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

  1.  @greenpill9567  Doesn't matter, this is the internet. Feels > Reality.
    80
  2.  @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
  3. 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
  4.  @Pickchea  People talk about Myanmar far more than Sudan tho
    40
  5.  @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
  6. Iraq was "ruined" long b4 the US. But yeah, UK borders and all.
    32
  7.  @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
  8. ​ @BucketOfDakka  Many such cases where people whining about the MSM themselves are just ign or ant.
    19
  9.  @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
  10. @ Or maybe he just doesn't like Saudi Arabia. It doesn't have to be any more deep than that.
    17
  11. Sad part is Godi media has utterly br ai nw as hed the Indian populace.
    15
  12. ​ @myssoferia2191  The US didn't recognize it for years. It was Trump specifically that did that for support to Isrl. Calm down. 😂
    15
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15.  @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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18.  @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
  19. ​ @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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. ​@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
  23. @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
  24.  @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
  25. ​ @MsZeeZed  That kind of stuff is frowned up these days.
    4
  26.  @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
  27. ​ @yourrepicnoobie YT kinda makes comments go away if they contain certain words. It is what it is.
    4
  28. 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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @Zeitgeist2000  And here we see an example of a Canadian with an inferiority complex. An unfortunate stereotype writ large.
    4
  32.  @AJ-fj9rt  That doesn't sound like an agenda, it just sounds confused.
    4
  33.  @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @greatwolf5372  Pure cope. US has been generally very successful in cleaning up messes. Most nations do tend to make things worse.
    3
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40. ​ @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
  41. ​@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
  42. Old imperial powers like the UAE and Saudi Arabia?
    2
  43. Good thing it isn't a genocide then. Unless every other war is now a genocide to you people?
    2
  44. Well, duh. India would be majority Hindu. Why wouldn't they want to lead a united India?
    2
  45. @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
  46.  @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
  47.  @meliherdemaygun  No African American wants to form their own country to begin with lmao. Your copium is hilarious.
    2
  48. 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
  49.  @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
  50. ​@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