too.
1
Indian copium, I swear. Not even Modi is able to actually deny the truth, and other sources already backed the fact that India lost some aircraft.
1
@dibendupal3865 There is still zero proof of Balochistan declaring independence. Sorry, Westerners aren't easily f o o l e d as Sandhi people.
1
@jade5202 Wouldn't matter. ICJ functions off of international peer pressure. If the Germans had the international clout Gaza did, the world would be demanding that the US stop "g*nociding" German civilians while ignoring far worse examples of destruction.
1
@jade5202 ICJ doesn't care about logical consistency. It runs off of international peer pressure. And enough people shill for Gaza at all costs even if they'd never allow for their own repressed groups to attack them like that without destroying them.
1
@BocaoZ Why would they join such a joke of an organization like BRICS?
1
@JohnAlex-85001 The only places where there is peace at the places where America is at, though.
1
@woozy2171 Is that a joke? Since when has intl politics been fair? Was it fair that Iran had pr*xies deleting Arbs across the Middle East for decades?
1
Indeed, the #2 military power being barely able to take even a quarter of such a weak and impoverished nation leads many to say that its barely making any progress. The wording would be very different if it was, say, Poland invading Ukraine -since they're more comparable. Just how pathetic is Russia, really? That even lowly HIMARs can make such an absurd difference which not even the US expected?
1
See? This is why people make fun of India. Because their Godi media does nothing but L I E all the dang time.
1
@pslacum And are still doing infinitely better than Russia and most of the world. Funny how that works.
1
Only the wealthy nations have a year of food reserves, not the developed world; which is the only part of the world which may see famine from this.
1
@jaegermeister6329 More like simple common sense. Unless we're talking about North Korea instead of Russia, Russian gains may as well be an utter failure.
1