Youtube comments of Stephen Jenkins (@stephenjenkins7971).
-
992
-
468
-
339
-
337
-
281
-
253
-
249
-
222
-
159
-
153
-
151
-
132
-
124
-
119
-
116
-
113
-
107
-
104
-
99
-
96
-
94
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
@galientl4723 It is an oversimplification, but he isn't entirely wrong. Outside of Mali, Carthage, Ethiopia, Egypt, and the Barbary States there isn't really any interesting in Africa to me. And we're talking about an entire continent. The Zulu for example are often lauded for defeating the British, which while true, in my opinion wrongfully gives them the limelight in African history when I find their society to be dull at best.
Empires facing conflict from other established empires is what makes it so interesting, the evolving tides and differing fortunes of kings make it interesting. The quirks of their society makes it interesting. What about the Zulus is as interesting as the Romans or Babylonians or Martha Confederacy? To me, little and less.
Just an example, but you can kinda see why some people would roll their eyes at "African history is underrated". I'd say Indian history is underrated, not African.
77
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
62
-
62
-
59
-
56
-
56
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
@ankitaankit1933 This kind of attitude is what I was talking about. West can be very arrogant, but they are very varied and many in the West call out the West themselves when they do something bad. But especially those in the Global South excuse all of their wrongdoings but still chastise the West anyway. There is no logical consistency.
It's why so many support Russian colonialism in Ukraine; not because they have a moral standard, but because its out of hate despite Ukrainians being the victims.
That being said, the West literally stepped into other countries based on empathy. US tried in Sudan, only to see its soldiers get murdered and dragged through the streets. Many times the West gets it wrong, or does something terrible, but the West still tries. West appreciates when you call them out when its wrong.
Problem is you hate the West even when its right. Purely because its the West.
Idk if you know this, but the Ukrainians once agreed with you on the hypocritical West. Now the Global South threw them under the bus because the West decided to help like in Kuwait and Bosnia. Victims of imperialists are supporting imperialism. All I want, personally, is some moral backbone.
Like you mention these countries the West aren't helping, but the West tried in many of those countries. And be honest with me; you'll be one of those people to talk about Western being nosy and not minding their own business if they tried, right? What do you want from us that you won't hate us? There is nothing we can do to not be hated by you; because its a part of your political culture. Nothing short of a war of conquest of India by China with the West throwing everything to support India will change that.
Until then, we continue to get your hate. Even if we don't hate you.
52
-
51
-
51
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
@Johnny.Picklez Marxist states don't exist in reality and never can, but the process to reach them (Socialist) always get stuck there. Thus people just shorthand the attempts to reach Communism as Communism, dismissing claims by Marxists of "not real Communism" as just an attempt to rationalize the failed attempts to reach a state which is not reachable at all.
You're gonna have to cite that study. Because West Germany complete blew out East Germany. South Korea lagged behind the North, but the North had immense economic backiung by the USSR and little-to-none by the US but still far surpassed it by the 90's. South Vietnam didn't exist long enough to compare. So what "similar capitalist countries" are you speaking of? The only one I could think of was the USSR, and that was accomplished through extreme bloodshed and suffering, to be blunt so I barely count it. Because the fact of the matter is that each and every Socialist country collapsed in on themselves and especially the ones which were subjugated quickly and eagerly switched to capitalist economies. There are almost no economies based on Marxist theory left.
Btw, economy isn't even everything. Nazi Germany's economy completely overshot comparable capitalist and Marxist economies. I sure as helpl am not gonna give it a ringing endorsement for that.
I didn't say bad examples of capitalism are super rare. Just that they're not the standard, while for Marxist-inspired nations they were.
African nations have exploded out of poverty rapidly since adopting capitalism, for the most part. Hell, world poverty across the planet has dramatically fell, especially after the fall of the USSR. Really, if I wanted to be slightly disengenious, I could ostensibly claim that any opposition to capitalism could be framed as: "Why do you hate the Global Poor?"
The US doesn't have its hands in Africa, not since the Cold War. At least not a major hand. China does, but it's relatively recent, though far more omnipresent. France also does, if you wanna make that argument. But at least don't confuse Western nations like that.
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
@VRSVLVS All I'll say about your second comment is that not a lot of Socialists as far as I can tell agree with how such a Socialist country will be formed. So when the time comes, and you have the opportunity to be a part of the committee to take all private property, do you really think that the authoritarian Socialists are just gonna roll over and sing kumbaya? That's ignoring the likely divisions among the common people which may devolve to violence, or whether corruption from so much power. A democracy can't survive when the government has no limitations and can take all private property; nothing but the morality of said government. Checks and Balances exist for a reason; remove them for this Socialist Democracy and it's a free-for-all, and usually the most ruthless are the ones that get all the power.
And assuming you think of using Worker's Councils or Soviets like some Socialist thinker believe would stop this shift to authoritarianism; that would just lead to a civil war with, again, whomever controlling the Politburo enforcing their vision.
"All other large-scale attempts at socialism has been rather mercilessly crushed. The Anarcho-syndicalist CNT/FAI had an interesting thing going during the Spanish civil war before it was betrayed by agents of the NKVD and ultimately crushed by Franco."
If every time an ideology attempts to be created fails due to external or internal pressure; then the ideology itself might be the problem, don't you think? The Capitalist Democracies today were formed under such rigid conditions too, as the American Revolution was pressed on all sides and internal divisions and was expected to collapse even after it was formed.
If "true" Socialists cannot form their society without getting crushed from without or within, then what is the difference between them and Stalinism which inevitably takes over the reins? Are you saying that such ideologies require to be protected from everything to function at all? Say what you want about the Stalinists, but they actually FORMED a country and held the USSR together from external and internal pressure like the Revolutionary US managed to do.
And I think that's genuinely my opinion about your beliefs; that such ideologies only function when they're protected internally and externally from anything that could harm it. A good example is the Zapatista Movement in Mexico; which has done very well for itself all things considered -better healthcare and better rights while democratically deciding what should be done within their territory. And they're also completely protected from external enemies and internal dissent by the Mexican state in the former, and by their small size and ability to leave/come in based on their ideological alignment. Those who WANT to be Zapatistas can come in thus ensuring ideological purity while those who don't can leave.
Unlike your ideas, everyone will be forced to take part in this revolution whether they want it or not, creating conflict and requiring some kind of military to maintain control. A small community avoids this entirely; but not a country-wide revolution. If you try something like this in a province or US State, then it'd make more sense; though even then the issue of taking private property is still a massive hurdle since all modern countries guarantee private ownership.
"After all, Chavismo tried to use oil-wealth and the power of the state to improve societal conditions, without actually handing democratic power to the working class. This is exactly what Social democracy did in Norway."
This is why I don't like prescribing to ideologies, it dumbs everything down. Venezuela did indeed use oil wealth to improve societal conditions, but he did to in the most abysmal way possibly; he forced the country to get Dutch Disease. If you're not away, Dutch Disease is when a country finds an extremely valuable resource and starts selling it for very generous profits. However, the danger is that the massive profits convinces the government to focus ONLY ono that lucrative resource sale rather than diversifying the economy. Venezuela by the time of Maduro was effectively basing its economy on selling oil alone; so if something like the international price of oil falls, then Venezuela crashes into the dirt. Which is what happened. Meanwhile Norway, while it does make a tidy profit, has diversified its economy with well-educated people so that the fall of gas prices didn't hurt it much. And it should be noted that Norway is hardly the only Social Democracy in the Nordics; there is Sweden and Denmark too who have no massive profits from fossil fuels.
More to the point, even during the golden age of profits in Venezuela; the country was still absurdly corrupt. It was just far easier to ignore when the country is sailing on oil profits alone.
"It's importiant to realise that the relative sucsess of social-democracy in the nordic countries is thanks to the fact that it's located inside the imperialist core"
Sure, I don't entirely disagree with this. It's true that the Nordic countries are effectively so far away from hotspots that its easy to maintain Social Democracies; it'd be far more difficult if they were in the middle of Sub-Sahara Africa, I 100% agree. However the idea behind it isn't wrong at all; what's wrong with selling gas and using said money as a government fund to support their own citizens? Selling it to NATO doesn't matter; they'd still be getting lots of money like the Sauds. And companies acting badly overseas I don't think is the fault of the country where its based from; countries can't so casually interfere in the affairs of other countries, let alone Sweden.
"Mitterand's presidency in France is a perfect example of how capital flight due to quite minor social reforms can very quickly bring any even moderatly powerfull western nation to it's knees"
Don't agree at all. Mitterand's issue was that he literally nationalized many key industries in France creating a scare for investors to pull out lest their profits get seized. Doing so many nationalizations all at once spooks people, thus leading to capital flight. And France got financial difficulties, but it was an ongoing thing rather than specifically born from Social Democracy. Norway is mostly private with few nationalized industries; the point of Social Democracy is to echo those few critical government-run industries and use those profits to maintain good social services for the people. While the Nordics are extremely lucky in their locations, they do actively function and have been copied throughout Europe to a lesser degree. Thus far, it's been the best system in terms of the living conditions of the people. So yeah, I do recommend it as the ideology inspired by Socialism and, imho, far surpassing it as a viable alternative to become its own thing.
It ain't like Socialism where I can't point to a long-lived country that tried it and functions well. Social Democracy has its prime good examples. Your idea of Socialism just doesn't, so what's the issue?
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
@alfatejpblind6498 Ukrainians don't consider themselves Soviet, what are you talking about? They haven't since the USSR collapsed.
Yes, if Ukrainians hated the Americans and an American occupation occurred, they'd have tried to kill every American they found. Except they want the Americans there now, due to Russian imperialism. Meanwhile, today, Californians would sooner bomb their state to oblivion than ever accept Russian help. Why are you acting like you live in an alternate universe where Ukraine is still under the USSR?
Dude, I'm latino; and American Hispanics are just as patriotic about their country as the white people. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Having cultural connections elsewhere doesn't equate to having no national loyalty; its why the US didn't tear apart when Irish and German immigrants became supreme. We're American, and we won't be splitting up anytime soon. Meanwhile, Ukraine WAS Soviet, and used to love Russia, but now hates them because of their actions; making fake scenarios make zero sense here. You're just grasping at straws for a strawman.
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@filmandfirearms What are you talking about? Russia has lost multiple wars in its history; the Livonian War, the Smolensk War, a few wars with Sweden, one of the Napoleonic Wars (3rd Coalition, I think where it was essentially slapped around?), the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, WW1, the Polish-Soviet War, and the First Chechen War.
Russia lost a lot of wars, and even the ones it won were sometimes pyrrhic in nature.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
@Airdrifting You missed my point. I'm talking about optics. China losing hundreds of thousands of troops to the Americans? That's a worthy nation to die against; even if it was demobilized prior to the war. (Something CCP propaganda neglects to mention).
But dying to equal number to the lowly Vietnamese? That's a national embarrassment waiting to happen. For reference, the US lost about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan within 20 years. US lost 58,000+ in Vietnam in the whole war of about 10 years and it was through entirely vicious guerilla warfare.
China's literal objective was to prevent the destruction of its ally in the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, dude. "The reason cited for the attack was to support China's ally, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, in addition to the mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands which were claimed by China"
Bruh, even using your own metric, China lost the war. It was not able to destroy Vietnam's capability to make war and continued to destroy Cambodia until the Khmer Rouge was ousted.
Neither Chinese or Vietnamese sources can be trusted since they are both dictators that have every reason to fudge the numbers. Western estimates place the death toll of Chinese forces to be about 26k men, and Vietnamese to be about 30k men. Chinese also claim that "the gate to Hanoi was open"...except the place where they stopped, Lang Son, was closer to the Chinse border than it was to Hanoi. So CCP propaganda really is kinda obvious here. Not to mention that 300k reserves were near Hanoi prepared for a counter-attack when China withdrew. So let's be real here; China withdrew to save face, but lost literally ALL of its objectives. All while suffering a ratio similar to Vietnam's war dead.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
"Totalitarain is bad!" Stop there. No need to continue that train of thought, tbh. The US Government has a right to ban anything that is a threat to the Constitution of the US, that being said, the US Government has not done so. Nor is the US Government is not oppressing you. But punching down against future tyrants is an option on the table, yes. Don't push us moderate democrats too far, and we won't have to resort to that, mmkay? There is nothing wrong with protecting democratic practices, after all. And there is the issue of "tolerating the intolerant", which while I am personally libertarian about, am also not under the illusion that sometimes it comes to violence.
Preach how you wish. But actually try to actively advocate for overthrowing democracy, and I won't find much sympathy when you get smashed.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@antimatter4733 "yep all of it is because of the US"
This is exactly why nobody can trust China. You'll inhale any CCP propaganda and use it to justify any imperialist action, regardless. So even if the US withdrew, talked only positively about China, and gave China everything it wants -we have zero guarantee that it won't just want more. Because nationalism is a disease.
Yes, "rebels" can take a part of your country...if they are literally just civilians who don't want to be a part of it. Self-determination. This isn't a paramilitary group that invaded Taiwan and forced the people there at gunpoint to leave China, these are regular people that just don't want to be a part of China.
You can't make your house a country, but if people in your province want to be independent from China, yes, they can demand that. That being said, there is something called "being reasonable", and unless you had a decent grievance, I doubt I'd care for your province's proclamation. Taiwan? It already has its own system of government, has been effectively independent for at least half a century, and more importantly; has every reason to believe China will NOT respect their democratic practices. So yes, Taiwan has legitimate grievances to NOT want China.
You're American? You're a shit one if you are -your country left the British Empire via a revolt, and here you are, demanding that Taiwan stay? Americans are "rebels", genius; not bootlickers for people that would never respect their rights.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@tylerellis9097 Yeah, the HRE is attacking the Byzantines. The Byzantines throughout their history, and the Romans before them, also attacked people who had nothing to do with them or hostility simply because -insert random justification here-. It's a thing in the ancient and medieval world.
First of all, I don't recall the ambassador requesting the Byzantines to give up any Italian territory; just for the hand of the princess. It recall the Byzantine Emperor demanding Italian territory. Secondly, I am not talking about the Byzantines accepting the proposal, just that they treat the diplomat with respect; and NOT needless cruelty. You're literally making a strawman of my words; where did I ever say that the Byzantines should have accepted the proposal???
Liutprand opened with that AFTER being horribly mistreated in Constantinople, you nationalist weirdo. If the Byzantine Emperor mistreated him AFTER making ludicrous demands and disrespecting the Byzantine Empire, then fine, a little disrespect in return is tolerable. But the idea that they can do that by default and you excuse it makes you seem pathetic.
The Byzantines are dead, aren't they? If anything, you're seething. I'm just pointing out how stupid they were in instances like this. May have retained their state into the modern era if they were smarter about it.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@justanotherfrenchie I don't really watch either, but you are obviously kinda ignorant on the matter. I did look at Afghanistan and South Vietnam; and the US helping out as long as they did IS proof of how reliable it is. The US was not allied with either countries, but promised to help and did; that does NOT mean it has to help indefinitely otherwise its unreliable. Literally no country goes that far.
The US acts according to its geopolitical goals. A French dude crying about imperialism is hilarious when its prolly the last imperialist state in the West atm; the US actually tries to nation-build and improve the states it invades; France just keeps them into the dirt like their puppets in West Africa.
The entire reason Iraq went to shit was because the Iraqi government demanded that the US forces leave far too early before the country was ready. The US did, respecting the democratic decision; and then ISIS came by and shredded up the country. Now the US is back, despite having left in the first place out of respect of the Iraqi people's decision. Fucking FRANCE asked the US forces to leave when it had zero leverage to do so, and could have easily been overthrown if the US wanted to, and it did. The Philippines asked some US forces to leave, and it did, leading to China screwing with them, but that's another topic.
So basically; you literally have no idea what you're talking about. If anything, this sounds like projection; France literally never leaves willingly if it could, unlike the US.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Septic Neuron ...Huh? I didn't move the goal post at all; I said that by no metric could the defeat in Afghanistan be called an ass kicking, and I still stand by that. It was a defeat still, but militarily it really wasn't; though ultimately the political victory is what matters in the end, not the k/d ratio lol
Very few US soldiers died, the money spent on Afghanistan did hurt, but the US spends money like that quite often; it wasn't exactly financially crippling. More like a bad investment. I'm sure some people regard it as this great humiliation, but I didn't really see any possible way to complete the Afghanistan mission barring a full-on occupation with large US troop numbers and billions more $. No amount of military power can fix the issues of Afghanistan, only its own people can.
So it was a lost cause, and should've been left earlier. How that is a humiliation is beyond me, frankly.
I literally never denied it was a defeat, but I'm sure your manlet ego noticed that already. It must burn you that the US is still undisputable #1 if you're so obsessed with convincing yourself that this is a humiliation, huh? The only reason I can fathom why you're harping about this.
Ah well, cry all you want, I already made my point.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@galientl4723 Regardless of how you frame it, Nubia is often considered to be the historical predecessor of Ethiopia much in the same way that Rome was the predecessor of Italy. If you wanna be anal about it, then fine, but that's what I meant and I aimed to clarify that.
I am speaking of the numerous powers of Africa in history, not the paltry few. The Barbary States, Maghreb Sultanate, Mali, Songhai, Axum, Nubia, and Egyptian empires all contended with powerful empires in their time. But they are the EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE. We hear in Asia of the likes of Nam Viet and their struggles against Chinese invasions, or the Three Kingdoms period of Korea, or likes of Majapahut(prolly mispelled that) where modern Indonesia lays and their constant interactions with so many differing cultures that we hear and understand. Big names which reflect on the modern era.
And Africa mostly doesn't have many of those. They have exceptions, especially in Northern Africa with the constant interaction via the Mediterranean, but outside of that? Shrugs
I literally named the empires you named and all you're ding is repeating them back to me ad naseum.
I'm not factually wrong at all since I never once claimed that African powers didn't have interactions with other great powers elsewhere. Ever.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@MrPicky The first part is true for Japan, but untrue for Europe since the techniques that Japan used were technical; we're talking about government institutions. There isn't a "wrong" answer outside of results.
In some cases you're correct, in others you're not. Yes, European Parliaments on paper have more representation, but they also politic beyond what their voting suggests; it isn't like voters choose how much their platforms get diluted by forming Coalitions. Not to mention how little influence they have in who is chosen as Executive as Chancellor in contrast to the Presidential election. Not even including how little influence voters have in the internal politics of a political party unlike the US where people can vote on who gets what ticket in a Caucus.
All I'm saying is that "mastery" is not only unquantifiable, the US system blatantly has some things better than European Parliamentary systems. If you haven't noticed, the US had a populist a few years ago, similar to Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. Their democratic institutions are crumbling as we speak, but the US', though battered, remained strong. This is an advantage afforded to federal systems of separation of powers that European Parliaments don't have. If a populist takes control, they can tear down your democracy with very little effort.
European nations sell out to corporations only slightly less than the US does, this really isn't a metric you can use.
Having a Constitution is anti-democratic as well; why do people need a 3/4 majority to overturn laws? We have it anyway because somethings are more important than pure democratic principle.
Yes, the US has problems, but they're nothing like those in Europe. The US is actually growing in GDP, its population remains young and continues to remain young through immigration, its institutions stood the test of time and has handled a populist wave while yours have either failed or remain untested. That doesn't even get into the technological growth the US still has over Europe as a whole, or tech startups, or even influence. Heck, European immigration to the US very much outstrips American immigration to Europe. The US is far from any conflict zone while war is knocking at your doorstep too. We can both play that game.
I was being facetious, of course; Europe has many advantages to the US. Better healthcare, less violence, less people jailed, etc. But I can find issues with Europe as a whole, and while US issues point to internal issues which can improve the American lot in life; I see European issues which could be catastrophic if not handled soon or just left unattended. European democracy has always been fleeting, I hope it will not ebb and wane as soon as it emerged just a few generations ago. Then again, it's Eastern Europe so far, so maybe Western Europe is secure.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Johnny.Picklez Yeah, in some cases the Socialist governments vastly improved their country compared to what existed before. Though I find the Russia one questionable since the USSR essentially stole the country from the Democratic Assembly before it could do anything, and the means it did that was complaining about the war the Assembly refused to leave because they knew that if they did they'd face massive territorial losses...and then the Socialists proceeded to lose even MORE territory. Thus making their propaganda against the new democratic government moot. But yes, compared to the Tsar, the USSR was an immense improvement. That being said, that really isn't saying much. Nor is replacing Batista.
I wouldn't say just Capitalism drives innovation, but it's under the auspices of Capitalism that most things not related to hte military have improved drastically. The USSR advanced, but it lagged immensely behind the US in terms of domestic and civilian innovation and progress. It kept up in military hardware and what could be derived of that. Mind you, the thing about Capitalism is that the government is not entirely tied to the civilian economy, so the government can intermix with the economy and make new innovations. When people talk about Capitalist innovation, it's not just the civilian sector or companies, but also governments intermixing with those companies that isn't possible in full-blown state-controlled countries since...well, yeah. Government-funded projects under Capitalism yields infinitely more domestic/civilian innovation than their Socialist counterparts. Than, well, any economic syste; not just Socialist.
The US provides immense social aid to its citizens, it's just not at the level of other Western countries. From Social Security to Food aid to government-funded ways to help reduce poverty. I can agree that more needs to be done, but don't dismiss it out of hand.
Look, I don't think Capitalism is the final system of the human economic experience. But I don't see anything replacing it for now. Social Democracy is still Capitalism.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@piret123698745 NATO only makes up like 5% of Russia's borders, Kremlinbot. Russia makes up something like 25% of Poland's borders. By your logic, Russia's very existence is a threat and thus it needs to be destroyed.
Also another fact; NATO was not involved in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, or Syria. Only in Afghanistan. NATO members were involved in US actions, but NATO itself was not activated outside of the defensive clause following 9/11. By definition, its not an aggressive alliance at all.
If NATO was preparing for war with Russia, it would have deployed half a million troops at Russia's borders by now. Instead, its doing its best to keep a minimum of not even 10,000 troops in case Russia invades. US has only just upped that to 12,000 with the addition of 3,000 troops. You're living in an alternate reality where Russia has not already invaded Ukraine.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Silver_Prussian And you know this why, exactly? Did you talk to Putin and he told you that? Because this falls in line with a LOT of his complaints about NATO allowing other nations to join. Falls in line with Russia's geopolitical goals. Even making such a demand in the first place is insanity; it's like if the US demanded that Russia withdraw from everything east of the Urals and some Americans comes and says "Biden is just starting big so that he has an advantage in the bargaining diplomacy later!".
Yeah, no. Too many things align for such a blatantly imperialist request that affects so many nations. If Putin wanted to start big with maneuvering room, he should have maintained the "no NATO for Ukraine and Georgia" schtick, which at least "sounds" reasonable.
You sound like you're from North Macedonia. No one is forcing you to be a part of NATO or the EU, elect someone that doesn't want to be in NATO or the EU and no one will stop you. Also, the EU can't "fix" a member state, it doesn't have that kind of power. It isn't a federal authority yet, its just an economic bloc for now. It's trying to centralize, but a lot of people prefer European nations to remain under their own authority. You can't have both. You want the EU to help? Then help centralize power away from your federal authority and give it to the EU, then you can complain if they don't do anything. Right now its like asking the Holy Roman Empire to make laws -that's unrealistic as hell.
Except Russia invaded Ukraine when the entire Euromaiden thing was ONLY about Ukraine joining the EU. Not NATO. There are multiple nations in the EU not in NATO, and vice-versa. It was only after Russian troop movements that the new Ukrainian President sought MNNA status with the US, (Major Non-NATO Ally). Not NATO itself.
What example? Are you talking about Finland? Finland is in the EU and under its own protection clause separate from NATO, and again; Ukraine sought EU membership not NATO.
You're conveniently forgetting that the US missiles were not placed in Turkey randomly, but rather to get the USSR to stop trying to steal the Bosporus Straits through military intimidation as it has been doing repeatedly for decades. Also, those US nuclear missiles were old and going into retirement anyway, and the USSR was well aware of that. Khrushchev and the Politburo knew that which was why they were furious with him for getting rid of the Cuban missiles for...essentially nothing. If they demanded the nukes in West Germany, now THAT would have been difficult.
8
-
@Silver_Prussian Bulgarian corruption is pretty bad, no lie. But again, you want EU to fix it, but they don't have any means to do so; how can they interfere in Bulgarian affairs when the EU is specifically created to NOT do that? You can't cry about maintaining independence and then cry when the EU doesn't solve Bulgaria's corruption issues.
It's not being an EU/NATO fanboy to point out that Bulgaria has to fix its own issues. Neither are meant to fix a country's issues; they're just meant to open avenues. The second the West steps in to "fix" anything, people like you would screech that they're infringing on your independence. Which is why the EU functions as an economic union, NOT a federation. So yea; it is your fault -because while corruption hurts Bulgaria, you have the means to stop it not just by voting, but by protesting, mass gathering, pointing out the issues, taking a stand. Democracy is not just about voting, its to leave the means for the people to change the system without need for violent revolution and coups. Without the government dragging you off to a black site where you're never heard from again. For all the crap the US gets, its people feel very free to protest a lot; and that's to its benefit. Don't stay stagnant, change it.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@franzjoseph1837 True, but your policies explicitly benefit them, so it's seriously suspect and makes one wonder if you're just a fascist pretending to give a shit about these things. 99% of people accept that death happens in conflict and that most international laws are jokes, and while holding the US to a higher standard is fine, you're taking it so far that it would literally involve letting enemy combatants escape to fight another day because "muh war crimes". With your logic, slavery and the Nazi's would still be around since the Americans would have to NOT bomb cities while their enemies would gleefully engage in such tactics and worse. Sorry, but tying the hands of democracies to the point where more of their men die for no reason sounds awfully suspect to me. One thing to be against, say, US accidentally killing international observers and then covering it up. I'm all for calling the US out on that; but this? Hell no -you just want more Americans to die for your pride and that's fucked.
Saddam wasn't put into power by either the US or UK, he was supported against Iran; but that's it. Now you're engaging in Kremlin propaganda.
"meaningless bravado n racist chauvinism" What you want is literally the definition of meaningless bravado and racist chauvinism, genius. You want to spare people in a literal war because of some vague convention that literally nobody follows, that nobody seriously expects the US to follow, and only benefits foreign dictators to the detriment of democracies worldwide. The US would hold this standard against any people; not just against Iraqis. Hell, the US was WORSE against Germany, so cry me a river about racism when you want to treat another group of people better than the US has ever treated white combatants.
Thank God you have no position of power; you'd sell every democracy out to dictatorships because "muh internationalism" while dictators don't give a shit and kill your people behind your back. I take back what I said about you possibly being a fascist pretending to care at least; you're honestly just that naïve.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@nvizible Do you think the 1800's resembles anything like the 2000's? If what Australian settlers did then was done now, then yes, 100% stop and crush the government doing that; it was reprehensible morally speaking. But back then? Everyone did that, and there was no "international community" to comment on it.
Also, you're moving the goalposts, I specifically mentioned that there was peace in the Pacific while the US was around for a while, which has nothing to do with the original colonialism of Australia's formation.
"Just because you now claim sovereignty over that land does not make it a domestic affair only" You are partially correct. Just because sovereignty doesn't make it a domestic affair, but unless human rights are SERIOUSLY being violated, it is unjust to step in. There's a difference between stepping in to the Philippines with massive issues of police brutality due to internal unrest and intervening in Ukraine against the Russian invasion.
"With regards to other international issues, most of them stem from some kind of meddling and involvment by the U.S. and it's satellites."
What a way to deny the humanity of like 99% of the planet. What, does any US involvement at all just abdicate the responsibility of everyone else? Are you not gonna mention that the Philippines were relatively prosperous while a colony but was ruined due to the Japanese invasion in WW2, for example? What about the Dutch actions to ferment sectarian violence in Indonesia coupled with Chinese influence in Communist groups in Indonesia?
Let's not mince words here, you are moving goalposts around by default here; first you speak of internal matters which the US CANNOT solve without becoming an imperialist, and yes, US actions in the Cold War were imperialist -but you mention that while ignoring all of the other actors which were ALSO imperialist -including the USSR and China. So most of the complaints you have about issues in, say, Indonesia, reflect as much on the US as China by your own estimation. This applies to the USSR as well. However, with the end of the Cold War, such internal meddling has completely fallen to the wayside and has led to the most prosperous era in human history.
Which occurred because the US, specifically, did NOT just jump into every country and enforced its will behind the barrel of a gun. The Pacific, which was the original topic, from 1991-2015~ was entirely peaceful with no real issues to speak of barring a few hiccups like North Korea. But then China mucked that up, which was my entire point; no one else did that, you can't point to another nation to say that they sparked the issue -the issue was that China suddenly felt "unsafe" and needed extra "security" despite no US attempt against them in decades.
...Wow! That sounds an awwwwful lot like what's going on with Ukraine, doesn't it?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@justanotherfrenchie Trump didn't break any binding international agreements, though. Actually, maybe the Iran deal was binding, but he really did have some leeway with Iran since Iran like NK constantly thumbs its noses at such agreements.
The US has never abandoned an actual ally. The US has helped and left many groups; but none of them were actual allies. The Kurds, the Afghans, and the Vietnamese were not allies; but people used the word for lack of a better term.
People all over the world don't give a shit about what happened in Afghanistan, just like they don't give a shit about genocide in Sudan or elsewhere. The times they DO give a shit is when policy emerges and affects the international stage. US allies barring the likes of France and Germany who were already seeking of a way to push the EU into the US' place have not changed and are not concerned in policy of the US leaving Afghanistan.
Biden withdrawing did affect his approval rating, but only in how messy it seemed. The reality was that he couldn't really do anything because the Afghan national forces literally collapsed the second the US began to withdraw. Expecting the US to fight and die for people who fold the second it leaves is the height of stupidity, and I actually applaud the action.
Except the US doesn't abandon its allies nor backstab them to begin with. If you're gonna use an example, don't use what amounts to client groups. Turkey is an ally. France is an ally. UK is an ally. Japan is an ally. Kurds, Afghans, Iraqis, Sauds, and Vietnamese? They were NOT at any point allies with treaty obligations.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@reinereine1896 Russia invaded countless countries too, actually. Moldova, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. Russian support of Chinese genocide in Xinjiang, most ISIS weapons come from Russia and ally China, Russia helped Assad kill many people in Syria and destroyed cities like Aleppo, etc, etc.
US actions can be wrong, just like Russia's. Which has nothing to do with NATO and countries hiding inside of it due to Russian imperialism.
Russia and China can do whatever they want as long as they avoid the imperialism. Nobody did anything but complain in Russian actions elsewhere, but Ukraine was a red line. The reason Russia and China have NOT made an alliance with these nations is because they can't. Venezuela allowed Russian mercenaries to enter their country, but it disallows any Russian base.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@snowsnow4231 A separate conversation, genius. It's harder to tell what is a righteous war in defense of a nation-state vs a war for liberation of an oppressed people. Stable democracies are easily in the former, ruthless dictatorships are much harder to discern. And I'm willing to guess that, considering your dialogue, you are the latter.
Apologies, but there is no guarantee of anything, not because you don't have blond hair, but more because of your government's structure and lack of personal expression from the public due to gov repression. It's the same in Belarus and Russia, if you haven't noticed. And most of NATO doesn't have majority blond hair or blue eyes either. Hell, the US is far more mixed than that; Marco Rubio is having fun digging through Russian intelligence and he's Hispanic and all for this.
I don't care what Belgrade felt. I'll tell you now that no American cared about Belgrade after the shit they pulled with the Bosnians and the Kosovars. No tolerance for genocide in the 21st century, if anyone can help it. If the US does some crap like that, I'd be all for a liberation army to end that crap too.
I'll apologize for Chile with Allende, though. I'll apologize to Iran for the 1950's. And unless they're enemies of the US today, they generally get a lot of US aid which saves many lives too. Notice the difference yet?
Chechnya is literally Russian territory now, genius. Americans don't celebrate rebuilding the South after the US Civil War; that's to be expected. Did Russians rebuild anything they destroyed outside of their de-facto territory? East Germany? Afghanistan? The answer is generally no, but I am not holding that against Russia right now. That's the past. This is now. And you people need to get over this whole whataboutism BS. No one is bringing up past Russian atrocities, outside of snide Eastern Europeans. I don't blame Iraqis for wanting a new security apparatus to protect themselves from the US, or other victims of US power. That's understandable, generally -then you should understand the same for EE countries.
Bruh, unironically using the nazi reference when the country we're talking about (Russia) literally refuses to acknowledge Ukraine's right to exist and is trying to steal territory. No self-reflection whatsoever.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Silver_Prussian Iraq actually had a competent military with a powerful air force, strong air defense systems, many tanks, etc, etc. Ukraine was a joke even at the start of the war -everyone expected Russia to steamroll through Ukraine because if it was the US; they'd definitely steamroll through Ukraine.
But Russia is not the US, so now its stuck dealing with a conventional war with foreign support to their enemies while dealing with guerillas.
Also the US did not invade with 500k men, it invaded with 160k men: "The U.S.-led coalition sent 160,000 troops into Iraq during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 1 May 2003. About 73% or 130,000 soldiers were American, with about 45,000 British soldiers (25%), 2,000 Australian soldiers (1%), and 194 Polish soldiers (0.1%). Thirty-six other countries were involved in its aftermath."
The 500k were over those involved in Iraq at the invasion and throughout the occupation. Russia tried to do what the US did, but failed miserably due to not having the means, coordination, or capability to do so.
Everyone overestimated Russia, including the Americans.
Also, for the record, Russia bombed multiple city centers and key military locations while massacring many civilians; the death toll from this war far surpasses anything the US has done in recent memory. Idk why you're acting like Russia held back; all evidence points to Russia just not caring about civilian casualties at all.
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Don Your fascist dogwhistling is getting annoying. No, Euromaiden was not a coup; it followed the conventions of the Ukrainian Constitution; that by definition CANNOT be a coup -but you insist on it anyway because the Kremlin says so.
The protests in the East and South were fine, it's the fact that Russia invaded and created illegal referendums with their FOREIGN TROOPS that is the issue; imperialist. The far-right in Ukraine never got anywhere near the power to justify actual fears, especially when some of the proof they used as "far-right takeover" was the removal of the Russian language as an equal to Ukrainian...language laws which are literally everywhere in the region, with Ukraine being one of the exceptions. Hell, Russia has the same.
Yanukovych was a puppet. He tried to leave the process of joining the EU for no reason but to get closer to Russia, despite the people of Ukraine feeling otherwise. Ukrainian nationalists were a insignificant part of the protests which even your precious Gavel Institute admits despite their horrid propaganda. And again, they didn't "overthrow" anyone, the Parliament itself which was NOT made up of any far-rightoids at all demanded his resignation for new elections.
The "kangaroo court" is literally his government, imperialist apologist. And he fled to Russia to justify Russian imperialism against Ukraine; literally no different from Hitler's justification against Poland and Czechoslovakia, who also claimed that "German minorities are being oppressed".
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@warcrimeconnoisseur5238 Dude, you're embarrassing yourself. We have homeless shelters in the US as well; the homeless camps in LA is a specifically LA issue since so many of the US' homeless congregate there and there were not enough homeless shelters. That's not a US-wide issue at all. And again, no; homeless don't really die -there was a homeless dude that stayed homeless and lived for 30 years because he got benefits but chose to remain homeless. It's a thing.
Europeans literally screwed over the entire planet multiple times over and you cry about American souls? Really? For the record, if Europeans wanted to kick Americans out, it would have already; European leaders want US muscle. To act in their interests. Europe, as always, wants slaves for their demands for resources and imperialism, and uses the US for this venture. Funny, eh?
America is pretty much the only reason Europe is prospering at all. You live precisely because Americans decided it; you prosperity is our fault. You'd rather die than be a beneficiary of the US? Than leave Europe, because your prosperity is our making. From the Marshal Plan, to the defense of Western Europe in NATO, to the pushing and creation of the EU from the European Coal Community, to the advancements since the fall of the USSR.
When European powers were trying to prevent Germany from re-uniting in 1991, it was the US that pushed it anyway. Get over yourself.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@intrepidferret6704 I actually don't mind the concept of a UBI, but the idea that that will stop homelessness, starvation, and dehydration is naive. Especially if its used to replace Social Security. People don't spend well, and taking measure of the prices of these commodities is extremely difficult on a micro level. Yes, you can get estimates, but never anything specific, especially with the constant shifting of prices within communities, never mind States or towns. There's no way to have UBI and justify the maintenance of social services like Social Security outside of retirement. And to be frank, something like this will be abused where some just refuse to work or work well; like in many Socialist countries both past and present.
And even if it's all provided on a silver platter, it STILL won't solve homelessness because many people do so willingly. As crazy as that sounds. Even in the aft lauded Nordic countries; homelessness is STILL a big issue.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Rezistenza1998 Jesus Christ, you twisted everything somehow into a capitalist plot, haven't you? Gorbachev, who extolled Communism, was somehow Pro-Western and Pro-capitalist for the sin of NOT killing peasant protestors with tanks.
LOL. "You can obtain a visa, so the Berlin Wall wasn't a big deal! Ignore the fact that only diplomats and dignitaries could ever get a visa and anyone else were threatened with death, making it a giant concentration camp! Especially with the Stasi making people disappear at night! No issue here, everyone's free!"
Ah yes. Stalinist Honecker, who advocated for crushing the East Berlin protests to allow free access to West Berlin was TOTALLY just a revisionist. Ditto with Romania's President which I can't recall, who highly respected North Korea's Supreme Leader and tried to emulate his Communist government. Definitely privatization going on there too!
Yeah, we're done here.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@champan250 I literally just told you the lie that AJ+ referenced, and you unironically are acting like its an "inconvenient truth"? What? I just gave an example of a lie. Guamese WANT to be a part of the US, but don't want to be a part of the State structure since they'd have to give up their property under Federal law. This goes for AM Samoa too, btw. How about you actually reference the referendums that occurred? Or talk about the human rights reports on them? You know; stuff that ARE NOT infected by government/state propaganda meant to tell you lies?
I wasn't actually talking about Hong Kong, I was referencing the Uyghurs and Tibet. Human Rights Watch has already made several statements about the abhorrent treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China, and have called it a "cultural genocide" with literal internment camps. Not a literal genocide like some have exaggerated, but still something abhorrent in the modern day...which AJ just flat-out ignores and sometimes dismisses.
I literally don't give a flying fuck what China claims the reason is. The fact of the matter is that China is oppressing an ENTIRE community because...some MIGHT be a part of ISIS??? What, is it okay if Americans start putting Chinese into "re-education camps" because they MIGHT be selling technology information to China? No, right? Everyone has work to do with human rights, but Jesus Christ; cultural genocide and re-education camps is DISGUSTING for the modern era. And here you are, a disgusting human being, rationalizing it.
Find some humanity in your heart. You have lost it somewhere along the way.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jkjkjk100 What are you talking about? Human Rights Watch literally always talks about the US. Human Rights Watch doesn't talk about stuff prior to its inception, genius; it talks about human rights violations NOW.
I hope you realize that such criticisms doesn't make it at all true, right? Becuase Human Rights Watch literally has far more to talk about the US than it does China, not because China doesn't have more human rights violations, but because the US has free media and thus HRW has more to talk about. But this is absurd; by your logic literally NOTHING can criticize China because "someone said that they're influenced by the US". For the record, HRW doesn't accept any money from the US Government; which makes it INFINITELY more trustworthy than anything China or the US says.
"From 2005 to 2015, among the top 10 countries or economies of foreign citizenship for U.S. doctorate recipients with temporary visas, there were substantial differences in the percentage intending to stay in the United States. Approximately 9 in 10 doctorates from Iran (92%), India (88%), and China (87%), planned to remain in the United States after graduation. With the exception of Thailand (28%), the remaining top countries had stay rates ranging from 50% to 65%, and the overall stay rate for all countries other than these top 10 was 64%(figure C)." So apparently I was wrong for taking your word that Chinese students return to China. You were doubly wrong for assuming more Chinese return to China.
I'll take Human Rights Watch which is literally THE most trustworthy source on human rights on the planet over your claim. Once upon a time there were US Blacks in the past that claimed that the US wasn't oppressive during Segregation in the 1940's. That doesn't make it true.
US put ETIM on a terrorist group because of politics in the first place. China asked for it in return for ignoring US wars in the Middle East to justify oppression. Another just criticism of the US is that it ignores oppression of people when it's focused on politics; but thankfully in this specific case it has ended. You sound just like the white people that argued that they were "civilizing" Native Americans, again, disgusting.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@AeneasGemini I know the 'why', I just don't care for it as a decent reasoning to dominate over the region.
Eastern Europe would always be an enemy to the US if it abandons them; leading to an ever-present danger to the US if Russia ever turns against the US in the future. Your premise is based on the idea that Russia will ever be a consistent ally, which is just never the case for authoritarian states. If Russia was an actual democracy, then at least the topic of stable allies can come; but that's not the case. Nor is it ever a good idea to destroy your reputation for a foreign power to begin with -it'll be almost impossible for the US to maintain its alliances with anyone if it just gives up Eastern Europe since that throws its credibility to the dirt.
Even assuming that the US can get Russia as an ally, it really isn't worth it. Russia itself is hardly a stable political entity with its government revolving around Putin, meaning that it will remain stable only so far that Putin remains in power. If he dies, then it's anyone's guess as to what happens. There's also its economy and military prowess which are hardly so impressive as to throw away the US' credibility for.
Having CCP investments is not "being in Chinese influence". It's the beginnings of it, but hardly literal, and many of those countries are beginning to reject it.
Just because China is encroaching on Russian interest doesn't mean that the US should backstab its allies for Russia to get it on its side. The cards are with the US when it comes to Eastern Europe, and Chinese ambitions aren't getting weaker -it's up to Russia to choose to abandon its ambitions in the west or focus on the east. I want no more territorial takeovers in the 21st century.
American and Russian interests only intersect with China, little else. And seeing as the US got China on its side via investments and tariff-free trade built the CCP up in the first place to give it these delusions of grandeur, I'm not so eager to help Russia and possibly build up another future rival when it can simply be nipped in the bud by not letting them get domination over Eastern Europe. The US' East Asian allies are more than enough to keep China under wraps without breaking US power for Russia. This is not the 19th century where Russia was considered the US' greatest ally in Europe -things have changed a lot.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@brucelu4782 Literally every big nation was built on genocide and stolen land, with China only originating on the Huang He River and erased all peoples by either incorporating them into modern China or erasing them from history entirely with only a few remnants remaining. And yes, including stolen land. That's thousands of years of genocidal imperialism, which is about standard for a few nations, tbf. As for "invading countries countries using lies", only 2 countries in the US' history were invaded and justified using lies, not countless. Go back to school. And those "800 military bases" are actually almost all equipment depots or flat-out military bases of other countries that have leased out some parts of it to the US for use if necessary and/or training native forces. In reality no more than 20 bases outside the US have anything more than 100 US soldiers at any single moment. And what wonderful "brainwashing" you speak of when multiple nations consider the US to be the biggest threat of peace. Stellar brainwashing from the mighty West.
Meanwhile, many mainlanders such as yourself have a habit of denying state oppression in Xinjiang when it was called out by human rights organizations and NOT Western governments initially, yet people like you conveniently ignore that and conveniently ignore all rejections from the CCP to investigate such claims by such human rights organizations that do NOT have a payroll from the CCP. Wow, it's almost like the CCP has something to hide! Imagine that!
Nobody wants a war with China, everyone wants China to stop invading everyone around them; building large military outposts within international waters which are critical to the livelihood of other countries and seeking to dominate them while crying that any attempt to stop this is "bullying". How very dare China's neighbors have a right to self-determination in the 21st century.
China isn't wise to anything, it literally revealed its hand decades too early. It pretended to be an innocent nation just trying to become rich, and then revealed its true colors by aggressively pressuring small countries like Lithuania for daring to criticize China or threatening to sink other countries' ships who go into international waters in the South China Sea.
The "West" isn't even united on China, so cry me a river in your acting. Or are you just that filled with CCP propaganda that you can't even think for yourself anymore? Do you honestly believe you're in the right to steal territory from other countries?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@franzjoseph1837 Yes, international laws are a joke. But they are a decent barometer. Countries can only hold themselves accountable; nobody held the US, USSR, or UK accountable for their "war crimes" Post-WW2 despite the USSR being almost as bad and being a part of the Nuremberg Trials. By every definition you can fathom, it is a joke; but again, we can use it to impose SOME limitations on cruelty in conflict. It usually doesn't work; but I'm all for trying. But you take it as an all or nothing thing, and that's beyond stupid.
LOL. "You caveman! You don't stick to the letter of the law that nobody follows! You allow mass murders and wars of conquest!" As if the US following such laws would stop any of it. What ends mass murders and wars and conquest is power. Either power imposed from the top-down in a Super UN that actually has teeth to invade a country, likely commit war crimes, and then capitulate it to capture the leaders who originally violated international law...or imposed between nations. Every war crime ever tried was imposed by between nations, almost all of which are usually also guilty of war crimes.
I called you a fascist because your ideas enable them. International law didn't prevent them from doing anything, it just prevented others from stopping them. I call it a joke precisely BECAUSE it doesn't stop anyone from doing war crimes! There is no system like a international police force to stop such things, and even if it did; it wouldn't even be able to do anything without committing war crimes anyway.
Idk your last point. How did international law help imperialism? Why do you now have different standards of international law? I thought all international law was good in your eyes? Are you now against SPECIFIC international laws or specific decisions made from them? Because that just makes you hypocritical now.
Idk how I'm projecting, tbh. You're the guy that would enable fascists, not me. I'm all for keeping international law and some standards; but it just flat-out doesn't stop people who firmly believe that they have some right to conquer and do anything for "their people". That's what makes them dangerous. They don't listen to anything BUT power, and international law doesn't have that, in reality. Not yet.
We are engaged officially because of the internet, which has jack all to do with international law. The US can do whatever it pleases with the internet and international law won't stop them, because in reality its a joke, as I said. Not that I advocate for that; I'm just pointing out that this is more because of US tolerance of free speech rather than the mythical and magical international law that somehow binds people together...though in reality it doesn't do shit outside of what nations want to do.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheDaeroner This obsessive need to cry about the US needing to focus inward is typical. We can handle calling out China for its corporate dictatorship and quasi-fascism as we can contend with issues with corporate power in the US. This is especially strange to hear when the CCP is literally made up of the wealthiest and powerful corporate members of Chinese society; you are defending a literal Corporate Dictatorship.
Deng just did what every single modern developed national leader did at the turn of the 20th century, and some of the more recent additions did in the middle of the 20th century. They liberalized some aspects, nationalized others, and used the proceeding funds and growth in the economy to improve the standard of living for the citizenry. Your "love" for such a leader is exactly what's troubling; this is what I expect from my leaders by default, yet you express love for something that should have been basic. And while West 100% benefitted from colonialism; it isn't a hereditary thing, once the flow stops, it dies then and there. The West survives off of internal economic dynamism like everyone else. The US in particular has thrived far more from internal economic growth than anything in economic exploitation abroad, even supporting dictators that hurt US economic interests as long as they also hated Communism during the Cold War.
It's also troubling that you ignore the entire history of China. It's an entire history was that of an empire stealing resources from surrounding vassal states via economic exploitation, tributes, and threat of destruction. The only reason China never went worldwide like the Europeans did was that they were arrogant to think that the world had nothing for them. A reasonable assumption in the 10th century, not so much in the 19th.
Citing a speech which amounts to jack all considering the Chinese themselves are applauding their modern imperialism and defending the state in every endeavor it makes proves makes no sense. No, we can't leave this to the Chinese, because the Chinese are doing nothing to stop this. Where were the Chinese as their country was building militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea and declaring it all theirs despite other national claims? One thing to claim, another thing to try and militarily occupy the region; it's the difference between China and Taiwan. Between China and the Philippines. China and Indonesia. Only one power is asserting themselves so aggressively in this region. And your language points to you, again, only deflecting instead of dealing with the actual issue.
You are literally exporting imperialist propaganda. China invaded Tibet, it invaded Vietnam, it's currently militarizing the SCS and attacking fishing trawlers from other nations in their declared zone of influence, its oppressing minorities and denying it despite all the information we have from groups like Human Rights Watch, its military buildup and aggressive posture in Taiwan is threatening to start a large war in a region that was entirely peaceful just a decade ago. Have the Chinese started any illegal wars? Yes. Have they stolen territory and instigated conflict when there were none? Yes. Have they caused any coups or backed any groups that have caused coups? Also yes; you only need to learn how much of ISIS' weaponry came from China to learn the answer to that question. Russia and China made up more than 50% of ISIS' weapons, as learned by investigations from CAR: Conflict Armament Research. To be specific, about 43% of ISIS' weapons came from China.
You wanna talk about US sins? Feel free; that's an American right too, and we talk about them all the time. However, unlike Americans like me who talk about them, you only talk about them to deflect from Chinese imperialism. Sorry, but I can do both, and China can't be allowed to get away with it if we can help it.
As a citizen of the "third world", as you put it; the US has helped you infinitely more than China has. Just the USAID alone has saved over 4.6 million children worldwide since 2008, millions more are saved since its inception, with some estimates reaching a billion these days. The US PEPFAR program has saved 17 million lives from HIV and AIDS.
Here's more if you want more info: "Congress will decide by October how much of the budget to devote to helping the rest of the world, making it an urgent issue for global citizens who care about ending extreme poverty and hunger.
“I am alive today because of the US government,” Thabani Maphosa, a former recipient of food assistance in Zimbabwe who is now in charge of World Vision’s food assistance programs, said in May.
Maphosa is just one of the 3 billion people kept from starvation through US-funded food assistance programs.
But US foreign aid does more than feed the world’s hungry.
US foreign aid covers funding for everything from niche programs in places like Kosovo, where 400 girls are learning to code to fight sexual harassment, to delivering 1.9 billion medications that saved 743 million people from tropical diseases, like trachoma, a devastating disease that leave children blind if left untreated. "
The difference between the US and China is that the former focuses on how the US should be better, while the latter only talks about the good it has done without mentioning its sins. Whatever you believe is your right, but your opinion seems to be more pro-imperialist than anything I can stomach currently. If you want to support imperialism because you have a hatred for the US and nothing else, just say so; don't hide behind "US is bad and China is nice" stuff.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn Well, duh, I know that. But if the Kurds is your example, then its a poor one since, as I said, the Kurds are not allies. It points to your other "examples" being poor arguments as well.
Afghanistan War was actually a defensive war, according to international law; the US was attacked by 9/11 with the support of the Taliban, so the US retaliated. That's why the US was able to activate NATO, because its defensive clause was initiated. You're thinking of the Iraq War, which was an offensive war the US initiated.
No, Russia is probably one of the least reliable big states on the planet. It literally has attacked countries it considered "brother nations" while reneging on prior binding agreements. Which is why Russia pretty much has no allies on the planet, via defensive alliances. The US is on the other side of the spectrum, having the largest alliance structure on the planet, and is trusted to act if a war occurs.
I'm afraid I don't know what the "NAM" is, but a country "being cool with it" doesn't make them trustworthy or good. Nazi Germany was "cool" with a lot of things too, and they were as untrustworthy as you can get. It all depends on the circumstances.
The US talks big on values because it has them, but it doesn't meet them all the time. Having ideals to reach and live up to are better than having none at all and then laughing at others for failing to meet theirs. Again, the US is actually trusted to maintain its alliance structures, while nobody trusts Russia in comparison. I think you're letting your bias against the US cloud your reality here, especially in the absurd argument that working with the Kurds means that the US owes them to the point it has to help them indefinitely. That's just not how alliances work. But guys like you just have these intentionally impossible standards for the US so you get to talk down to it...which is fine, but utterly dishonest too.
Having hypocrisies is standard for a country. There is no such thing as a country that isn't hypocritical. It depends on what those hypocrisies are. Russia has hypocrisies too; like when it proclaims that Crimea wanted to join Russia despite holding a referendum that disallowed any international observers to watch...but at the same time utterly crushed any separatism in Russia itself, such as the Chechens. I happen to think this hypocrisy is quite a bit worse than any hypocrisy the US has in the last 3 decades, since that has to do with sovereignty of a people.
Something not even the US violates, for good reason since it's pretty bad (and no, you don't get to act like the US violated any people's sovereignty since none of the countries it invaded actually HAD sovereignty to begin with in the past few decades)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Airdrifting There is no evidence to back up anything if you're a crazy nationalist anyway. But the rest of the world knows though. The West was, if anything, pro-China by the time of the Sino-Vietnamese War, so had more reason to act like less Chinese died than they did. And yet they found a similar number of dead to the Vietnamese.
No, I'm saying that China already suffered heavy casualties only facing a few regular Vietnamese troops and would have gone on to fact the main Vietnamese reserve forces near Hanoi, and wisely decided to withdraw before it humiliated itself in losing massive numbers. It lost about half the number in a month what the US lost in 10 years as it is. Nothing about guesswork; China already lost a lot of troops and would only then be facing the main reserve when approaching Hanoi. That's just clear deductive reasoning.
I ain't even white, but that's the cope you'll use this time, huh? 😂
Yes, that's exactly my point. China should NOT have been suffering such casualties, and yet they did. That's why it was prudent for them to declare victory and leave while their propaganda worked overtime proclaiming it as a victory...despite not accomplishing any objectives.
Huh??? Tiny Vietnam did NOT have such objectives. Vietnam's objective was literally only based on Cambodia at the time. Vietnam barely had the means to invade Cambodia, let alone invade the rest of Asia, nor did it ever express such ideas. Where are you getting this from? Vietnam's objective at the time was ONLY Cambodia.
Besides, we were talking about the Sino-Vietnamese War, and China's objective was to stop Vietnam's invasion, which it failed. That's it. Within the realm of that war, China lost.
Why do you think the local government or the CCP would ever allow information of lost Chinese soldiers to be spread across China? Dude. It's a country which represses media. It's absurd to think that Chinese people can know things that their government doesn't want them to know. Especially without the internet.
Considering I'm arguing that Vietnamese killed more Chinese, thus Asians killed more Asians, your claims of racism are not only funny, but braindead. That being said, I am not saying that Chinese are doing this specifically for Vietnam...they did it with every conflict ever. Vietnam does it too. In the case of this war, neither Vietnam or China "officially" released any true statistics of the losses of the war. Vietnam claimed China killed 100,000 civilians, though. That's also likely an exaggeration.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Don Nothing was violated of the Constitution to begin with; but continue with your fascist lies.
Again, there was no coup. You can repeat it all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Nothing illegal about a Russian puppet being forced to leave by the will of the Parliament. And protestors can't "force" Parliament to do anything; especially when a fraction of a fraction of it were even far-right at all. You're acting like the Right Sector made a large part of the movement, which it did not.
The language laws were not anti-Russian, they were pro-Ukrainian. Russian language was being treated like a minority language, much like non-Russian languages are treated in Russia. And again, there were protests against this, but the fact of the matter is that none of this threatened secession until AFTER FOREIGN TROOPS INVADED and forced it. Conveniently leaving that bit out.
Wow, a government is forced to rely on far-right groups to defend a country being threatened by a massive empire. Who'd have thought it??? Fun fact; when a nation is under threat and can't protect itself, it usually relies on extremist groups to do so. Which is how Islamic extremists and Communists tend to become so powerful after major invasions in say Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia after the Nazi invasion. And yet this is somehow some unique thing we should care about? When Neo-Nazis have zero actual control over the Ukrainian government??? Your focus on this is purely based on support of the Kremlin, obviously.
Ukrainian nationalists were so powerful that they received barely any control in Parliament. You're such a propagandist. Do you work in RT, per chance?
The fact that you're elevating Ukrainian fascism which barely exists as an actual force in the Ukrainian government is the problem, as it's essentially a dogwhistle in support of Russian imperialism. "Russians aren't so bad! They were defending Russian minorities from Ukrainian fascists! Ignore how our language laws are as bad as Ukraine's in 2015, please!"
Yanukovych agreed to new elections because the Parliament forced him, liar. The protest, which were specifically against him for his attempt to bend over for Russia when they wished to join the EU, "forced him", as every democracy has the right. He fled while the Parliament were preparing the elections, he was never in any danger, but this last act of flight points to him being a traitor and thus justifiably should go to the Hague. You're defending a WAR CRIMINAL.
Ah yes, a government which at no point felt pressured by a "far-right protest". Sorry but I believe Ukrainians and their leaders more than I believe you; someone inhaling Kremlin propaganda for their benefit. Disgusting imperialists.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@whodey8546 Portland is pretty far-left to many Europeans, idk what world you live in. Oh, maybe not in pure legislation, but in ideas? Yeah. Kinda like how Revolutionary Paris, despite not having new legislation, was a hotbed for new ideas which sounded insane for its time...and many of which are still insane.
Europeans have far less compunction with kicking out brown people, restricting immigration in terms of race, and limiting minority rights such as the Hijab because "it's not secular" or some crap. I'm not even gonna get into the stuff about "not really being European" which Americans don't have to deal with at all. An American isn't tied to an ethnic group, no matter how hard Alt-Idiots want it to be. Not the case in Europe, but go ahead and idolize them to the point that "American" becomes synonymous entirely with "European". I'm sure you'd LOVE that... /s
Protests for any reason are fine. Riots are unacceptable, and everyone involved in said riots deserve the slammer. This is a democracy, not an Anarchist Commune. But Portland with its insanity in riots/protests, police issues, and CHOP/CHAZ which initially declared itself INDEPENDENT and then by that metric temporarily became the MOST VIOLENT PLACE ON THE PLANET...yeah. It's totally just me having a skewed perspective.
I love how extremists always cry about the "media" as if the media has some kind of agenda. Get used to it; the media is just there for clicks. So when we hear of anything, it has to be juicy or genuinely important. Like Florida is memed for its weird events, Portland is known as that one place with far-left groupies starting fights, bullying little white kids because of their privilege, riots, protests, quasi-independent states, etc, etc. So yeah, Portland is a joke. This not coming from some uber Right-Winger, but from a moderate Left New Yorker. It's funny cause I wanted to live there a few years ago. Can't even blame the cops for not showing up; the residents would expect them to beat up the Proud Boys and then let Antifa run rampant; and then still blame 'em afterwards.
Mind you, Portlanders have every right to demand police accountability, but in some ways they really do have hypocritical and impossible standards too.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@memberberry5898 You're seriously meshing 2 different ideas to make your politics make sense. There is a MASSIVE difference between massive migration/colonization and immigration. The former is what happened to the Roman Empire with the Germanic peoples, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Yugoslavia. The latter is perfectly fine and safe and has built the more powerful states the world has ever seen.
One is a numbers game where the new peoples don't give up their cultures and identities and form new nations and break away when they have a chance, born from a disconnect to the nation they ostensibly exist in but don't care about since it wasn't there choice to be there. The other is where numerous peoples take part in a new culture and in their terms become a part of its network and culture and become a powerful boon. One is to be avoided and suppressed (illegal immigration) and the other is to be encouraged.
By your logic, France should've collapsed long ago. France is made up of many different groups even before immigration from Africa. The Britons, Aquitaine, and many other groups that make up France became French willingly and made it more powerful than it would've been if they advocated for "only French, bro!". Beating back a fucking invasion is not racist and xenophobic, but framing legal immigration and shifting demographics that are not caused by literal invasions 100% is.
So yeah, if you're doing that, you're pretty gross, bruh.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@King_Cova You're just speaking a lot of nonsense to make yourself sound smart. No shit movies doesn't make the reality of a nation, what are you, 5?
The Taliban was supported by Pakistan which was supported by the Chinese. And the US just gave weapons to the Mujahideen and the training to use them; no more than that. The troop numbers Russia sent roughly equates to the amount NATO sent; 115,000 from the USSR compared to 130,000 from NATO. Idk if you know this; but nations in a coalition tend not to send all of their troops. The issues of economics and power is immaterial; Russia "falling" in the midst of the Afghanistan War was still much stronger than the current Russia today all things considered. And the US today is stronger than the US that went in on Afghanistan; the issue is that other powers are catching up, not that the US lost power.
By every metric America fared better in Afghanistan. You coping is just pathetic, dude.
Sanctions on Russia have contracted their economy multiple times, actually; that being said I agree, its likely the US will at maximum use sanctions and maybe target Russia's use of SWIFT. Either way, such a conflict will damage Russia extensively not just economically, but internationally as well. As for Eastern Europe? They're growing faster than Russia is, with most of them having GDPs per capita higher than Russia does. Living better lives. So idk what you're talking about.
You are literally boasting about attacking another country for daring to try and protect themselves from an aggressive imperialist power. A democracy at that, albeit a flawed one. You have no room complaining about propaganda; you're already a lost cause. It's disgusting how you advocate for Russia in this specific instance. Kremlin can kill your entire family and you'd screech that the US provoked them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@franzjoseph1837 No, they're realistic. Like, as in; I haven't seen such general loyalty to international law outside of fascist people trying to hide their support of genocide by hiding behind international law. Literally the only other people I have ever heard of acting like you have.
Here's a fun fact; international law is a joke. It will always be a joke until there are actual consequences across the board for violating it. I'm all for stopping needless cruelty. Chemical attacks? Intentionally attacking cities without a military objective in mind? Attacking news reporters or the Red Cross? I'm all for holding such standards, and the rest of the world is too for the most part. I actually DO hold some standards, but I guess because I am unwilling to hold myself to impossible standards that means I'm a fascist now, huh? How very dare I.
Whose the fascist anyway? The person that would allow them to roam free and mass murder while you squeal about not letting them go when they withdraw? Or the person that smashes them while trying to maintain SOME human rights standards? Again, if we did things your way, the world would be beyond fucked. Slavery everywhere, likely lots of genocides allowed and having occurred, constant wars, democracies getting crushed, etc, etc. Hitler and Stalin would love you; the good man doing nothing because you stuck to international laws that nobody on the planet maintains.
Congrats, I'm sure you'd stand proud next to the bodies. Make sure to ask Holocaust victims whether they cared when UK Bombers turned Dresden into a giant inferno.
Do it again Bomber Harris.
I digress though. I used the Nazis as a clear example of your idealism crashing against the reality. I also used the Confederates, if you failed to notice. Both times the US engaged in massive bombing campaigns that reduced enemy cities to rubble, killing thousands of civilians. Against the Geneva Convention, against international law. I contend they were necessary, and not engaging in total war is borderline an attempt to help the Nazis and Confederates maintain their systems of genocide and slavery respectively. But I guess its A-OK as long as YOUR country isn't committing the killings, huh? Its moral abdication, and its every bit as disgusting as it was back in the day.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@missyenny1617 They didn't help. They made noises or shuffled their feet, but ultimately didn't help. More to the point, statistically, they are far less likely to get hurt or die in such an altercation; women rarely if ever get attacked on the streets.
I can't speak for why nobody contacted the authorities; the issue for that is cultural. My issue was the other bit.
"i never thought helping when needed would equivalent wasting your life for no reason but them being women."
Except you are saying that. They sure as heck wouldn't do it for other men, why exactly should they do it for women? And your remarks about how to handle the fight is about what I expected from a woman who has never been in one. When people's blood are up, you can't predict what they'd do -anyone stepping in are 100% risking their life. Maybe it would end up okay and defuse the situation, but that is entirely guesswork.
"a person who might be someone's mother, daughter, sister and a friend. you keep talking about men being alright not to help when you also see women nothing but just a women. how ironic"
?????????
Your logic is a contradiction. Men don't expect other men to step in. That's the blunt truth. They don't shame men for not trying to break it up. Only women, like you, do that when women are getting attacked.
Family is a different story, but you act like risking your life to save this person, WHO JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE A WOMAN AND WHOM WOMEN WOULD NOT CARE AS MUCH IF IT WAS A MAN, is just "doing the right thing".
Spare us your BS justifications. Maybe you didn't mean it, but 99% of the time any altercations that involve men on men don't have a bunch of women screeching about men stepping in to stop it. Maybe you're different, but that's not the case with vast majority of women.
"a lot of people would've tried to help. just imagine if those girls are one of your relatives"
Why? Women don't use this argument if its a man who is getting throttled. They ignore it. Maybe you're different, but the fact is that society expects men to get over it, while society expects men to die for women if it comes down to it. That's my issue. And you are a part of that.
So no thanks. They're on their own. Just as I would be on my own.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@cloudatlas349 You people are such shills for anything against the US, aren't you? Like seriously, this wasn't even initially reported by the US, but by OTHER SOURCES and the US was on the train late in comparison. Meanwhile, China was caught lying about Covid's existence in the first place, allowing it to spread across the planet before actually admitting to it. Yet you people don't talk about that at all, huh?
Like, if you were giving both governments some wariness, then that's more understandable. But you're just doubting the American story...when it wasn't even an American story to begin with. ESPECIALLY in Xinjiang, which was first brought up by Human Rights Watch, which is VERY critical of the US' policy on Israel. Are you gonna call them US stooges now?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@die1mayer LOL. You're a literal boot licker wishing to ally with people that fully intended for Germany to be an economic ruin when the people that broke their backs trying to help Germany are just
"dishonest imperialists". Hey man, Stalin also promised Eastern Europeans free elections, so if you wanna take his word for it, be my guest!
And being a POS and proud of it in the case of the Soviets is infinitely worse than trying to not be a POS. The US could've been a POS and proud of it, but then Germany wouldn't be a leader in anything but a broken wreck, wouldn't it? Besides, both sides were hypocrites, or do you think the USSR didn't claim "liberation" or "anti-imperialism"?
"Liberators" mean to liberate from tyranny, not to spend Allied lives just to save German infrastructure. The Western Allies had no obligation to save German cities, and had no obligation to help Germany after defeating it. The fact that they did anyway and yet you curse them is just pathetic.
The Soviets literally raped Berlin and stole all of the industrial machinery it could from the territories it took all while ethnically cleansing Prussia and you bitch about the Western powers. Imagine being such a cuck for tyrants.
Enjoy Americanization, buddy. Watch how your "culture" diminishes into little more than a commodity. German culture is dead and has been for some time. Remember; Germany did it all on its own.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mrok3405 You gave me an essay, so I had to give you one in return. Fairs fair. And you're projecting here. A lot. The US doesn't demand NATO attack whoever it attacks, and neither can Turkey. Period.
The coup action was real, but it definitely could be staged by Erdogan loyalists. What, have you never heard what it means to instigate chaos to obtain power? Might wanna look up what happaned in Syria when Assad opened up his prisons and releasing thousands of Jihadists nutcases specifically to cause more violence and conflict so that the people run to his arms for safety. It's a common dictator tactic.
"Internationally recognized terrorist group" YPG isn't that, though. Hell, I don't think PKK is "internationally recognized" either; but that's at least more fair. The YPG having affiliations with the PKK is fact, it literally being it is your own bias propaganda talking.
Congrats, you take US Generals at tehir word when they agree with you but when they don't you screech that they're lying. I don't take anything the US says at face value at all, or any government institution for that matter. What I believe are international institutions, and they don't have a lot of nice things to say about Erdogan or Assad. And there is no consensus that YPG are a terrorist group; more like a flawed independence group fighting for self-determination. As it stands, the US has repeatedly thrown away democratic ideals for the sake of its alliance with Turkey by agreeing that the PKK are terrorists just to keep Turkey happy, so be happy with that.
"Take oil" And when did the US take oil? If we can make up lies, then obviously Turkey stole Syrian oil and are stealing Azerbaijan, Libyan, and Somali resources. Unlike you, I won't make mean that seriously unless we have actual proof of it. Also, the "1 million Iraqi deaths" is only possible if you consider all the lives lost in the Iraq War committed by all sides and the most extreme metric. Tjhe most commonly cited number is about 460,000 deaths caused directly or indirectly by the war. By this logic, Turkey is responsible for about 600,000 deaths in Syria.
And now you go on and on about US setbacks across the last century or so. Let's assume that I even care; the difference between Turkey and the US is that the latter can fail at literally everything but still remain the pre-eminent SUperpower on the planet which can joke about sanctioning the Lira and make it plummet. Mostly because its power is nowhere concentrated in a single spot. It can lose in Vietnam, but then become beloeved by the Vietnamese a few generations later as their best friends. It can lose in Afghanistan, but cripple the Taliban so thoroughly that it won't dare bother the US again. It can lose in Iraq and be forced to leave via an Iraqi referendum in 2011, but then come back and stay around with another Saddam nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, Turkey can "win" in Syria but still be stuck in eternal conflict with Assad nowhere near ousted and actively plotting against Turkey without fear of a Turkish response. Its "victory" in Libya flat-out juts extended the war without any semblance of a decisive win of their backed regime. Really, there isn't any decisive win in modern Turkey's history. Which would be fine...if it had allies to fall back on and a friendly bloc to ease things.
Turkey threw that away, as you apparently wanted, leaving Turkey as a pariah state. Necessary, but by no means cared or loved.
Let me be blunt here; by every metric of international standards, the US ranks either as a 83/100 "Free" in the Freedom House scale or as a Flawed Democracy as 7.92 in the Democracy Index. In any metric available, Turkey has plummeted drastically in the past few years. I don't care that Turks don't trust the US, it never even registered in my mind until you mentioned it; Turkey can choose whoever they want, but that doesn't change the fact that Erdogan has tilted so many government institutions enough that not even Turks know what Turkey actually wants anymore. You seem satisfied, but I doubt you speak for your country while you standard of living plummets into the dirt.
Korea wasn't a NATO mission, genius. That was the UN. Turkey never landed on the moon. The world is round. Anything else you'd like to add, Erdogan propagandist?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn First of all, your bias is clear as day when the citation you provided came from Salon whom is a big Left-wing site that criticizes the US for its mere existence. Evidenced by the cite this post itself utilized being from AlterNet.org which itself is hyper left-wing and has extremely mixed reporting. Though to be fair to Salon, that's their right. That doesn't make them the most accurate on such topics though. Salon is first and foremost uber-progressive/critical when it comes to the US, but super tolerant when it comes to foreign dictators. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/alternet/
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/alternet-bias-and-reliability/
Most reports on the Iraq War put the number at 300,000 deaths, of which 33% was caused by the Coalition, I believe. Either way, deaths from a conflict that were not initiated on purpose is hardly comparable to an intentional attempt at erasing a people from existence.
As for China? The term genocide is used to describe a concerted government attempt to erase a people from existence, it doesn't need gas chambers; it just needs mass surveillance, re-education camps, brutal suppression of culture, etc. It's literally like what occurred to the Native Americans in the modern day. And this was an opinion shared by numerous human rights organizations.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-repression-uyghurs-xinjiang
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china/report-china/
Inb4 you say these are "Anti-Chinese" or something; these international organizations are based in the West, but do not receive Western government support and are often as critical to Western nations, if not more so due to the nature of free media. A sharp contrast to a site like Salon that ignores what goes on outside of the US' borders routinely to complain about micro-aggressions.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@florencioalexandre7873 It takes a pretty paranoid mind to imagine this as gaslighting, but ok.
Oh, I understand their are unspoken rules of diplomacy. I also know countries break those rules at their leisure, including France, which is why it's ludicrous to make such a big deal about this. Oh yes, France isn't declaring war, but it's being spiteful and petty. For someone who is going on and on about the rules of diplomacy, you seem awfully cavalier about the act of removing ambassadors. It's a rather drastic escalation. So is calling this a "betrayal".
The EU President, smart one. What, is the federal head of EU Parliament NOT what can be considered "EU leadership"? Quit splitting hairs. And let's stop acting as if members of the EU would not want more federalization where their voices get more power. That's literally politics. If you want to ignore such basic common sense logic, then this entire discussion is a waste of time.
So basically you're not directly saying it, but you're implying they are related. Which is essentially my point against you. AUKUS would definitely be a boon for Australia if the UK and US got the contract, but that still doesn't change the fact that Australia sought the UK for a better deal prior to its creation. They are independent in scope and concept.
No, it's literally what France did, not speculation. It removed its ambassadors which is a MAJOR diplomatic move. Not war, obviously, but about as much as a gaffe as someone removing diplomatic immunity to another country's ambassador or kicking them out of the country. It's a freezing of relations...over a military contract.
Now you're being obtuse. Siding with France on its outrage, of course. Support is the topic, and only the EU leadership such as the EU President and French politicians have come out for this; other European leaders have remained silent. That is not as you put it; "a lot of European countries are more certain that the US is untrustworthy (i.e even written deals should be questioned when it's signed by the US) and are questioning themselves about the integrity of the AU". At least in regards to this case.
France has done plenty of sanctions, bombing, and embargoing in the past few decades, so idk why you're acting like the idea of France sanctioning another country is far-fetched. But no, I don't expect that.
And this is the issue here; I can also find examples of France behaving terribly and, by France's estimation, would be considered a "betrayal". But the US reaction to French "betrayals" have been muted, purposefully, because France was still an ally. But France may have just opened that flood gate with this reckless action. This is France's mistake, and I don't see how you can regard this as otherwise.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@東京市 Justice and fairness doesn't exist except when its enforced. Your kind of thinking would allow all the restrictions on war from the likes of Geneva Convention be broken without consequence; we live in a lawless world, that doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY and enforce some decency where we can.
Russia is not a global empire, nor is China. Hell, not even the US. They're strong powers, with the US being the strongest; but the have limitations and part of the modern evolution of international politics is the need to win support from other nations to enact policy abroad. Russia and China are effectively stuck within their backyards because they have decided to act as you think; that only the big powers matter and they deserve to have a slice of the pie. Sorry, but that era doesn't jive well for the modern one. The US gets away with evil crap because they have effectively won support of most nations on the planet, especially the other big nations. If Russia and China want influence; then they need to at least TRY to look like they respect the sovereignty of neighboring states, lest more align with the US.
Fact is that Ukraine, in a dog-eat-dog world, indeed would have no choice but to align with Russia. But this is an era where human rights and sovereignty are important to peoples and nations; so Russia intervening has done nothing but destroy their credibility and further weakened influence in the region.
This world is not just the playground of big powers anymore; not even the US with all of that influence can do it all. You're living in the 18th century, its time to move on; and in this case the US is right within that international framework to have the moral highground to step in and Russia can't do shit about it barring make itself an even bigger pariah on the world stage.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lostbutfreesoul Nobody actually said that, that's just a myth made by detractors:
"After Maine was destroyed, New York City newspaper publishers Hearst and Pulitzer decided that the Spanish were to blame, and they publicized this theory as fact in their papers.[66] Even prior to the explosion, both had published sensationalistic accounts of "atrocities" committed by the Spanish in Cuba; headlines such as "Spanish Murderers" were commonplace in their newspapers. Following the explosion, this tone escalated with the headline "Remember The Maine, To Hell with Spain!", quickly appearing.[67] [68] Their press exaggerated what was happening and how the Spanish were treating the Cuban prisoners.[69] The stories were based on factual accounts, but most of the time, the articles that were published were embellished and written with incendiary language causing emotional and often heated responses among readers. A common myth falsely states that when illustrator Frederic Remington said there was no war brewing in Cuba, Hearst responded: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.""
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rob6927 Here you basically admit your ignorance. The US expected to return to isolationism, so literally destroyed most of their war machines prior to Korea. Here's a source: "As an initial response to the invasion, Truman called for a naval blockade of North Korea and was shocked to learn that such a blockade could be imposed only "on paper" since the US Navy no longer had the warships with which to carry out his request.[331][332] Army officials, desperate for weaponry, recovered Sherman tanks from World War II Pacific battlefields and reconditioned them for shipment to Korea.[331] Army Ordnance officials at Fort Knox pulled down M26 Pershing tanks from display pedestals around Fort Knox in order to equip the third company of the Army's hastily formed 70th Tank Battalion.[333] Without adequate numbers of tactical fighter-bomber aircraft, the Air Force took F-51 (P-51) propeller-driven aircraft out of storage or from existing Air National Guard squadrons, and rushed them into front-line service. A shortage of spare parts and qualified maintenance personnel resulted in improvised repairs and overhauls. A Navy helicopter pilot aboard an active duty warship recalled fixing damaged rotor blades with masking tape in the absence of spares.[334]
US Army Reserve and Army National Guard infantry soldiers and new inductees (called to duty to fill out understrength infantry divisions) found themselves short of nearly everything needed to repel the North Korean forces: artillery, ammunition, heavy tanks, ground-support aircraft, even effective anti-tank weapons such as the M20 3.5-inch (89 mm) Super Bazooka.[335] Some Army combat units sent to Korea were supplied with worn out, 'red-lined' M1 rifles or carbines in immediate need of ordnance depot overhaul or repair.[336][337] Only the Marine Corps, whose commanders had stored and maintained their World War II surplus inventories of equipment and weapons, proved ready for deployment, though they still were woefully under-strength,[338] as well as in need of suitable landing craft to practice amphibious operations (Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson had transferred most of the remaining craft to the Navy and reserved them for use in training Army units)."
It was to the point that the North Koreans in many way were better armed than the US was at the time.
Vietnamese fought the Chinese with irregulars in open combat, and fought the US in guerilla warfare. Idk why you're lying about this, there was no extensive guerilla warfare against the Chinese in the Sino-Vietnamese War in comparison to the US-Vietnam War.
Middle estimated of North Vietnamese death is about 1,062,000 military and civilian, with the latter being around 65,000 from US bombings shellings. The US/South Vietnamese deaths estimate around 741,000...with the civilians making up around 391,000 deaths caused by the North Vietnamese. Put plainly, North Vietnam was the greatest butcher of Vietnamese in that war. Which is why their propaganda coup is so impressive; everyone thinks that the VietCong were totally just fighting US imperialism while the US was killing Vietnamese civilians...in reality they butchered far more civilians than the US could ever have done.
The US didn't support Cambodia outside of diplomatic support for its existence, again, the Vietnamese helped bring the Khmer Rouge into existence in the first place in the 1960's with the Chinese. The Cambodian Genocide is literally caused by Vietnam's imperialism, and the millions of deaths can be traced right back to Hanoi. There was no economic or military support by the US, but there was a LOT of military support by the North Vietnamese government to the Khmer Rouge in the 1960's.
Hey man, if the US is so weak as you say, then why do Vietnamese leaders constantly seek US support and attention? Why does all of East Asia turn to the US and not the mighty Vietnam? Because Vietnam is good at dying without giving up in their own territory, but isn't worth anything outside of it. That's just a blunt fact. Maybe that could change, but for now, Vietnam only matters in conjunction with other countries, not by itself.
Oh geez, I'm well aware of issues between China and Vietnam throughout history, by "new feud" I mean the explosion of rising tension since China has been pressing its claims over the South China Sea. Don't be obtuse.
I honestly don't really care what you think. Again, I never said it would be a walk in the park, I was just saying that it would have destroyed Vietnam. At least until the US public couldn't stand the mounting cost of an occupation and withdrew. The benefit of democracy is that if the US takes an imperialist action abroad, the public will kill it after too long. Really doesn't change the fact that in every conflict it engaged in, it decimated the opposing side; the difference is that its opponents don't care about the lives of their own people, really. A very American mistake to make to think that everyone else thinks like them LOL
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Airdrifting Yeah, the leaked number; but that hardly means accurate. After all; it can be the "official" numbers that was never published. That's the problem with dictatorships; you can never tell because there is no free media to fact-check. Everyone does this, like the US for example, but their free media can call them out and publish more likely numbers. Ditto goes with this.
Vietnam claims 48,000+ Chinese deaths actually, West claims 26,000+ Chinese deaths. China claims 42,000+ Vietnamese deaths, West claims 30,000+ Vietnamese deaths.
By your logic, China has an accurate number of US deaths in the Korean War, while literally all studies on it call their numbers complete lies. That includes studies that were against the US government. Why are you automatically taking a government, ANY government at their word? They're both liable to lie for the sake of appearances, and both are VERY obviously bias. Thus, the only trusted source to find is the Western one which was PRO-CHINA at the time. Nationalism just doesn't let you just let this go, huh?
"It's quite obvious who lied about the numbers" Yeah. Both of them. They have every reason to lie and every ability to do so. Governments lie, and China has no free media to call them out on it. That's kinda the point.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bakiozturk2112 Bruh, since when are people so gullible as to take leaders, let alone proto-dictators at their word? Look at the dang treaty, and I'm pretty sure nothing there indicates that Sweden HAS to give Turkey anyone or anything.
You didn't actually answer me last time, so that indicates a lie. I will fully admit if I'm wrong, but I have seen nothing of the sort to prove me wrong.
Tell me, if Erdogan says that all who support the Kurds are against Turkish security, does that mean that we have to start silencing them for your security too? Simply saying; "it's for national security" isn't enough. Sweden is facing the possibility of an INVASION, while Turkey's national security is...what? Facing a far-away anti-Turkish propagandist at best?
If the US demanded that Turkey surrender its claims in the Cyprus lest Turkey get kicked out of NATO in the event of a possible Russian invasion, would you also call that a "win-win"? This is some common sense, bruh. It'd be one thing if Turkey tried this 2 years ago when things were relatively quiet, but now? That's just blackmail, and proves a lot of Turkey's detractors correct. France must be celebrating this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Aman Lool Incorrect. The USSR, China, and the UK tended to be far bloodier than the US. The Soviets were the ones that backed violent revolutionaries in Latin America that spawned US responses in backing rebel right-wing groups, for example, and almost every far-left wing group the USSR backed killed in the hundreds of thousands to the far-right wing dictator's tens of thousands.
The Cold War was a vicious game of promoting Communism vs stopping its spread, so both sides used such tactics. The US did indeed back coups against democratic leaders, if only due to fear that they were in the USSR's pockets, and in some cases they were, and others they were not. Ironically, in some cases, the US probably saved lives such as in the case of Chile; but it was still ruthless and very much against my own ideology. There's no question that if the US did nothing that more lives would've been lost though, and there is the crux of the matter. Is it worse to do nothing but stick by your just cause where more people die? Or is it better to get your hands dirty?
Tell me, in an alternate reality where the US did nothing and Latin America fell to Communism where hundreds of thousands die instead of tens of thousands in US-backed dictators; would you give credit or blame? I'm curious.
As for Africa, I'm afraid you're mixing up the US with Europe. The US never actively colonized Africa ever in its history, and actively backed African independent movements unless they were backed by the USSR. If you're talking about companies using cheap labor, then all nations are guilty of that; even African ones. Including the Middle Eastern ones that encourage migration from Africa to become little more than slaves workers. I've been to the Middle East, and the use of Africans for literal cheap labor such as "maids" and such is actually gross. That is a literal human rights issue. I forget what they're called in Arabic. I may have to look it up. :I
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stanleyrogouski Eh, I think I'm done with the convo since it got a little too long, but I saw your last reply to another guy and I have a big issue with this bit:
"You just typed that on a Chinese made computer and yet you also say we shouldn't read the foundational literature of the country's government or even try to understand the ideas under which it operates? OK"
China is many things, but claiming they follow any semblance of Marx's ideologies is seriously flawed. If anything, China after Deng suppressed and tamped down on Marxist ideas, especially Maoism. The only thing "Marxist" about China is the name they use to denote their elites; "Chinese Communist Party". The fact that they use an uber captialist system that makes the US blush isn't somehow a point that Marxist ideology can work. It's a rejection of it, after so many have failed across the planet. Say what you want about capitalism; but it sustains itself rather well in sharp contrast to their Marxist counterparts.
And no matter how you argue it, the idea that we live in a "dictator of capital" just because we aren't butchering millionaires in the streets doesn't actually mean we live in a dictatorship. It means it follows mainstream policies for liberals. A dictatorship would be sending people to get rid of you for speaking out. So I find the "we all live in dictatorships anyway lol" argument really weak. If we really wanted to be a moral equal to Marxists, we'd just do what they'd do to us; oppress them. But we don't, and that makes us morally superior by default. This isn't a boast, it's just a blunt observation.
And did you really just use Charles Beard as a source? The disgraced joke of a historian which nobody uses because he was so unironically full of it? You realize that adhering to one specific ideology to explain everything is about the most arrogant thing you could do, right? People aren't just one thing, they're multiple things. No matter how you try and argue it, the Founders did not create a Revolution to forestall a bigger one. And tbh, even if they did, which they didn't, it was by far for the best. I loathe the idea of a "more radical" revolution in any shape or form like the French Revolution. It was a horrendous ordeal.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@percyjackson4077 From Al Jazeera: "Among other things, the Russian president asserted that “Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood,” and that the nation now known as Ukraine was carved out of Russia by Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.
In 2021, Putin wrote an essay titled, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, explaining his belief that Russians and Ukrainians are one people divided artificially by borders and outsiders.
In it, he accused modern Ukraine of an “anti-Russian project” in which longstanding ties with Russia are cast aside, Nazi collaborators are glorified and the Russian language, spoken by around a third of Ukraine’s population, is shunned from public life."
So either you're being deliberately obtuse or you should double check what Putler actually believes. All indication points to him believing Ukraine doesn't actually have a right to exist.
Also, you just straight up lied. There was ZERO word from NATO about not accepting Eastern European states into the alliance. None. Zilch. Zero. There was promise that was immediately taken back by US Secretary James Baker to not accept East Germany under NATO's protection, but there was never discussion about the rest of Europe. Which is why nobody actually complained about this until Putler came into office. And sorry, but nobody in Eastern Europe wants to leave NATO; precisely because Russian imperialism is a thing. Breaking down NATO is the same as throwing away the sovereignty of many US allies.
Putler also said that Ukrainians have been genociding people in the Donbass region in that speech while the ICC have found NOTHING behind that claim. Wow, it's almost like Putler's speech is nothing but pro-Kremlin propaganda to justify an invasion. Newsflash, he also claimed that this was not a war and it was instead a "military operation" and made it illegal to call it a war after the fact. Just because Putler said something doesn't make it true; do you also believe Hitler when he claimed that he was not gonna occupy Czechoslovakia after taking the Sudetenland or something?
Yes, many people died in Donbas, the count prior to this war was around 3k civilians dead killed by BOTH SIDES; with RUSSIA being the one to instigate the conflict. So yeah, in that context, Ukraine is more than a little justified to keep fighting against an obvious imperialist invasion.
You're either ignorant or lying. The "People's Republics" were not accepted by the international community as real nation-states and thus are not protected under the UN Charter 51. If the US invaded Siberia tomorrow and claimed that it was a new State, that doesn't automatically give it the right to "defend" it. That's literal insanity. It'd be one thing if the Donbass region started their own referendum WITHOUT Russian troops being present and with international groups confirming the fairness of the vote -then you can begin making that argument like Kosovo. But that's not the case here; foreign troops entered Ukraine and suddenly they got independence with a referendum vote that they started. If you can accept that as "legal", then the US should begin talking about "liberating" pieces of Russia too.
Bruh, the fact that military personnel needed to be evacuated doesn't indicate a large presence, you know? Also, if Ukraine was so well-armed, then where were their modern US aircraft, tanks, and small arms? You know damn well that Ukraine did not even have a fraction of what the likes of the Afghan National Army got.
Did you unironically act like Russia gives a shit about civilian damage? Did you not see what happened to Mariupol? The multitude of stories of fleeing Ukrainians of Russian brutality? You must live in an alternate universe where Russian news is all you receive, because even non-Western news not from China note Russia turning Ukrainian cities into rubble.
Uh, no, Russia is incredibly incompetent that it's pathetic. Like, it's really sad that I ever thought it could take Ukraine in a month.
Bruh, the USSR collapsed against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in 10 years while taking enormous casualties. The US barely suffered any casualties in Afghanistan in 20 years. It's indeed embarrassing, but in context it just makes the USSR and Russia look even more pathetic in comparison.
Russia is a joke. Sorry to be the bearer of obvious news; but nobody takes a joke like Russia seriously anymore.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ДобрыйРептилоид-р7д To this day, there is very little evidence of much discrimination of a Russian minority in these countries. It's little more than a smokescreen for Russia to interfere with democracies; so there is no reason for either the US or EU to allow Russia to have any say in the matter.
You have a seriously skewed worldview. Russia did nothing for the West that was not in its own interest; and the concept of a "West" is fluid to begin with -many of those "Western" nations had their own interests and goals throughout the centuries which hardly aligned with each other. The Napoleonic Wars was a war against a Western country with other Western countries in opposition -yet Russians commonly cite that war as proof of Western aggression as if Austria, Prussia, the UK, and many other countries were not involved in the fighting.
So cut the BS. Russians always have had this weird "woe is me" attitude when in reality it's just used to justify modern aggression. Russia can stop whenever it wants, and the modern Western forces that set up bases right at Russia's borders were an immediate RESPONSE to Russian aggression in 2014. At no point were there even 1,000 US troops at Russia's borders until then. In a hypothetical scenario where NATO did not expand, it's even more likely that Russia would have used this same "woe is me" attitude to justify "saving Russian minorities" and occupying multiple Eastern/Central European states. No matter the West could have done, this was going to come either way with this persecution complex despite having the literal largest amount of territory on the planet. France was invaded by the UK thousands of times and vice-versa, France was invaded and devastated by Germany twice while vice-versa the Germans were devastated by European wars that criss-crossed the HRE. Yet they are able to live in general harmony. Russia, apparently, can't; in fear of some vague "Western" threat when the West had far more to fear of each other than of Russia until relatively recently.
Get over yourself. Russia's issues are born from Russian aggression. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wraith8323 On paper you'd be correct. In reality, we see today that Russia's military is nowhere near what it has advertised. How many of those fixed-winged aircrafts are actually operable? How many are of the same quality as F-16's let alone more advanced aircraft? How much of Russia's capability are crippled by corruption within Russia's military? Obviously far more than anyone could have possibly imagined. And nuclear capability doesn't matter in terms of regional hegemony; North Korea is hardly a regional hegemon despite having it. It has far more to do with influencing the region they are in. Russia effectively doesn't influence anything outside of the Caucuses and Central Asia. Eastern European influence is a joke at this point.
No, even when looking at this geopolitically, its pure insanity. It's like Poland demanding that Russia surrender Kaliningrad; just because it's within your "interest" to do so, doesn't mean that the cost of simply trying is beyond anything that should be attempted.
Russia does not have the capability to wage total war on Ukraine to begin with. It's economic standing is crumbling and its means to send munitions to the frontlines are shoddy at best. There is a reason they are using civilian trucks to move troops and equipment now. Ultimately though, it's true that Ukraine is outmatched, at least conventionally. Russia will suffer distinctly the more land they take and the insurgency begins. Military superiority on paper, even a MASSIVE superiority still gets hampered by guerilla warfare. Russia is hardly in a comparable state to the US, so it all depends on the Ukrainians. Even if they "lose", they can make sure that Russia suffers far more in victory than it ever could have suffered in a defeat.
Again. Putin specifically denied Ukraine's right to exist as an independent entity. There is no arguing this; he spelled it out for you. This alone makes Russia impossible to deal with geopolitically. All that can be done is punishment; no nation-state can ever give Russia an inch after such a speech. Only the most braindead Kremlinbots can unironically act like Russia is being anywhere close to reasonable here, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't watch the speech.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Silver_Prussian Finland and Sweden were literally named and "warned".
"Russia warns NATO against inclusion of Finland, Sweden"
How are they not supposed to feel concerned and threatened? Who does that? What world do you live in that Russia didn't publicly threaten them? It's all over the internet man, and they're not happy. But even then, these nations with an overwhelming distrust and dislike of Russia aren't pro-joining NATO yet. So your point is moot anyway. They hate Russia, but they don't want to be in the front lines. Make no mistake though; Russia is once again threatening nations and making more enemies.
If you're referring about Nordstream 2, the US did indeed complain and try to stop it. It was an EU project which most EU nations opposed, but Germany went through with it despite that; and several EU states approached the US to stop it. It tried, and it failed; because despite your claims the US is not almighty which can control everyone and everything.
Now Germany is getting battered around by EU states for NS2 precisely because they believe that it emboldened Russia. Which, it may well have.
As for the Northern Shipping Route; I know what you're talking about, and there's no way the US will allow it. That would damage the environment in a terrible way and increase the damage to the Arctic by introducing mass C02 from shipping. US also recently shut down plans for a new oil field in the US itself, so its feeling particularly environmentalist this Administration. Has less to do with Russia, and more to do with environmentalist politics. US wouldn't allow anyone to do it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@franzjoseph1837 Following the geneva convention is a policy. Advocating for any action via the state is a "policy". That being said, I agree that Europeans should have relinquished all colonies Post-WW1. Or really, everyone should. No one would do it, barring maybe the US since they signed a treaty promising just that to the Philippines and Cuba, but again; international law forbade colonies to begin with. Everyone had a right to self-determination. In reality it stopped exactly nobody from having it; it took movements on the ground or between nations to end the period of Colonization. That's my damned point.
"he regime of Saddam Hussein who was put in power by the British and Americans so they could have access to the oil resources" Ah yes, somehow the British and Americans whom got pretty much no oil from Saddam, who had a state-owned oil company work Iraq's oil fields and no Western oil companies, totally helped him get into power in the first place. There is also literally any proof behind it behind you talking out of your ass because you want it to be true. God, you're such a propagandist. Did the CIA take your lunch money too? Or are you confusing Iraq with Iran, because that legitimately did happen.
Edit: And the idea that an Arab State wouldn't fall apart into warring fiefdoms immediately afterwards is just hilarious. There was zero unity amongst "Arab" states, otherwise they would've unified after breaking free. Egypt and Syria tried, but it broke apart relatively quickly. The difference is that the bloodshed would not be caused by Western Europeans being imperialists and instead be inflicted...between Arabs. Still, self-determination. On that we agree.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MWENDA-vv5im The literal quote is here; "As you may know, Mr Nazarbayev is a very wise leader, I believe he is the wisest on the post-Soviet space, and he would never go against the will of his people. He can feel what his people expect of him. Therefore, everything that has been done lately – largely due to his talent of an organiser and his political expertise – is all in the interests of Kazakhstan as a state.
I already said that he has performed a unique feat: he has created a state on a territory where there has never been a state. The Kazakhs never had a state of their own, and he created it. In this sense, he is a unique person on the post-Soviet space and in Kazakhstan. However, I would like to repeat, that this is not about him, but about the sentiments of the people, of the vast majority of society."
Stop your Kremlin propaganda, its obvious and pathetic. Not everyone is as blind as you want them to be, as the Russian imperialist mindset is well documented.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@golagiswatchingyou2966 US doing coups doesn't equate to it doing it in allied nations, genius. US did coups in non-allied smaller nations in a war against Communism, which has ended long ago. US doesn't do those kinds of coups anymore though some people insist on blaming the US for every random coup in every random country no matter what. It attacks dictatorships, no doubt; but that's a MASSIVE step up from committing a coup in an ALLIED NATO STATE.
Seriously, think about it for a sec; do you realize how utterly stupid it would be for the US to do that? It maintains its alliance base by being a dependable ally to NATO states, fermenting trust. The US would destroy that INSTANTLY the second it attacked a NATO member. It would literally destroy all US credibility and its alliance structure. Even if the US was really that fucking evil (which, it isn't) it is NOT that completely braindead.
There is literally zero taboo on Germany rearming itself. The US has been asking Germany to rearm for years now.
Trump wanted European countries to buy more US weapons, the US outside of his time period just wanted more spending; period. There is literally nothing that points to the US wanting European powers to specifically spend on US equipment. Just as there's nothing to the US NOT wanting European federalization. Again; what world do you live in?
"US President Barack Obama has said Britain would go to the "back of the queue" for trade deals with the US if it votes to leave the European Union.
He said Britain was at its best when "helping to lead" a strong EU and membership made it a "bigger player" on the world stage.
He was speaking at the start of a three day visit to the UK."
"Joe Biden supports EU position on Northern Ireland, says Von der Leyen
Brussels chief says US president agrees Britain should not ditch post-Brexit protocol"
That's really not the point. Also, it would activate NATO against the US. Seriously, this is some real coocoo crap.
3
-
@golagiswatchingyou2966 Warsaw Pact = USSR because the USSR had direct control over it. NATO was far more egalitarian, though is still heavily influenced by the US, sure. NATO has never been able to force countries within it to do things they don't want to do; and the US has never sent tanks into NATO allies to crush a revolt against the government. Idk why you're acting like the US is just the USSR; they're quite different in style, politics, and world view. The US had a penchant for backing coups in countries outside of NATO, sure, but it never actually went that far against other fellow first-world democracies. To the contrary, with ideas like the Marshall Plan, backing of the European Coal Community, and the US financial support of Japan and South Korea; the US isn't as directly authoritarian as the USSR is to its direct allies.
No wonder you believe this weird stuff if you just think US = USSR. Like 99% of people would disagree with you, for good reason.
Idk what to tell you, dude. You believe the US would want to coup European countries if it went against them, yet you also believe the EU was formed IN SPITE of US wishes? All while France kicked the US out of its country under De Gaulle and many European states joined protests against Vietnam and then Iraq? How does make sense to you?
Uh, yes if the USSR and US were not involved, it's unlikely anything would change in Europe. France was spoiling for another punishment of Germany, and much of the continent would not stand in their way. Enmities were massive and the USSR took advantage of that by ethnically cleansing much of Germany's eastern territory for Poland so the USSR can take Polish land in turn. It was the US' Berlin Airlift and subsequent Marshall Plan that won US influence in the continent and then its pushing for the European Coal and Steel community that slowly wound these countries together. The threat of a Soviet invasion and the falling apart of European empires furthered this rising unity under the US umbrella. The best way to form unity is an external threat, as they say.
The period prior to WW1 was a period known as the Concert of Europe where European powers balanced each other out carefully to avoid war. This was a "peace" in the same way as the USSR and the US has a "peace"; they fought against each other outside of their main territories and instead took the battles elsewhere. This was the oppressors of the day working together to maintain the status quo, NOT unity working together for a common goal. One is far more hostile to the other, and I find it absurd that you can even compare the two.
First of all, Germany under Hitler didn't want a united Europe; that was just propaganda. It wanted "living space" for the perfect Aryans. It planned to ethnically cleanse/genocide anything "impure". The Americans were considered a "mongrel race" that were decadent because they dared to intermix with Blacks. This is not a "European" unity thing anymore than a hypothetical US invasion to conquer all of Europe is a "European" unity thing.
Secondly, the times change, and morals shift. No one blinked an eye in regards to US expansion of its time period, and no one blinked an eye in European expansion and conquests into Africa or other non-Western locations. To many, only really the civilized corners of the Northern Hemisphere had the humanity to care about such subjects like "conquest". Even then, genocide was often dismissed for most of human history until relatively recently. In reality there was nothing truly special about the German conquest of Europe in WW2 outside of the propaganda that came out of it from the victims of it, meanwhile they don't care about their own conquests of foreign peoples.
To our modern eyes, its all wrong; that includes the US conquests of the Native American tribes. But apparently to you its all permissible?
You have a seriously skewed moral compass. You seem to only care about "European unity" regardless of how it happens. Well I say "screw that". No European would regard the German conquests of WW2 as anything resembling the EU, and if anything only anti-EU peoples try to make that argument. Nor does any European unironically believe that the US would ever invade their territory because they did something the US didn't like. Again, France kicked out US troops half a century ago in the midst of the Cold War, and you don't see the US plotting to conquer France in return. Have some perspective, dude.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Korea, Germany, Indonesia, the UK, France, Estonia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Panama, Japan, Kuwait, and many more would like to have a word with you.
Ironically, your words fit more with India than the US. But even then I'd think that was unfair.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@drpepper3838 European powers constantly "don't do what usa says", so you're only asserting something ludicrous. Or more likely; Anti-American propaganda. Seriously, of all the places in the world that bitch and moan about the US doing whatever it wants, it can't be in Europe who consistently thumb their noses at the US for their own interests. The US couldn't get them united on Iran, Europe is split in half on how to respond to Russia with many in Western Europe somehow acting like the US purposefully is stoking tensions with Russia, certain Western European powers specifically aim to stoke Anti-US tensions for their agenda in the EU cough France cough and now European powers are thinking of taxing US tech for shits and giggles.
And that isn't even getting into the shitshow that was the European empires and their actions during the Cold War and how the US did NOT appreciate Marshall aid money being used for that endeavor while the US was trying to NOT seem like a pro-imperialist power.
Hell, most of the world doesn't do what the US wants and they don't get anything either. The only countries that DO get threatened are those that specifically seek to screw US allies and geopolitical goals, at least Post-Cold War.
The EU is not a united entity and nobody actually trusts the EU to do anything; which is why the US is there, smart one. You do not speak for the Netherlands, and you most certainly speak for Europe. Fact is that when Russia came knocking into a European state and harrassing Central European countries, it was the US that responded, not the EU; and if the EU ever did respond it was either lackluster OR occurred after the US ever did. Believe it or not, people trust the US to act in their defense, not the EU.
3
-
@drpepper3838 I mean, you do; not because you're unable, but because you're unwilling. The point of defense is to make it so that no one will ever consider attacking you in the first place. It's a deterrent. The Netherlands itself isn't under threat, but no one trusts the EU to act if Russia sent little green men into Latvia, or Estonia, or Poland; claiming it was "local Russians rebelling against brutal Russophobic rule" or something.
Western Europeans have a bad habit of expecting Central Europe to just "deal with it" while not really believing Russia would risk it...when Russia totally would since Putin totally would and Russian civilians don't have a say.
France is indeed a nuclear power, but it would never use nukes against Russia even if an invasion occurred in those countries I mentioned; because France itself isn't under threat. But US troops being fired on with US nukes close by? That is a clear escalation if it occurs; which is why Russia doesn't dare raise the stakes.
"usa doesn't really care about its allies anyway, only its own profits" That's literally everyone, you weirdo. That includes your country which gleefully takes advantage of US security for its own ends, not because it loves us oh so much. Your precious France that bitched and moaned about the Australia nuclear sub deal was also gleefully fleecing its ally for more money, and it was AUSTRALIA that sought a better deal by approaching the UK. The US was a part of the process to make UK nuclear subs (technology sharing) so the US was a tertiary part in this and had NO OBLIGATION to stop this. Being an ally doesn't mean bending over for France, as much as France obviously believes that.
It's also fucked Italy for their own profits, and behind China is the biggest hacked which steals US tech, and tried to sell Russia ships at the same time as Russia was attacking a European country. France is a vile hypocrite when it comes to this topic, and explosively bitched about this in order to further its EU federalization agenda. I don't mind the EU federalization stuff; but France trying to stoke populist Anti-Americanism by portraying this as a portrayal which the US orchestrated is BEYOND fucked up. It makes me wonder why the US even bother supporting France in West Africa and Libya. If France really feels that way, then there's no reason to keep supplying French troops in their deployments anymore.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@LancesArmorStriking You realize that you contradicted yourself, right? The US sent ADVISORS to Yeltsin, not governors or anything like that; ultimately the US couldn't do anything that Russia itself didn't want. The US suggested for example that via privatization that Russia diversify its economy to multiple sectors and utilize the money garnered from that in other projects. The US did not for a second expect the utter corruption in the process where massive sectors of the economy were sold for literal pennies leading to the oligarchs. The US could not control or stop that, it could only vaguely hope for the best and ignore Russian actions abroad in the hope that it will just get better. Unlike Ukraine today, the US just tacitly let Russia do whatever it wanted since 1991 to 2014.
Kyiv is the origin of the Kyivan Rus, the origin of the Slavic nations of the Russians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians. Novgorod is another contender, but while they were the next most powerful city of the time of the Kyivan Rus it was not THE capital of the people like Kyiv was. Thus Kyiv carries that torch of the "capital of the progenitors of the East Slavs" or something.
Idk anything about Pozner so whatever.
Bruh, what realm of existence do you live in where the West didn't acknowledge Russia as a country? If anything the West bent itself into pretzels for Russia trying to justify their actions. Even US Presidents were trying to do so until 2014; with Republican President contender Romney claiming that Russia may be a threat to US allies getting him laughed by President Obama and the rest of the US -because the idea was considered absurd since Russia was "peaceful" now. That attitude changed in the future, but I remember also scoffing at the idea as a teenager at the time, and thinking that Eastern NATO members were letting their prejudices get the better of them.
Russia is just a country, but its also a country that argued that Ukraine had no right to exist and it had to be "de-Nazified" by being "de-Ukrainianized". That's effectively what the Germans wanted of the Soviets in WWII, so I think the Ukrainians can be excused for seeing Russia as evil for a while.
Don't blame the West for Russia's actions. Seriously, even during Yeltsin, the so-called "puppet" of the West, he tried very hard to convince Clinton to split Europe between the US and Russia and forcefully silence the smaller nations for their own interests. Russian imperialism remained alive and well even in Russia's weakest moments post-USSR; even if Russia had a clean transition from the Command economy of the USSR, the fundamental issue of Russian imperialism would remain a massive issue from which the likes of Poland and the Baltics; the closest victims of Russian imperialism, would never accept Russia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joshuafernandes4935 Half of those weren't even started by the US lmao. I can name a lot of countries too; Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Vietnam, Syria, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Germany, etc, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AlexA-ls4gc So this is Serb propaganda? Weak stuff if this somehow is meant to prove anything. For example, with just a few quick searches, I can find Montenegrin nationalist protests that was against the current government of Montenegro as being a "satellite of Serbia" with protests that totaled 130,000 people over the course of the protests.
"In period between September 2020 and end of April 2021, 152 pro-Montenegrin gatherings and protests were registered by the Ministry of Interior Affairs, which involved 130,000 people (21% of Montenegro's population).[26] The 15th anniversary of Montenegrin independence was organized by the citizens' initiative in Ivanova Korita locality, Mount Lovcen National Park. It gathered together 65,000 people, which represents over 10% of the country's population. The same day the biggest Montenegrin flag was revealed (5000 m2 in size)."
Meanwhile, I can't find any proof that this..."liturgy" was 80,000 strong at all. For all I know, it wasn't even 10,000. The video, blaring Slavic music, is obviously biased, so I can't take its claim as fact. Do you have a less obviously biased source to convince me that it was even 80,000 people showing up and what the gathering was about?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn Except that's my point. he biased media you chose to cite and/or believe chose to use the source with the highest count for the Iraq War deaths specifically because that's their political agenda. The Lancet Report has been heavily criticized precisely because of this as it exceeds the UN and Iraqi government's reports on the matter.
The Native American population didn't actually regress much Post-1776. Most of the Native American deaths occurred during the European conquests. But hey, if you wanna talk about mass murders over 200 years ago, I can bring up China's if you want? But nah, best on focus on Post-WW2 history which is usually considered contemporary history.
Well, if we're talking about China and comparing all of its acts to the US, then China still has between 15-55 million at a minimum and mostly cited as 30 million. Fact is that China has only recently regained its ability to act outside from its borders, so even comparing the two states is iffy -but criticizing domestic oppressive action is hardly comparable to the Iraq War anyway. It's not like I'm bringing up the CCP invasion of North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Tibet.
Taiwan is thriving because it traded with the West and was protected by it, much like South Korea was. Cuba is not thriving because it followed a failed ideology and became an enemy to the most powerful country on the planet that can get away with things that most cannot. China didn't invade Taiwan because it couldn't, not because it was particularly peaceful. It's contemporary history kinda makes that obvious.
Well, the US' excuse was that it just fought a major war against the fascists and htey proved to not leave the US well enough alone; so intervening abroad was a better idea than just letting oppressive states take over numerous countries and resources to use against the US in the future. So backing anyone against the USSR was the idea. But at the same time, it's not like the US didn't secure and save lives at the same time; it saved South Korea, Japan, Western Europe, and parts of East Asia and Africa from colonialism too. So the US' record is mixed, while China's is...just bad, tbh.
True. A fair criticism of the US is its large prison population. That really doesn't change the fact that China is committing genocide though; having a large prison population is really not comparable to genocide by any sane human's metric.
China has uplifted a fraction of its own population. China lifting its own people out of poverty is what is expected of a country, and its size is not impressive since it occurred in a massive country to begin with; per capita, China just did what the other Asian Tigers did -it industrialized. Has China saved billions of lives across the planet through economic aid and planning? The US had. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/people-helped-by-us-foreign-aid/
Has China secured democratic practices from Fascism and Marxist oppression? The US had. Has China led the world during the most explosive growth of human prosperity and freedom in human history? The US had. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/11/30/why-the-world-is-getting-better-why-hardly-anyone-knows-it/?sh=6ee8fa2c7826
Does China secure almost all of the world's democracies from foreign encroachment? The US does.
Put frankly, no, China has a much, much shittier record in comparison to the US. The US just doesn't advertise it nearly as well as China does, and it shows. That being said, speaking of poverty, you realize that the US' poverty figure is hardly indicative of something bad, right? Because poverty level rises if one extra person with $1,000,000,000 exists in the US. Here are some facts about US poverty. Mind you, I agree it should be a lot better, but it's hardly quite as bad as you imply. https://www.thetimesnews.com/story/opinion/columns/2020/07/29/williams-us-poor-better-off-than-most/41733237/
First of all, we have little proof that the US even aided Israel to garner WMD's. In fact, all evidence points to Israel getting that information from France if anything, and the "West" is hardly united in foreign policy whatsoever. Look up the Suez Missile Crisis for funsies when you have the chance. Anyway, what you're referring to is a policy of the IMF which is paid for by the developed nations; it's not meant to twist a country's arm, it's meant to help a country get back on its feet before it defaults on its loans and destroys it's own economic credibility. If the IMF did not impose such rules, then foreign nations using it can and will utilize it ad nauseum for their own benefit. These aren't loans meant to improve infrastructure or help the local economy like China has promised. So no, this isn't a hypocrisy; one is a last-second save with hefty fines, the other is a silky promise that steals resources at the end in the fine print.
You realize it's hardly just Africa, right? Also, to be blunt, the guy you cited literally works for CGTN -a CCP propaganda news outlet. You may as well cite someone from RT News or VOA News as proof of your claims. Jesus, dude. Check your claims, you prove how completely bias you are. Now here's some less biased sources compared to the mouthpiece from a CCP propaganda news network: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-power-belt-and-road-caribbean-jamaica-1.5374967
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0423/1045064-ethiopia-china/
"As a result, Ethiopians are cautious of future loans from China, as lenders tend to also acquire collateral of resource and possibly some sort of land, said Dr Niall Duggan, lecturer in the Department of Government and Politics at UCC.
Mr Duggan said that the government is now aware that this could put some Ethiopian land into the ownership of Chinese banks."
You wanna talk about a native African talking about China's relationship with China? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb1xcCUaZZU
Here's one. Mind you, unlike you, I don't believe that this lady speaks for all Africans; she speaks for Africans who share her opinion -because I ain't racist enough to think that they have a hive mind just because they're from Africa. I hope you have that ability too, since you sorta implied that earlier when you cited that guy making the speech to the University of Chicago.
Oh, here's another for good measure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01kZPU65Wnk
"You people" Yeah, that's definitely the issue here. Us Americans love hearing that we're heroes. It's not like we have an entire industry telling us how trash we are and how we're a plague, and entire propaganda news outlets dedicated to making the US look like the biggest hypocrite on the planet. FYI, the US media is quite varied, so this "state-fed propaganda" is not a comparison to the likes of, say, Turkey. Turkey is filled to the brim with Erdogan-backed propaganda that it was only after the Lira crashed multiple times that pushback against his policies began. Americans are quite divided on foreign policy and our own internal image; but we can agree on a few things.
Like the CCP being a trashy genocidal regime that needs to be contained to protect our democratic East Asian allies. We can agree on that. So can most of the world, I have talked to. I haven't really been to Central/East Asia, or Africa yet; but everyone else I have spoken to was pretty unanimous. Venezuelans are pretty sore about how China and Russia are stealing their resources, for example.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@XMysticHerox Being a banana republic is a bad thing for the general citizenry, but for military bosses its quite ideal. The troops can be treated like crap and still be influenced to attack and make war with a strong state apparatus backing them and downplaying inter-country faults. European states on the other hand can't avoid such questions, and thus the little funds that do exist for military are expended on soldier care and the like. This is made even worse when when put into PPP; Russia isn't even THAT far behind the US in terms of money put into military. Indeed, Russia is by no means a superpower, but even when combined, in the EU's present state, I don't see it as strong enough to completely resist Russia. Not because Russia is a superpower, but because Russia is an organized state with a sizable military while the EU is at most a collection of states that have neither the will or the might to fully beat back such an assault.
Not that it matters; this conversation is moot with France and Germany unwilling to stand up to Russia to begin with. And I mentioned Germany because while having outdated planes is indeed a massive issue in Russia, we know for a fact that Russia can project power decently far from their borders. Germany and France don't really have that capacity, with France requiring US aid to properly engage in war in West Africa and Libya.
Russia is a threat because there is little actual proof that Europe will band together to stop such an invasion, especially if there its asymmetrical. The USSR is gone, and there is no actual threat to say, France or Germany. But to Poland or Lithuania? While France and Germany flirt for the sake of closer economic ties out of some weird balance of power crap with the US? Yeah, there's much more to be wary of.
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
-
@TheDaeroner ROC can call itself whatever, but calling it the legitimate government in exile is weird to me; fact is that it lost the civil war. And accepting Taiwan as the "One China" when it doesn't even hold the mainland is absurd, and was absurd. Plus the peoples are too different for that to work anyway without some serious repression.
America's grandstanding on morality is generally bullshit, sure; but its also sometimes absolutely correct. Here's a fun fact, you can disagree with US actions in one place, but absolutely agree with it in another. There's also the fact that grandstanding is 100% necessary to maintain some semblance of decency in the world, the Western opposition to South Africa's apartheid was also "grandstanding" in morality, but it was 100% necessary too. And now China is playing the same card they did "leave us alone, our nation our rules, stop interfering" and some other BS.
I love your logic though. So because the US was ruthless in the midst of the Cold War, assassinating, couping, etc, we should now act like any action the US takes is pure Machiavellian malevolence? This is a serious logical fallacy, fact is that the Cold War US had entirely different objectives to the modern one, and different leaders. Kissenger is not forming US policy anymore, any more than Mao is informing China's policies. No one is claiming that China is getting ready to support North Korea in invading South Korea like Mao did, no one is claiming that the Chinese are gonna invade another country because they were historically theirs once 1,000 years ago like Mao did in Tibet.
If you can understand why "Mao did it, thus it'll happen again" is stupid, you can understand why using the "US couped Chile, thus it'll happen again" is stupid. You're talking about propaganda and brainwashing, but your logic is extremely flawed and can very much be deflected onto China. So basically, its hypocritical at best, intentional propaganda at worst.
US effectively ensures the security and safety of most of the developed world, securing the futures of millions upon millions of people. If we're doing body counts because of US action, then we must also do the amount saved by US action as well; and that number massively eclipses the amount the US killed. In this avenue, the US is pretty much the ultimate savior on the planet. South Koreans look at North Korea, and thank the Americans and curse the Chinese, for example. There is more to it, of course, like ancient rivalries, but you understand my point.
Funny that you call this an American imperialist mindset, when I consider what China's doing infinitely more imperialist and disgusting. It seems that most of the region consider China to be more disgusting as well. How do you reconcile that? Is it all just American propaganda to you? Everything? The Pinoys were literally trying to align with China, and all they got in return was effectively what they consider their "West Philippines Sea" (South China Sea) stolen from them. Now they've turned against China. Is that US propaganda? Are the Vietnamese that feel threatened by China also US propaganda? Are the Indonesians that feel that their portion of the sea are being threatened also US propaganda?
Chinese nationalists contribute everything to US propaganda, CIA propaganda, CIA coups, whatever. Not ever considering that maybe, just maybe, the problem is with their recent actions alienating everyone around them. As they say; the best propaganda in the world, is the TRUTH.
2
-
@TheDaeroner You're kinda projecting here. When I was a kid, everyone loved China; I remember funnily not knowing the difference between China and Asia, and confusing a Korean kid as Chinese until he corrected me. It was seen as that weird country that was turning away from dictatorship to liberal democracy in the inevitable march to freedom and progress that infected the American psyche post-Cold War. It was called the "end of history". If there was any propaganda, it was that.
There was a lot of contempt of the CCP prior to the warming of relations, actually. It was considered a stupid but also malicious regime. It was only after the "Ping Pong Diplomacy" which led to a thawing of relations that US relations warmed to China, but even then it was with the assumption that China would liberalize. It was US general opinion that the CCP would die out to democratic reforms like it did in Eastern Europe. That is was inevitable.
The dream broke in 2018, the latest. There was already grumbling that China was repressing certain minorities from HRW years earlier, but many Americans still assumed that peaceful transition to democracy and thus constant hang wringing over human rights would only alienate a transitioning democracy. Turns out that by 2018 most would learn that the CCP was effectively taking the credit of liberalization of the economy without making the governmental reforms and shifts while making nationalist propaganda for years by then. I became disillusioned with China later, in 2019; when I heard what many Chinese commentators thought and I was appalled by the acceptance of imperialism and repression of minority groups. As a minority in the US myself, I can't help but see China as not only a strong dictatorship with a highly nationalist base, but also as a possible future for minority rights; in the dirt. If CCP Chinese values get soft power credence, all minorities across the planet are in danger. That's the blunt truth and basis for my own, and many like me and our opposition to the CCP. If Saudi Arabia was becoming powerful, then I'd 100% advocate for opposing them on a national basis as well. So while moral grandstanding is a thing, its also geopolitics for the affects on what systems and beliefs are considered acceptable.
As for your theory, you're only partially right. It was the CCP's use of American naivety that won it this much leeway. This much freedom and protection from the more progressive and liberal parts of American society. An assumption that low tariffs on Chinese goods while they maintained high tariffs on US goods would lead to warm relations and a liberal China. Instead it led to highly nationalist and repressive country that is weaponizing its new wealth in a formerly peaceful region with US allies.
From a geopolitical standpoint, from a moral standpoint, and from a general "wish for the future of human civilization" standpoint; China MUST be pushed back against. This modern incarnation of it. Our own beliefs demand it, and we cannot afford any quarter.
As for jealousy? No. Not much American jealousy of China. China is still viewed as a generally poorer nation, much like the USSR before it. To Americans its doing relatively well, yes, but much of its society is seen as in a serious poverty situation. If China had similar economic prospects to the US, then it would have long surpassed it with its massive population. No, its at worst seen as a possible contender, but for now just an imperialist bully to local US allies, not an actual threat yet. I see many commentators in China use the logic that we're in the midst of a Cold War between two Superpowers...but very few Americans consider China to be a Superpower. Not while it's so trapped in the SCS due to their own actions.
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
-
@mikeyorkav4039 The US has a similar standard of living to Western European countries in HDI, and maintain much of the global peace by keeping countries from accessing nuclear weapons for their own defense (Eastern Europe, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc). And your bright idea is to let it collapse so that the world will fall to chaos, nuclear armament, military races, and more?
Humanity would fall if America collapsed, smart one. At least if it was done quickly and without something to replace the power vacuum that most countries could at least tacitly accept.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@ZachariahtheMessiah Oh, does it? Then that makes more sense. If it's done SPECIFICALLY to ethnic or religious groups and not for other reasons, like, say, due to being illegal immigrants. All illegal immigrants to the US get their families separated; it happened to an Irish family in New York a few years back.
That fits the "geno" part of genocide; which is an infliction on a specific peoples.
So yeah, what's going on in the border doesn't fit the definition of genocide at all. Neither does what's going on in Palestine either, for it's not done specifically to hurt or punish a specific group due to their ethnicity, race, or religion. After all, it's not like Palestinians in Israel are being blocked of resources. Neither are Hispanics in the US of legal immigrant status being separated. It needs to be done to the whole group or it's not genocide, or at least an attempt to hurt the whole group specifically because they are THAT group.
French neo-colonialism in West Africa is still a thing, and it's cruel and wrong, but I wouldn't call that genocide either. What China is doing with the Uyghurs? Specifically targeting them due to their ethnic background and culture? That actually fits.
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
-
@shreyangshumodak8923 Russia is using almost all of their prepared Brigades for this war. The "10%" number only counts if you consider the reserves that can be called in via a general mobilization. A general mobilization to crush UKRAINE of all countries, all while already having massive logistical issues just to maintain the troops they have.
And God only knows how much of their tanks and other equipment are still functional. For all we know, this is literally all of the tanks Russia has available that can actually be used. They even sent in one of their "mythical" T-90s and it was destroyed relatively quickly. Nothing Russia has is special or particularly powerful, especially if they don't have the logistical prowess to support them.
This has been a common trend in Russian and Soviet doctrine; a logistical nightmare. The ONLY time they did not have such issues...was when the US was helping them in WW2, ironically.
You live in a fantasyland where Russia, for some reason, is letting 30k men die for some reason while they have all of this extra uber equipment and available means to fight. No, sorry, but this is it in this "special operation". Putler would need to call for an actual war declaration to do more, though it would only change the numbers, not the equipment.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elwinowen5469 Dude you're getting your times wrong. The US froze Venezuelan assets in Aug 2019, after the worst of the crisis. US and EU sanctions that would effect the country was in 2019, not 2018 as I erroneously said prior. The 2018 sanctions were against specific companies associated with the Maduro government. But the one thing you may be right on is the ban of trading US currency with hte Venezuelan currency, though this wasn't necessary for international trade, it was a useful way to maintain one's own worth in money without the foibles of inflation to worry about. Also, it made the US $ even more rare, possibly driving up fears for the Venezuelan Bolivar. All that being said, this is just supposition. Speculation by far. We actually have no idea whether that contributed to the crisis or simply removed a way to hide how bad things were by relying on the $; because the inflation rate was already rising and approaching such numbers prior to any US or EU action.
It should also be noted that hyperinflation, while being a massive issue, wasn't the main issue. The bulk of the crisis occurred between 2016-2018 when a lack of good and materials were available at all. But yes, the main issue was oil dependency and the oil shock which occurred in 2014.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tylerellis9097 Yeah, because Antioch was a city not worth giving up because of an oath. Despite the many tales of chivalry coming from the era; most knights, lords, kings, and emperors often broke their oaths when it was convenient to them.
You're exaggerating, the emerging Crusader states such as Antioch repeatedly made war, made peace, or just ignored the powers in the area, including the Byzantines. You know; just like normal kingdoms. The Normans, just like all other peoples, were hardly hive-minded with the Sicilian Normans having different policies to the Antiochan Normans due to different geography and different rulers. You can't be this naïve.
The Byzantines used the Crusading States as buffer zones and sometimes warred with them. They didn't have "Half their realm", more like a fraction of it -which was why they aided them to the east to begin with while stacking the deck in their favor. I'm not condemning that; it was savvy diplomacy and the best option in the circumstances and bought them time while splitting up the attention of their expansionist eastern rivals.
Again, vows are essentially worthless, everyone broke them barring the genuinely most honorable of men. As it happens, the 4th Crusaders sacking Constantinople had as much to do with Byzantine treachery as anything else; with usurpers claiming the throne after promising the Crusaders gold and then going back on their word and trying to kill them all. Hell, they literally did instigate a massacre of the Latins in the city. When the Byzantines were smart, they'd have use diplomacy and paid the Crusaders and then turn them to the east to again by them time instead of aggravating a large army in their territory. Zara was unironically a bigger example of Crusader treachery since the initial goal was to extort it for money but due to miscommunication it turned into a sack.
Okay? The 2nd Crusade was garbage? And? Why are you acting like this is proof of something? It really doesn't change anything I said; that the Byzantines smartly used the Western Crusaders to send what amounted to free mercenary companies to distract their Muslim rivals without needing to send armies of their own. By every metric the Byzantines won, even if they spent a little coin to ferry them. Their men weren't dying, they didn't lose prestige, and even in victory the Turks still lost manpower and treasure in fielding the army.
Jesus man, I already knew about John Komnenos helping Antioch, I am not saying that the Byzantines are always wrong. Just that in this case, they were being stupid. In the case of that siege, it was the Western Crusaders being stupid, letting their own pride prevent them from working together. Hell, I'd tell them to convert to Orthodoxy and declare themselves vassals to the Byzantines to at least give them an extra layer of protection and consistent Byzantine help while likely earning more allies in the region in the Orthodox Christian population.
I literally never "always" laid tye blame on the Byzantines. I was pointing out that this was a general trend; and they were at their worst when needlessly antagonizing potential allies. They can do nothing, of course, if those allies spurned those gestures.
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
-
@stanleyrogouski No, Goldman Sachs did not, actually. I just checked. Mind you, Trump the populist spoke out of his butt and did another thing like hire Goldman Sachs employees into government; but the point is that the "power of companies" are seriously lacking. They can provide support, but that support is mostly in financial matters and in advertisements. And it's not like politicians in power haven't cut back on corporate control multiple times; the US is more lax than Western Europe to be sure, but not exactly by much. I remember when a Mexican tycoon tried to do some shady stuff in the US and promptly got the book thrown at him back in the day. Or at least I read about it, since I wasn't born yet. I agree that more should be in place, specifically in terms of political contribution limitations; but that's about it.
"I don't exactly know why" And that's the problem. You look at corporations as entities that would love nothing more than entities that suppress and oppress for financial gain. While that isn't entirely wrong (their focus is on the bottom line), it removes the human element. A OT of the uber progressives today happen to be wealthy people, both in the general ideological sense (George Soros) and also maybe in the cynical sense (raise workers' rights which then weakens smaller corporations that can't handle that as easily as larger ones). For pete's sakes, Bernie Sanders had a lot of the big companies on his side too.
Biden is centrist, not right-wing. But then again, you unironically use Marxist language, so your perception is seriously beyond skewed.
A President pardoning Assange or Snowden is asking for their political career to crash into the ocean floor. I am fully opposed for either traitors to get any semblance of a pardon; let them rot. The only thing I wanted was more sane public policy, leaving Afghanistan, and efforts to create public healthcare. Everything else is side show stuff.
I think it's the idea that killing a Monarch is one thing, but killing all French whites in something that could very well be called a "genocide" says that something similar could happen in the US. No one likes the idea of being genocided. Was that fair? Hell no. Was that the customary logic for the era? Yes.
You still haven't proved how either the Right or the Left of the US are being manipulated by elites. At least no more so than literally every other country on Earth. Even the totally-different Socialist countries were essentially just dominated by Elites via their Communist Party. "Elites" is just a word we use to describe the power base that needs to be catered to; it will always exist no matter what kind of government. The US still consistently limits powers of corporations and passes new legislation to that effect every so often. At worst you can say that the US has an issue with limiting corporate power, but that doesn't indicate control.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
S W If you bother looking up where Mexico gets it's oil from, quite a bit of it comes from the Gulf. Also, the nations have long agreed on their boundaries; "Cuba and Mexico: Exchange of notes constituting an agreement on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone of Mexico in the sector adjacent to Cuban maritime areas (with map), of July 26, 1976.
Cuba and United States: Maritime boundary agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba, of December 16, 1977.
Mexico and United States: Treaty to resolve pending boundary differences and maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the international boundary, of November 23, 1970; Treaty on maritime boundaries between the United States of America and the United Mexican States (Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean), of May 4, 1978, and Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States on the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Western Gulf of Mexico beyond 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi), of June 9, 2000.
On December 13, 2007, Mexico submitted information to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) regarding the extension of Mexico's continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.[38] Mexico sought an extension of its continental shelf in the Western Polygon based on international law, UNCLOS, and bilateral treaties with the United States, in accordance with Mexico's domestic legislation. On March 13, 2009, the CLCS accepted Mexico's arguments for extending its continental shelf up to 350 nautical miles (650 km; 400 mi) into the Western Polygon. Since this would extend Mexico's continental shelf well into territory claimed by the United States, however, Mexico and the U.S. would need to enter a bilateral agreement based on international law that delimits their respective claims."
So there is no double standard. They've long agreed on the borders, and have no issues with it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@darthchingaso3613 Both men are mostly associated with the US' mistreatment of Native Americans than any hero worship, so idk what you're talking about. And specific segments of the population hero worshipping such people is not the same as the mainstream worship of Pancho Villa, and you know damn well. By this logic, we can castigate all societies for having any Nazis or Communists in their populations at all. What matters is the mainstream beliefs, not the minority, let alone extreme minorities.
Trump says a lot of things. His thing as a populist is to say so many things, regardless of how much sense they make. And Trumpists, for all of their faults, also don't take everything he says seriously either. Again; mainstream beliefs does not equate to idiotic statements by public officials and/or minorities within the populace.
Pancho Villa was a part of the 20th century when such meaningless deaths was seriously being called into question. It's the era where countries seriously began to try and hide their less savory activities for the sake of international appearance. Humanism was having its heyday in this time. So no, whether you like it or not, it's disgusting how Mexicans can hero worship such a figure even in the modern era. If it was back then, then fine, whatever, but now? Disgusting.
Edit: And you being an American doesn't change anything. An idiot American shilling for foreign peoples is hardly new.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@XMysticHerox The point about income inequality is a fair one, you're right, US income inequality is quite a lot worse than in Europe as a whole. So I'll give you that.
The homelessness issue is actually much worse for Europe if you take into account migrants/illegal migrants -the US has somewhere around 11 million migrants in the US. The US has effectively been dealing with a much larger "refugee crisis" for decades without getting much worse than before. And to be blunt, homelessness is homelessness; you have zero reason to believe US homelessness is worse than Western Europe barring your own biases. You used data the first time to prove your point, but here you're only guessing.
As for poverty, it depends on how you measure it, your first measurement had it as those who lived on less than 5 dollars or so. According to DW, the German poverty rate was as high as 15.5 in 2015. The US poverty rate at the time was roughly 13.8 in 2015. So we have conflicting sources, but they are roughly around the ballpark of each other. So I'd like to think that I'm mostly correct here.
In reality, despite the US' considerably worse income inequality, the US is doing as well as the likes of Germany in spite of facing far more issues outside of its control or just flat out having worse policies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Wustenfuchs109 1) If this is true, then surely you can name these exercises? I only ever found one which ever reached the 100,000+ number, that being the Sino-Russian one in Siberia in Vostok 2018. The last one apparently was Zapad 2017, but that was in actuality only made up of 12k+ men as noted by Western observers; so if I'm not wrong, this is the first time Russia did this...near a nation's borders which it was not working together with. The Chinese took part SPECIFICALLY because they wanted to assure their own people that this was not an aggressive act by Russia. So its pretty obvious that something like this is considered pretty aggressive if nearby another nation's borders...for good reason.
2) 100,000 can't occupy a nation of 44 million well, but it can cause enough chaos that it can prevent it from joining NATO; which is the point.
3) NATO didn't take over anything, the nations that freed themselves from the USSR themselves chose to join NATO and applied. If NATO literally occupied then you'd have a point, but these nations joined specifically to get protection from Russia; extra security which they are very thankful of right now.
Hey man, you've been wrong about everything so far, feel free to actually be right about something right now. I ain't shy of being proven wrong. And I hope they're actually people in power, and not crazies at the fringes. Like the US' Alex Jones or something lol
4) There's no question that big countries matter more, but they don't mean literally nothing; in fact its better to at least make these nations feel important by giving them some facetime with the leader of a big state. Jesus Christ, its this mentality why nobody trusts Russia; this need to just belittle tiny nations as nothing. Don't you see? If Russia, for once, ever, tried to find cordial relations with these small nations, tried to boost their ego with some facetime with the Kremlin, feel good stuff. The US is good at that, its how it maintains its alliances. If you're looking at this geopolitically, Russia is stabbing itself in the foot repeatedly by not acknowledging these small nations have feelings too. Not only that, but small states the US snubs? It's not that they're not important, but they're not important ENOUGH to court yet.
Oh, I know, I just separate politics from the morality of it. Fact is that, morally speaking, the US should NOT be doing quite a bit of stuff, but what Russia is doing is MUCH worse in the terms of worldwide stability. The world has become much more peaceful when big powers like the US at least have to pretend they care about the whims of smaller nations, and if Russia just gets its way, then we will return tot he days of big states just doing everything to anyone no matter what. Some of the worst periods in human history. Advantageous to Russia, horrible for everyone else.
5) Russia is not a great power, but its still a strong one; it's nowhere powerful enough to stop the US if it was really trying to destroy it, but its powerful enough to threaten Eastern European states. But the US has earned a bad rep, so now it has to play passive to Russian threats lest Kremlin propaganda successfully turn this into a "US wants a war" thing. Meanwhile, EE countries are in the possible crossfire without enough Western support to truly stop a concerted push, especially since the West is wary of conflict and really, really, really don't want to fight. All in conjunction with Russian troops right at their doorstep more than enough to seriously spark a big war. So yes, Russia is NOT a great power, but it is a threat to its weaker and more pacifist neighbors.
I didn't lie about anything, actually. I don't think you necessarily lied either; but you have been inhaling Kremlin propaganda, that I do believe.
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
-
@beepboop1044 I wasn't even talking about the second Iraq War, genius. But seeing as you're getting paid to spread propaganda like a good puppet, I don't expect anything less.
Ah yes. The infamous regime change in all of these countries which actually happened and isn't Kremlin-backed propaganda hoping for some NPC tool online to spread it for them. Unless you're talking about the Cold War, because then it most likely happened. But I like that the countries you're complaining about are all crappy countries which pretty much deserve to be overthrown to begin with. Maybe these nations wouldn't be in so much danger of being overthrown if their dictators weren't so busy rolling over protestors with tanks, huh? Hell, China has the right idea in this case; give the people a better living standard and they'll tolerate a lot of crap.
US sanctioned NS2 at the behest of other EU nations. US doesn't control these nations, and never has; but Kremlinbot acts like this is US weakness when it's just an obvious thing when Germany does whatever the hell it wants. And no crap the West is crying about Ukraine; it's highly suspicious when 100,000 troops move in right near another nation's border. Russia is literally doing this while screeching like a little girl with no more than 10,000 US troops nearby and demanding that NATO kick out all of Easter Europe for their security. How pathetic is that, huh bot?
No one is crying about Taiwan in the West; that's China. If you haven't noticed, China is screeching at little Lithuania for daring to even acknowledge it lol
Belarus is being bitched at by Germany and Poland, but pretty much them. Also justifiably for literally pushing illegal migrants into these countries. But hey, you have a hardon for killing protestors and human suffering, so I get it; you like Belarus and its baby daddy.
AUKUS literally has nothing to do with buying crap from China, bootlicker. It has to do with bringing closer ties and military security; which is funny since China pretty much lost Australia when it initially was on China's side. Story of China in the last 5 years.
BRI is pretty much dead. Philippines which originally sided with China is now burning Chinese flags 24/7, Malaysia is seeking closer US ties, Vietnam is constantly harassing China, Indonesia which was originally neutral is also seeking more US military ties, etc, etc. Only one that hasn't turned on China I think are North Korea and Cambodia. But sure, stay in your little bubble.
Ah yes. Everyone we don't like is a puppet state; the usual modus operandi of dictator bootlickers who kill whoever they want because "tHeY'Re cIA-pAiD". I get it; you like to kill protestors when they don't like to lick boots anymore. Quit projecting on the rest of us, yeah?
The rest of the world doesn't like US intervention; or really -any intervention or "war". That being said, the rest of the world, or at least about 70% of the planet aligns with the US anyway because the alternative is infinitely worse in the form of genocide and oppression from the likes of China and Russia. How disgusting are the regimes you back that so many nations PREFER the US over them, huh?
2
-
@beepboop1044 Bruh, China's overseas infrastructure loan spending has declined massively in the past 4 years alone. BRI is dead, but you can't accept that your favorite dictator lied.
I am a Liberal, yes -and you're a disgusting bootlicker that laps up anything a dictator does as long as its anti-Western. Even if they're monsters to their neighbors. It's disgusting. It's also funny how you dismiss the Philippines but also ignore literally all the other nations that are turning against China in the SCS alone. Let alone East Asia. Mighty China all alone barring the weakest and tiniest of nations.
Nothing China or Russia can do but bitch and moan about Taiwan and Ukraine respectively; they want to expand but the US has them locked in their regions so their imperialist ambitions can't be realized. No matter how much foreign bootlickers try and cheerlead.
China is countered by the US alone, the US is just piling on because its smart. China can't even secure its own backyard, pathetic isn't it?
Hahaha, funny how you talk about recognition when you don't even need that. All you need is tacit backing; the US doesn't even recognize Taiwan but nobody doubts that the US will decimate Chinese fleets if it tries to be imperialist and steal foreign lands.
Imagine taking Trump who talks BS 24/7 at his word. By your logic China is weak and has folded to the US already, since Trump said so.
Ah yes, the US is itching for war so bad that it...hasn't even tried to push its advantage yet. You're just like Russia and China, crying that the US wants war when the US has been the passive party, it's pathetic. Tell me when the US sends 100,000 troops in either Taiwan or Ukraine or threatens to invade and forcefully add another nation into their territory. Your propaganda only works on weak-minded such as yourself. It's pathetic that you cry about imperialism but defend states that would invade democracies and crush independence.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@S1lverarrow So you can exterminate most of the civilian populace as long as you rebuild afterwards? Then I guess the Nazis are decent people to you, then?
Name a single city in Iraq that was as obliterated as Mariupol and we can talk, but the US bombing empty lands is nowhere near the same as Russia dropping cluster bombs which are ineffective against military targets but VERY effective against civilian targets WITHIN cities.
Just be honest that you don't care and you like Nazis instead of dancing around it, alright?
And btw, Amnesty International long called out Russia for being a genocidal war criminal terror state; "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an act of aggression that has unleashed the gravest human rights and refugee crisis in Europe since World War Two. Amnesty International is documenting serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, including the unlawful killing and injury of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and blocking of desperately needed aid for civilians. Attacks on hospitals and schools, employing “surrender or starve” sieges on civilians, the use of banned weapons such as cluster munitions, and strikes on populated areas using inaccurate weapons may constitute war crimes.
Exposed to constant attacks and with many cut off from water, electricity and heating, people caught up in conflict in cities such as Izium and Mariupol are on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Diminishing food, water and medical supplies have left them at breaking point, as remaining civilians seek shelter in their basements. Amnesty International’s on-the-ground reports and digital investigations help ensure that evidence of these attacks reaches the world."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BimRen246 Slave labor only provided cheap cotton, and European powers weren't exactly jumping up and down to help the Confederates in the US Civil War. So your theory makes no sense, especially the part about "being propped up". Like WHAT? All the European powers expected the US to collapse, the British outright kept their forts and encouraged Native tribes to attack US towns prior to 1812. In what world do you live in dis European powers prop up the US? If you are referring to its independence, then all countries get some outside help in those, Haiti included.
Haiti was a broken mess by the end of its revolution. The war ruined Haiti's economy, especially since it was a slave labor economy; it had no industry to build upon and collapsed like the US South did economically when slavery was removed, except it did not have a industrialized North to stip the economic fall. Not to mention the deatruction of sugar canes which was Haiti's prosperous crop by revolutionaries.
The debt wasn't even thr big deal. The big deal was the unwillingness of Haiti's new allies being unwilling to trade with it after it massacred its white populace. Even the early US, which discreetly aided Haiti, balked and refused to trade after that.
So again. Haiti made its choices. And many of them self-inflicted.
Edit: Hell, until 1812, France and the UK outright kidnapped US sailors for their wars. The US was and would remain a backwater untip the late 19th century.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hubertus Minerva Except using your own logic, the Arabs that suddenly give a shit about US injustices in Latin America should also find it in their heart to do the same in Eastern Europe. Except they didn't; they ignored Soviet atrocities, at least by your logic. That would mean that, at the very least, they held the US to a standard they didn't hold the USSR in. And remember, we were talking about ARAB feelings of the USSR, not talking about Soviet imperialism or American imperialism by itself. In THIS context, yes, this is purely a dismissal.
"Why would the Arabs support the USSR? They did bad things to other oppressed peoples."
"What about the US?"
"Huh?"
"US did bad things too."
"O-Okay, but that has nothing to do with Arab feelings of-"
"US did bad things too."
^This is essentially what you're doing. And note, someone else brought up the US, NOT the West -which is as much another deflection as anything else since "the West" is not a united entity and fights each other as much as anything else. Especially when considering how the US attacked other Western nations in SUPPORT of Arab independence. So again; what merit does bringing up US injustice elsewhere in the context of Arab support of the USSR??
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
-
@Atilla_the_Fun A talk at Yale means jack since they can be about anything; Yale has an open door policy in talks and opinions even if incorrect. I need an actual citation. But I will look it up.
What other point did you make?
I looked this guy up, and he has interesting opinions, but he just asserts a lot of things without evidence. For example, he acts like the Wolfowitz Doctrine led the US to antagonize Russia; but there, let me repeat, NO EVIDENCE OF THE US ANTAGONIZING RUSSIA.
He mentions James Baker promising that NATO would not expand eastward, but James Baker had no authority to make such a promise and West Germany never ratified such an agreement. He acts like these are critical moments that gave Russia no choice, except that's based on a lie of propaganda more than truth.
He also mentions George F. Kennan who he credits as the man who created the US' containment policy which was so successful in the latter half of the 20th century and used his claim that expanding NATO would lead to a new Cold War...without mentioning that George F. Kennan began to become a vehement critic of Washington's policy against the USSR after 1948. In short, George F. Kennan was against any movement against the USSR whatsoever and was for maintaining the status quo -so of course he'd disagree with anything with NATO. In fact,
he vehemently opposed the creation of NATO in the first place
"These ideas were particularly applicable to U.S. relations with China and Russia. Kennan opposed the Clinton administration's war in Kosovo and its expansion of NATO (the establishment of which he had also opposed half a century earlier), expressing fears that both policies would worsen relations with Russia.[131] He described NATO enlargement as a "strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions" "
See? I just watched like 30 minutes and I found serious holes in this guy's argument. Seriously man, did you even look at the things this man was saying?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mxn1948 As expected, you can't help but mention the US. Listen; the US isn't the one proclaiming that it wants all historical US lands, it has its current lands because the people there WANT to be a part of it. And no one is demanding that China relinquish territory that obviously want to be a part of China. But China holds Tibet, which VERY LIKELY doesn't want to be a part of China, yet China holds it anyway because "historical Chinese land". Yet that logic doesn't work because Tibet has been independent LONGER than China had it. If we're using US logic, China HAS to give up Tibet. But even China's logic doesn't make any sense.
China prevents any semblance of human rights to allow for a people to have self-determination, which is reprehensible, yes.
How is that majority policy in the world? I also condemn countries that try to stop independence attempts, including Catalonia.
"wEsT hYpOcRitEs1!!!" is about as tired a trope as anything else. China is a big power now, which means everyone pays more attention to it; like they do the US. People condemn the US for stuff everyone else does as well, but the Americans don't complain about it. Get used to it.
If a bunch of Han move to Tibet right now to make it 60%, that would be a deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing. Which yes, China is doing, and again its reprehensible. It was a tactic done in the past, which used to be something no one cared about, but nowadays its disgusting. And yet you seem to be A-OK with it in the 21st century. Goes to show the type of people that defend China are all about. You can't cry that people are lashing out at China and then unironically support ethnic cleansing and crushing the rights of minority groups.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Prosper_Dean Well, seeing as how WW2 is pretty much the only justified war in human history in totality, that's not a bad thing. But if we're talking about justified wars in the "siding with the less bad side", then there are a few; the Korean War, the Yugoslav War, the Gulf War, the Afghan War...and that's about 3/5 wars that were justified/unjustified. Not bad.
Seriously though, where is this coming from? That wasn't the topic, and it seems like you're intentionally mentioning something else to dodge the fact that you were called out for being ignorant about what a defensive war means. I mean again, the Nazi's declared war on the US, and the US invaded; that is literally a defensive war leading to an invasion. Again; grow up. I grew out of this cringey phase when I was in high school. You can too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anastasiagileva8711 1) It isn't the US' job to "mention" anything about this, it ain't their country. You're not special.
2) By every metric he won, and your claims that the numbers are fake come right from your ass because nothing in existence points to the election being fake. If that was the case, then you could cite proof, but you can't.
3) It was a coup attempt by Communist hardliners to stop the election, it was from the top-bottom, not the bottom-up; the only riot from the people came in SUPPORT of Yeltsin against the Communist hardliners.
"The GKChP relied on regional and local soviets, which were still mostly dominated by the Communist Party, to support the coup by forming emergency committees to repress dissidence."
"The Soviet public was divided on the coup. A poll in the RSFSR by Mnenie on the morning of 19 April showed that 23.6 percent of Russians believed the GKChP could improve living standards, while 41.9 percent had no opinion. However separate polls by Interfax showed that many Russians, including 71 percent of residents of Leningrad, feared the return of mass repressions. The GKChP also enjoyed strong support in the Russian-majority regions of Estonia and Transnistria, while Yeltsin enjoyed strong support in Sverdlovsk and Nizhny Novgorod."
The GKChP either got abysmally low support and/or Yeltsin got all of the support. Your propaganda lies may work in Russia without the ability to check them, but they don't work on anyone else with a functioning brain.
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
-
@lancecahill5486 NATO is an entire defensive alliance made up of independent nations, so considering all of them with the USSR/Russia which is a single entity is unfair. Compare the US and USSR/Russia, that's fine.
Anyway, I can do that too. Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Nicaragua(created the Sandinistas w/ KGB), Somalia, Ethiopia, Israel, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Germany, were all wars started by USSR/Russia without anything to do with the US. And I haven't even gone into the other KGB-backed coups across Latin America/Africa or the rest of Eastern Europe being occupied indefinitely for half a century.
But sure, tell me more how the Russians/Soviets are just misunderstood.
The MIC is a meme for people like you to deflect and shill for foreign dictators. The MIC, as it stands today, doesn't even make a fraction of what Hollywood and the Entertainment Industry makes in the US. The real money is unironically nowhere near what Lockheed Martin can make. But somehow, someway, this is all an attempt for them to make...what a few more $ Billions?
How about you take off your mask and be honest here. You don't give a crap, you just want to see Russia crush Ukraine without US stepping in. $50 Billion is a drop in the bucket for US Taxpayers. Idk if you know this, but it has an economy of $ Trillions. So yet again, if you wanna talk about styming border crossings, be my guest, but do NOT try and act like this is all Biden's scheme when it is RUSSIAN troops invading UKRAINE which is RIGHT NEXT to our literal NATO ALLIES.
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
-
@toddmintz4269 It will be outright banned in certain States, meaning it won't be regulated at all, or it will be so regulated that its near impossible to get it forcing pregnant women to take illegal means. That's bad for the average American.
Like I said, in certain cases, the will of the States has to be secondary. This is one of those matters. Raising taxes, lowering them, having State-wide healthcare? That's one thing. But civil rights is another matter. You can make the same argument that the State Capitals don't know anything about the common people across the State; it's reductionist at best, and again justifies logic effectively dragging the US back to the dark ages of States having too much power. I'm not advocating for less States Rights, just not to give them rights.
For example, again, how far can you take this? Remember, it was the States Rights people that effectively allowed for Jim Crow laws to be created, allowing for the State-wide oppression of African Americans for several decades.
You're being disingenuous about the "Government out of my Uterus". You're right in the fact that its an ironic statement, but no in how you figure; all civil liberties are effectively supposed to be guaranteed by the government -thus forcing government to pass laws to enforce the rights of Abortion is not hypocrisy or incorrect. The same goes for other civil rights like Freedom of Speech, Assembly, or Guns for example. In short, the phrase is meant to imply that the Government should guarantee the right for a woman to do what she wants with her Uterus, alas it's ironic because even then there are specific rules that must exist even if Abortion is legal. Can't exactly terminate a pregnancy in the last trimester, after all.
This is important because State governments may just enforce a complete ban, which is effectively the issue.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@BlindManInsane Nazi's aren't Russians, but this specific instance of aggressive territorial expansion is like that Nazi strategy of exploiting Western weakness for power, yes.
Western powers didn't come close, it's Russian neighbors that wanted to join NATO, and only because they were terrified, rightly so, of Russia fucking them again. In 2014 when this whole crisis began there were barely any NATO forces in Eastern Europe at all, you propagandist. NATO had made ZERO moves to harm Russia until AFTER Russia attacked Ukraine.
"Europe needs to improve relations with russia and strive for cease fire in Ukraine" AFTER Russia took over Ukrainian territory??? It's like asking a battered wife to return to their abusive husband, Jesus Christ. Why the hell should Ukraine trust a single word from Russia after their "brothers" attacked them and supported separatists in their lands, huh? It was Russia that destroyed Ukraine's positive image of them, not the West. And everything you suggested involves bending over for Russia with zero consequences for their actions.
Imagine my shock.
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
-
@Myria83 I won't argue that the likes of feminism is still needed, in fact I encourage it; I just don't see it as an "EQUALITY" movement. Just a "WOMEN'S RIGHTS" movement. That is to say; I don't at all see them trying to help men, but I still think they're fine in advocating for women's right as a whole.
Just don't act like it wants equality for men. If it can get away with it, it would prolly go too far and become oppressive. However, democracy is a balancing act, so their influence will naturally counter and be countered by others.
I don't think men working in more hazardous conditions or even dying more often is a fault of inequality, though. This is a critical disagreement I have with Feminism; the belief that any inequality of outcome at all is the fault inequality of society. Fact is, men and women are different, so will result in differing outcomes generally. I'm more talking about the stuff that CAN and SHOULD be fixed such as perception of what a "Man" or a "Woman" should/could be. Legal inequalities. If Feminists want more women in STEM fields, then go ahead, but Feminists shouldn't act like its somehow proof that women are being mistreated if they don't apply as often as men do, and vice versa for men in more caring roles like teaching positions in the lower grades.
Thus, the "unpaid work" talk is something I find absurd, assuming you're referring to taking care of children or the home. Fact is that someone has to, Man or Woman. That's life. Not all labor can have a price tag; since some things have to be done regardless. Now if you want to talk about EXPECTATION of women doing X or Y, then fine, that's more fair.
And to be blunt; there is no fixing the difference in reproductive biology. Fact is that women, if they choose to have a child, will be out of commission for months in the latter half of it. Such things as Maternity Leave can aid with that, but there is no way to truly bridge that gap. If there is one truly bad thing about Feminism, its the idea that Women HAVE to be like Men in all aspects. I know its kinda a dogwhistle in uber Conservative circles, but there is truth in the idea that Women shouldn't have to be like Men to be equal.
Also, these are all shifting ideas anyway. Maybe in the future, its considered monstrous by future women to have abortion at all after learning something new. Idk. For now, out of sheer practicality, it makes sense to have it open for at least the First Trimester imho. I'm not fond of the moralistic quibbling of "women's bodies/child's life" arguments when the reality is that abortion will happen anyway, the question is how safe it will be and how difficult it can be to obtain. And the fact of the matter is that even in Liberal Democracies nobody has a complete RIGHT to their own body anyway; otherwise governments wouldn't be able to mandate vaccine use (which I agree with).
But again, that's just me trying to be reasonable in an era where screaming, biased news, bots spreading lies, and bombastic headlines meant to incite anger dominate the mainstream.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@golagiswatchingyou2966 Most of ISIS' weapons were from Russia and China, actually; there are studies on it. ISIS had very little US weaponry and it was never given to them; it was given to the SDF and the Iraqis and some elements in the SDF passed it along until some reached ISIS and most of the weapons ISIS got were stolen from the Iraqis.
Assad literally did start the civil war; he was the authority in power and it was under his watch that the civil war started against him by his attempt to crush protests that called for his removal. How isn't that his fault?
No duh Assad is the only form of stability in the country now; because he either specifically ruined other groups (SDF) to make sure that they became radicalized after opening up the prisons of jihadists to stoke more chaos. The media does continue to report on the Syrian civil war actually, it's just stalemated some with Turkey and Syria so there's not much to report unlike the massive free-for-all there used to be.
US joined into the conflict in 2014, genius; the civil war started in 2011. How does that mesh in your eyes?
Literally nobody, not even the UN believes in the 500,000 children deaths anymore; all evidence points to Saddam Hussein deliberately withholding support for his people in order to garner sympathy abroad and end the sanctions while he personally benefitted from them. Come on man, you can't possibly be this ignorant.
Yes, the guy that fired on protestors in 2011 and started the whole war is to blame. Not the power that joined in 3 YEARS LATER in the midst of the war.
Newsflash; just because no one opposed you before doesn't mean you were a great ruler nor does it mean you suddenly had external forces seeking your deposition. Civil wars can take many forms, in the case of Syria it took the form of pro-democratic unrest in the form of the Arab Springs which were then brutally shut down by killing protestors leading to thousands of dead. This is the man you're proclaiming needed foreign interference to depose?
You don't need to trust anything but the literal timeline of events that point that Assad is literally the issue. Unless you believe in some magical world where the US managed to go back in time to start the protests themselves, and then force Assad to shoot at said protestors, there is literally ZERO reason to believe the things you do.
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
-
@WhichDoctor1 This is beyond a braindead generalization. The only fair criticism here is the Iranian coup. It should be noted that the same people that overthrew the monarchy would even be more incensed at the thought of a "Western-styled" democracy in Iran. The Iranian Revolution would have happened no matter what. Saddam Hussein himself caused immense instability via attacking multiple countries and had ambitions in attacking Saudi Arabia and the US invasion specifically only destabilized Iraq, NOT the rest of the ME which lost another imperialist attempting to expand his power. ISIS indeed took more power from the power vacuum in Iraq, but THAT only occurred because the US left before Iraq was ready; not necessarily because the US stepped in at all.
The bits with Turkey and the Kurds is the most egregious. The Kurds were already fighting ISIS, and the Turks only attacked the Kurds to begin with as a method to jump into Arab politics with Erdogan attempting to expand Turk influence; US influence in this had zero effect on that Turkish invasion. And no, the Kurds are not a mortal enemy of the US. Like, at all.
In short, the reality was; things were terrible, other things were terrible, and sometimes the made things worse or made things better. You are literally excusing every single other actor in the ME to focus on the US, and its bad propaganda on your part. Especially when the US has a hand in preventing all out war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, guarantees and protects multiple Gulf countries, and is the only reason Israel has not stolen more Palestinian land by holding aid over Israel's head.
So yeah, very bad generalization.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paulatreides7532 If NATO said both Ukraine and Georgia would be NATO members, why aren't they? You unintentionally proved that you're full of it. NATO saying they believe that x nations will be a part of it doesn't mean it will be. In fact, looking it up, they said that "one day" they can apply and gain entry, meaning the offer is open. That should be obvious, but apparently you need things spelled out for you.
It's funny how anything Putinbots don't like suddenly become CIA ops. Did the CIA cause you to stub your toe too? Maybe the CIA is the one bombing Kharkiv as we speak and they're just blaming Russia for it? It's pathetic dude; you can't just blame the CIA for everything. Fact is that protests happened, Yanukovych was kicked out by his own Parliament for new elections in response, then Russia invaded and destroyed any trust between Ukraine and Russia. Now Russia denies Ukraine's right to exist; which is literal Nazi Germany all over again.
LOL. Imagine taking Imperial Japan's logic as fact when we know for a fact that they just wanted their own imperialist power base in East Asia. I can see now that you're just a fascist masquerading as an anti-imperialist. You're A-OK with mass murder and conquest as long as its "anti-Western". Pathetic.
Psht, I know all about US actions across the century. Really doesn't change the fact that everyone engages in it and you are using the US as a convenient scapegoat to delegitimize anything your favorite dictator of the week has done. If people are upset because they're starving, they're suddenly a "CIA inspired OP" and now the dictator has the right to murder them all. We all know what you truly are, fascist bootlickers are all the same.
2
-
@lazyupload "Toyed" with Ukraine in reality just being regular interaction with another nation-state, I presume? I don't subscribe to the idea of power politics, and believe even great powers, including the US, must not play such games of spheres of influence.
Fact is that Ukraine wanted to join NATO after 2014's invasion. Not before. Betraying the Ukrainians to Russia by vowing that they'd never join NATO is as reprehensible as the Munich Conference, though I understand why a geopolitical "realist" would suggest that. I'm a liberal, and I would never agree to such a thing. But I also wouldn't place more troops in Poland either, unless Russia keeps antagonizing the region, which is has recently.
The "US empire" was just minding its own business before this crisis blew up. Putin has been planning this for a while, obviously trying to get concessions; you're acting like the US instigated this crisis to force Putin into unfavorable geopolitics. I think that's way too clever for the US, personally.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheEightfoldWay The protests in Jan 6th initially weren't violent at all. Your original argument was that "they intended to stop Biden election" and I pointed out that other protests attempted to stop the Trump election. We were talking about intent. As I said, the INTENT was not to overthrow the US Government, or do harm to US politicians.
Jesus, shut up about the Conservatives. I ain't even one; but in this specific case they are correct that you need to organize a coup attempt in order to seize power. A protest turned riot is not a coup, no matter how you slice it. The fact that you believe it is anyway means you are inhaling propaganda to that effect, which was my point about the Kremlin; they keep spreading this propaganda to divide Americans. This riot was very bad, and all who partook in the rioting should be thrown in jail 100%. It's the claim this is a coup that diminishes trust in the US, which is what the Kremlin wants.
Intent is all that matters if we're talking about a riot that did not at all threaten the US Government. "Effect" as you put it, was people milling around where they weren't supposed to. And there was zero attempt to "extraconstitutionally" change the structure of the US Government, genius; you can't do that without a PLAN to replace key government figures with your own. The riot of which was made up of genuine domestic terrorists were only concerned with attacking specific members o US Congress. Wanna nail them to a cross? All for it. But 99.99% of the people involved in Jan 6th are innocent and misguided tools at worst.
There isn't a question in this. A coup requires intent. Period. End of story. That has always been the case. People barging into Congress to interrupt proceedings isn't a coup. A single person attempting to bomb Parliament while others attempt to hold it hostage from the start IS a coup attempt. Like 10 people attempted to attack US Representatives, or at least talked about it, but they never thought about placing others or people they like into positions of power, nor were they ever attempting an overthrow. It's just criminal behavior.
If a few people can turn a protest then riot into a coup, then every protest turned riot is a terrorist attack and everyone involved should be arrested and possibly executed. That is the slippery slope you're arguing for. My position is that such arguments are a gateway to not only divide the country specifically through the influence of external and hostile powers, but its also meant to give power to the central government to consider each and every protest they don't agree an insidious labelling to crush it and allow political suppression. And the media, and individuals who themselves only follow through because they have a hate boner (justifiably though insanity like in this) for Trump. You say I'm being dramatic or something; but the Presidential power is already too much for my tastes, proven when Trump had the ability to damage election processes and pardon key individuals in his last days in office. And your argument only gives more power, again. More means to crush protests whenever and however.
I'd sooner suffer 100 Jan 6th riots than let that happen. Or 1,000 BLM riots.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@intrepidferret6704 Nobody would show up to this "food bin". It's humiliating to even think about that random free food would be dispensed. Even if I were starving I wouldn't show up for fear of how neighbors would think of me. You're not at all thinking about the social consequences of this thing. Humans are complicated, and some would never throw away their pride for what amounts to hand-me-downs that would probably be terrible anyway due to the need for food that doesn't perish quickly.
The military not only needs to maintain its many bases, it also needs to continue R&D, maintain troop deployments across the planet, continue to support military allies across the planet, maintain and update equipment and vehicles, consistently utilize military hardware as a warning sign to predatory rivals that would love to bully US allies into giving away sovereignty and being forced into their sphere of influence.
I wouldn't mind slipping away $50 Billion tbh insofar that it's used to maintain the budget rather than rack up the US Debt. The biggest cost is in base maintenance, which while necessary for force projection, I think many bases could be shut down in many African nations, for example. That being said, this would not cover this idea of yours, nor would this idea even be effective. Hell, tbh, Soup Kitchens does what you're suggesting infinitely better. They're local and thus have no need for the exorbitant costs of transport and have a better idea of what can be purchased and given away, know the local community and have trust and thus the social consequences are minimized, and general community outreach spreads the word of where and whatfar better than a far away federal administration could.
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
-
@MSNL123 You're kinda missing my point. The US could not place the idea of "supporting democracy" in its agenda when fighting the USSR; specifically because that's a stupid idea. A democracy can elect Communist dictators into power, or can align with Communist dictators. Backing any democracy that can use US money, backing, or tech to then back the USSR is the issue. Taking a moral stance would be pretty much be the US asking to lose the Cold War. High-minded ideals doesn't win such dirty wars of influence; screwing the other side does.
But what happens after that war of influence dies away? The "modus operandi" of a nation-state? For the US, it was to let things lie, to support democracy via funding and diplomatic support wherever; but not to aggressively do so to the point of sparking revolutions everywhere. The US having an alliance with Saudi Arabia doesn't detract from that since the US has been pushing the Sauds for more liberal reform; as with everyone else. The US can never, and has never just attacked dictatorships wherever. If anything, the Iraq War and Afghanistan War proved that just forcing democracy doesn't work. It must be achieved from the bottom-up; not dictated from the top-bottom.
I don't think the US has ever claimed to support democracy 24/7 for everything and anything, otherwise it'd never trade with dictatorships or even acknowledge them. It just claims to support democracy, which, in the broad strokes it does when not in a war for influence against the likes of Nazis or Communists.
There is nothing normal about the US pulling the European states out from their war-torn lands to financially pull them back onto their feet. It was normal for the US to economically abuse said nations and use them as cheap labor and consumers for US products while keeping them poor for US power. It's not normal for the US to back freedom of trade and movement across the planet and backing it with US fleets sailing the ocean's waterways lest they get interrupted by aggressive geopolitical actors (*cough* Strait of Hormuz and South China Sea). It isn't normal for a country to push for wealth democracies to work together in spite of US influence like backing the EU which could weaken US influence on the European continent. It's normal to do the opposite, like Trump kinda wanted.
My point being; the act of acting geopolitically is normal, sure. But what's not normal is how the US does it, which is often tainted by idealism rather than realpolitik. Hell, the entire issue with China is that the US opted for the idealistic route of open trade = more liberalization and democratization for China, thus never registering China as a geopolitical rival in the future. The US unironically helped China rebuild itself into its current form and let it, when most other states in its position would have cut it down the second it stopped being useful Post-1991.
The US must be better, I 100% agree with this. But don't dismiss the US' many many virtues; we literally live in the best time period in all of human history partially because the US, for all of its faults, has been a pretty good Superpower with its ideals clashing with its geopolitical reality. And the second the US doesn't play that role anymore, that's when you should be worried; too many things are beholden to the US playing that role that we have taken for granted. Hoping the UN can take over one day, but that seems unlikely at this point.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ahmedkhalifa5190 "US and the west vows to protect Israel" Uh, no they don't. Much of Western Europe barely even likes Israel. Literally the only consistent ally Israel has is in the US, and that's far more due to geopolitics than anything else. The US simply cannot trust Arab nations after being spurned by them so often for the USSR.
US billion to the Egyptian military is actually just a bit more than a billion. Either way, the US never has and never will have such power as to literally choose who is or isn't leading Egypt's military power. For pete's sakes; the US started giving money to Egypt in 1987, many MANY years after Egypt agreed to have peace with Israel in return for control over the Sinai peninsula. US had zero interest in helping Israel prior to the Yom Kippur War, so why are you implying that the US is intentionally keeping Egypt weak? Egypt couldn't defeat Israel when Israel was weak and when it didn't have US support...while Egypt essentially DID have US support with the USSR. The US gives aid to Egypt as a bribe to have some influence, I agree; but it has little and less to do with Israel and has more to do with "please don't cause trouble for US interests". This obsession that MANY Arabs have in thinking the US, or even the West has been sabotaging them in literally everything just to protect Israel is beyond braindead. It literally ignores all of the reality of Western policies conflicting with each other and ignores US foreign policy in particular bending itself into pretzels for the Arabs repeatedly for their support.
Egypt is literally filled with nothing but ambitious leaders and nationalists, idk why you're acting like it doesn't. They just don't have the means to actually take on Israel due to Egypt's military structure so focused on crushing internal revolts rather than actually facing a competent military power. A common issue amongst Arab states that have such distrust between civilian and military authorities.
The US literally just doesn't care. It gives the money, and cuts it off if Egypt acts out of line of US interests; though Egyptian leaders themselves only act out to win populist support and themselves don't want to rock the boat. Not just with Israel, but with any of their neighbors. Literally no different to US and its use of aid to control Israel; except the US genuinely DOES use it to such an extent to force Israel into specific policies like supporting Israel-Palestinian peace talks time after time.
Arabs made Israel a point of contention between themselves and the West. The US specifically was more than content to throw Israel under the bus. Modern US ambivalence to Arab concerns specifically is rooted in Arab betrayals against the US while they were trying to win Arab support. Their support of the USSR is what turned the US against them, not any love for Israel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@divdivic8120 Oh, I see, I misunderstood you; I thought you wanted them to take the civilians out of cities in the midst of war. But idk what the heck you're on about after that.
Ultimately, if you're telling the truth, nobody convinced you to leave; you decided to leave yourself when your army had to withdraw. Also, the US hasn't razed a city to the ground since...geez, I think the Vietnam War? US has generally been more cautious about civilian casualties, and in Yugoslavia despite its civilian deaths -the bombing campaign successfully forced Yugoslavia to back off from its campaigns.
The difference between the US and Russia is that when Russia bombs a city it literally looks like Nagasaki did post-WW2. When the US bombed Belgrade very few buildings were destroyed. Would you prefer it if the US turned Belgrade into a modern Mariupol? I know I wouldn't; I'd think that would be monstrous.
And yes, smashing a country for committing genocide is fine by me. It wasn't alright via international law, but morally speaking I am just fine with it. US also bombed Nazi Germany into the dirt, so why wouldn't I be fine with it? If the US commits genocide tomorrow, I'd also be fine with people bombing us to stop us. Anyone committing genocide has to be stopped by all means necessary.
Your opinion is genuinely worth nothing. You excuse Serbian imperialism and genocide and then cry when people stopped it. Kosovars voted for independence in the midst of Serbian genocide, and you had no right to stop that; the US gave your country plenty of opportunities to cease and desist but you forced its hand. If the Crimeans and Donbas people voted for independnce themselves without Russian troops stepping in beforehand, then I'd be fine with them leaving Ukraine.
You're trying to hard to equate these two events, when the fact of the matter is that the situations are entirely different. It's the difference between Yugoslavia getting independence from Austria-Hungary and the Soviets entering the Baltics. The difference between actual independence via the will of the people and an external attempt at imperialism.
Wanna cry about American hypocrisy? Talk about Iraq, that at least makes some lick of sense. Yugoslavia is the US being in line with its own ideals.
2
-
@divdivic8120 First of all, genocide is the attempted destruction of an entire group of peoples; what you're describing is ethnic cleansing. It's what happened to the Germans in modern Polish territory after WW2 when the Soviets expelled them. Cruel yes, but not genocide.
Anyway, I don't support what happened to the Serb minorities, but lets not act like the actions of the greatest power in the region didn't make that power struggle more simply minorities defending themselves; the Serbian minority armed themselves in opposition to the independence movement and generally aligned with the Yugoslav-Serbian dominated government. It isn't like the US didn't understand and even aligned with Yugoslavia at the start by banning Croatia from getting US weapons.
But no genocide actually occurred initially by any side; cruelty and ethnic cleansing yes, but no concerted effort to exterminate. And that would be the breaking point from which the West stepped in against Yugoslavia and the Serbs -as it was PROVEN that they were trying to exterminate Bosnians and Albanians for a more ethnically homogenous Greater Serbia -an upgrade from simple terror tactics in sectarian violence which caused the ethnic cleansing. I condemn everyone's actions in the start of the war, but my issue specifically was the Serbs' genocidal actions against the Bosnians and Albanians later on.
Anyway, again, you're comparing a literal Russian-backed separatist group with a homegrown separatist group. It was LITERAL RUSSIAN SOLDIERS involved in the "independence" of Donbass and Crimea. If there were US troops disguised as civilians entering Kosovo declaring independence and fighting Yugoslavia, THEN your comparison would make sense. But that's not how it is at all.
You can criticize the last bombing campaign by the US in Yugoslavia; too many civilians were killed in it. But again, if its that or genocide, then I know my answer. Has nothing to do with "third world" or whatever.
If Serbs continued enacting outright genocide instead of their prior actions of mere sectarian violence, then any action necessary to force them to stop is necessary, yes. I'm quite consistent with my logic here; the crux here is that you consider all sectarian violence as genocide when according to experts nobody was doing genocide initially early in the war. Not even the Serbs. Stop trying to equate it all; what the Serbs did near the end of the war was a unique evil, not something that can be hand waved away as "US being mean".
Hague found that Yugoslavia abetted and aided in genocide. Make whatever excuse you want; the evidence was found and the sentence made. There were multiple mass graves found, but keep trying to downplay it. The amount doesn't matter; the intent is what matters.
Your ancestor being a victim of genocide doesn't justify your attempt at downplaying genocide; your ancestor had the opportunity to fight back and the Nazis were punished accordingly; as was Milosevic and his ilk -can't catch em all, but I am proud that a few were.
The Kosovars get a state because they themselves pushed and fought for independence, an outsider didn't enter Kosovo with troops disguised as civilians and took control of the region to declare independence like in Russia.
If no Russian troops stepped in and these regions declared independence themselves, then they deserve statehood too. Or at least a chance at it. Atm, its obviously just Russian imperialist conquest. This is logic 101, idk why you're having such a hard time with this.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@impervas5801 That's not a "whole world" POV. That's a far-right/RT perspective. The media generally supported BLM the movement, but did not talk so positively while they rioted; though it should be noted that that was an extreme minority of cases too -still, no one questions why state and federal governments post so many cops near BLM rallies anymore. BLM's reputation took a severe hit.
Yeah, the media in general has a left-wing bias, what else is new? That's their freedom to be so, just as it's Fox New's freedom to have a right-wing bias. And to be frank; attacking a symbol of the US' democracy in the midst of an election comes pretty damn close to domestic terrorism -far more than simply damaging a city. But even then, while the movement is shamed thanks to media bias, they're still not illegal and still not restricted in freedom. And that makes the US among the most free nations by default in allowing a group that struck at US democracy still go unmolested -in Russia they'd just all be considered terrorists if they went against the Kremlin -and you'd support them no doubt.
Twitter is not "the media", and "the media" doesn't give a shit about any stupid Hunter scandal because the entire thing is faulty to begin with. It's like pizzagate; it's a lot of patchwork guesswork mixed with coincident to make a narrative that could legitimately lead to a lawsuit of defamation if posted by the media. The "media", that is to say; private organizations are not beholden to post anything YOU want.
Uh, people aren't blaming Russia for everything, you loon. They're blaming Russia for intervening in the US election, stoking American division, and for actions abroad -all of which is factual. The Democrats went too far with trying to link Trump with Russia, just as Republicans are now going too far with their "election was stolen" schtick, but most of it is hardly unfounded.
You have no right demanding that others NOT make you a social outcast. That's THEIR freedom to treat you as they will. And Trump's ban on Twitter is THEIR freedom as well; they're a company, not a federal agency.
Political correctness is an issue, but it's hardly center stage and it hardly damages freedom of speech to any extent like Russia literally murdering political opponents.
Julian Assange is a Russian agent. He released any secret information about the US to its detriment, and conveniently never released any information about Russia despite it being given to him. I couldn't give a shit less what happened to a foreign asset. The US has no obligation to treat enemies of the state with Constitutional protection.
"MAYBE MORE THAN RUSSIA" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia#:~:text=The%20Russian%20constitution%20provides%20for,issues%2C%20resulting%20in%20infringements%20of
https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/07/18/online-and-all-fronts/russias-assault-freedom-expression#
Russia's freedom of speech is a sick joke. It literally makes people disappear and shuts people up with claims of terrorism that can make them arrested. If a Julian Assange for Russia appeared, he'd just be executed, but at least it'd be understandable since they'd spill top secret information of Russia's government -but I'm talking about any oppositional leaders to Putin that have no links to foreign government "disappearing" or "getting murdered mysteriously". People like you screech about "Epstein didn't kill himself" and then ignore literally every big opposer to Putin "killing themselves" across his entire tenure.
Because being honest, you don't give a shit about freedom of speech, do you? So shut the hell up about it. There is a bias against Russia since, no shit, Russia is perceived as an aggressor from left-wing European media sources; but it's not a concentrated Anti-Russian thing, or at least it's not born out of government sources that want to defame it. They don't have their own RT's that praise their governments and shit on the Russian menace. Like, assuming the Mongols just invaded Russia like in the past and they recently left but still exist as a possible enemy in the future; do you expect the Russian news to treat such a Mongol state with anything but suspicion and "Anti-Mongol perspectives"?
Hell, no one is bitching about the rampant Anti-Americanism in Russia's media, are they??? I've seen Russian media, and Russian news leaders unironically proclaiming that they can destroy the US with nukes! There is NOTHING like that in the US, so you have the gall to act like Russia is in any place to bitch about freedom of speech???
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joshcollins8946 You're playing this up because politics. People don't NEED water on a voting line, and God-forbid they do then they can easily bring some themselves as reasonable adults or ask some from the voting organizers. Jesus Christ, is everyone a child to you that needs hand-holding at the consequence of being influenced by outside factors?
So Georgians will be well aware that it will get hot and thus will not be idiots and will bring water, right? Why is it that you're fighting so hard to convince me that this is draconian when this is literally just another basic voting security? What, are you gonna argue that we don't need voting booths now because we don't have any studies indicating that group thought doesn't influence voting patterns? I'm being sarcastic of course; we have studies indicating that AND that last-minute information can and has shifted voting patterns -and yet you seem all too eager to allow this to continue unabated. Why?
"The majority of non-profits that make impacts in communities do not have any artery motive and are generally there to help people" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
Okay, I have no doubt that many non-profits genuinely believe they're doing the right thing. The problem is that in some people's eyes -"doing the right thing" means "voting for the correct candidate". Who the hell do you think you're fooling here? What, are you gonna argue next that WikiLeaks are just innocent flowers that just want to reveal the corruption of Democrat politicians after this? Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has a bias and an agenda -the question is how we lessen the effects of other people's agendas for a fair and equal election -that includes outside group influence like tweets/outsider kindness/etc.
What's messed up is your insistence of allowing external factors to continue influencing our elections with no pushback.
"Also name one other legitimate circumstance where people are not allowed to give out food and water where there is a legitimate need for it"
What kind of question is that? In every job that requires concentration the workplace usually provides water themselves, they never casually allow outsiders to bring water to them nor do they allow their employee's friends to bring them water. Also, this is about elections; this is a unique action in society that doesn't quite have any comparison. It's voluntary, yet critical. You may as well ask; "name one other legit circumstance where people are not allowed to spread fake news to other countries" after pressure was placed to force companies to clamp down on such things. I see literally no difference to stopping external Twitter misinformation (which influences elections) and stopping non-profits from giving out unnecessary goods (which influences elections). They're both being stopped because they're fucking up democratic practices. So unless you WANT democracy to fail, I don't see why you're so against this specific idea.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrok3405 "These armed groups were mostly Turkmen, ethnic Turks. Are you trying to say the US would just escort Russian jets out of its air space if Russian bombers were killing Americans and American interests on its border and in its territory when these armed groups were hiding by crossing within its border?"
This is a leading question. First of all, lets be real here; Turkey had no right to be in that situation, and neither did the US. It was not Turkish territory; so its generally understood that what happens there doesn't constitute a literal attack on another nation; just their interests. NATO was built specifically to NOT get involved in the squabbles of nations when their interests are under threat. That's why NATO never responded when French colonies revolted despite France being in NATO. It was a Turkish issue, and NATO could not be dragged into every conflict sparked by nations fighting for their interests outside their borders. The US won't take such things lying down like Turkey, sure; but it won't act like NATO betrayed it by not immediately starting a war.
The YPG, regardless of affiliations, tried to establish a Kurdish state for themselves in self-determination. It's not quite like ISIS which seeks to expand dominion by force; in fact it resembles a lot the forces under Attaturk whom was also considered terrorists in their time. Idk, its hardly as simple as you make it. That being said, the YPG being an affiliate of PKK or not; they weren't exactly attacking Turkey while fighting the Syrians and ISIS. If they were, then I'd understand Turkey being angry at the US because they'd literally be helping a nation fighting against them. As it stands, while it is against Turkey's interest, that's not the US' issue. Turkey intervening in Syria was against the US' interests and that was not a Turk issue either. Allies go against each other often; it isn't backstabbing unless its a literal threat they're aligning with. And the YPG was no threat to Turkey at the time, Turkey made that assumption and sought to destroy it beforehand.
"Many of the jets involved in the coup took off from Incirlik airbase" Yes, no shit. Turkish rebels likely tried to get the US involved in their plans. I have no doubt the CIA knew something was up, but as to the "who", "why", or "when" that much was often always up in the air. Knowing there was disgruntled officers doesn't equate to backing a coup. And don't be obtuse; Erdogan directly benefitted from this "coup" more than anyone else, its far more likely that he pointed them in Incirlik to have geniuses try to equate this to the US. Meanwhile the US hasn't backed any coup in any democratic state since the Cold War; though some leftists who are bitter that their precious Soviets got folded try really hard to do so.
Yeah, very few Americans actually buy that that was a real coup. Erdogan benefitted far too much for that to be the case. And democratic liberties since then has plummeted quickly in Turkey.
NATO doesn't need Turkey, it needs access to the Bosporus. Turkey's military is really not that important, and nobody in NATO seriously thinks Turkey will help out in the event of an Article 5. Whenever war with Russia is brought up anywhere, Turkey isn't even a consideration.
The Greeks and French will fight with NATO because the they're beholden by treaties to do so. Turkey may have like 10 years ago, but there is little trust in that with Erdogan in power. Kinda how it was with Trump in the US.
"Turkey has secured Somalia, Qatar, Libya, Cyprus, large areas of Syria and north Iraq"
Turkey has secured literally none of that barring Cyprus (the case for decades prior to now) and parts of Syria (hardly large and hardly secured). Turkish attempts in Qatar, Libya, and Somalia are either non-starters or simple irrelevant. Especially in Iraq. US has Iraq far more "secured" than Turkey does in Syria, let alone Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon.
Hey, if you think leaving Turkey so thoroughly isolated that all it has nearby an ally is Azerbaijan, then feel free to believe Erdogan has your best interest at heart. Everyone else will watch as the Turk train consistently collides with the walls of reality. Qatar has more relations with the US than Turkey, and Pakistan...is a joke, to put it blandly. May as well celebrate having Bulgaria as an ally.
Yeah, you're pretty much the reason Turkey is digging itself deeper into a hole it soon can't crawl out of. The next generation will be cursing you guys out in a few years and call you all traitors, most likely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NguyenMinh-vs1vm That was after the fact when the Khmer Rouge started killing Vietnamese; and it realigned to China. Which, incidentally, led to the Vietnamese-Chinese War which the Chinese lost, but don't talk about.
Also, the breakdown in relations really began when the Khmer Rouge sent raiding parties into Vietnam around 1977. Before that, Vietnam sent immense aid to the Khmer Rouge, and even fought a big war on their side;
"Referring mainly to Viet Cong operating in the border region, the new Cambodian president Lon Nol declared that all Vietnamese troops in Cambodia must leave, to maintain the country's neutrality. The North Vietnamese responded to this request (as well as calls for aid from the Khmer Rouge) by invading Cambodia, quickly conquering over 40% of the country. They proceeded to hand over most of the territory they had gained to the Khmer Rouge, and drastically stepped up support for them; because of both this and the invasion, the Khmer Rouge quickly grew from a few thousand fighters to several tens of thousands in the span of two months.[18] American and South Vietnamese forces attempted to dislodge the PAVN soon after during the Cambodian campaign, but failed, despite inflicting heavy losses. Over the next five years, the Cambodian Civil War raged with the North Vietnamese and China backing the Khmer Rouge, while South Vietnam and the United States backed Lon Nol's newly declared Khmer Republic. PAVN forces would engage Khmer Republic troops inside Cambodian borders many more times during this war in support of the Rouge, such as in Operation Chenla II.
The Khmer Rouge opposition came to power in Cambodia in 1975, shortly before the Fall of Saigon to Northern forces.[15]
Anti-Vietnamese sentiment was high in Cambodia during the Vietnam War; ethnic Vietnamese were slaughtered and dumped in the Mekong River at the hands of Lon Nol's anti-Communist forces.[19] The Khmer Rouge, despite being allied with North Vietnam, later imitated Lon Nol's actions."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn Again. Duh. The US is the sole superpower, so is involved in everything; from peace process, to conflict. History doesn't make a difference in that.
The Afghan govt wasn't an ally; it was a country it worked with under the new government but it never had a defensive alliance or treaty that guaranteed US protection. This is a strange trend among online commentators that specifically pigeon-hole the US into an alliance with any group/country it worked with. As if the US working with anything entitles that entity to US blood and treasury indefinitely. Sorry, but no; the US is entitled to help as long as its obligations are; and it had literally no obligations to the Afghan government. The fact it stayed as long as it did is a testament to the US' stubbornness, if nothing else. Ditto with the Kurds. Now, if the US attacked Turkey in the name of its "alliance" with the Kurds, then THAT would be going against an alliance.
Since when is the US supposed to launch wars in the name of its allies? It's supposed to fight wars in defense of its allies as stated in the NATO contract; outside of that has nothing to do with NATO specifically. Afghanistan War was actually the only complete NATO mission in history since the US was attacked in 9/11 and activated NATO in response.
Nope, the only times NATO allies were forced to enter into a war was the Afghanistan War. NATO allies did not have to help the US in Iraq, and some chose to while others chose not to; which was their right. These countries have their own interests, it'd behoove you not to dismiss them in your quest to paint the US as the ultimate bad guy.
Literally nothing you said actually paints the US as an unreliable ally. Like, nothing. It never went against its obligations, other allied nations met their own obligations when the time came for it (Afghanistan), and the US didn't allow groups it helped get in the way of an ACTUAL alliance (Kurds and Turkey). Ironically, by your logic, being "reliable" means literally fucking over an ally. But I don't think you see the irony in that.
Please name one alliance treaty the US terminated "whenever it was convenient" that actually occurred int he 21st century. Inb4 you name the Ukraine nuclear memorandum or something xD
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@madselmvig1457 NATO wasn't involved in any war in the ME barring Afghanistan, no. This is a common and frankly ignorant opinion because people on the internet are stupid.
Individual countries in NATO got involved, 100%, but NATO itself had nothing to do with anything barring countries within NATO using it to organize. If NATO got involved, then France would literally have no choice but to join in, and the ones France did join were either in French interests (Syria) or was genuinely NATO (Afghanistan).
Haiti was a UN mission that only had the US, Poland, and Lebanon involved. Lebanon had the US, UK, France, and Italy I think; but no, that was not NATO either. NATO command had no say in any of these conflicts.
Again, Trump never refused Article 5, and if you begin taking him at his word with everything, then you'll believe a lot of stupid stuff. And unlike you, every opinion based on US willingness to protect an ally was extremely high. Both in the US, and in US allies, so idk why you're acting like this is a common opinion. Especially with US troops literally there acting like a human shield.
Hey man, "doing business" is perfectly fine, but when that business starts to look a lot like helping them at the expense of an ally; then yeah your allies are gonna start abandoning you.
But yeah, you seriously need to learn the difference between NATO itself getting involved (Afghanistan) and countries in NATO getting involved.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@noah_hill "Israel made an application to the US in 1955 to purchase 60 M47 tanks and after the US refused, Israel applied again in 1958, this time to purchase 100 M47 tanks but the answer was the same.
In the early 1960's, Israel signed a deal with West Germany, for the purchasing of 150 M48A2. However, due to strong Arab nations opposition, out of the 150 tanks planned to be delivered, only 40 did Israel finally receive. Since West Germany didn't fully fulfill its obligations, the US had decided to supply the remaining 110 M48A2 tanks and to add another 100 M48 tanks. In 1965, Israel received 90 M48 tanks from the US and another 120 M48 tanks in 1966. At this time Israel had 250 M48 tanks, 150 of them M48A1 and 100 of them M48A2, all of these armed with a 90mm main gun. "
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
-
@rhynosouris710 If there are more people, there is more demand for goods. More demand for goods equals more people being hired to meet demand. This "ponzi scheme" is called "an economy". But if the demand is met by a lower base of young people and older people become a majority that can barely work; then that obviously becomes a pretty big issue, doesn't it?
Idk what's hard about this. More youth means not only the country has a base to fall back on for military purposes, employment, and general productivity; it means they can support social services like retirement funds and such. By your logic, if there are any youth unemployment (which is low in both the US and Canada btw), then we have too many. That just isn't true; the population size shifts the labor market around, so the youth unemployment will be relatively stable unless too lop-sided.
Now if a country is TOO young, like 20 years old average? Then sure, you can make that argument if only because demand won't keep up. I think the age range where people purchase goods the most is in the 30's or so. So a country with this average age is good.
Idk how you think a country having an average age of 48 years old (Japan) is a good idea. Like, how do you expect the country to support the elderly that have grown old without the young paying for it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn US foreign policy has gone through a lot of shifts, actually. Being "aggressive" is a good general term for it, but how that "aggression" takes form is radically different from the Cold War, for example.
Well, like I cited before, the US' good acts kinda seriously outstrips its bad by billions of lives. And China's bad kinda outstrips its good...by millions of lives. At least externally.
A global poll which was obvious no matter how you looked at it. Only one country on Earth even has the capacity to be a threat to global peace, and that's the US. China sure as hell doesn't, nor does Russia. In fact, I'm surprised that poll isn't 100% on the US since that's really the only logical answer at all.
And no, I talked with English speakers in natives in Germany, France, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE. And Spanish speakers in Colombia, Peru, and Costa Rica since I'm of Hispanic origin. I have a buddy in Venezuela, and used to have another, but I haven't heard from him in a while so...yeah. As for East Asia, I've got buddies in SK and Japan whom I talk to, but they're Americans living there, and I get info from them. So not bad, I think. Prolly more than you. And yeah, most fear US power; it's terrifying to think that a single country can destroy another with such ease. But they also tend to do the "US bad...BUT..." and then mention another greater threat they perceive regionally or in the future. Usually with "Russia" or "China".
I really don't care if you're an Indian. I don't dislike China either; I just perceive it as a very negative thing for the world if its continues as its current political state.
You only get Sweden as the leader of foreign aid via per capita. And frankly, saving lives outside of your country per capita is nicer, but its the results that matter; not the attempt. Saving more lives is better for those who are actually being saved.
Yeah, no. Compared to Sweden, which hides behind the US' geopolitical order in the first place, it indeed is better humanitarian-speaking. But China is pretty much rock-bottom in consideration, while the US is actually quite high up the list. India is...yeah, let's not even talk about India.
Well, duh. India is not a US ally. Japan is. South Korea is. Poland is. India is a Russian ally, not a US one. So why the hell would the US stick its neck out for India? It's not like we trust Indians at all, but I won't begrudge your mistrust of the US either -it's natural. We're not allies even if heads of states assert it.
"Opportunistic and hypocritical as ever" Every big country is. Including India. I fail to see why that's necessarily a bad thing; as long as the end results are for the better. Countries aren't people. But if they were, as my citations noted before, the US has saved billions already and has done much to protect the democracies of the West -I don't mind being a hypocrite if it means doing that. I have plenty of criticisms of the US, but yours are just weird contrarian stuff in an effort to seem smart when in actuality it seems more like classic Indian Anti-Western sentiment than anything else.
2
-
2
-
@hypocrisyrules3768 SCUD missiles hit nobody in Kuwait, and a single one got through to his a US barracks in Saudi Arabia. A single missile in the midst of the Persian Gulf War. So to put this into perspective, SCUD has only scored kills against a competent armed force once in its entire history. Congrats, I guess.
As for HIMARS, they have decimated Russian troops, bases, and even officers and many barracks, and even an air base. This from a few HIMARS rather than the series of them that the US has. And for the record Russia claimed its anti-missile systems can shoot down HIMARS, and Russia's Tornado has yet to be tested against an actual military. It's firing on Ukraine which basically has no competent anti-missile defenses.
Excuse me if I don't take the SCUDS, or anything Russian, that seriously anymore. This ain't War Thunder, my guy; in reality Russian weapons appear to be a joke and we were all just deluding ourselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChessNoobX NATO was not in Iraq, looney toons. The US created a Coalition to go into Iraq, and NATO was not the mechanism used for it; this was its own thing. Do you need a diagram to understand that US does not equal NATO or something?
That's not what Obama said at all. Obama said his mistake in regards to Libya; "Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya,” he said in a Fox News interview aired Sunday"
I'm sorry, what? Do you not know the concept of allies are? The Taliban was allied with Al Qaeda, and was hiding Al Qaeda and supporting them. Getting Al Qaeda was impossible without crushing the Taliban, and indeed OBL fled Afghanistan into Pakistan afterwards. Pakistan was not quite a terrorist state so the US sent a Seal Team to kill OBL rather than invade Pakistan. If you're gonna be this dishonest, then I may as well also say that Russia has invaded Georgia, Chechnya, Libya, and Ukraine too. We can all split hairs if you want.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnm7267 Why are you acting like US media propaganda is needed for Americans to dislike China? It's pretty obvious that Americans have plenty of reasons to dislike China, from their actions in the South China Sea, to their actions against US allies in that region and their militarized islands. There's also the fact that Americans were only recently aware of China's extremely parasitic economic relationship with the US; with their economic splurging via financially supporting companies to specifically beat American businesses or their stealing of US tech while keeping high tariffs on US goods. Really, the better question is; why didn't Americans dislike China before?
Interesting. Where are you getting this "300 million" dollars for propaganda info? Because what you consider anti-China propaganda sounds a lot like pro-democratic propaganda instead. Because the US doesn't have any government media outside of VOA for politics, but it does financially support democratic politics worldwide whether it be organizations, education, or more.
I don't recall ever saying I don't believe the Harvard study. In fact I do; I just don't believe that those opinions matter so much when they're manufactured in a state without free media or freedom of speech. When you hear the same thing everywhere; then that becomes nothing but the truth. In contrast, I hear different things about China from all sorts of US media, some of which claim that the US is the one attacking China and tricking the world into thinking China is taking South China Sea. This literally cannot exist in China. That's just a blunt fact.
The fact that so many Chinese dislike Japan just kinda confirms by belief. The Sino-Japanese War happened almost a century ago; and while you can have major issues with Japan's acknowledgement of it -acting like Japan is the most disliked nation makes me think that Chinese are filled with nationalist stories of the heroics against the EEEEEVIIIILLL Imperial Japanese.
When I was saying that Chinese have a habit of saying that, I was referring to online Chinese, tbh. I'm not implying that that's 1.2~ billion Chinese opinions. That's absurd. But I can discern that this support for the CCP while China is literally bullying US allies in the South China Sea points to China not needing to be talked down, but opposed it seems.
I'm sorry, since when did the US sit in judgement in countries higher in the OECD than it? Also, to be blunt; you don't even have to sit higher than other countries in such a standard to call massive foul. Russia once told the US to respect American Black rights more in the midst of BLM protests, and China did the same...and unironically shut down any attempts of BLM talk in China itself. That didn't mean these countries were wrong, but its kinda obvious it was only for propaganda purposes since both have rather poor examples of minority rights.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dahlbelzalan5892 1) Again, you do the same exact thing; nobody complains but Russia. And only Russia sends armed jets with weapons into Western borders, not vice-versa. So if anything, your people are the most hypocritical, not the most kind.
2) You screech about propaganda, but Ukraine never once banned the Russian language. They stopped teaching it, yes; but that's not literal BANNING people from using the language, genius. And the Azov Battalion is definitely a bad thing the Ukrainians had, but using a military unit composed of bad people does not equate to being fascist lol. Again, Russia was financially supported multiple neo-nazi groups across the West, so Russia really is worse in this regard. The Ukrainian government itself was never Neo-Nazi.
3) Crimea was Greek for over 1,000 years, you hypocrite. Why does Russia get to steal it back with an illegal referendum to steal Crimea, WHICH PUTIN PLANNED by the way. He verbally already admitted to wanting to take back Crimea, referendum or not. Putin can literally admit it and you still bootlick for him.
4) Kosovo had a referendum which was observed legally and fairly and wasn't pre-meditated by an outside force, genius. There were no US troops that invaded Serbia and disallowed UN observers from counting the referendum. That's the difference between a LEGAL and an ILLEGAL referendum.
5) And the majority of Americans in the East Coast are English, that doesn't mean the UK has the right to invade US territory to join the UK, nimrod. What, if the US gets mostly Russian too then Russia has a right to invade??? Are you for real??? Being a part of the same ethnic group doesn't matter; what matters is that rules be followed so that we can accept it and no issues occurs -but Russia literally went against EVERY rule of legal referendums.
6) "Prove it" Oh yes, let's just deny everyone including the UN and OSCE from observing it and have armed troops start the referendum while only having Pro-Kremlin stooges watch it. The proof is that Russia DIDN'T LET INTERNATIONAL GROUPS OBSERVE THE REFERENDUM. By default, it's ILLEGAL.
7) Donbass was Ukrainian, propagandist; the fact any conflict occurred was because RUSSIA INVADED. If the US invades Siberia, is it Russia's fault if violence occurs? No, right? But your Kremlin-filled brain doesn't care. Crimea is more Greek and Turkish than Russian, but you don't give a shit because you're a hypocrite.
8) God loves all of His children. You, who started war in a peaceful region, would shame him. Shame on you. Russia obviously needs more sanctions and more US troops to stem their aggression. maybe a permanent deployment of US Carrier fleets in the Black Sea. Russia is already a broken country running on gas and nationalism; it's Western countries which are still rising in economic development, not Russia. But stay that way, if you want; but don't be surprised when US troops really do start deploying near Russia's borders to stop possible invasions.
2
-
@_Meng_Lan An opinion in a book is hardly the stuff of facts. And the "these people are Nazi's" card has been a thing since the 2000's, or do you now know how Bush was treated? Look, I ain't saying that there aren't those elements around, there are, but get a grip.
I know, and I'm 100% in support of those involved in the riot to get fucked by the law. That doesn't mean I agree with your rather crazy opinion. In fact, I see people like you to be as problematic, since you'd destroy democracy in your effort to "save it". Our job is to protect American lives, and yes, that means Americans with beliefs you don't like. That means your life as well. We CANNOT take sides in this, so that's how it is.
Just...respect another person's opinion as long as they're not advocating for literally destroying democratic principles. I know you can interpret the changing voting laws in places like Georgia like that, but so can the Republicans interpret literal de-platforming as anti-democratic as well. The point is to try to empathize lest you just begin to justify anti-democratic methods to slay the "monster" in your head.
I'd prefer not killing Americans that have justified killing their fellow citizens due to political opinion, thanks. But if it comes down to it, then it does. Doubt it will, but it's something to keep in mind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johan8969 What a ignorant opinion. First of all, terrorist attacks were long on the rise prior to any "US fumbling" in the ME. Including in places that had nothing to do with the US' invasions in the early 2000's such as the Philippines and Indonesia. The only reason Europe was attacked was because of the ideology, not because of the US' actions -seriously, Germany and France both got terrorist attacks and they opposed the Iraq Invasion. Spain too, for that matter. The only similarity was that these places had a decent Muslim minority that could be tempted to extremism. The main instigator of the 9/11 attacks were not because of US support of Israel (which is rich considering the US tried to support the Arabs first but were rebuffed) but because the US stepped for in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; something considered the worst since they're not Muslim. Don't act like they were a reasonable party that would be pleased if the US didn't support Israel.
The immigrant waves? No one cares about immigrant waves, especially not Americans. But if you're talking about migrants, than that's all Europe's fault; there was no "wave" until Merkel invited them and it went viral on social media. But Europeans love to blame Americans for every ill instead of their own dirty closet, which is funny because every issue in the ME stems from European actions not even a century ago. Especially when the UK reneged on a unified Arab state while the US publicly backed the idea.
That being said, publicly the Taliban can't un-ally with Al Qaeda, it would look terrible that they even bothered to listen to US demands when the US is leaving. But make no mistake; Al Qaeda is a broken mess and Taliban leaders don't want to die. They may boast about victory, but ruling a nation means coming out of the shadows and being easily killable by the US -very different from leading a guerilla war from the safety of an unknown location. There is now a very clear consequence of Taliban actions against the US, and they won't do crap. Oh, but they may support random terrorist groups in the region that could hurt US troops to be sure, much like Iran. Then again, they may have their hands full with those very neighbors now. It all depends.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LollipopUnicorny "“I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”
Clinton suggested that the Europeans would not like this very much. Yeltsin, on the other hand, said:
I am a European. I live in Moscow, Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. … Bill, I’m serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afghanistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. … Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe."
This was what Yeltsin had to say to Bill Clinton in 1999. If you wanna be a slave so bad, then just go to Russia, don't drag the rest of Europe with this madness of imperialism.
Edit: My point is that Russia has never considered "Europe" to be independent and sovereign nations; it was always just a chess board to be used at will. The only "players" Russia acknowledges in the West is the US, and thus sees NATO as just a US plot to expand its empire. Ignoring the reality of European sovereignty while people like bootlicker for them because "Murica bad".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joelafrite7850 Karma doesn't exist. Otherwise Russia would have to pay for rebuilding Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, Hungary, Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, and many more countries I can name. Russia bet that the West would do nothing this time too, but Russia crossed the line after many warnings.
So cope.
Edit: Didn't the US literally pay money for Iraq and Korea anyway?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TAMEREDUDESERT Nah, France has many issues, and seems to have "Anglos" live rent free in their media, but while its fun to poke, I don't think France deserves "hate". Just shame for specific actions. Ultimately, it's just a country doing what it does for its own interest.
The US literally did nothing to France, but France is using its influence to make it seem that way for its own ends. You can deny it, but the truth is obvious.
Edit: By the above, I mean the Australians were the ones that had the obligation to inform France that the deal was done, not the Muricans. But yeah, like I said, rent free.
I just pity you, really. If you honestly believe what you said.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dinosaur_monkey Name a time when the US committed a massacre and its soldiers weren't punished. You can't, because the US is a civilized country unlike Russia. Killing civilians happen, but this is attempted extermination in process.; Russia already admitted as such in their news outlets with "What should do we do about the Ukrainians".
This from a Kremlin funded news outlet the RIA:
“Denazification is necessary when a significant part of the people, most likely the majority, have been dominated and attracted to Nazi politics,” writes Timofei Sergeitsev.
Sergeitsev calls on Russian forces to eliminate the alleged Nazis who are in power in Ukraine and calls for exemplary and brutal punishment for them.
“There must be total cleansing. Any organization that has been associated with the practice of Nazism must be liquidated and banned,” says Sergeitsev.
Sergeitsev, with false allegations without any support and only expanding absurd Russian propaganda to justify his invasion, points out that a significant proportion of Ukrainians are passive Nazis, and that they too are guilty of supporting the “Nazi government.”
“The further denazification of this mass of the population consists in re-education, which is achieved through ideological repression (suppression) of Nazi attitudes and strict censorship: not only in the political sphere, but also necessarily in the sphere of culture and education. It was through culture and education that a deep mass Nazification of the population was prepared and carried out, ensured by the promise of dividends from the victory of the Nazi regime over Russia, Nazi propaganda, internal violence and terror,” writes the Russian analyst.
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
-
@laznoime1621 Everyone Russia wars with someone becomes Neo-Nazi. At some point, people are gonna begin wondering if the real Neo-Nazi are the ones finding excuses to always be "defensive" and take new regions from their neighbors. Which nation in the past 30 years has suddenly gained new territory "defensively"? Didn't the original N@zis use the same logic in Austria, the Sudetenland, and later Poland that its either "defensive" or a "fair referendum"?
Ah yes, poor Iraq that was constantly invading neighbors. Poor Serbia that was genociding Bosnians. Poor Iranian General that was organizing terrorist attacks against US troops. Poor Syria which was gassing civilians and freeing terrorists from prisons to scare the populace and which Russia bombed towns and cities with schools. Poor Somalia, which was an international humanitarian intervention to stem genocide as well.
Libya is probably the only fair point you've made; though there was a UN-sanctioned no fly zone.
Haven't mentioned how Russians created the referendum after occupying Crimea and shot at international observers from investigating. Also haven't mentioned how Putin lied that there were Russian troops involved and saying it was homegrown.
I am literally only bitching about Russian invasion in Ukraine, smartass. The West essentially just complained about Russia stepping into Syria, Libya, Mali, Georgia, Chechnya, Kazakhstan, etc. It was the invasion of Ukraine that pissed the West off enough to start actively preparing defenses and prepare sanctions to hurt Russia. As it turns out, the West is more than capable of ignoring Russian atrocities far from NATO jurisdiction, and NATO countries knew that placing new weapons of war near Russia was justifiably seen as instigation. But then Russia went ahead and instigated new conflict by starting a war near NATO countries and now has placed 100,000 troops near them too. No, I understand that Russia has interests and geopolitical ambitions, but and so has the West, which is why they bitched but never did anything. But Ukraine, who are democratic and right next to NATO and wanted to join the EU? Russia which stole new territory?
No, sorry, but this is something the West can't ignore at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@itsnotcominghomesorryengla9420 Why would the Aussies do that? Australia doesn't complain about Russia, nor does it complain about other bad actions by other states. It complains about China because China is screwing with its general vicinity. Why do you expect a country to fight every injustice everywhere? That's not how countries work; they work by focusing on issues near-to-home, generally. If the US starts placing militarized islands near Australia's trade routes, threatening to take them over as its own de-jure territory, then you'll find them complaining about it, yeah.
"800k deaths caused by the US in the Middle East" What kind of crackpot website gave you that number? The US isn't beholden to other countries and their actions, its only responsible for its own actions, so blaming the US for the Arab Spring is you trying to add on numbers, for example. Besides, the US saved far more lives since 2001 via US Aid alone.
Australia hates Julian Assange for stealing into US government computers via using a proxy like Manning and divulging US secrets. That is never an ok thing to do. It's not like the US goes out of its way to protect US citizens that do stupid stuff in other countries either, so idk why you're complaining about this.
I mean, if defying Han China and its imperialist ambitions equates to "Anglo-Saxon dominance", then sure. You'll find that quite a few East Asian countries are also in that camp too. But I'm sure you'll say they are just puppets. Anyone against the great Chinese empire is just a puppet to someone else, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonseilim4321 I literally never said anything about China materially supporting BLM; why are you making up stuff? I said that China had publicly supported the BLM, but also shut down any semblance of such talks within their country. It's pointing out that China has no recourse in complaining about other countries talking about their internal issues because they feel free to do it themselves. I am not advocating for China to shut up, only China advocates for that; I'm calling out that absurd logic.
Checking your source, I really don't see what you're seeing. US Agency for Global Media indeed supports democratic movements worldwide, and no doubt Hong Kong protestors would utilize technology gotten from such a group, which, yeah, duh. And I have literally no issue with any of this; just as I have no issue with the many worldwide donation schemes to US protest groups like BLM. That is also foreign support for US protest groups, but I think that's A-OK. My only issue is when someone specifically ferments lies and conspiracies to cause chaos; but no lies or conspiracies were spread by such measures.
Also according to the source you linked, they are acting like the US Agency for Global Media is directly fermenting the Hong Kong protests which is an absurd claim. It's also one in which they literally have nothing behind; they extrapolate that because the agency created infrastructure so that dictatorships can't abuse the rights of their own people that equates to...starting the protests to begin with? Huh? Is this the insanity of the CCP at work here? Idk, between this and the Fort Derrick theory, I'm inclined to think so. It's as crazy as the Trumpist theory of the CCP making BLM. But you unironically believe it lol.
I 100% wish the US was that honorable as to support every democratic force in the world though. Because, to be blunt, dictatorships don't have a right to exist by default. Sorry, not sorry.
Globalism means that countries, peoples, organizations intermingle within and without other countries. That isn't changing. So the best we can all do is have some standards. CCP media is filled with nothing but lies in the form of Global Times and CGTN, but I ain't advocating for its shutdown or anything.
I mean, the world doesn't seem to have enough of "Western imperialistic interventions", but the world does seem to have enough of Chinese imperialistic aggression seeing as so many countries are actively opposing China right now. That's using YOUR standard, btw.
YouTube is a company, free speech functions only in the public sphere of a free nation. Just like entering into a store where they can kick you out for saying something they don't like, so can YouTube censor you. Someone defending China also has no room bitching about free speech when China has literally none. That's like a sick drunk complaining about someone else drinking a bit. Have some self-awareness, man.
Also, quit upvoting yourself. It's a bad look.
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
-
@haroonshahid5545 US lost politically, not militarily. The US lost all interest in maintaining Afghanistan years prior to the pullout, and Biden ripped the band aid out.
Funny enough, I remember reading somewhere that Pakistan was initially all for the invasion, but the US did too well, initially. The US was very close to annihilated the Taliban, but Pakistan housed the Taliban and allowed them to regain strength during US nation-building. Pretending to aid US forces in hunting them, but instead protecting them until they returned and slowly retook Afghanistan when most US forces left.
Pakistan doesn't want a stable and prosperous Afghanistan, as it could threaten Pakistan's control over some shared ethnic peoples.
If Pakistan actually helped the US instead of, you know, helping the Taliban. Then Afghanistan would be free of it. Though to be fair to Pakistan, it might also be an adversary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@berdyderg900 US has around 550k homeless. Germany has around 600k homeless, despite having a smaller population. This is hardly unnatural, let alone uniquely bad.
US won in Yugoslavia, Iraq in 1991, and Iraq in 2003 (removal of Saddam Hussein and creation of new government). The US only lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam so far; and the only illegal war it engaged in was Iraq in 2001. US involvement in other conflicts does not make a "war", nor are these conflicts the US started. Jesus Christ, do you see "US involvement" and just equate it to "US illegal war"? You realize by this metric, a LOT of countries are at war, right?
"Every 8 years"? The US hasn't had a crash since 2008, and hadn't had a crash before that since 1945. If you're talking about recessions, they're natural in healthy economies across the planet, smart one. No economy barring poor ones becoming wealthy countries (Germany before, Japan and SK after, China now) have steady and high growth.
You're gonna have to cite proof that "all our politicians" have dementia. Because that smells like some rank propaganda on your part lol
The only fair point you made was the prison population, but you realize that having a large prison population really doesn't change that the average American experiences among the greatest freedoms in human history, right? They're not oxymorons, as long as that prison population was not sent there for totalitarian reasons. Ala political prisoners speaking out against the system.
Literally I can repeat this rant of yours and put it on a different country like Germany, and everything would fit barring the prison population bit. I could replace that with "limiting freedom of speech based on arbitrary rules like Nazi Germany" and it could work, I think. I'd have to be demented and WANT to believe that Germany is collapsing, but it could work. :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
@berdyderg900 How is that depressing? First of all, reality is that we're a fluke of nature -there is nothing particularly grand or special about humanity outside of us being smart enough to be self-aware. We're flawed beings with baggage from tens of thousands of years ago, our monkey brains are hardwired to fear things we don't understand because that's what kept our ancestors alive against the predatory natural world.
And yet human standards of living has skyrocketed beyond any measure possible. People are living much longer, we're living much better, absolute poverty has dropped to a point lower than any other in human history.
I don't need a utopian hope to believe that life doesn't suck. Life by DEFAULT sucks, but it has been immeasurably improved over time. Now all we have to do is improve it further over time, not by making a quick-fix, but by looking at what works and what doesn't. Communism has NOT been shown to work, so I don't see why I would subject myself to an even worse system than the one that has worked. Oh yes, its flawed, no doubt about that, but it can be improved upon.
Frankly, to me, it seems like you have some idealized version of what life looks like. You came from a womb, screaming at the burning light. Your life started in pain. Idk why you expect everything to be daisies and sunshine when the dirt under you has worms eating the corpses of everything that dies. Take the good with the bad, man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@imatreebelieveme6094 Hey, genius. Nobody is talking about sending armed thugs into other countries for geopolitical or ideological goals -everyone does that, whether Democrat, Fascist, or Communist. The so-called not-imperialist Vietnamese helped Pol Pot into power and helped overthrow their country and then proceeded to invade again when the people they helped get into power turned around and attacked them with CCP support.
I'm talking about internal tolerance; the democratic liberty of free speech and assembly -which does NOT exist in Vietnam despite what your friendly neighborhood shill in that video presented. Fact is; ZERO international sources and studies of human rights consider Vietnam to be much better than Nazi Germany in terms of democratic liberties. Oh, they're not genociding anyone, but the can effectively take any "elections" as they so choose and arrest people without any effective pushback from the people.
"Amazing progress" has been occurring in Africa since decolonization. Absolute poverty on the continent has fallen dramatically; idk why you're acting it has stopped when the US or even the USSR went ahead and assassinated the other's puppets during the Cold War. Newsflash; the US went ahead and did the same thing against Nazi Germany and backed whomever against them too. The US is fully capable of attacking an enemy ideology from any angle; and they have no right to bitch since they're both "internationalists" and advocate for doing the same. We can talk about morality of it, but I see no reason to not use the tools of our enemies if they're so blasé about it themselves. My only contention is maintaining liberty at home, which is sometimes hard since the US has possibly assassinated Socialists at home; though it has almost never happened and a blip on democratic legacy -not the full government-sponsored extermination of "counter-revolutionaries" that your precious Socialist and Communist governments enact.
The video you pointed out has a lady talk about wanting a representative from the National Assembly to bring it up her issue; but what about having Constitutional limitations on making sure police can't arrest people for "being critical" of the Vietnamese government or ruling party? Oh, they can tolerate SPECIFIC things, sure; but what about an actual defensive measure so that it's actually difficult and not completely beholden on the government choosing to feel generous??? Because newsflash here; JUST BECAUSE SHE ISN'T GETTING KILLED DOESN'T MEAN SHE HAS THE RIGHT
Here is what Human Rights Watch has to say about Vietnam's "Freedom":
"Vietnam continued to systematically violate basic civil and political rights in 2020. The government, under the one-party rule of the Communist Party of Vietnam, tightened restrictions on freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, movement, and religion. Prohibitions remained on the formation or operation of independent unions and any other organizations or groups considered to be a threat to the Communist Party’s monopoly of power. Authorities blocked access to several websites and social media pages and pressured social media and telecommunications companies to remove or restrict content critical of the government or the ruling party."
So it isn't only affected Capitalist change that will get me killed; it's trying to actually have any guarantees of liberty from the government. So tell me; if I value my freedom, why shouldn't I fight back tooth and nail against you ilk? Because you will NEVER provide me with any semblance of security and will crush my democratic rights the second you take control. It's the same with the Fascists; I have no tolerance for the intolerant.
The Communist Party in Vietnam or anywhere else CANNOT be changed by the people; it can only vote in people who the Party allows. Meanwhile, in the US, Democrat and Republican Conventions has people being raised amongst themselves by their constituents to become President in the Caucuses, which is why Trump even got the nomination to begin with despite the Republican elites not wanting him. The fact you even had to ask that question just proves my point; you are a threat to democracy. The only reason the countries like the US shouldn't be purging you for our safety is because we should be better than you. We tolerate you, when you'd never tolerate us. That's what makes us better than you.
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
-
@enjoylife8590 US hasn't built a new military base since the early 2000's, and nobody has ever complained of US warships cruising through the area. Mostly because the US has helped protect their trade routes, and thus depends on them. But yes, everyone is just a puppet of the US. No one has sovereignty, and that's why China is being bullied, right?
Imagine being so full of propaganda that you think the US has control over every single country. Or maybe, just maybe, other countries recognize that China is a threat? Duterte literally was full anti-US in the Philippines, and was trying to turn to China, but instead China stole Filipino waters and attacked Filipino fishermen. Acts of aggression escalated after Duterte threatened to kick out the US and told them to butt out. That means to literally everyone else that China will only get WORSE if the US is forced to leave, so why the hell would they do that after that?
There have been more than 20 wars in the 21st century, genius. The US has been involved in like 4 of them, and only 1 has the US actually started itself as an aggressor; the Iraq War. Everything else occurred as a defensive war (Afghanistan War) or the US got involved after the fact (Syrian Civil War and Libyan Civil War).
The US is critical in many parts of the world, and those countries WANT the US to be there to help back them from countries like the one you're protecting. If China wasn't such a threat, then the US wouldn't be welcome.
China needs to go home, and stop bullying its neighbors so the US can back off too. Get out of Filipino waters! CHINA GO HOME!
1
-
@enjoylife8590 You realize that agent orange is a chemical, right? And that it was used mostly to clear vegetation in order to flush out the VietCong? It was 100% a bad thing, but that really doesn't go against what I've said; that the US is generally necessary to world stability. At least for now; also, the Vietnamese have forgiven the US for that, so how about you not co-opt issues in the past for your propaganda? It's also not YOUR country's issues, it's Vietnam's, and they'll do what they will with it.
The US doesn't pay for media, they're independent, troll. The CCP is the one with the government-sponsored media, but you conveniently forgot to mention that. Maybe if the CCP spent more on worker's rights, it wouldn't have them be treated as slave labor anymore. But you don't care. Because you're just a CCP bot that deflects from China's imperialism.
Get off of India's, TIbet's, Xinjiang's, Vietnamese, Philippines, Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Singaporean territory. Until then, the US is welcome in the region.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malachiphoniex8501 So you propose that general education be thrown out for the latest tryst in the latest hotspot region? Because that's basically what you're crying about -and that's not how a general education is supposed to function. It isn't anyone's job to educate you about X, Y, or Z even if the US Government is getting embroiled in the region -the best way to handle that is to research yourself.
And again, every minute spent on NOT important things to satisfy your "NEED" to understand X or Y conflict means a less intelligent American public about stuff they need to know about the basic of basics.
So unless you propose all US education to become some hyper intensive history course where every single culture gets their own month where every facet of their history, legends, and cultures get broken down for public consumption -idk what to tell you. This was my issue from the start, you are acting like what is supposed to be a general education into something which has to talk about what YOU want.
And that's just not how any educational system is supposed to work. FFS, who the hell says crap like "he fact that no one is getting any good lessons anymore are why we have things like the Wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, race riots, extremist organizations, and culture wars" is the problem.
Wanna know why so many people call Americans stupid? It's because they're projecting themselves; those same people are as braindead ignorant about the world around them. Have you ever, even once traveled outside the US? I have -and everyone is as ignorant as Americans, they just don't have a world media point it out for them.
Basically, I'm telling you to grow up.
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
-
@lakeblackBLM The US only couped nations in the midst of the Cold War against the USSR. The US had to be ruthless then, and it stopped almost immediately after the Cold War ended. Subsequent actions were against dictatorships and were infinitely less frequent. The current US is the standard US, which isn't great, still, to be sure.
Current China isn't even a superpower yet, and yet it always tries to steal territories, rob countries of their livelihoods which is not that different from bombing them, justifies cultural genocide and mass surveillance, attempts to utilize economical exploitation via neo-colonialism, etc. And again, it's not even a superpower yet, meaning it will only get worse. Idk how you could think that China being a superpower is a good thing for world stability or peace.
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
-
@dranzacspartan8002 Like 90% of those "military bases" are either just equipment depots which the US uses to store equipment for quick deployments or are just shared military bases from the host country. Only like 30 US military bases have more than 1,000 US troops on them for an extended period of time. And having those bases is for the guarantee of protection of US allies; it has nothing to do with China. China has been just fine with them until recently, where it's acting like there was this plan to encircle it when it has existed for decades long prior to China. CCP propagandists even keep repeating the "Island Chain Strategy" when the US has not been focused on the idea for several decades. The US mostly uses the bases to ensure that nobody screws with the trade lines that ensures its allies' and its own prosperity.
US cruises nuclear submaries up and down nobody's maritime borders. Nobody but the CCP and CCP allies recognize the South China Sea as China's actual border; which is precisely why the US does it. It's to show the world that China can't just steal territory whenever it wants. The Gulf of Mexico has been a shared sea for over a century, and Russian subs have been cruising up and down the US coast outside of agreed upon maritime borders. There is no issue of the US trying to take new maritime borders, unlike China. It's all international waters, and if China does the same, which it has btw then nobody complains. Only China has an issue.
Hey man, feel free to arm Anti-US Puerto Ricans. See what happens to China from Puerto Ricans; they're the ones that will want war with China the hardest after that. Especially when Puerto Rico itself wants to be a part of the US as a whole, not leave it. Can you not see the difference between Puerto Rico WANTING to be with the US and Taiwan having its own currency, independent government, and NOT wanting to be a part of the CCP?
China's entire propaganda news network is nothing but Anti-US propaganda. It talks about BLM as if China isn't a horribly racist country that no African-American would tolerate. It talks about US failures abroad and insinuates that the US is collapsing. It talks about China's "successes" as if Anti-CCP feelings aren't growing everywhere. China's current entire news cycle is nothing but "Anti-US", and generally "Anti-West". Pro-Nationalist ideas have poisoned the population to the point that people like you that just flat-out make your own reality exist. You unironically think China, freaking CHINA is being bullied just because countries refuse to bend over for it.
China has been provoking the US for close to 50 years. The US responding is just the US refusing to be a victim. Leave US allies alone and withdraw back to internationally recognized CCP maritime borders and then you'll at least have room to complain about US aggression, since that's the current main contention.*Stop stealing the livelihoods of every maritime neighbor around you.*
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stimsoncho8045 First, Claude Joseph was not made by the US. He was a partial consequence taking advantage of a US-based NGO, but thay doesn't make him aligned with the US. I'm sure he'd love to be though, but the US plainly rejected that by refusing to send troops and leaving it to the UN.
Second, the US is not omnipotent. It can't protect all of its allies, especially an impromptu assassination attempt.
Third, instability in Haiti damages it, its neighbors, and the US itself. The last thing it wants is more unstable nations in the Western Hemisphere, barring the hostile ones maybe.
Either way, I don't see how the US doing this makes any sense.
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
-
@rob6927 I didn't spin any facts, and I don't believe the US is #1 in everything. I just tell it like it is, though you do seem quite the Vietnamese nationalist in contrast since you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the dirty laundry your country had. And you waaaay oversell Vietnam itself to boot. Your leaders seem to be more prudent, and I know other Vietnamese that are not quite as weirdly hyper nationalist. So unlike you, I'll assume its just a you issue and not a "Vietnamese" thing. You know, its nice not being bigoted. :D
I don't know if you know this, but the US was hardly the undisputed #1 military superpower at the time. In fact, it only really became that during the Cold War when the US consistently kept up military expenditure to build up its logistical chain for all of its fancy equipment. As it turns out, having the equipment to defend held territory and supply said equipment is MUCH MUCH easier than deploying it hundreds of miles away. I literally cited how bad the US was ready for the Korean War; it literally DEMILITARIZED as it has always done after a big war due to isolationist beliefs.
Now you're being disingenuous to the extreme. You act like my prior statements contradict, but they don't. Yes, the US couldn't invade N Vietnam because of a China intervention, but it COULD handle it; the issue is that the US public would NOT be able to stomach a full-fledged total war for not clearly discernable reasons. The only reason the US public tolerates "small wars" like Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq is because the deaths/casualty rates are comparatively low. Take it to a total war scenario and US politicians will get crucified. As for the "Air Force killed millions" thing, sorry, I think I did say that and that wasn't true; I was more speaking in terms of North Vietnamese deaths to US troops. But the "main butcher" part is you not reading what I said; I said the Vietnamese were the "main butcher" to their own people in the war, which is a literal fact.
Half a million troops that were only there to hold South Vietnam, and were not allowed to ever take the fight to the enemy, or allowed to really crush the source of their attackers. They were essentially just forced to wait for more attacks and hope the North Vietnamese gave up. No army could ever hope to win, regardless of troop number under such conditions unless, as US leaders hoped.
It really is just kinda common sense that the US could conquer any country barring the likes of China and Russia. The former because of its growing military prowess, the latter because of its near-impossible terrain. A few other countries can be added if they actually up their military spending, but they often rely on the US for that.
You do realize that the passing of vaccines to Vietnam was in response to better relations, right? It wasn't the US that took the first step to warming relations, it was Vietnam when the US demanded that it give information to the fate of MIA US soldiers and Vietnam acquiesced. And the petitioning of former Vietnam War Vets like Senator McCain that ended the US trade embargo on Vietnam in 1994. It was after that that Vietnam agreed to pay the debts the South Vietnamese didn't pay to the US. That doesn't sound like the US trying to win over Vietnam at all, but if you say so.
The VP is a representative of the US, and I support her giving vaccines to Vietnam, so idk what you're trying to imply here. Her ticket was voted in, and that was her prerogative. It isn't like the US votes for every single issue/option.
The regional claims in the SCS in reality have nothing to do with "challenging the US". It has far more to do with China trying to secure its waterways from external threat by forcing other countries to align itself with their interests by holding their trade routes hostage via military islands. The US has not really acted against China since they started building the islands, at least until they really started pressing their claim. In a way, every country involved with the SCS is going against the "US international order" by making their claims; but that wasn't the issue. The issue was the aggressive nature of China's claims in recent years which could threaten US allies in the region. That is not only a threat to the international order which the US supports, but also a threat to US credibility in defending allied nations and their interests. That's more the issue here, but China itself saw it differently. They seek a return to their past as the sole hegemon in that corner of the world as the Middle Kingdom with all of their little tributaries meekly standing to the side. This is just a natural step in that direction, not necessarily a challenge to the US. It just turned out that way.
In reference to the Philippines losing territory, you're partially right. At the time, nobody in the US genuinely saw China as an aggressive power; the idea that China would try to steal territory from their neighbors would have gotten accusations of racism in 2016. And while the Philippines were very upset at Chinese actions, it was also very much against the US taking unilateral action against them as well. That sentiment very much is what made President Duterte's debut, and with China's growing influence is what allowed him to turn to China. If anything, I'd think you would be happy with that; the US has had a bad habit of jumping before it looked leading to unnecessary conflicts like in Vietnam itself. Jumping into conflict back then would have given China a lot of clout and made the US look like the aggressive nation in this scenario. Instead, China's actions broke the idea that it was just a peaceful nation wanting to trade.
Though being critical of US inaction is fair, I think. Probably the most fair thing you have commented about.
"But one thing you are right about is you need others to do the heavy lifting for you, as in most wars where you were involved." Which is why the US in every single conflict it was involved in has always been the largest contingent, largest supplier of equipment, usually the sole capable of moving troops/equipment, and always the force that achieved the most military objectives in a conflict. Problem being that a superpower's military cannot achieve political objectives, it can only accomplish military objectives. It can take and hold land, but it cannot transform it. It can hold territory from an external force indefinitely, but if it can't strike back at the source then they'll just keep coming back.
TLDR; the US military can crush 99% of the world's militaries, but it cannot achieve political objectives in a war without clear objectives or change a populace. The US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but that was not because its military was weak, it was because the political objectives were virtually impossible without some serious mass war crimes. Something the US can't stomach outside of total war.
Well, I made my point. I'll back off here, you can continue if you want though, if only for the benefit of others reading this mess.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scudb5509 "Bombing of Afghanistan" Which occurred in a defensive war. Afghanistan facilitated the 9/11 bombing, so by every metric it was legal.
"Iraq" far less legal, but it occurred in a dictatorship so the morality of it is skewed in favor of the US. Ditto for all of the other nations. According to the UN, all peoples deserve and are entitled to liberty; so overthrowing dictatorships for democracies is hardly seen as negative. The issue is in the lives taken in that self-proclaimed goal; was it worth it or no? The US faced heavy criticism for the perception that even if the US kept the civilian casualties IT committed at a minimum; it still should've done better. As for Yugoslavia, well that was ostensibly to stop a genocide, so no one is gonna question that.
Idk where you've been, but there have been quite a few scathing reports of the US killing civilians and/or making things worse. If anything, people never stop talking about it because as the superpower; anything the US does gets plastered all over world news.
If you don't look it up, you won't find much on Russia's actions in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, or Libya; because Russia is comparatively not important. The US is what gets attention, not Russia. That works against the US, for every action is hyper-scrutinized.
Iraq told the US to leave once back in 2010 or so, and the US did leave. But immediately after that; ISIS came in and wrecked everything. So nobody wants a repeat, thus the US gets away with that particular issue. If Russia left somewhere via an order from a democratic assembly and refused to leave, then it would deserve the hate; but if it left and things got a LOT worse then you can bet people will look the other way.
Colombia is a flawed democracy; but still a democracy. Riots in a democracy aren't necessary since there is a way to vote out the leadership. What Colombian cops did was terrible, but unlike Venezuela (which hides their police brutality, so it's unlikely Colombia was "worse"), Colombia is an actual democracy. Venezuelans have no choice but to rebel, since there is no way to change the leadership. That's the difference. Ditto with Syria, which is also a dictatorship.
FYI: Dictatorships invading Democracies = Bad. Democracies invading Dictatorships = Nowhere near as bad. Ultimately what got the US such a bad reputation in the Cold War was its overthrowing of other democracies, not the other bad stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scudb5509 Nobody cares what happened after the Cold War. The US and USSR were locked in a struggle for influence, and for the record; we have literally no idea how many elections the USSR interfered with because...get this...it was a dictatorship which hid all of the bad stuff it did. Meanwhile the US is a democracy that has little choice but to be more honest. For all we know, the USSR did it 300 times over.
An independent country fucking with other independent countries is not dictatorship. Dictatorship is only possible within a nation-state, it's not possible outside of one. The US can't go and arrest you for talking crap, which a dictator could, even with all of its power.
As for your question, I hate all dictators, including the ones that were placed there by the US. I can acknowledge however that they can't be removed atm; as we saw in Iraq, sometimes a dictator is the only thing holding a country together. Idealism doesn't always work in the world; and the US fighting and protecting only democracies would have been an abysmal strategy against the USSR. So basically, while I hate it, I'm not in favor of forcefully removing each and every dictatorship on the planet, but a few at a time sounds good. Though even then, pragmatism should be a thing; helping France in Libya, even if the US ultimately felt obligated, was not a good idea and I very much dislike that that happened and will bring it up as something to be ashamed of. Really, these days all I expect of the US is "don't hurt other democracies when there isn't a massive war for influence".
China is many things, but there is zero need for the US to exhibit old Cold War-era CIA coups; and I would be ashamed of it if it did.
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
-
@bong9476 I don't really see any facts or history here. China was not officially involved in Vietnam, but did provide aid to Vietnam in its war with the US, true. Nobody in their right mind considers China a combatant, however; which is the metric most use. The China Civil War had the opposite issue; US wasn't involved combatively, but was involved with financial aid of the Nationalists. The only war which the US and China were both involved in combatively is in the Korean War, and China failed to kick the US out of Korea much as the US failed to take all of Korea for South Korea. You can consider it a "Chinese victory" insofar that the US was kicked out of North Korea, but so can the US for making sure South Korea exists at all -which was its original objective.
So in total, at max, you can claim that China defeated the US once. Though with that same logic so has the US in Korea. As well as the many wars the trade wars waged in the 19th century which the US got dragged into after the Opium Wars. Though that's quite a long while ago.
Uh, the US fought the Chinese while demilitarized. So congrats, I guess?
1
-
@bong9476 "Vietcongs Guerillas were mostly made up of Chinese Volunteers"
Oh boy. Yeah, sure, whatever you say in lala land.
Also, you're flat-out lying about China's involvement in Korea. The second the US crossed the 38th parallel the CCP began discussing whether to intervene, and decided to do so before the US reached the Yalu River.
"In a series of emergency meetings that lasted from 2 to 5 October, Chinese leaders debated whether to send Chinese troops into Korea. There was considerable resistance among many leaders, including senior military leaders, to confronting the US in Korea.[216] Mao strongly supported intervention, and Zhou was one of the few Chinese leaders who firmly supported him. After Lin Biao politely refused Mao's offer to command Chinese forces in Korea (citing his upcoming medical treatment),[217] Mao decided that Peng Dehuai would be the commander of the Chinese forces in Korea after Peng agreed to support Mao's position.[217] Mao then asked Peng to speak in favor of intervention to the rest of the Chinese leaders. After Peng made the case that if US troops conquered Korea and reached the Yalu they might cross it and invade China, the Politburo agreed to intervene in Korea.[218] On 4 August 1950, with a planned invasion of Taiwan aborted due to the heavy US naval presence, Mao reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea when the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Taiwan invasion force was reorganized into the PLA North East Frontier Force.[219] On 8 October 1950, Mao redesignated the PLA North East Frontier Force as the People's Volunteer Army (PVA).[220]"
"After secretly crossing the Yalu River on 19 October, the PVA 13th Army Group launched the First Phase Offensive on 25 October, attacking the advancing UN forces near the Sino-Korean border. This military decision made solely by China changed the attitude of the Soviet Union. Twelve days after PVA troops entered the war, Stalin allowed the Soviet Air Force to provide air cover and supported more aid to China.[230] After inflicting heavy losses on the ROK II Corps at the Battle of Onjong, the first confrontation between Chinese and US military occurred on 1 November 1950. Deep in North Korea, thousands of soldiers from the PVA 39th Army encircled and attacked the US 8th Cavalry Regiment with three-prong assaults—from the north, northwest, and west—and overran the defensive position flanks in the Battle of Unsan.[231] The surprise assault resulted in the UN forces retreating back to the Ch'ongch'on River, while the PVA unexpectedly disappeared into mountain hideouts following victory. It is unclear why the Chinese did not press the attack and follow up their victory."
In short, the Chinese surprised attacked the US/UN forces, they didn't reach the Yalu River yet or bomb Chinese territory, at least I don't believe so. But don't act like China was acting defensively; it ended to attack no matter what as stated above.
China intended to kick the US out of the Korean peninsula entirely after managing to kick them out of North Korea, and failed in this goal spectacularly: "the CPV party committee issued orders regarding tasks during rest and reorganization on 8 January 1951, outlining Chinese war goals. The orders read: "the central issue is for the whole party and army to overcome difficulties … to improve tactics and skills. When the next campaign starts … we will annihilate all enemies and liberate all Korea." In his telegram to Peng on 14 January, Mao stressed the importance of preparing for "the last battle" in the spring in order to "fundamentally resolve the [Korean] issue"."
Just like the US, China added another war goal on top of kicking the US out of their borders pre-emptively; and failed after being overrun with a US counter-attack.
So China won...the same way the US won. Period. I won't explain this to you a second time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pushing_Pixels China gets attention on its major dynasties, from the Han, to the Tang, to the Ming, to its civil war, to the CCP. Most don't pay attention to it. And we don't go super into details, like the An Lushan Revolt for example; but that's the case generally in world history.
Eurocentric: "focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent."
It says nothing about looking via a "European point of view". And to be blunt, the US is a nation born from European civilization, its impossible NOT to have a European point of view culturally speaking. You can't tell people to just not have their civilizational point of view; that's not how it works.
No, the reason I don't accept certain civilizations as having a major effect on the world is because they didn't have a major effect on the world. Keep crying about Eurocentrism all you want, but that will not suddenly make a random tribe in the Great Plains something critical to talk about.
China doesn't really have much importance to Western history until the late 17th century at the earliest, it was too far away to be anything but a curiosity with its connection via the Silk Road.
The Scythians and the Mauryans were not important to learn about in world history. The former colonized parts of Europe and Central Asia but didn't effect much. And the Mauryans were as important as teh Guptas; not much outside of the India subcontinent. They both collapsed within a century and are only really important for those within the subcontinent as a nationalist symbol of Indian unity before the establishment of India itself.
And we talk about the Golden Horde and the Umayyads, so idk why you're still whinging about this. Outside of the West people learn much less about the world's history, and you want to torture kids more with more history to learn? Not gonna happen. Focus on the important empires and civilizations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shen Hu I'm aware. But no, very few Korean War veterans actually supported China; many didn't see why they had to die for Koreans in a war that wasn't their own. Similar to Vietnam; and today, most Americans are proud of saving South Korea. Are you proud in saving North Korea?
MK-Ultra was studied in response to the USSR, North Korea, and China using brainwashing techniques to torture enemy POWs into following their ideology. In short, the US got that horrendous idea from something China did as a standard. Wow, it's almost as if the US' worse impulses were in response to horrendous states like yours, huh?
"Its aim was to develop mind-controlling drugs for use against the Soviet bloc in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war during the Korean War."
The US' crime was trying fall into the same level as China, instead of maintaining its moral highground. US citizens are vigilant when it comes to such overreach these days, Chinese citizens are unfortunately still willfully blind.
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
-
@khushveersingh3297 Well Indian infrastructure wasn't consistently bombed to begin with, so...I'd hope so? Prices rise with the danger and difficulty of the terrain that is getting said infrastructure, so that's a given. It's also much cheaper in the US. Like is that supposed to be a gotcha or something?
Yep a lot of money was spent buying it tribal leaders and warlords; unfortunately that is how they function. Killing them would alienate their groups, and not bribing them just has them work for their own interests to the detriment of the state -as the Taliban is learning now.
India helping a few Afghan students in India does nothing for Afghanistan itself, genius. If you haven't noted, Afghanistan is currently knocking in Pakistan's and India's door specifically because the country itself is a mess of differing factions. So congrats, you basically did nothing to help the situation and are blaming the only people that tried to do anything.
"USA is most intelligent country in the world it serves its interest." What is this absurd statement LOL. US is just another country, it makes mistakes, and it isn't omniscient or omnipotent. The US went in with idealistic intentions and got burned from having what worked in Japan, Germany, and South Korea blow up in its face. President Bush firmly believed that giving democracy would lessen terrorist beliefs and create a new wealthy nation in the region. A Liberal Internationalist, so to speak. The US isn't a criminal mastermind, it is a flawed country with flawed ideals that fumbles but sometimes makes it out alright.
This weird elevation of the US as this mastermind that makes master chess moves for its own interests is a meme that foreign countries use to justify any internal issues as being from the CIA or crap. Got a protest due to leaders being bad? Just blame the Master Manipulator Americans to get people's attention away from those pesky issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexy6019 Unlike India, the US actually talks about and passes laws to handle racism issues. That's not just a diss against India though; very few countries handle their racism issues at all unlike the US. Their way in handling race is the future where its talked about, meanwhile everyone is still in the past trying to avoid the talk and dismissing it. It's kinda sad.
Gun violence is one of the few ways India might be better, but India is not exactly much better than the US in this either. And as for Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians? LOL. They're all living life, going out and engaging in the community to make their country better. With minorities engaging in the politics, how does that translate to being afraid?
I don't care how you feel, but you couldn't pay me to live in any Asian country. They're all horribly racist compared to the US, much poorer, have much more issues with LGBT, have much more issues with women's rights, and are much less welcoming to immigrants. The US has an overflow of immigrants every year to the point that its near impossible to get in there, so I doubt they'll care if you don't enter the country lol
1
-
@alexy6019 Psht, East Asian countries accept visitors and tourists, but foreigners? That's a joke. I'm sorry, but you wouldn't understand unless you tried to live in such a country and try to become like them.
A lot of the countries you mentioned are more peaceful, no doubt. But they're also more fearful of anything different; their population doesn't understand how diversity truly is and become afraid and reject anyone not like them. That's the case with most nations, but in the US, no matter your skin, creed, or beliefs -you're an American. Full stop. That just isn't the case in most countries, I can live in Japan for all my life but I'll always be "the foreigner" and that's a cruelty I can never accept.
I'll accept more danger than I'll ever accept being "Othered" by well-meaning bigots. Sorry, again, you can't pay me enough to live in such countries. They think they're alright until they let their true feelings out and shift and squirm at the idea of someone of their race having sexual relations with someone "different". It's the same story.
Well, that's all I got to say. If you can't see it, then that's because you're privileged enough to conform easily enough. A black man can never do as you do, nor a white man. That's just how it is.
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
-
@houssedecouette4056 Yes, these organizations have ludicrously high standards, but my point is that there are no lies. Them claiming that Russian freedom of speech is in the dirt isn't a lie. Them claiming that Russian democracy is a joke isn't a lie. Them claiming that freedom of speech doesn't exist in Russia isn't a lie. None of these are lies, they're just taken from a very critical point of view of how democracy and human liberty SHOULD work. And you're wrong, they are VERY consistent with everyone.
Mikhail Lesin, Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya, Natalia Estemirova, Stanislav Markelov, Boris Nemtsov, Boris Berezovsky, Paul Klebnikov, and more. All of these people died either via literal contract killings or by eating/drinking poison. The link between them all? They were almost all critical of Putin, with Mikhail I think more Litvinenko just a former KGB agent that was seeking asylum.
Innocent proven guilty is a thing in Western courts, not in literal international news and/or politics. There can never be any proof unless Putin himself admits it, and you know damn well. So all we have are investigations that point to contracted killings with several individuals that were critical of Putin. But tell me more how Russia is a democracy.
If you still claim Russia is a democracy after this, then you prove that you're just a Kremlin stooge. There is too much coincidence with too much death by literal contracted killers against individuals too anti-Putin for this to be coincidence anymore. Too many international organizations have noted Russia's dogshit standards of liberty, and too many Western sources collaborate with this. And yet here you are, unironically claiming Russia is a democracy based on...what, exactly? Random Russian nationalists? Russian news? How comes the rest of the world is wrong and Russia is right?
There can never be any proof unless Putin opens the country to international observers like every actual democracy on the planet. Yet "Putin isn't a dictator". Give me a break.
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
-
@nape1475 The US rubberstamps anything its allies do insofar that it doesn't spit in the face of US geopolitics, genius. Blaming the MIC, which was thoroughly dismantled the second the Cold War ended, is smoothbrain territory.
US never started wars in Syria, was in constant conflict in Iran due to Cold War actions, and Israel is constantly being beat down over the head and twisted to follow US policy when it comes to the Palestinians. They would've expanded much further and faster if they had not.
Fact is that Israel, for all of its issues, is a loyal US ally; thus privileged to US support. And very little will change that, unless you want the US to stab itself in the foot anyway.
Also, the USS Liberty incident happened before the US was allied to Israel. It's end result was literally no different to how the US handled Japan in the USS Panay incident; getting recompense and an apology. You gonna claim the US bends over for Japan too?
Eisenhower literally backed multiple coups across the planet. This was the Cold War, not the era of uber US idealism. That came post-Cold War.
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
-
@philippinekatipunanflag4372 In the context I was using it, it's effectively the same -I'm implying that Russian air force, if competent, should have had the capability to employ bombers to destroy anti-air capabilities and employ bombers on enemy positions.
Ukraine, even before the invasion, effectively didn't even really have an air force.
Oh sorry, you're right; I misread what you said. That being said, I found nothing of any Russian aircraft taking 2 hits from missiles and coming back -is it from Russian state propaganda? Because any state propaganda is untrustworthy without collaborating evidence.
You act like those logistical "mistakes" were just minor issues. They were horrendous issues. Also, you're being obtuse; Ukraine did not even start receiving help from the West until like 2 weeks into the conflict after they beat back the offensive into Kyiv; announcements came the week prior, but they didn't arrive until 2 weeks in. And that aid was from Javelins and N-LAWS, not exactly expensive Western mainstays like Abrams, Patriots, and F-22's. Ukraine would still be holding without Western aid, it would just have lost more territory and have lost more men.
Russia is pathetic militarily, that much is obvious. It tried to copy the US' Desert Storm but failed in most critical aspects against a military more poorly equipped and less wealthier than Iraq's was back then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominusnostrum That sounds like your problem since David Owens should not be privy to any internal workings of government at his post, so any word from him is pretty much conspiracy more than anything else. Hell, I'm not even sure if that was even David Owens in the movie; as nothing in his bio points to him partaking in it. Do you have proof that he took part in the interview?
Uh, you realize that one intervention is not the same as another? They're all complicated and varied situations with varying beliefs and ideologies. So does this mean, by your estimation, any "Western intervention" is based on lies by default? Because that's a MAJOR red flag in terms of logical fallacies. The situations in Libya and Syria for example were factual, and speaking of interventions, Russia was against any intervention in Yugoslavia, but it was also willing to send in bombers and destroy a LOT more non-military targets in Syria than the Western powers did in Yugoslavia; and Russia was involved in a lot of interventions itself. So with your mindset, I can easily turn this around and say that "anything Russia gets involved with like in Georgia, Ukraine, Chechnya, and Yugoslavia points to the same old lies so thus there must be a conspiracy that Russian intervention is ALWAYS wrong!!!!!"
Seriously, you veer so much suspicion in Western media sources that you just automatically believe the fucking authoritarian dictatorship's word as fact. How fucked is that? If you're so "concerned", then don't take anything at face value then! Including that interveiew that doesn't source ANY of their so-called "facts" while Western sources has FAR MORE facts backing their narrative. Seriously, you wanna see the laundry list of burial sites of Bosnian Muslims found? I cna provide it! Can you provide ANYTHING but the words of an interview that has a very obvious narrative? Because it seems to me that you can't and you want to believe that there is some conspriacy when a fucking GENOCIDE occurred.
Edit: Uh, no. Croatia, Slovenia, and Serbia doing moderately well after the fact doesn't point to anything. Does Germany doing well 20 years after WW2 point to there being an "unfair anti-German sentiment in media"? Your logic is all kinds of screwed up.
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
-
@eddiecheang1513 Ah yes, the aggressive neighbor which had its territory stolen in the first place via little green men which created a referendum which never offered the opportunity to rejoin Ukraine -only the option of joining Russia or independence while Russian troops "watched over" the proceedings. Incredible, how Russia is dealing with the aggression of Ukraine while slaughtering them. This is why Russia needs to be isolated and made into a backwater; this disgusting mentality right here.
Btw, you're incorrect; Zelensky offered the option of neutrality in diplomacy, but it was not accepted so that's not a condition for peace atm. It could be, but its doubtful, seeing as Russian strength continues to get sapped against the iron will of people refusing to bow down to imperialism. You can utilize copeism all you want, but acting like losing 10k+ men is just Russia "testing" Kyiv is pretty insane. Even if it were true, it'd just prove how reprehensible Russian society treats its people. Just the poor sent to the slaughter for the whims of the mafia state.
Hah, if Russia goes full nuke, then we all die. But if Russia gets what it wants, then it becomes convinced it can get more by using nuclear threats. The answer is obvious; never give dictators what they want. Better to die free than live a slave.
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
-
@InfiniteDeckhand It doesn't matter what Marx thought if like 99.999% of its practitioners made something else. Ideologies shift over time, beyond what their creators envisioned. Fascism was envisioned as an ideology to bring a nationalist together and achieve greatness, but these days its associated with racism, mass murder, and the destruction of a nation. Same deal here.
If we had multiple implementations of how Marx envisioned Communism, then it would be a different story, but that hasn't been a thing...at least for a nation-state setting.
No, in this Communism and Fascism are the exact same. The uber idealistic framework of their ideology is easily abused by bad actors, leading to the corruption of any semblance of the original vision. Marking both as enemies to human freedom and liberty.
Btw dude, you're literally using a guy that has no connection to the original creator of Fascist ideology as proof of what Fascism is. You're kinda proving my point that whatever the creator wants, isn't what the ideology actually IS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timogul You realize 99% of countries would just kick those children out rather than bother separating them to give a chance of asylum, right? Even that horrible action was more progressive than pretty much any nation in Europe, let alone the UK.
Anyway, per capita for immigration is a bit strange since they are often concentrated in the most productive centers of the economy to begin with, like New York or LA. It isn't like they spread out neatly across a country, at least not the vast majority. Seriously, if we use per capita, then places like Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE are among the biggest immigrant-friendly countries on Earth.
Hey, if you want to believe the fantasy, feel free, but suffice it to say that immigration rates from places like the UK or Canada when contrasted to the US has people moving away from those places towards the US, not the other way around.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrFreezFree The USSR was a crippled and twisted imperialist state which deserved to collapse and burn. We know jack all about the true state of its empire specifically due to it hid all information and truth from everyone, including itself. All info the CIA had on the USSR was based on guess estimates, including the positive ones as the KGB ran circles around the CIA.
The positives you speak of directly led to its collapse; what good is a state which collapses so utterly within 5 decades or so? It's no different to Venezuela or Libya which collapsed after oil shocks since their economies were so dependent on the resource to maintain living standards. The few positives that did NOT attribute to that are few; such as legal equality between men and women -though the right to abortion/divorce in the USSR were a joke after Lenin for the most part. It also vastly improved living standards compared to the Russian Czar, though that's not saying much at all.
Also, acting like there was any major liberalization in the 60's is a sick joke. It was under Khrushchev that some liberalization occurred known as the "Thaw" from which some freedom of expression was allowed and was considered their "golden age" as it were. It was when Khrushchev passed away and Brezhnev took control that those reforms were revoked in the 60's and the beginning of the Era of Stagnation began. It was literally the REVOKING of what little Liberalism was left that caused the long-term Stagnation of the USSR.
Everything was already collapsing by the time of Perestroika, thus the collapse of living standards was to be expected, Liberalization or not. Now? The vast majority of post-Soviet states in Eastern/Central Europe are doing explosively better than under Communism.
There are boons to the USSR, sure, but they are VASTLY overshadowed by the sheer garbage that was the Soviet State. It deserved its death and destruction, is all I can say. I feel only slightly more pity to its death compared to N@zi Germany, that's about the only positive thing I can say about it. Oh, and the Space Race was cool too.
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
-
@_Athanase_ France literally does it all the time to their allies, wut? France steals and spies on US tech while proclaiming "allies don't do that" when the US was caught out. France has screwed the US and Italy before, and TRIED to screw Eastern Europe by selling Russia ships while they were being threatened by Russia. What world do you live in that France doesn't do what France, even at the cost of allies? Heck, I read of when France was selling Argentina equipment WHILE Argentina was making war with the UK.
You claim not to be a supporter, but you ignore France literally doing the stuff you're claiming the US has wont to do and supporting an EU that essentially mimics French interests. It really sounds like you are emulating France as some sword of European independence...which they're not. No more than the US is.
No, I can 100% say that the US did nothing wrong. It did not actively seek to bomb this deal, and Australia approached the UK and then the US for a better one. If the US approached France, it would have literally been spitting in Australia's face. It was Australia with the deal, and yet France with their strange Anglo obsession turned this on the US. Which, tbh, is prolly the point; Macron is trying to paint this as a "US vs Europe" thing when in reality this was a "France and Australia" thing to push for more European integration. Based on US bashing, I suppose.
Being embarrassed on the international stage is really not an excuse for this, nor is anything you mentioned. Its called being an adult. Words of retaliation was a given, withdrawing ambassadors which in history has only occurred when countries are either about to go to war or flat-out are considered enemies is when that occurs. Its stuff like this that makes me wonder if the US should just be treating France as a rival at this point.
A foreign ministry can do whatever the heck they want; but lets not act like they're 100% honest and aren't portraying their country's interest even if its is a complete lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Karthagast Uh, sorry, but 40 years ago is pretty damn recent. That's like a single generation. Just like how the US' segregation is also relatively recent.
LOL. You sound like one of those white nationalists that are crying that they're facing oppression because they have to deal with getting a higher test score due to Affirmative Action. Sorry, honey; but a minority that is trying to get in touch with their culture and that feels so unsafe that they feel the need to push for independence does not equate to oPpReSsIoN of the Spanish people.
No, "Latino" is considered an ethnic background, and is not considered a race. Only Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Pacific Islanders are considered a race. But continue with the diatribe lol.
For the record, everything south of Rio Grande was pretty much entirely well-settled Native American civilizations with millions of people. The Incas, the Aztecs, the Mayans, etc, etc. There were no massive empires in the territory of the US and Canada; they were almost entirely nomadic tribes. So your logic in the English and French were worse makes little sense. Hell, if we wanna talk about mistreatment, then you might wanna mention how the English and French didn't really ever actually enslave Natives, but the Spanish did with their Encomienda System. Oh, they enslaved Africans 100%, but only the Spanish and Portuguese did the Natives to any large degree. Might have more to do with population size, but that's neither here nor there.
Edit: And by slavery, I mean wage slavery; akin to what the European colonial powers did in Africa despite "outlawing slavery".
The Spanish didn't integrate shit, they enslaved, raped, and plundered the land while the French and English actually built up their own societies from scratch. The Spanish stole and stole, their societies were entirely based on exploitation, while the English and French were not...well, barring poor Haiti for France. Which is why all of Latin America has been a mess for the past few centuries. The Spanish. So thanks for that.
Actually, the US practiced ethnic cleansing against the Native Americans; the only real genocide that occurred was in California where a California governor encouraged settlers to kill any Native American for money. There are a few other, like massacres committed by US troops (I think 2 total) and the Trail of Tears, but that's more questionable due to intent. But you won't hear me singing the praises of the US' treatment of Native Americans; it was shit.
Wanna hear about the Spanish, though?
"It is estimated that during the initial Spanish conquest of the Americas up to eight million indigenous people died, primarily through the spread of Afro-Eurasian diseases.,[22] in a series of events that have been described as the first large-scale act of genocide of the modern era.[36] Acts of brutality and systematic annihilation against the Taíno People of the Caribbean prompted Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas to write Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias ('A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies') in 1542—an account that had a wide impact throughout the western world as well as contributing to the abolition of indigenous slavery in all Spanish territories the same year it was written. Las Casas wrote that the native population on the Spanish colony of Hispaniola had been reduced from 400,000 to 200 in a few decades."
Yeah, no, the Spanish genocided the shit out of the Americas; the US in its entire history hasn't taken that much life, for reference. Just because the Spanish proceeded to encourage the raping of Native women to make mixed children doesn't mean it wasn't genocide, smart one. How bad of a person are you that even the oh so nationalist Americans can acknowledge this but you can't? 🤣
Nazi's tend to deny their precious Holocaust. That's what you're doing, genius. I am a Afro-Latino American, my grandmother is from Peru, and my grandfather is from Columbia. And literally no one from Latin America denies that the Spanish are the worst colonizers in all of human history. Might wanna talk with your former colonies every once and a while. Might be illuminating.
All that being said, this is just deflection. Give the Catalans more rights, or face their independence. Us Latinos from Texas will cheer for them if they decide to leave, since the Spanish obviously can't be trusted to not commit genocide again since they have a habit of denying it every time it's brought up. We'll be A-OK here in the US as we protest racial injustice, but I fear that the Catalans will have no choice but to violently revolt as the Spanish sends more thugs to attack voters again.🙄
LOL. Well, I ain't an Anglo by race, but I'll happily take the cultural tag, if you want. Better than being Spanish.
1
-
@Karthagast I said "recent" because I think something within recent memory of a living generation can be quantified as such. I am not saying that "40 years" is specifically what I consider recent, it's just within that timeframe. I literally specified that I thought that the end of US segregation was also "recent", and that ended in the 60's. So no, that isn't a logical fallacy...nor is it a hypocrisy.
Yeah, the Catalan people have so many rights that when they tried to set up a referendum and a protest in support of it...Spanish cops injured so many people by crushing it that there have been claims of up to 800+ people getting injured. Like every country that has major issues with racial injustice, they can claim one thing, but the reality can be quite different. That goes for all countries, even my own.
"YES, that is the problem. All your allegations against Spain are based of your biased "estimations", intended for playing its role in your "Black Legend" practice against Spain. In absence of real evidence you have to resource to manufactured "estimations"." <---This is exactly what Nazi's and Communists say in regards to the Holocaust and Holodormer. These "biased" allegations are literally from the same people that note the US' genocidal actions against Natives in the Trial of Tears. It's an international effort for the truth, but your nationalism doesn't let you see that you're literally just doing what every genocide denier has ever done. Claim it's some absurd conspiracy.
I 100% am aware that most of the deaths were from the diseases that the Spanish and other European brought, and I don't blame them for that. But the issue is more how the Spanish took advantage of that and systematically brutalized the region with the intent to erase/subjugate. Also, the Mongols were genociders too; also because of their actions in conjunction with plague. Populations always bounce back after a plague, but the Native population nearly disappeared in many places in the Americas.
"Historian Andrés Reséndez at the University of California, Davis asserts that even though disease was a factor, the indigenous population of Hispaniola would have rebounded the same way Europeans did following the Black Death if it were not for the constant enslavement they were subject to.[40] He says that "among these human factors, slavery was the major killer" of Hispaniola's population, and that "between 1492 and 1550, a nexus of slavery, overwork and famine killed more natives in the Caribbean than smallpox, influenza or malaria.""
So yeah, genocide denial be bad, bruh.
Yes, 90% of the human experience fits as slaves. The Russian Serfs were slaves, the bottom rungs of the Encomienda System were slaves, the early workers of US factories were essentially slaves. It's called "wage slavery", look it up. If someone lives hand-to-mouth and has literally no means to ever leave their work and are falling further and further into debt...that's literally just slavery with a few extra steps. I'm quite consistent with my belief, and most people would call this "colonialism".
You keep referencing Nazi's, but you're the one genocide denying here. I'm pretty chill, really. And no, acknowledging Spain's sins does not equate to hating it; it's just writing the truth of history so that we can all move on and recognize the present. Just as pointing out my own country's flaws is not "Anti-American". Yeah, you're like some sort of uber nationalist. Kinda gross, man. I really am kinda scared for Catalans with people like you around in Spain still.
What a strange last comment. I am content with the US; acknowledging its issues only means I wish to see it better, and I am very content that people here try to acknowledge the past rather than bury it...for the most part anyway. And then, when I meet people like you, I especially remember why I'm happy to be American. I can give my country a lot of shit, you see; so thanks for that.
Anyway, yeah, racial injustice, refusal to acknowledge past sins, uber nationalism regressive politics. Spain is screwed, if you are more common than I fear. And if that's the case, I hope my country still has enough of its old ideals to stand for the oppressed and help Catalans with their independence. Turkey unfortunately cannot be stopped with the Kurds, since they control the Strait and that's critical to help Eastern Europe in the Black Sea, but Spain? Yeah, we can stand for our ideals in Spain, hopefully. Pray we can do the right thing when it comes to it. Prefer if it doesn't come to that though; so I hope you can let go of your hate to do the right thing lest US Navy has to sail there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SangiinKherem In what world do you live in is the US collapsing? Having riots, protests, or leaving countries is not indicative of a collapse. Nor is having a high debt. Japan's debt-to-GDP is higher than the US', and the US' debt after WW2 was MUCH higher in terms of debt-to-GDP; and that was considered the US' golden age.
The US' economy is still rising, it's political system is still functioning, it's military still across the planet. By your logic, the US was "collapsing" during Vietnam, Yugoslavia, or Iraq. Sorry, but that is just your propaganda network telling you obvious untruths. Like seriously, by every metric the US is still doing well; democracies have points where internal affairs take precedence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaatankachorraa4677 "Muslims in India have been increasingly at risk since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was first elected in 2014. Faizan died in a carnage amidst rising communal tensions in the country. On December 12, 2019, the Modi administration achieved passage of the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). Under the act, for the first time in India, religion is a basis for granting citizenship. The law specifically fast-tracks asylum claims of non-Muslim irregular immigrants from the neighboring Muslim-majority countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The amended citizenship law, coupled with the government’s push for a nationwide citizenship verification process through a National Population Register (NPR) and a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), aimed at identifying “illegal migrants,” has led to fears that millions of Indian Muslims, including many families who have lived in the country for generations, could be stripped of their citizenship rights and disenfranchised.
Throughout the country, Indians of all faiths have protested peacefully against the law, singing songs, reciting poetry, and reading aloud from the constitution, which commits to secularism and equality. The iconic image of these protests was at Shaheen Bagh, a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Delhi. Since it first began on December 15, the protest, which was led by local women, drew civil society support from across the country. It also provoked the ire of the ruling BJP, with some of its leaders deriding the protesters or more dangerously calling them anti-national and pro-Pakistan. Some have described the protesters as “Pakistani hooligans,” others led a chant to “shoot the traitors,” inciting violence. On February 1, 2020, a man fired two shots in the air near the protest site. On March 24, authorities asked the protesters to disperse following the outbreak of Coronavirus and calls for a lockdown to contain its spread.
Since the Modi administration first took office, BJP leaders have repeatedly made Hindu nationalist and anti-Muslim remarks in their speeches and interviews. These have, at times, encouraged and even incited violent attacks by party supporters who believe they have political protection and approval. They have beaten Muslim men for dating Hindu women. Mobs affiliated to the BJP have, since 2015, killed and injured scores of members of religious minorities amid rumors that they traded or killed cows for beef. In February 2019, BJP supporters threatened and beat several Kashmiri Muslim students and traders, apparently to avenge a militant attack on a security forces convoy.
Government policy has also reflected bias against Muslims. Since October 2018, Indian authorities have deported over a dozen Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar despite the risks to their lives and security. After winning a second term in May 2019, the government revoked the constitutional autonomy of India’s only Muslim-majority state, Jammu and Kashmir, and, anticipating protests, deployed additional troops, detained thousands, and cut off phone and internet connections. The police have failed to intervene when BJP supporters engage in speech inciting violence or mob attacks but are quick to arrest critics of the government."
*That was from HRW. Here's another a year after the above*;
"Authorities in India have adopted laws and policies that systematically discriminate against Muslims and stigmatize critics of the government, Human Rights Watch said today. Prejudices embedded in the government of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have infiltrated independent institutions, such as the police and the courts, empowering nationalist groups to threaten, harass, and attack religious minorities with impunity.
February 23, 2021 marks the one-year anniversary of the communal violence in Delhi that killed 53 people, 40 of them Muslim. Instead of conducting a credible and impartial investigation, including into allegations that BJP leaders incited violence and police officials were complicit in attacks, the authorities have targeted activists and protest organizers. The authorities have lately responded to another mass protest, this time by farmers, by vilifying minority Sikh protesters and opening investigations into their alleged affiliation with separatist groups.
“The BJP’s embrace of the Hindu majority at the expense of minorities has seeped into government institutions, undermining equal protection of the law without discrimination,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government has not only failed to protect Muslims and other minorities from attacks but is providing political patronage and cover for bigotry.”"
India isn't as bad as literal dictatorships, but as a minority in the US, India is considered a joke in terms of actual protections of minorities. Better than the likes of China of course, but that's not a high bar.
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
-
@cozycowboy You missed the bit where women expect men to; be ambitious, be assertive, be understanding, be protective, not be overbearing, be strong, not be out of shape, have an excellent career, sacrifice happiness for their ple@sure, be an emotional rock, etc, etc.
Wow, its almost like men and women have their own expectations of each other or something that are independent of the other.
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
-
@Jeffery3464 Huh??? You realize that France and the UK did NOT think that they could take on Germany at all in WW2, right? They were weakened by the Great Depression and they knew it, which was why the initial declaration between France/UK and Germany was called the "Phony War" because the Allies were unwilling to risk their forces on an assault. That's how weak they were initially; Germany was the only power barring the USSR that had a large industrialized army at the time of the start of the war, with everyone else cutting back due to the economic crisis. Literally none of the initial Allied powers were ready at all.
This is in sharp contrast to today, where the US outstrips China's military spending, naval tonnage, and army preparedness. If anything, in this situation, the US is Germany while China is the UK/France -the unprepared power that may face conflict with a highly industrialized military force that has tested its mettle in actual conflict. And despite your words, the US has faced multiple conflicts and even literal large battles in the form of Iraq in 2003. China has...not done any of that, let alone used its navy in any capacity. All it has are theories, not experience.
You need to read up on your history, if you're gonna make a comparison, don't make a clearly flawed one.
1
-
@Jeffery3464 You're acting like "securing Taiwan" is some simple thing. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to take a fortified island? You need absolute control over the waters around said island and still have extreme difficulty storming a beach that can't have armored divisions while infantry would be completely open to attacks. And even if Taiwan is taken, it would face immense internal resistance for likely weeks if not months afterwards.
And for the record, it actually isn't THAT far for the US at all. That's why the US has so many bases; it allows for quick re-deployment from other friendly bases to re-route troops and naval forces to other locations.
You realize that advancements in anti-ship missiles are counteracted by advancements in anti-missile systems too, right? And if such advancements were so crippling what in the world makes you think Taiwan can be taken since China NEEDS such ships to accomplish an invasion to begin with? Why is it that in your mind the Chinese Navy will not face this uber-powerful anti-ship missiles but the US Navy will be destroyed? What's with this ludicrous double-standard?
Regardless of what propaganda the UK or France put out; we know for a fact that their military budget was nowhere near high enough to contend with Germany's for a long time prior to WW2. So we know for a fact that despite any propaganda, France and the UK were NOT prepared to fight. We also know that France's fall has more to do with a disastrous defense that crippled France's army; and that the necessary maneuvers that allowed for such a victory against France needed immense practice and implementation in Germany's armed forces to succeed in. Implementation that Germany used to great effect in Poland. Experience that France did not have, but Germany did.
Meanwhile, the US is the one with all of the experience, and China is not. So again, use a better example.
Why are you listing random conflicts and battles? Yes, war is never clear; but that isn't a reason to make an absurd comparison and act like China has all the cards. It's the US that has all of the cards, but of course, its still possible for the US to lose -it's just nowhere near as likely as it is that China will lose. US has the experience, the tonnage, the tech, and the military budget; along with numerous allies in the region.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randomlygeneratedname7171 Considering the Taliban seemed to adore the idea of their own people getting needlessly killed, and the Americans don't; I can understand why we left. It's a lost cause that will not yield anything worthwhile. But hey; we killed a LOT of them, so I'm game with that.
What's the difference between gunning, bombing, and blasting into submission? Also, you literally don't know that. Talk about prideful ignorance. You're like a dime a dozen, you know that?
And lastly, the Taliban won, no question of that. But the Afghans lost; their economy is crashing, their girls are being shepherded back into their pens like animals, and any progress socially and culturally are being repressed again. You're a sick bastard if you find joy in that.
1
-
1
-
@randomlygeneratedname7171 Idk why you're making this point. The isn't the death, its the length; years upon years with seemingly no end to a conflict. "Establishing order" means going all in, but to what end? Supporting a fractured Afghan government that seems to be only slightly less corrupt than the Taliban? Sure, the society is better; but it isn't worth constant conflict, even if few Americans die.
US can and has established order on the ground, multiple times. But Afghanistan is too far away, with too different a culture, with a divided society that was only held together prior by warlords. It would take genuine dedication for any country to establish order, and a lot more bloodshed, while also removing troublesome actors that DO NOT want Afghanistan in order to begin with such as Pakistan, China, and Russia. Pakistan not at all, while the other two just not aligned with the US.
So that's that. No point.
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
-
@tatarchan5212 Eh, I disagree. It seems more, at least to me, that less Americans are starting to care about the consequences of what occurs outside their borders rather than anything else. Which, to be honest, is how 99% of people are in reality across the planet. But people expected the Americans to care since they have that kind of power for change, good or ill.
That being said, backing religious extremist groups is more the issue at hand. China backed Communist guerillas in India, but that didn't bite them back -mostly because their ideology while twisted was also consistent. Religious extremism is far less so, and CIA backing of other less reputable groups were mostly just reactionaries rather than religious extremists like the mujahideen.
So no, Americans really have nothing to fear on that account. Especially after going on a campaign of blowing up every Islamist they could find in the Middle East for decades on end. If nothing else, they really did decimate the ideology's attractiveness with so many adherents getting blown up.
1
-
1
-
@troooooper100 Uh, the Taliban was the direct ruling authority of Afghanistan and 100% supported Al Qaeda. No one disputes this at all.
If the US shot missiles at Iraq without warning, then yes Iraq would have the right to war with the US.
I never said that the US was thinking about helping Afghans, but I do believe the US intended to help themselves by making a new Afghanistan which they could work with to crush Islamic extremism. If that happened to help Afghans, then I'm sure that would have been a nice thing, but I doubt that was their focus.
You're being ridiculous. The US is not God, it can't be everywhere and create everything. The mujahideen was there long before the US was involved, and the Taliban was created when the US wasn't even in Afghanistan. There was a general trend of rising Islamic extremism after Arab Nationalism fell apart; and Afgahnistan was just the latest.
Idk about Afgahnistan, but Iraq by 2011 was superior to Saddam Hussein's Iraq in terms of human rights, economic development, and growth; it was worse with violence though. It was after 2011 when ISIS came along that things got worse again.
Dude, you're obviously a conspiracy nutcase. I'm not gonna argue with you about 9/11, it's been done to death. And your beliefs in Zionists controlling the US points to you being a form of right-wing extremist that I want nothing further to deal with. Only a smooth-brain tool unironically still believes in the zIoNiSTs and naively believing that so many world events are caused by one single all-powerful group. Grow up.
1
-
@troooooper100 This is my last comment to you. You're too ignorant and proud of it to continue responding to. Next time; acutally look up the crap you're spewing before you do so. You'd learn quickly that you're echoing conspiracies or just flat-out lies instead of documented facts. This is a copy-and-paste from the wiki entry on the Mujahideen in Afghanistan:
"Arguably the best-known mujahideen outside the Islamic world are the various, loosely aligned Afghan opposition groups who initially rebelled against the government of the pro-Soviet Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) during the late 1970s. At the DRA's request, the Soviet Union brought forces into the country to aid the government in 1979. The mujahideen fought against Soviet and DRA troops during the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989). Afghanistan's resistance movement originated in chaos and, at first, regional warlords waged virtually all of its fighting locally. As warfare became more sophisticated, outside support and regional coordination grew. The basic units of mujahideen organization and action continued to reflect the highly decentralized nature of Afghan society and strong loci of competing mujahideen and Pashtun tribal groups, particularly in isolated areas among the mountains.[16] Eventually, the seven main mujahideen parties allied as the political bloc called Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen. However the parties were not under a single command and had ideological differences.
Many Muslims from other countries assisted the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. Some groups of these veterans became significant players in later conflicts in and around the Muslim world. Osama bin Laden, originally from a wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, was a prominent organizer and financier of an all-Arab Islamist group of foreign volunteers; his Maktab al-Khadamat funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the Muslim world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi and Pakistani governments.[17] These foreign fighters became known as "Afghan Arabs" and their efforts were coordinated by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam.
Although the mujahideen were aided by the Pakistani, American, Chinese and Saudi governments, the mujahideen's primary source of funding was private donors and religious charities throughout the Muslim world—particularly in the Persian Gulf. Jason Burke recounts that "as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states.""
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheUnique69able "A number of small-scale Jewish migrations began in many Middle Eastern countries early in the 20th century with the only substantial aliyah (immigration to the area today known as Israel) coming from Yemen and Syria.[3] Few Jews from Muslim countries immigrated during the period of Mandatory Palestine.[4] Prior to the creation of Israel in 1948, approximately 800,000 Jews were living in lands that now make up the Arab world. Of these, just under two-thirds lived in the French and Italian-controlled North Africa, 15–20% in the Kingdom of Iraq, approximately 10% in the Kingdom of Egypt and approximately 7% in the Kingdom of Yemen. A further 200,000 lived in Pahlavi Iran and the Republic of Turkey.
The first large-scale exoduses took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s, primarily from Iraq, Yemen and Libya. In these cases over 90% of the Jewish population left, despite the necessity of leaving their property behind.[5] Two hundred and sixty thousand Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel between 1948 and 1951, accounting for 56% of the total immigration to the newly founded state.[6] The Israeli government's policy to accommodate 600,000 immigrants over four years, doubling the existing Jewish population,[7] encountered mixed reactions in the Knesset; there were those within the Jewish Agency and government who opposed promoting a large-scale emigration movement among Jews whose lives were not in danger.[7]
Later waves peaked at different times in different regions over the subsequent decades. The peak of the exodus from Egypt occurred in 1956 following the Suez Crisis. The emigrations from the other North African Arab countries peaked in the 1960s. Lebanon was the only Arab country to see a temporary increase in its Jewish population during this period, due to an influx of Jews from other Arab countries, although by the mid-1970s the Jewish community of Lebanon had also dwindled. Six hundred thousand Jews from Arab and Muslim countries had reached Israel by 1972.[8][9][10][11] In total, of the 900,000 Jews who left Arab and other Muslim countries, 600,000 settled in the new state of Israel, and 300,000 migrated to France and the United States. The descendants of the Jewish immigrants from the region, known as Mizrahi Jews ("Eastern Jews") and Sephardic Jews ("Spanish Jews"), currently constitute more than half of the total population of Israel,[12] partially as a result of their higher fertility rate.[13] In 2009, only 26,000 Jews remained in Arab countries and Iran,[14] as well as 26,000 in Turkey."
It takes only one generation to have ideas of toleration to beliefs of repression. Tolerance sucks; it was a benchmark for ignorant Europeans, but is an abysmal way to live for the modern period.
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
-
@kwaynr1301 Not at all, I'm just not a fascist or a tankie. I never once said that the US waged war to keep the peace everywhere, but that it tried to keep the peace in hotspots. For example; its only through US influence that more of Palestine hasn't been swallowed up or enveloped entirely by now; as nobody would want or be able to stop Israel due to prior mistrust of its Arab neighbors. The US is very much involved with maintaining the peace between India and Pakistan, and worked with much of Latin America Post-Cold War in their internal/external issues.
Sorry to break it to you; but no country is motivated by altruism, but that doesn't mean that countries are motivated by power or money. That is extremely naïve; people generally don't think that way -they tend to have a framework of ideology to make sense of their beliefs. George Bush, the second one, for example believed firmly in the Liberal International Peace theory -honestly believing that if every country was a democracy that peace would become essentially permanent -which took part in his decision in the Iraq/Afghan War. Of course power and money took a part, but just saying "its all power/money" is naïve. If that were the case, then countries wouldn't fight so hard for independence from larger entities.
Also, you reveal your ignorance. The US spends $744 Billion on welfare, and $721 Billion on military -and don't think I didn't notice you trying to use a specific metric like "welfare" to try and make a dishonest point. When a better comparison would be social spending; which the US spends $2 Trillion on.
US invaded Kuwait specifically for liberal values; the US could have simply maintain its alliance with Saddam Hussein instead of turning on him for invading Kuwait. I can name another in the form of Yugoslavia, which the US initially aligned with against the breakaway states by arguing in favor of uniting under the Serb dominated majority instead of self-determination. It turned against it once proof of the Bosnian Genocide happened. And now, as we speak, the US is took a stand against Ethiopia, another ally for its actions in the Tigray War.
The US has taken moral stances when taking the immoral one would have been advantageous, but nobody acknowledges them because its either not eye catching or goes against their beliefs. It isn't like I talk much about it either, but it lets unironic tankies like Chomsky spread their garbage without pushback.
Eh, I began from the start saying that the US is not a saint or altruistic; it's a country -it can't be altruistic by design. But if you're going at this with "what did the US do that was good", then you can't talk about the US invading Nicaragua because that wasn't done in the name of good or evil -that was done for self-interest. The selfish reasons you noted before; and that by itself is not evil. Evil would be what the US did to the Natives in the Trail of Tears partially due to racial hatred. So if we're using your metric, we have to talk about actions the US did for evil reasons.
No, a better metric would be "what did the US do that had good/evil outcomes"? Then your example of Congo would make more sense.
Here's the "good outcome"; South Korea, Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Indonesia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco, Panama, Grenada, Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Israel, Jordan, and Pakistan. It should be noted that I'm roughly using "WW2 and after" actions and not really talking about general aid/coups stuff unless they were uniquely good/terrible. That gets more complicated and is a much longer list.
As for times the US invaded with a bad outcome? That's; Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Nicaragua, Cuba, Brazil, Costa Rica, Argentina, Bolivia, Congo, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala.
So that's 23 good to 14 evil overall from US policies. And that's from the top of my head, the list is prolly longer on both ends. And this list also doesn't go into specifics, like how Vietnam is generally considered a US ally now, or how Pakistan's relationship to the US soured. Seriously, you seem like one of those people that only ever look up the bad the US has done, never reflecting on the good -and that's as toxic as being a Fox News watcher and waving a MAGA flag around.
Yeah, I said it, you seem like a reverse version of MAGA boys, at least that's my honest assessment thus far.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shreyangshumodak8923 Ukraine won't move the army from Kyiv because it can still be attacked by Russia again, genius. It is braindead to move troops, meanwhile Russia can freely move troops since it was through Belarus that Ukraine was attacked from.
"Ukrainian army is the 2nd best army in NATO after USA and the most motivated army too
They had immense help from CIA, MI6 and NATO armies to prepare for this war"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ukraine's army is one of the biggest to be sure, but it is considered one of the weakest armies in Europe. Poland's army is a lot stronger, let alone France's or the UK's. The US is in a league of its own. Seriously, this is just sad now.
Bruh, what? There were no more than 4k Ukrainian troops in Mariupol. Russia was the one that had 15k troops occupied there. Are you mixing up the numbers?
Seriously, where are you getting your numbers about the Ukrainian troops in Donbas? No official count has been discovered, or are you just getting it from cretins like Patrick Lancaster who is literally paid and supported by the Kremlin?
As for a conventional war with Russia? Psht, its a joke. It isn't an equal to the likes of Poland, let alone the US; the only danger is the amount of damage they can do in an initial volley into cities in Poland and the likes. Meanwhile the West has to actually care enough to not burn down Russian cities in retaliation, while Russia gets to not care. This is the disgusting mentality of Russia atm; "we get to kill and butcher your citizens but if you do it to us we can threaten to nuke".
Bruh, Russia has only ever faced goat herders and farmers since WW2 as well, genius. It's being trashed around by farmers as we speak.
I just pity you. You're gonna need psychiatric help as Russia is forced to either call general mobilization and get more of their people killed or they are forced to withdraw. These are its only options. I'm content to watch Russian bodies fertilize Ukrainian lands, for now. Russia's cowardice knows no bounds, terrified of a Western intervention to stop this.
As for your last bit, I was commenting that a country threatening something like that is a cowardly country. So you agree that Russia is a cowardly country that wants to see Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Perm, Volgograd, and Vladivostok get destroyed with mushroom clouds, right? Because it wasn't the US threatening nations with nukes for stepping into their wars.
Sad.
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
-
@d.b.2215 Describing immigrants to a country, even if they're only meaning to come as a periodic economic workforce as what amounts to "guests workers", especially due to their country of origin (read: poorer countries) is considered racist to most Americans, I think. But that could be from a bygone age, so idk if they're still called that.
Learning German isn't a problem, it's the assumption that migrants will be problematic if they don't learn it that is problematic -the idea behind it, I guess. There are a lot of immigrant communities in the US that don't really speak much English, and they do fine.
Lastly, the bit about citizenships needing to be revoked to get a German one is absurd, but that might be my own immigrant background. That's like severing a part of your heritage just for the privilege of being German. My grandparents have their passports to their countries of origin and the idea of forcing them to cut ties with family back home because of the fears of your new country fills me with unease.
Mind you, this is just a perspective. So I'm not saying its factual, but from my own immigrant background a lot of Germany's policies are very problematic. And I'm not even an uber progressive either, some in the US already consider US immigrant policies to be too stringent and harsh, Germany's would sound dystopian to them. But that might be the different cultural outlook rather than anything truly negative or positive. Germany has its own cultural history born in Germany, while the US' is an immigrant country.
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
-
@AlexSmith-ln1tv Most of the US involvements you speak of were either morally justified or flat-out asked for by the local governments themselves, bruh. Fact is thus; US has far more to its credit than Russia does even if you account all of the lives Russia has saved. US security ensures peace for some of the most peaceful and prosperous regions of the planet; though that can change, of course, and it wasn't done out of kindness.
For someone crying about hypocrisy, you are a far bigger hypocrite. Talking only about the bad of the US and ignoring the good. Like how it keeps nations like Russia from attacking innocent democracies without a fight, for example.
The rest of the world generally agrees with the US, as we saw in the UN. Russia is the one getting nailed here, and people tolerate the US because generally they see that the US is a credit for them, not a threat. Zelensky recognizes that too, which is why he, and so many before him, have sought US help. Cope harder. This is hardly hypocrisy lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlexSmith-ln1tv By "everyone" I meant global leaders. Nobody actually condemned the invasion, though some were more wary of just joining in. The protests were far more based on rigid pacifism than anything else; and more specifically due to the public nature of it. Nobody cared for France's wars in Libya or West Africa, in contrast. And Americans would be screeching about fascism when Italians voted in that PM that openly advocated sinking refugee ships. So cry me a river about propaganda.
Might wanna look up "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441". I am not saying that the US invasion followed UN guidelines; but it gave enough of a casus belli that at maximum people only complained about it but did nothing to stop it. Which is the point. If Russia actually managed to convince people that Ukraine did SOME things wrong, then there would be far less people trying to stop it ala Georgia, Syria, and Chechnya.
I said initially that MOST were morally justified, I believe. I don't believe the Iraq War was entirely justified, but I also don't believe dictatorships have a right to exist and thus overthrowing them for democracy is hardly a bad thing. The mistake the US made was in leaving Iraq too early in 2011, leaving the door open to ISIS; Iraq wasn't ready to go at it by itself.
Iraqi oil and the US Dollar has nothing to do with it, but you're a nutcase and brainwashed so I don't really care what you think.
See? You're brainwashed. There was no ratcheting up of propaganda against Iran in 2012; Obama specifically pushed for multilateral actions in his terms. When Libya opted to create the gold standard many years prior, it was France that wanted to jump in while the US specifically refused to do so. You're intentionally mixing up the timeline. US fucks with country, and they try to fuck with the US right back; usually moving away from using the US $ is a meaningless action to get back at the US, it isn't an action that pushes US action to start with. Prior to 2012, the US had plenty of beef with Iran, and vice-versa.
The petrodollar theory is a joke, and anyone that follows it are braindead lol
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
-
@AliothAncalagon Oh that? Well geez, you realize that "democratic" takes many different forms, right? It isn't just "majority chooses" and that's it? You can just as easily argue that there being a Constitution which disallows a clear majority from making a law that re-makes segregation is "anti-democratic" too. The "majority wins" in democracy has many hiccups, and isn't the bell end all of democratic forms of government.
If this is what it means to "not be a democracy", there are also a bunch of anti-democratic measures in European states. No Parliamentary system gets to choose their executive when a Coalition is formed, for example; despite being their "face" of government. What the country wants can very much be against what majority in smaller constituencies want. There being rules that that said majority can't violate also has anti-democratic overtones.
We've accepted it because we've accepted that pure democracy is a bad idea, and instead have Constitutional democracies.
In all studies, the US has a democracy rating near on-par to the likes of France, Spain, and Italy. So yeah, this comes off as more a European arrogance thing than actual decent criticism.
"US is non-democratic" US literally ranked near other "top democracies"
1
-
@biocapsule7311 Uh, what? You realize that Latin Americans aren't indigenous, right? They're descendants from the European conquests. Also, this is in regards to ALL migration, not just Latin American migration. But yes, the US is in contrast a "migrant country", though that really doesn't change anything. The whys and hows doesn't matter; as the whys and hows is what led many Western and Northern European states to get ahead in social reforms.
Well, no, I easily stand by my own comment because ultimately you just resorted to; "different origins/culture" bit, which is how national policies form to begin with. That's a given.
I can also do the same for Europe as a whole, but this isn't a competition; I was just correcting something you said specifically. Idk why people like you are so damn obsessed with the US to always need to flaunt some weird sense of superiority. It's weird. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages.
1
-
@AliothAncalagon You're right, I didn't point out how "anti-democratic" the US is; because by your metric all countries are "anti-democratic". In short I'm calling out your metric of what makes a democracy, not that its anti-democratic in purity, so to speak. Every democracy is like that; barring the likes of Switzerland.
If Constitutional Democracy is "anti-democratic", then fine, I guess. Just ignore all studies on democracy by actual professionals for your own ignorance.
You're missing the point of US Federalism. The issue isn't that the minority chooses things, it's that the minority actually gets a say at all. From my view; the systems currently in place in all governments already by default take into account the majority since government is mostly made up of mainstream opinions. Thus the most important thing is that the minority also have a say; so balancing that by letting them have a larger say is important. It's "minority rule" kinda in practice, but more realistically its "proportional rule" compared to your "majority rule". When you have very disparate populations, you'll understand; seeing as EU federalization might be a thing one day. You either have it, or you have large independence movements.
There is neither a tyranny of the majority or minority as long as there are Constitutional limitations. That part is done, unlike in many European Parliaments which don't have stringent Constitutional limitations. It only takes a screwed majority to literally vote away rights if you want it. Fine when your population is relatively sane, but people change; generations and circumstances change. The US existed as a democracy much longer than almost all of Western Europe for a reason.
I don't care about your opinion, since actual professionals are making the judgement of democracies, not you. And those "lenient" professionals rate France, Spain, and Italy as near par with US democracy, so its not so much lenient as it is that you don't want to accept that US democracy is its own flavor.
Mind you, that doesn't dismiss the fact that US democracy rating fell. Mind you, it fell to similar standards as some of your Western European democracies, but it DID fall. And that is something we have to work on, but unless you're from Switzerland and speaking strictly from that experience, you really have zero room to claim the US as non-democracy. A Western European with that claim is just laughably European bigotry talking.
1
-
@biocapsule7311 I'm not just talking ethnically, I'm talking culturally as well. While many have heritage from indigenous tribes, they are NOT indigenous. I know; I'm Latin American myself.
No duh being a migrant country changes everything. Just like being a Western European country with its traditions, history, culture, and being protected by multiple free nations to the east and the US in the west changes everything.
I meant in the context of the conversation it doesn't matter. No duh; different culture, history, etc leads to different outcomes. That has nothing to do with the conversation of right/left leanings; by European metric, the US Left is far-left in terms of immigration/migration and race issues. That's it. Explaining further of culture might explain the "why and how", but it doesn't change that that is the case.
Some Americans do, and de-facto the US President claims it and no one disputes him. I'd prefer if that wasn't the case since it has led to a lot of issues at home. And what are you even talking about with "good guys" and stuff? First of all, that's just a label; it shifts and changes depending on the person or group. The US was a saint for Western Europeans...until it didn't serve their interests. There is never a "good guy" in international politics. Just a "not as bad" guy. Because countries aren't people. What standard should the US be holding anyway?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@igory3789 The Mongols conquered Russia, so that's not really true. The issue is that the Russian elites have zero sense of care for their people, and the people have zero sense of self-preservation skills. They'd rather let themselves starve by the hands of their elites than let a foreigner win, while the French elites care enough to surrender and fight another day, that never reflected Russia's elites. Which is indicative of its state then and now.
But yes, nukes are a thing. I was speaking in hypothetical, without nukes.
No country can go it alone, it's that poisonous mindset that weakens Russia. Russia will never be permanently stable, it will face issues, rebellions, unrest, etc; all countries do. Without allies, during these weaker times, you're vulnerable. It's unlikely any Western power would invade Russia, but it's perfectly feasible that they will cut off Russian influence during such an interim.
Nobody has ever contested Russia's influence in Central Asia. Really, only recently has the US ever bothered to do so, and the second they did quite a few stirrings occurred such as switching from a Cyrillic to a Latin alphabet. Whether that means anything is anyone's guess, but obviously Western influence is growing there too even if nobody really cares to push much in it. As for Afghanistan; it's a joke if Russia thinks it can control the region. Unless Russian troops stay there indefinitely to maintain a regime, the Taliban will do what it wants by doing the same thing Russian elites have done. Appealing to nationalism, and damn everyone else.
1
-
@igory3789 I mean, by this logic, many peoples weren't conquered either. But hey, if you wanna use this logic, go ahead.
The US' withdrawal from Afghanistan is so that they don't have to deal with the aftermath. The fact it didn't consult with anyone isn't indicative of anything but the US being unilateral -independent nations can make their own decisions. The US didn't order anyone, so your attempt at de-legitimizing other sovereign states is gross.
Russia is more interested in slaves than actual allies. Any "ally" of Russia that goes against it tends to get invaded, ala Ukraine which used to love Russia. Meanwhile, US allies have consistently done things the US hated without consequence even during the Cold War. Also, don't fool yourself here; Russia and China hate each other -China was far more responsible for mucking Russian influence in Asia than the US ever was; and would not want to cede influence to it now.
US alliances doesn't end in Europe. It has expanded across the globe; so you're kinda ignoring the many US allies that it has not just in Europe, but East Asia in particular. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. By every metric, the US' alliance system far outstrips Russia and China's impromptu "partnership" even in conjunction with states like Iran.
Nobody expected the Stans to be anywhere but in Russia's sphere of influence. The problem here is that you're attributing what Russia already had to gains, which is faulty as hell. "Expanding" anywhere where other big powers are is near-impossible since Russia's influence is comparatively minor. West and South of Russia are not just US allies, but smaller states that have no reason to let Russia do anything. Russia will only have the Stans, and that's about it. It will be stuck in its little corner of the world, while the real wealth is concentrated far from Russia's borders which Russia can never reach, not without a MASSIVE shift in power.
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
-
@Brandon-w3o You're about 50 years out of date, my guy. The USSR was very much funding pro-leftists groups to subvert countries across the globe too. The Cold War had both Superpowers do it, and the US mostly stopped post-Cold War with most US-backed regimes collapsing as soon as it did.
Considering the US mostly stopped post-1991, and the US incursions in the Middle East pale to the amount of stability the US provides in East Asia, Europe, and other regions. I'd say that the US was a necessary evil while Russia is just a threat to international stability and peace. At least in its current state. Again, it isn't the US invading Ukraine right now, or the US having 100,000 troops deployed near another nation's borders.
Edit: I mean, does Russia actually do anything positive anywhere? I'm being genuine here. US can point to several countries and regions where US influence keeps the peace, what's Russia's excuse?
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
-
@Rom2Serge There is literally nothing that says "400,000 civilians killed in 1 year" in all of human history. The count by Iraq Body Count, the most commonly cited for the Iraq War deaths, was around 13k civilians killed by the US Coalition by 2010. (US Coalition left in 2011 and returned later on after ISIS came along)
"The IBC project, reported that by the end of the major combat phase of the invasion period up to April 30, 2003, 7,419 civilians had been killed, primarily by U.S. air-and-ground forces.[8][86]
The IBC project released a report detailing the deaths it recorded between March 2003 and March 2005[86] in which it recorded 24,865 civilian deaths. The report says the U.S. and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attributed to anti-occupation forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%). It also lists the primary sources used by the media – mortuaries, medics, Iraqi officials, eyewitnesses, police, relatives, U.S.-coalition, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), friends/associates and other.
According to a 2010 assessment by John Sloboda, director of Iraq Body Count, U.S. and Coalition forces had killed at least 22,668 insurgents as well as 13,807 civilians in the Iraq War, with the rest of the civilians killed by insurgents, militias, or terrorists.[89]"
The 200k number that usually pops up considers ALL CASUALTIES from the entire war including from soldiers, terrorists, US soldiers, and civilians.
The number of dead in this "Separatist" War was at 13k, with around 3k being civilian dead; these are the dead from BOTH SIDES, which you are omitting. The UN never once ever said that "The Army of Ukraine killed 13k people". EVER.
So you have lied twice. Nice. Maybe you should stop lying about UN numbers so you can trick the ignorant over the internet?
1
-
@Rom2Serge You do realize that once again you're lying by omission, right? Note that in the Lancet/Iraq Body Count numbers that they specifically count "TOTAL DEATHS" including the NON-VIOLENT ones, right? It's the belief of both that any deaths occurring in Iraq in the 2003-2020 period should be accounted for.
Again, 13k deaths attributed TO THE US COALITION from 2003-2011.
This is from yesterday:
"Thousands more civilians have been killed in Ukraine in the war there, which has been going on for more than two months, than the official United Nations death toll of 3,381, the head of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in the country has said.
“Overall, to date, we have corroborated 7,061 civilian casualties, with 3,381 killed and 3,680 injured across the country since the beginning of the armed attack by the Russian Federation. The actual figures are higher and we are working to corroborate every single incident,” Matilda Bogner told a news briefing in Geneva on Tuesday."
So its very possible that Russia has killed more within 2 months than the US has in 7 years. So yes, Russian mass murderers deserve the noose.
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
-
@QueenMooSuko You can interpret it that way if you want. You can also interpret Russia's invasion as strongarming the rest of the world into dealing with their actions. Either way, this crisis was precipitated by Russia's latest invasion with clear noises by the US that it would retaliate if it occurred. Russia overplayed its hand, expecting a complacent West.
The funny part about your examples is that either nobody cares or there was just cause for the US' actions, meaning there is enough leeway for people to shrug their shoulders. That's kinda the point; if Russia had a semi-reasonable reason for invasion, then the backlash would not be so extreme. Even the WMD, lie if it was, was considered reasonable due to the years before no WMDs were found.
A good casus belli does wonders to placate world opinion. The US understands this. Russia does not. Cope if you want, I don't care in this case since Russia is getting its just desserts after claiming they'd be fine and doubling down on this invasion.
"Whats happening between Ukraine and Russia, should stay between Ukraine and Russia as far as they're concerned" Most nations feel that way when they are not affected by the results. Egypt cares a lot more about what's going on in Libya despite them not being literally involved. Russia also cares about the West's interactions with Ukraine despite not literally being involved too. So people everywhere get involved in each other's business, as long as it affects them some way.
Fact is, even if the Kremlin's propaganda network overtime, the main fact of the matter is that Russia invaded an independent Ukraine. And thus all issues are stemmed from that -blaming other actors won't work.
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
-
@RwothOkwaFranco I guess the Russians leaving Kyiv, or abandoning large swaths of Kharkiv, or abandoning Kherson just didn't happen in your world. What a joke.
"Common knowledge" which has zero proof. Seriously, Kremlinbots point to a US diplomat talking to another about who from a US standpoint would be best is now a coup? No, you believe it because Russia appeals to your fascist hate boner of Western liberalism. Russia literally throws any and all accusations to see what sticks and you pick and choose like the satanist lgbtq jewish nazi crap.
Russia has not or ever been in a position to attack NATO. Which is why it wants NATO gone or its credibility to defend its member states destroyed. US would obliterate any Russian assault and burn Moscow in a conventional war. Ukraine was quite neat in the Russian sphere of influence prior to 2014, but the Euromaiden Revolution convinced Putin that taking Crimea would cripple Ukraine's chances from a full Western turn since you need undisputed borders to join. Russia using the stick to destroy Ukrainian love for Russia can literally be seen on polls of Ukrainian opinion on Russia prior to 2014. They used to LOVE Russia.
Yeah, you grew up on Western media and now you do a hard right and believe every anti-Western media in the world. Which is why I claimed you were brainwashed; it's called being a contrarian.
Ah yes, I remember when the US told the Europeans to sanction Russia and they all hopped to do so. Or when the US told Europeans that Russians were going to invade and they believed them. Oh wait, they didn't, and even went to Putin himself with Macron claiming that peace was won.
An "ally" to you is just a slave. US has actual allies that bicker and argue and kick at the US for their own interests but form ranks when they perceive an external threat. The Sauds were never allies like that. Rather, they are fully taking advantage of a crisis and are lowering gas production to hurt Europe to twist the US' arm. That's not different from sanctioning the Sauds to twist their arms.
Germans spy on the US too, you bot. Everyone spies on each other, but Western spies often share intel. The Germans crying about that were trying to save face, which is fine, but they're very much key allies to the US.
"There is no nation NATO has intervened in and left it better than before their intervention."
I guess Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, South Korea, and Kuwait don't count in your eyes? That's ignoring NATO taking in all of Soviet Bloc peacefully as they get wealthier.
Meanwhile Russia has touched North Korea, Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and far more countries to count and left them as smoldering ruins. Spare me your fascist cries.
"As for nuclear weapons, they are weapons of war and that's why they are made. You think the US has enjoyed all this world domination by being the good guy??? "
The US hasn't threatened world destruction for someone stepping into a country it has invaded. When the US invaded Afghanistan and the Russians paid Taliban fighters bounties for US troops, it didn't threaten nukes. When the US invaded Vietnam and the Soviets/Chinese stepped in, the US didn't threaten nukes. When a US General talked about using nukes in Korea, he was sacked as an insane person.
It's less abo7ut being kind and more about not being a psychopath risking the world for your imperialist insanity. But you excuse it because you're a small and hateful person. This is why the Global South is doomed; because people like you would rather see the world burn just to screw the libs.
It was always the US citizens that kept a lid on American imperialism. Protesting against unnecessary US crimes abroad. Congrats on destroying their arguments by being an unironic imperialist. It will be much harder to argue against sanctioning your country into the dirt when you bring back arguments like you're bringing.
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
-
@slimlucas888 Every nation is founded on the back of the enslaved. India, Russia, France, etc, etc. Nobody is blaming India or Russia or France for this; because its a braindead point. You talking about it is dishonest at best, since your own society was built off of the institution like everyone else's; it was depressingly common across the planet, even if you lie and say otherwise.
Ah yes, the "puppet government" that somehow applied to NATO without massive move by governments after them or the people to stop it. That "puppet government" prolly had decent electoral security too according to international orgs, right? But you don't believe it because you don't WANT to believe it. Well, I don't care for the pet theories, just accept the reality that you live in a democracy with corruption issues, but still functions as it should. Polls/referendums aren't necessary for representative democracies, that's what the elections are for.
Ah yes, everyone now has a puppet government in Europe. Those evvvvviiillll Muricans are somehow pulling the strings everywhere, huh?
If Regan promised such a thing, then find a quote of his that says so, because I can't find it. Even then, a vocal promise isn't worth jack; you need a contract for something so absurd. And George Bush's Secretary DID say that NATO would not expand...and he was reprimanded for it by Bush and he took it back. AKA; the Soviets were well aware that the US did not make any vocal promise, let alone a binding agreement. Nor should it; the US has no right to decide the fate of Eastern Europe.
Also, Gorbachev did not "decide" to end the USSR. He was forced by Yeltsin. Gorbachev tried to save the USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robshepherd3782 Russia bombed Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Chechnya, Ukraine, Georgia, the Central African Republic, Mali, Kazakhstan, and more. Russia is a terrorist state, get over it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@medialcanthus9681 US only has 2 big bases in the region, with the one in South Korea being for North Korea. Plus the second in Japan was more because Japan had a Constitution which didn't give it much of an ability to defend itself. The US acted as their shield in case the CCP wanted to attack, but since the Sino-Soviet split, the US has not seen China as a country to be worried about. Those forces never even threatened China before, so why are you acting like they're a threat?
It has nothing to do with China to begin with. Nothing fair or unfair about it.
The US only started patrolling the seas because China had been placing militarized islands which can be used to cut off trade from these trade-dependent countries AND claim territory which in turn can be used to control these countries. How would YOU feel if the US started placing militarized islands in the region and claiming it as US territory??? That would also be aggressive to everyone else in the region.
I do see their POV and their issue; but how they're working about it pretty much proves the US' point; that they're a danger to everyone around them and are willing to fuck anyone as long as China benefits. Instead of asking others to understand China, why don't we ask the Chinese to understand the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Singapore? What about what THEY want as China militarizes the region in defiance of their wishes?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FukYoupoop The US still follows UNCLOS even if it's not a part of it, ditto with the World Court; the issue is not even really of China disobeying these institutions though, it's of China stoking tensions when there were none due to its aggressive actions. No matter how you paint these actions; whether they be of a country retaking old territory or not, they're still incredibly imperialist based on how the current world works and which almost EVERYONE follows.
There was no rule which "allowed" the US Invasion of Iraq, but it wasn't illegal either; and more importantly, it didn't massively disrupt a peaceful region. The Middle East since the fall of the Ottomans has been a very tense area, meanwhile since the 1990's at least, the SCS has been peaceful...at least until China has been claiming territory. And claiming territory is a MUCH bigger deal than just an invasion; the US never actually claimed territory in Iraq after the invasion. That would be a BIG deal that the US would need to be stopped from.
No one is taking China to task in the ICC, nor is anyone demanding that Putin go to the ICC for invading a peaceful democracy. The ICC only works for poorer nations, unfortunately, not the wealthier ones.
Considering most of the SCS is with the US on this and NOT complaining about the US presence in the region, it's more like "the Rules-based Order is a flawed system which MOST countries agree with". The rules in place internationally are still new, and followed haphazardly, but they're an excellent guideline for countries to decide which country is acting out of line, and most are deciding China is out of line. So China faces the ire of many nations, and China doesn't get to act like it's representing ANYONE in the SCS.
TLDR: China is the issue here, not the US.
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
-
@typicalKAMBlover21 Kuwait, Croatia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Japan, Germany, South Korea - the list goes on. The US has the largest alliance system because it has helped so many countries.
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
-
@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
-
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
-
@ericsuarez834 Yes. 800. That's the number we have, and this is the apparent justification for bombing a city so much that it looks like it got nuked.
Ah yes, the descendant of Holocaust victim has connections to Azov members. Stepan Bandera is a troublesome figure to be sure, but hardly that out there when talking about the likes of historical fetishization of key figures ala Stalin, Lenin, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Napoleon III, etc, etc. For someone so concerned about such things, you seem awfully eager to ignore how Russia literally craps over all of this and makes Ukraine look like a left-wing progressive paradise.
With your own logic, Russia deserves to be bombed to hell. It's impressive how much you shill for fascist imperialists.
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
-
@Junebug89 "President Evo Morales of Bolivia seems obsessed with staying in power.
In 2016, he called a referendum on a constitutional amendment that would have eased term limits in the country’s Constitution and allowed him to run for a fourth time.
After 51 percent of the voters rejected the amendment, President Morales came up with a new plan. In September, his supporters in Congress brought a lawsuit in the Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal seeking to revoke the Constitution’s term limit.
Mr. Morales had already brought a lawsuit to the high court in 2013 to bypass the two-term limit. That time the constitutional court concluded that the president’s first term, from 2006 to 2010, did not count because it took place before the 2009 Constitution came into force.
Now Mr. Morales’s supporters claim that the term limit discriminates against the president and undermines his political rights under regional human rights standards. They rely on a provision in the American Convention on Human Rights, the main human rights treaty in the Americas, which says that political rights can “only” be limited under very specific circumstances.
The interpretation they promote seems far-fetched. The clause was designed in 1969 to prevent abusive governments from arbitrarily barring opposition candidates, not to impede constitutional re-election limits designed to prevent the rise of autocrats.
Many Latin American politicians have bypassed term limits, at times undermining the rule of law in the process.
Álvaro Uribe of Colombia amended the Constitution to seek a second term and, in 2010, sought a referendum to put a third term to a vote. The Constitutional Court stopped him. Yet many in Colombia believe that by lifting the presidential mandate once, Mr. Uribe undermined the checks and balances in the Colombian Constitution that were designed to ensure that presidents are held in check by officials nominated by their predecessors.
Similarly, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela managed to eliminate term limits in 2009. At the time, he was also busy with a larger project of dismantling the checks on his power. So much damage had already been done that a few months later, the Supreme Tribunal he had packed with his supporters issued a ruling that dismissed the separation of powers as an “instrument” established to “protect individualist interests of the ruling class.”
Mr. Chávez died of cancer in 2013, but had he survived he would probably still rule Venezuela. The erosion of checks and balances he carried out has enabled his successor, Nicolás Maduro, to go further still so that he is now able to intimidate, censor and punish his critics with impunity.
In 2015, Rafael Correa promoted a constitutional reform to allow indefinite re-election in Ecuador. After mass protests he had to compromise by ensuring that the new provision could apply only to future presidents. Yet he warned that if the opposition won the 2017 presidential race, Congress could call for new elections, and he would “run again and win.” Mr. Correa’s candidate, Lenín Moreno, won and is surprisingly among the few presidents in the Americas who have sought to establish term limits where they are lacking.
What makes Mr. Morales’s strategy unusual, however, is that he has the nerve to invoke human rights to cling to power.
There is transparent hypocrisy in his argument that international human rights law bars the Constitution’s term limits. In the past Mr. Morales’s administration has frequently contended that sovereignty should trump rights.
In 2013, the Bolivian president said that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was an “instrument of domination” and that he would consider abandoning it. More recently, after Secretary General Luis Almagro of the Organization of American States tweeted that the results of Bolivia’s 2016 referendum should be respected, the Bolivian justice minister, Héctor Arce, accused Mr. Almagro of trying to “trample the sovereignty of Bolivia.”
Yet Mr. Morales’s move is not unheard of. In 2009, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua also played the human rights card. He successfully brought a lawsuit to the country’s Supreme Court of Justice to lift the term limits set forth in his own country’s Constitution. Mr. Ortega ruled in Nicaragua throughout the 1980s and has won two re-elections since he regained the presidency in 2007. When his current term ends, he will have had 24 years in power.
Mr. Arce, the justice minister, has promised O.A.S. members that Bolivia’s constitutional court would rule with “absolute independence and liberty.” Yet doubts remain. The sitting magistrates were appointed in 2011 through a widely criticized process that was controlled by government supporters in Congress."
1
-
@Junebug89 Imagine being this willfully blind about how power accumulates over time. Newsflash; when someone with dictator-like tendencies has the power to influence media and has a habit of making opposition leaders accused of crimes. Which is quite useful in the dictator's handbook.
"The Attorney General’s Office has repeatedly used a 2010 anti-corruption law to prosecute alleged crimes committed before the law was enacted. International human rights law, however, prohibits such retroactive application of changes to criminal law, unless doing so is beneficial to the defendant.
In October 2016, the Attorney General’s Office used the law to charge businessman and opposition leader Samuel Doria Medina with “anti-economic conduct” for allegedly transferring US$21 million from the government to a private foundation when he was planning minister in the government of President Jaime Paz Zamora in 1992.
In May 2015, Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, former president of Bolivia and current opposition leader, was charged with “anti-economic conduct.” Prosecutors argued that officials in his administration harmed the “interests of the state” by signing four oil agreements with foreign companies.
In July 2018, the Attorney General’s Office asked the Plurinational Assembly to try Carlos Mesa, also a former president of Bolivia and current opposition leader, for harming the “interests of the state” when his administration expelled the Chilean company Quirobax from the country in 2004. In 2015, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) had awarded Quirobax compensation for being expelled from Bolivia."
1
-
@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Oh, Morales "himself" didn't order anything, or do anything, sure. rolls eyes He only had his muppets do what needed to be done. Wow, it's almost like you're coming at this completely disingenuously to try and act like the obvious dictator isn't an obvious dictator.
"The Attorney General’s Office has repeatedly used a 2010 anti-corruption law to prosecute alleged crimes committed before the law was enacted. International human rights law, however, prohibits such retroactive application of changes to criminal law, unless doing so is beneficial to the defendant.
In October 2016, the Attorney General’s Office used the law to charge businessman and opposition leader Samuel Doria Medina with “anti-economic conduct” for allegedly transferring US$21 million from the government to a private foundation when he was planning minister in the government of President Jaime Paz Zamora in 1992.
In May 2015, Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, former president of Bolivia and current opposition leader, was charged with “anti-economic conduct.” Prosecutors argued that officials in his administration harmed the “interests of the state” by signing four oil agreements with foreign companies.
In July 2018, the Attorney General’s Office asked the Plurinational Assembly to try Carlos Mesa, also a former president of Bolivia and current opposition leader, for harming the “interests of the state” when his administration expelled the Chilean company Quirobax from the country in 2004. In 2015, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) had awarded Quirobax compensation for being expelled from Bolivia."
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
-
@Heinrich Hertz Nope. No genocide was found. Russia says so, but they have nothing behind the claim. Also, the "nazi" coup which now has a Jewish President? Really? A guy who is ethnically Russian too, if I recall.
"before this Russian-speaking Ukrainian were considered "second class" in Ukraine after ~2000." A complete lie. Russian was given equal value in the Ukrainian school system as Ukrainian. It's only in 2022 that Ukrainian was raised as a required language to be used in all aspects of life, but even then the Russian language isn't banned. Ukraine is literally following Russia's lead on this, as Russia effectively does the same thing.
"Nothing like that happens in Sweden ir Finland. There is NO reason in Sweden or Finland to be afraid of."
^There isn't even such a thing in Ukraine, yet you believe it. Russia will just make up another bullshit reason and then invade if they're not in NATO. Finland and Sweden have EVERY reason to be afraid, because Russia is little more than a 19th century imperialist state that uses the same "Russian minority" tactic while their bots online always believe them no matter what.
Finnish people will live much more secure lives if Russia knows that the bullshit "Russian minority" excuse can't be used on them without threatening nuclear war.
As always, Russia does nothing but damn itself with its actions. And yet, despite that, people like you defend the indefensible. Which is exactly why they need NATO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
dejialaran The white "insurrectionists" were treated as BLM was initially when they first rioted; with a small police presence. Statistically, if we are just talking about black and white people getting shot by police, then it's more likely for a black person. Including rates of police interaction due to community violence, and then white people are more likely to get shot. So overall, at least when it comes to police brutality, it's a joke to claim that blacks got it the worst.
Now, you wanna talk about prison time? That's 100% unfair to blacks. Even more so with men compared to women, but that's another matter.
I'm not really defending anything here, I'm just countering a bad narrative that BLM spread. Police brutality is the issue, not black mistreatment. Work in race inequality should be in other subjects like the prison system, not the police.
1
-
1
-
dejialaran Okay, got you. Always a good thing to exchange information: "Consistent with the previous results, the raw racial di↵erence in the decision to employ lethal
force using this taser sample is negative and statistically significant. Adding suspect and ocer
demographics, encounter characteristics and year controls does little to change the odds ratios for
black versus non-black suspects. Including all controls available from the taser sample, Table 4
shows that black civilians are 30.7 percent less likely to be shot with a pistol (rather than a taser)
relative to non-black suspects. Columns (6) and (7) pool the sample from hand coded arrest data
and taser data. Results remain qualitatively the same. Controlling for all characteristics from
incident reports, black suspects are 24.2 percent less likely to be shot than non-black suspects.
To be clear, the empirical thought experiment here is that a police ocer arrives at a scene
and decides whether or not to use lethal force. Our estimates suggest that this decision is not
correlated with the race of the suspect. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that there
26
are important racial di↵erences in whether or not thse police-civilian interactions occur at all"
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22399/w22399.pdf
See? This is the trouble with this conversation. Every time someone tries to point out a very genuine issue within the black community that is just as responsible for its poverty rate as the private prison system; it gets co-opted by claims of "dog whistle". This is why AA's in the US will have a long road ahead to catch up with other communities per capita. Slowly but surely its getting better, but it can be accomplished much faster with some self-reflection. Again, not to say that there aren't VERY REAL issues that are plainly due to external discrimination.
For example, I never ONCE said that increased police brutality against blacks is a good thing. Like, Jesus Christ, where did you even get that from???
BLM co-opts the very real issue of police brutality into a black-only issue and has a rampant issue with LGBTQ+, Asian, and Jewish people. Some of their other talking points are good, but like Muslim Brotherhood before it; it has a LOT of problematic issues to it.
"for some reason whites are not willing yo acknowledge" Well, to be fair, quite a lot of what BLM sounds pretty insane. "Defund the police" "Abolish prisons" "Reparations"? Again, a very problematic group. The first one is really just "stop militarizing police", but really, to many in BLM it's just a literal dog whistle for "fuck the police" in general.
Some BLM protests were riots. I don't recall saying all BLM protests were though. But then again, if you're so bigoted as to assume that I want more police brutality, then you're the problem with the US atm.
1
-
dejialaran Dude, you literally only took the initial Abstract and then ignored everything else; even the next few lines after the "50%". Let me state it for you: "Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior
reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual
factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model
in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for
discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
In short, it's nowhere as high as 50%, but it IS at the very least higher in general than whites. But that's not the case for lethal shootings. Like I said; all groups in general faces police brutality as an issue -but you seem intent to just ignore that others suffer it and want to claim it all for your own. That's beyond selfish and damaging to any cause of justice.
I literally said that I was NOT okay with it, you idiot. The only issue I have is that BLM makes it exclusive for black people and tack on a bunch of unnecessary and stupid "fixes" for it while punching down other communities. It's an advocacy group first and foremost, not a group for equality.
I looked at your citation, and I already found an issue with it: "Even if one accepts the logic of statistical discrimination versus racial bias, it is an inappropriate choice for a study of police shootings. The method that Fryer employs has, for the most part, been used to study traffic stops and stop-and-frisk practices. In those cases, economic theory holds that police want to maximize the number of arrests for the possession of contraband (such as drugs or weapons) while expending the fewest resources. If they are acting in the most cost-efficient, rational manner, the officers may use racial stereotypes to increase the arrest rate per stop. This theory completely falls apart for police shootings, however, because officers are not trying to rationally maximize the number of shootings. The theory that is supposed to be informing Fryer's choice of methods is therefore not applicable to this case. He seems somewhat aware of this issue. In his interview with the New York Times, he attributes his ‘surprising’ finding to an issue of “costs, legal and psychological” that happen following a shooting. In what is perhaps a case of cognitive dissonance, he seems to not have reflected on whether the question of cost renders his choice of methods invalid"
^This is what was said, claiming that "since police are not trying to rationally maximize police shootings, using the economic theory of statistical discrimination is flawed". That's stupid logic. The study uses the economic theory of statistical discrimination to explain the relatively per capita high rate of police interactions, and more police interactions itself leads to a higher likelihood of police shootings in return. One can and does beget the other due to issues with police brutality.
The other critique of the study is frankly even more bizarre since the study already admitted that blacks are more likely to face arrest than whites; I thought that was conclusive and indicative of racial bias. We can get into it, but surely even you can see what the issue is with it.
But you're right that NBER isn't peer reviewed, but to be peer-reviewed just means that your methodology is sound; it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. Let me give you an example; in 2011 the CDC came out with statistics about sexual assault in the US, but classified female-on-male rape as "Made to Penetrate" after claiming that putting it as "rape" was inappropriate. The CDC is also peer-reviewed, but that logic by most people would be seen as monstrous, no? Yet it was also peer-reviewed. My point being that peer-reviews doesn't equal being correct. Still, yes, please do look at my source and call it out if you believe it incorrect somewhere.
White supremacy is an evil like all supremacist movements, but you refer to anything that you don't like as white supremacy. Kinda like how far-right Republicans call anything they don't like Communism. It's a buzzword. AA's face discrimination and that needs to be addressed and I have not ONCE said that wasn't the case -but you don't care because I don't subscribe to everything you believe in, thus I "defend white supremacy".
You're disgusting. I will always defend your right to speak, but you are still a disgusting person to literally ignore everything I have said and just conclude that I protect oppression. We're done.
Edit: And yes, reparations is a retarded idea. Look up the issues of foreign aid in the first place, and question why the hell you're such a racist ass that you'd demand a government stipend for merely existing. I'll defend efforts to raise black Americans; but that spits in the face of equality and you may as well just declare "fuck all non-blacks" at that point.
"citing sus papers from people whose ethics are highly questionable" Anyone that doesn't want reparations is apparently highly questionable to you. So I can't say I care. I also don't care for Alt-Retards crying about "family values" either, so I think I can ignore you as safely as I do them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Frencho9 You're seriously annoying with the rampant nationalism. Dial it back a bit. You're literally making shit up here. Nowhere did the UAE claim that the issue was the cost of the F-35, hell, it was hardly just the F-35 that the UAE was backing out on; it was a series of purchases of US equipment. The reason for that are numerous, but cost was not among those reasons. Put it plainly; it was because of the obligations the US was trying to hold the UAE to due to Chinese espionage. Which is their right to deny or accept, but nowhere does it have to do with cost, let alone at "massive loss".
In fact, you seem to not know how purchases in bulk lowers the cost. Idk if you know this, but it was because the UK was first in line to get the F-35 alongside other favored nations that the cost was driven down so much. The Rafale was purchased instead as their security concerns are genuine but were unwilling to toe the US line of protection of technology. Nobody cares, let alone France, that someone engages in espionage on their jets. Mostly because its middling, hardly cutting edge.
You're right, I mistook initial purchase price for operational cost. My bad. F-35 costs about $80 million these days, while the Rafale on the low side is at $100 million.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ЭЮЯ-о3к I love this Russian sentiment.
>Russia expands conquering everything and sometimes works with Western imperialists to push further west
>West fights back or it blows up in Russia's face
>"wESTeRn ImPeRiALiSm! Have to protect ourselves!"
Grow up. Russia has far more often pushed aggressively westward for their own imperialist interests than western powers have pushed east. There is nothing east for many Western powers to ever want, barring maybe the most easternmost European powers like the Lithuanians, Swedes, and Poles. The Germans of the N@zi Party were uniquely evil, and the Russians back then eagerly aligned with them to, you guessed it, push further west by swallowing Poland which was hardly a threat to Russia at that point.
The difference between Russia and the West is that Russia needs to trick itself into being on the defensive, when it has almost ALWAYS been an aggressor in Europe. Very few times it has eve truly been under threat from western powers. It was threatened by the Poles once, Sweden another, Napoleon another, and finally the Germans in WW2. That's it. Russia in contrast has invaded westward and expanded consistently since the Romanov Dynasty at the latest, even taking many minorities and trying to ethnically cleanse them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MadManAndy France and the UK have been major rivals and at war for most of their history. It wasn't until about the late 19th century that they began to work together, and not until WW1 when they became major allies. Ditto with the US and UK for that matter. Hell, the US and France have had 2 wars against each other. The "West" is just a cultural group at most, not a mostly aligned group of countries until relatively recently. And they still don't agree on a lot of matters.
The US has hardly played their cards, it has only started ramping up any pressure. This is paltry to hos the US treated the USSR. The US has yet to bother actively stoking anti-China sentiments, pushing for military alliances against China, setting up major spy networks in China, etc, etc. All the US has done was set up more tariffs.
Well, duh. Attacking another country is bad in the popular imagination, but stealing territory? That just has never been done since the mid 20th century. Worse yet, China can't disguise this naked grab for more territory like Russia had. Not to mention considering how aggressive China already is despite not even being a superpower, this gives an impression that it will only get much MUCH worse the second China is actually an equal to the US. This means it's in a lot of people's interest to at the very least actively be seen to oppose China.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Killzoneguy117 Idk in what world you live in, but the US "Empire" as it were isn't really showing cracks and decline insofar that other powers are just catching up to it. The US' GDP is still growing, its economy is still relatively healthy, its technological advancements still ludicrously high, its connections across the planet unmatched, its military still unmatched, etc. The only real issue for the US is in its social ills, but these are also pretty pale to the likes of China which is considered a "rising" power.
But yes, the Mongol Empire is hardly a blip that just disappeared in seconds. In various forms it existed, like in the Yuan Dynasty, for example.
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
-
@Kyle Prather Uh, yes they could. Surveiling people was never an issue, invading their home without a warrant? Yes. But getting information from their providers? No, that was never a thing they were disallowed from doing. Like all Constitutional limitations, you NEED a precedence. Maybe you believe it doesn't, but that's not how Constitutional law works. Anything is fair game if it isn't disallowed.
Now the limitation they did have was using such information to prosecute. They still NEED a warrant to use this kind of information, and that's my limit. I don't mind surveillance, what I fear is it being used against me without a warrant. Most Americans feel as I do, and most countries have similar things in effect. This is the future, whether you like it or not. Over time the federal government grasped more power, and to an extent it was necessary. Once Americans thought taxing at all was tyrannical. Then they thought the federal government dictating what States do is. Then they thought maintaining a professional army was tyrannical. Etc, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@clementl.9566 US was already aiding the UK and the USSR long prior to actively joining WW2. The fact it did that at all when it wasn't allied to any of the Allies at the time and it was in a conflict very far from home speaks more of the US than it does France; which had every interest in shutting down Germany due to its proximity.
And no, the USSR did not have the means to support or maintain their troops far from their industrial heartlands; they would have been beaten back when they were overstretched. It was UK/US supplies that maintained their troops pushing into Western Europe. The USSR would not be "liberating" anything west of Poland, besides; according to the "liberated", I doubt France would have wanted Soviet liberation.
Why exactly should Americans die for the French? What mindset do you have that dictates that American MUST die for you? They weren't allied at the time, and Franco-American relations were shot when the French demanded that Germany suffer after WW1 in Versailles. From an American perspective, France made its bed and lied in it. The fact they even agreed to leave France as a "victor" nation when the literal government capitulated to Nazi Germany was a privilege, and yet French like you act like the US should have bent over in pretzels for France when it never once in its entire history did for the US. Yes, even the vaunted "French aid" in the US Independence war only came after the Americans proved themselves against the British and won several victories.
So cry me a river. The French obsess over "Perfidious Albion" but the Americans have far more reason to be wary of France than vice-versa. The US had France at its mercy, but chose to help elevate it again. When France lorded over the early US, it tried to extort it and kidnapped sailors for its wars.
Btw, random Americans did indeed fund the Nazi Party; random people from across the world did. Including French civilians. What matters is state governments and their actions, not random civilians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vanderearden There's this very interesting fact that you can use which you seem to be unable to accept; the difference between a military base and a military installation. The US has a LOT of the latter, but about 50 of the former. The former are the ones you're referring to, including the likes of Ramstein Air Base in Germany with 9.2k US troops. The latter includes military bases that other nations own but the US is allowed to use, depots of equipment/supplies, bases from which the US can land and redirect to other locations, etc, etc.
Bruh, I love how you can just deny the sovereignty of other nation-states when its your hate boner for the US involved. Who are you to say what the people do or do not want? Their government is the only way to tell barring a large poll from a trusted international org saying otherwise.
Everything sucks natural resources and leaves toxic waste. The question is whether the tradeoff is worth it. Since their host nations don't kick them out, apparently they are, for a myriad of reasons. Some nations flat-out WANT MORE US presence in the case of those like Poland or the Baltics. Idk why you're bringing up the damage done to Hawaii as some kind of "gotcha!" but its a weak one; some people there don't like it, but there is literally zero evidence that its a majority. That goes for every single nation you can name barring Iraq. Though after the US left in 2011 and what happened afterwards...well, that's an interesting story.
Bruh, the only one protesting the US military bases in Japan are in Okinawa, the place where the bases are at; and they're specifically protesting on the basis of "we don't want the base specifically HERE". As in they have no issue with the US military base being somewhere in Japan, just not in Okinawa. Even then, idk if that's a majority. Even if it was, it's on hte basis of NIMBY. By this logic, people not wanting a nuclear power plant or a prison in their neighborhood wants to ban both.
Maybe you should educate yourself and withdraw this imperialist style of thinking. The White Man's Burden idea is kinda old, bruh. If Japanese people want the US Military gone, they can elect such a government and kick them out. Ditto with Germany. If France, the Philippines, and Iraq in 2011 can do it, why can't they? Stop speaking over other people.
1
-
@Vanderearden Initially they did, but later they didn't; the US isn't a direct democracy, however. It's a Representative Democracy -so leaders are not meant to follow the whims of the people but are meant to be graded by them before and after their terms in office. What, do you want an Athenian/Swiss style of government? Because its unlikely to work with large nation-states. Ultimately, if the US was feeling VERY anti-war in the Middle East then a candidate preaching of such would have been elected on that platform.
You seem to not understand how democracy works, so let me explain; if people feel strongly about something they tend to be single issue voters and vote specifically for that reason. Most people are not, so while they may vote in a politician for a specific reason, said politician prolly doesn't hold the same views their voter does in all aspects. Sorry, but at no point has an elected government represented their people 100% of the time.
If the Japanese strongly feel that the US should leave, then a Japanese politician would be elected for that very reason. However, there is no major push in Japan for that. Oh, there are political parties that push for it, but they are not popular. So why are you speaking for them? Have you even ever spoke to a Japanese person before? Because I have, and I've only ever met a SINGLE Japanese dude that wants the US out -and its on the basis that he wants to re-establish the Japanese Empire and doesn't want Japan to be weak and depend on the US anymore. Seeing it as a means for pacifists to ignore the danger of China while hiding behind the US. Funny story, my Korean buddy who has visited China for secondary education also wants the US to stick around Japan specifically to stymie such nationalist beliefs from ever touching Korea again. Bad blood is there still, it seems.
The Pentagon generally doesn't care; it will use the same nomenclature for things vaguely the same unless its equipment. You might wanna look up the density of US troops in these "800 bases" of yours is all I'm gonna say. Find out very quickly why a mere 9.2k in Germany is one of the highest number of US troops outside the US.
Depends on what you mean "disengaged". If you mean "actively fighting with boots on the ground with actual US troops", then the US indeed disengaged in Iraq in 2011(then returned later) and Afghanistan in 2022. If you mean engaged in backroom dealings, politics, military advisors, etc, etc -then there are few nations the US isn't engaged in. Though that would be disingenuous, as everyone does the big about backroom dealings/politics and only peoples consenting to aid will accept US military advisors. The exception being Syria, I suppose.
Oh, oh, here's a fun question; who decides what a nation/people want? For me personally, I don't give a crap what a dictator claims and I never accept their right to rule by default. Assad is about as much of a representative of Syria as I am to France. So I have very little issue with the US aiding the SDF when they approached the US for support secretly months after the Syrian Civil War started. My only contention is needless violence caused by needless ambition -if the US sought out the SDF first to cause mayhem then that is imperialist action that must be stopped. That wasn't the case in Syria, but that's my thinking. However, with my thinking, I also don't accept Russia's actions in stepping into the conflict, specifically bombing cities like Aleppo into literal rubble for Assad's sake. Dictators deserve the noose, not bombing campaigns to save their skin.
Imperialism is intervening in a nation's sovereignty illegally(without the permission of the local democratic representatives). That's me. So as far as I'm aware the US had permission to intervene in Somalia and Nigeria. The US also isn't intervening in Yemen, but is just giving Sauds weapons that they paid for. While Iran is doing the same thing in supporting the Houthi rebels that are also devastating Yemen with Russian equipment sold to them. While I have humanitarian issues in Yemen, I don't have an issue with Russia/US selling weapons, but in how Sauds and Iranians are using it. Bombing Pakistan as it hides terrorists while using the funds it gets from the US to fund said terrorists...morally I say that is imperialism, but I can't find it in my heart to care, tbh. A bigger imperialist US action you can point out would be the US coups of Latin American democracies in the Cold War.
As for Ukraine? Kinda missing the fact that Russia sent in troops disguised as non-descript mercenaries going into Ukrainian territory and creating illegal referendums which did NOT have the option to rejoin Ukraine (only had independence and join Russia options). The "civil war" in reality is just a power grab similar to the Germans taking France and then using French soldiers to make war with the Allies. You seem awfully imperialist when you ignore key facts like this, bucko.
Yep, the Bush Administration committed war crimes, and I'd be all for getting them nailed...if war crimes generally mattered. No, everyone commits war crimes it seems, but nobody cares unless the perpetrators are defeated in a war, the victims got the attention of the international community, and most importantly; that the war crime is genuinely extremely heinous. War crimes like a few US soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners (Abu Ghraib) or Drone Strikes hitting innocents is not as criminal as Russian troops arguing that all Ukrainians are N@zis that deserve to be treated as enemy combatants and Russian troops making a video of them r@ping a baby boy while laughing it up on social media.
In short, you may as well compare the Holocaust to the Bombings of Dresden. Which, btw, is a Fascist talking point. That's where you're at right now. Which is why nobody trusts Tankies; they're liable to justify mass murder as long as their favorite dictator is anti-Western it seems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vanderearden True, I don't. But I can make an educated guess since you seem to be making up new imperialist cases that never occurred from the US.
Indeed, it was placed in the Japanese Constitution that Japan could not build an offensive military; however similar to Amendments in the US, that can be overturned by the electorate. And PM Abe has been trying to overturn it for years now by building up public support, and Japanese pacifists have been pointing to US military presence as a means to prevent that. That is to say, Japanese as a whole were content with the status quo even if it was first forced upon them at the end of WW2. There is no component requiring a US vote, what are you talking about?
And seriously? What? Zelensky has been pushing for a literal US intervention into Ukraine via a no-fly zone and you claim he is stuck not suing for peace because of US sanctions to Russia? Really? You can't claim that I have a skewed sense of history when you're literally making stuff up here. Where did you get this belief from, because it wasn't Zelensky or any Ukrainian. It seems you can twist anything into "US bad" no matter what.
Indeed, you can just fund indigenous death squads, though people tend to notice and then Presidents get dunked on by the news media for it ala Reagan with the Contras. Though again, its kinda disingenuous to mention that since nobody has ever stopped doing that. Its impossible to tell when its moral or not either until afterwards; like the US funding the Yugoslav Partisans.
Nah, China is prolly the biggest terrorist sponsor on the planet. They're literally funding the Naxalites of India, the deadliest single terrorist group in history. But if you're talking about amounts killed by a state...then that's still prolly China with the Famine they caused. But if you're talking about EXTERNAL amount of people killed? Hard to say, there are a lot of numbers around. But the US is prolly high up there, sure; it's also undoubtably has the highest amount of lives saved as well.
The problem with you is that you just assert things without there being any evidence to your claims. Like, I can say that Russia has hand picked every single Western leader thus proving that it needs to be toppled -but I'd need something to prove it, wouldn't I? Ditto for you. That's not an omission, that's me rolling my eyes at a Tankie trying to make an alternate reality where "US bad" makes sense as a political stance.
Over 60% of Americans want what you said, but they also want to maintain NATO, want to protect Taiwan, want to topple foreign dictators prolly, want to lower taxes prolly, etc, etc. Not everything the people wants is gonna pass because these wants crisscross everywhere. Also, due to the nature of the US political system, the majority of what people wants has to be measured with what the States want while also appealing to the widest demographic to win the moderates.
Hey, believe what you want, but by every possible metric on international studies of US political culture, the US is a free nation-state under a democratic style of government. So cope, if you want, about how the US isn't quite tilting how you want it to, but that doesn't make it reality. Nor does Trumpists claiming the US is a globohomo dictatorship make it true either.
1
-
@Vanderearden Not according to Victoria Nuland. She was hoping for a specific leader for Ukraine and got it; hoping is not the same as actually couping. I hoped Biden would win over Trump, that doesn't equate to Trump being couped either. Like seriously, you equate any US leader saying something with action but then do not hold the same standard to anyone else.
It's almost like you WANT to believe that.
Are you f** serious right now? You're a Truther too? Do you vote for Trump per chance as well? Maybe you also believe the Moon Landings are fake? Every nation has lied before, can we just make believe everything now or do you just hold that standard against the West?
Maybe Russia is genociding Ukrainians right now, and every time they say otherwise we shouldn't believe them; thus justifying a US invasion and coup of the Kremlin. We can both play this game. Let's try and stick to reality though, mmkay? OBL literally admitted to committing 9/11, that's as clear cut as it gets.
Bruh, the UN proved that Assad gassed his own people. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU???? You're literally proving me right in my initial assumptions; every anti-Western dictator can massacre and genocide their own people and you'll shrug your shoulders, but then you'll assume the worst of the West at the same time!
Pathetic. It's actually sick how much you sound like a N@zi making excuses for the Holocaust right now.
I don't automatically believe the US Government, it can lie like any other state. The difference is that I acknowledge that the US Government has a free media that has called it out multiple times while not IGNORING how everyone else lies and has agency. Osama Bin Laden has been screeching about making the US pay ever since the US troops were in Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War.
Assad has claimed that he never gassed anyone, but UN has found proof to the contrary. That is the Syrian Government LYING.
Russia claims that there are bioweapon factories meant to slaughter Russians, which is the most braindead thing I have ever heard. This is Russia LYING.
You accept all anti-Western myths as fact while ignoring anything marginally pro-Western as a US lie. So yes, you're either a Tankie or a Neo-N@zi at this point.
Do you also justify mass murder by claiming it was a CIA backed protest? Because that's the road you're walking on. Incredible how easily some people justify monstrous actions by twisting reality however they please.
1
-
@Vanderearden Except it isn't. You keep saying so, but there is nothing behind your claim. There is about as much evidence behind your claims as there is about the Moon Landings being fake. The only evidence I've found is "because random dictator or anti-Western propagandist (think Noam Chomsky) said so"
Indeed, a no fly zone is an escalation, but not necessarily of war. Just like the Berlin Airlift was an escalation, but not necessarily of war. Or the Libyan no fly zone was an escalation, but not necessarily of war. The problem here is that you're victim blaming. The American public wanting a no fly zone are under the mistaken assumption that Putin is a rational actor that won't shoot at US jets because it would drag US troops into the war. In both Berlin and Libya, there were no boots on the ground afterwards, unless you count special ops or something.
Oh please, the only transparency you want is the Kremlin's filtered version of events where the evil US couped Ukraine's government, started a civil war between brothers, and "forced Russia' to invade and declare that Ukraine is a fake nation that shouldn't exist. Prolly also forced them to commit the Bucha Massacre, or is that just US fake news too? How funny how your "truth" only coincides with Russian interests. There is nothing that could stop American will to break Russia's back for this, there was no such will to stop Russia in Georgia, Ukraine 2014, Chechnya, or Libya. This specific invasion pushed Americans to this belief, and you should be happy that the nOT DEmOcrAtiC US Government isn't a Direct Democracy that would instantly follow the whims of the American people right now.
And here it is. The crux of the issue. Everything is the US' fault. Remove teh agency of everyone else involved; Syrians, Georgians, Russians, and Ukrainians -they're all being tricked by the evil Victoria Nuland and American for geopolitical gain and likely resources.
This is how you justify mass murder and genocide; by creating a new reality where the enemy is everywhere and insidious even if you can't prove it. Now all Ukrainians...oh, sorry, "Neo-N@zis" must be killed or "de-Ukrainianized". And t's not Russia's fault, oh no, it's America's.
You will justify any atrocity, any manner of massacre and genocide as long as it's an enemy/rival of the West doing it. It's all fake news/lies/CIA ops. And then you'll add the name onto the "list of countries the US destroyed" and do it again later. If Germany went fascist tomorrow and did another Holocaust, you'd claim it was just another example of US imperialism and warmongering if the US ramped up evidence and condemned it.
"US bad" is literally all you are. You don't even realize that all you've spoken of about propaganda reflects yourself far more than it does me. Major projection. Get help, you seriously need it, because as you are you are a disgusting human being with zero empathy. Ukrainians are dying, Russians are justifying it, and all you can think of is how bad the US is.
1
-
@Vanderearden Okay then, tell me where to find this info released via the FOIA as proof of this US coup in Ukraine. You can't literally cite on YouTube, but tell me the site and the name of the article.
Bruh, idk all these names, but I know for a fact that Patrick Lancaster and Max Blumenthal are conspiratorial tankies that justify everything anti-US and defend all dictators against the US. Their ideologies also boil down to "US bad". These are NOT names you want to associate with. And you do realize that Julian Assange and Edward Snowden didn't reveal anything too terrible about the US, right? The former released info of when a US drone strike hit a journalist and the US hid it -criminal behavior, but nothing too terrible in war. It isn't like he found evidence that the US was stealing Iraqi oil or anything. And the latter in Snowden released info of the NSA having back entrances to key software to gather information, though needing a warrant to access it.
As always with these characters, its what they DO NOT do that's more interesting. Like how Julian Assange had the option to show off Russian state secrets, as the job of WikiLeaks was literally to provide the truth of what governments were doing for transparency. Julian Assange refused to give out such information, and was in contact with multiple Russian officials. At best he was a biased individual that only revealed American wrongdoing, at worst he's a boot licker that worked to benefit the likes of Russia by pretending to care about transparency when its to Russia's benefit. Edward Snowden literally fled to Russia, where he somehow can't seem to find it in his heart to condemn Russian atrocities in Ukraine, though he seemed so willing and able to call out US actions elsewhere.
Do I need to explain to you the concept of "bias"? None of these names are trusted international journalists, though their actions sometimes win them good recognition. I for one applaud Julian Assange's leak, though acknowledge that he needs to be arrested due to the manner of how he got it. No government can tolerate breaking into secret government files.
Still, really, you don't find it strange that pretty much every name you mentioned never contradict the Kremlin state narrative? Even the "MSM" has multiple viewpoints that contradict US Government claims. Fox News was all about how Biden was "instigating" a Russian response.
You're the ultimate American Exceptionalist, bruh. You attribute everything to the US. You're like the ultimate American Nationalist in that you can't help but turn everything to the US no matter what. I acknowledge the US as just another country that does good and bad.
1
-
@Vanderearden Assange uncovering an open secret that there are US Military dudes doing that and the Military covering it up? Uh, yeah? You realize that I also generally have little issue with quite a few war crimes because they're distressingly common, right? The best that nations can do is discourage such behavior, which as far as I can tell the US Military does. It also protects its own too. I haven't really complained about Russia blasting apart apartment complexes or hospitals either; my complaints rise when its intentional mass violence without reason. So, basically violence without a good means to an end. Think bombing Mariupol into the dirt rather than going from house to house. Innocents are bound to die, and military men are bound to be angry and lash out, so the best we can truly condemn are the REALLY heinous stuff. I've already said this before.
You do realize that Snowden didn't reveal anything that went against the Constitution, right? No more than the US Government having your SSN does. The US Government having access to your personal info is only problematic if it can be used against you in the court of law without due process and reasonable cause. The backdoors can only be access via a warrant -just like police can go into your home and rummage through your thing with a warrant. Same concept. Nobody read that bit when they freaked out about it originally, but a lot of people are aware of it. It's a troubling development, but as society matures, there does seem to be a trend of more government oversight. Though that's a separate conversation.
Bruh, Max Blumenthal's entire thing about the "Management of Savagery" was literally nothing but conspiratorial propaganda and lies based on Kremlin claims. It literally blames the US for everything. I ain't explaining everything to you since every time we have an exchange I need to make a paragraph of comments to debunk BS and I'm getting tired. All I'll say is that you need to go back to school if such a man is your source; the educational system has failed such followers. As for Patrick Lancaster? Geez, he does nothing but support the Kremlin's claims, he has never, not ONCE ever said anything negative about Russia in his time with Donetsk; it's all "Ukraine is fascist". Not one Russian war crime mentioned, despite ample proof to the contrary all while following Russian troops like a lost puppy. And you expect me to take someone like that seriously? "INDEPENDENT" Journalists have to at least pretend to be neutral by showcasing the crimes of "their" side too, ya know?
How the hell can you sue someone for misinformation? When was the last time a major journalists was sued for misinformation?
Bruh, Tucker is on your side.
I already asked you for proof. ACTUAL FOIA proof of your claim about the Ukraine "coup" in 2014, and you have provided nothing. Do you even realize how brainwashed you are? Surely you must realize it by now, with the entire world being against you except the world's most reprehensible dictators.
Edit: My source is Bellingcat. You know, an ACTUAL journalist that has ACTUAL sources and which ACTUALLY call out war crimes and lies of multiple groups? Like an ACTUAL journalist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vanderearden I'm sorry, wut? The Odessa fire thingy in 2014 you mean? A terrible act. Though that's not grounds for invasion, if that's what you're implying; just recently Kazakhstan had large protests which Russia crushed with the Kazakh Government claiming that 150~ were killed. About 3 times more than what happened in Odessa. Just to give you some perspective. Btw, how exactly did the US Government fund or organize this? Seriously, did Russia fund and organize the Native American genocide in the Continental US in the 1800's?
Jesus Christ you just keep recommending me this far-left channels that make their money spinning everything into the US doing something bad.
Uh, no, President Obama never denied that the US tortured terrorists it caught; he didn't use the word "torture" until then tho. He used "enhanced interrogation", which is just torture. Idk why that's something uniquely bad or hypocritical though; US has never condemned other nations for torture, just in when/how to do it. Only nations that don't use torture are those under the US umbrella too, so it isn't a unique evil either. I do agree its bad though.
I ain't hating on people reporting on the truths of the US, I'm hating on people intentionally lying about the US in order to further their political goals. One thing to say that "the US tortures terrorists and uses black sites to do so", another thing to say "US does evil stuff all the time thus they're doing evil stuff now and Russia has a point". You're essentially giving the green light for MUCH WORSE imperialists to act out while excusing their MUCH WORSE evils as either lies/propaganda. All while making up new lies based on the lies of said MUCH WORSE imperialists.
Like you're just taking the Kremlin's and its cronies word as fact, and then you're crying about "US bad!"? It's far more hypocritical than the US can ever be, bruh.
1
-
@Vanderearden That is evidence for Victoria Nuland wanting someone else, not for a coup. She says nothing about using US money to incite revolt, or sending US troops to threaten the Ukrainian government, or sending CIA to cause an accident. So you're missing the actual evidence for the coup you're so certain occurred.
You are just repeating what Democracy Now! says is true. That's it.
I though you were gonna give me info from a FOIA memo that proved that the US sent agents to Euromaiden to cause trouble or something, not this load of nothing.
I never utilized Whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you deflect a criticism by pointing at someone else, which I have never done; I brought context, yes, but I never once excused US crimes when they're actually serious. I maintain a standard, like; US, Russia, Egypt, Iran, whoever waging war and accidentally killing civilians is "okay" as long as it isn't intentionally malicious. It's very unfortunate, but war happens. I don't have a unique standard for the US. But you do, which is why I said you were the ultimate American Exceptionalist - "One standard for thee, but not for everyone else"
Nope, I wouldn't automatically believe it, not unless Russia kept making nuclear threats to everyone and now has something to prove because its leader is filled with toxic masculinity and cannot let himself be seen as weak, anyway. But even then, I wouldn't believe it unless a trusted international body studied it and came to their own conclusions. Nice try, though.
There were mass graves in the Andrew the Apostle Church, not a big one though. So far only 300 bodies have been discovered, most with gunshot wounds at point blank range. We literally have photo evidence as well as satellite imagery. If you don't believe this, then you're already lost as a human being. You wouldn't even believe the Holocaust and just deflect about US actions with the Native Americans most likely.
"Individual graves, all marked with names" Where? There were no individual graves counted, just like 2 mass graves and the rest were just bodies thrown around like in houses or in the streets.
"And I've said many times, I don't agree with what Hitler is doing, but I understand his reasoning. I don't have a side in this, except the side of truth. If the truth is that the U.S. is up to its neck in this, so be it. Unlike you, I'd rather live with an ugly truth, than a beautiful lie."
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
-
@ameyapotdar461 There are no "fake NGOs" nor are they making "fake news" against China. All the NGOs that talk about China negatively existed for many years, and most "fake news" is just Chinese nationalists and their defenders screeching that anything they don't like is fake news. Much like Trumpists did, funny enough. It wasn't the US that alerted the world to China's issues with Xinjiang, or Tibet, or hiding Covid-19. Other trusted international organizations brought it up first, but China acts as if the US brought it out of thin air in order to obfuscate the fact that the US came late to the party. Much of the world is also suspicious of the US, so why you think the US has this kind of magical pull with the rest of the world is just weird.
What, can nobody think for themselves and it's all just a giant conspiracy against China? You weird CCP defenders need to get a grip; the US is rarely even the first one to criticize China, and the US had mostly allowed China to build its military islands on the SCS without complaint until the Philippines went to the US about it. Don't like the US grilling China? Then stop harrassing US allies.
"America is panicking" Where, exactly? And why? The world has been turning on China for years now, the new allies China hoped to make are turning to the US instead, and now China has Russia, which is also a global paraiah instead of most of East Asia, as intended. If anything, the US is doing great right now if we're talking about this hole China is digging itself into.
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
-
@mikhailalmaz If Russia wants to start doing that, the US can easily return the favor threefold and start placing nukes in Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Poland, etc. Meanwhile its doubtful if Russia can even get one nuke in Cuba, let alone Mexico since neither want to deal with Russia. There is a reason the US hasn't done that. If Russia wants to start, US can easily make it infinitely worse for Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zsarimaxim692 I already answered your question.
No, it doesn't matter; nothing in international law says that is the case, and international law guarantees open trade between nations with their own EEZ, with compromises allowing for variations; NOT self-declarations utilizing influence, power, and intimidation.
China has an existential interest in keeping its OWN trade routes open, but no single nation has the right to declare an EEZ which violates so many other national claims by using military occupation as an excuse. The US Navy has not once attempted to blockade these trade routes, and has indeed been called upon by multiple nations in the region as a counterbalance to China's attempts at control of the region. And note that such military exercises are in RESPONSE to China building these militarized islands in an attempt to control trade in this part of the world.
Yes, you're referring to NATURAL islands which have people there that WANT to be British. China CREATED artificial and militarized islands; one is fine, the other is an obvious attempt at controlling territory. It'd be like the US creating a new island in the region and claiming EEZ based off of that. That's not how this works. Greece and Turkey's issues with EEZ is literally my point btw; these two countries have big issues in deciding the EEZ, but neither have used the poor excuse of building military bases on reefs to reinforce their claim by force.
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
-
@newslaunda3976 Just because something was made for something else initially doesn't mean its usefulness stops after the fact, bruh. Fact is that most of Eastern Europe saw it as a shield to protect against a resurgent Russia and old feelings for NATO prevented people from disbanding it. A sort of "Why not?".
I know defense and military knowledge, and sorry, but NATO was never a threat to Russia. The West has an obsession with looking pretty and with living. It would never argue for an invasion of Russia while they have nukes. Let alone justify the vast majority of their population to support such a thing. No, NATO is only a threat to Russia's ability to intimidate its neighbors for political goals, which is really what Russia wants; it wants the ability to bully the likes of Estonia and Poland to fall in line under Russia's sphere of influence.
Bruh, the military installations near Russia only came near them AFTER the Russian invasion in 2014. And it was those neighboring states that DEMANDED them in the first place. Even then, they made up an extra 4k troops. Plus no nukes were moved eastward since the Cold War either, let alone talked about.
Wanna know the reality NOW, though? Many Eastern European countries are NOW talking about placing nukes on their territories specifically due to the 2022 invasion. And MORE nations who once believed they were safe with neutrality are joining NATO.
As for Cuba, again, it was the actual placing of nukes that had the US act out; not that it had the right to. But if the US placed nukes in Ukraine, then the Russian invasion would at least be more understandable. But this isn't that. At all.
The Solomon Islands have the right to ally with China, but that doesn't mean the US has to encourage it. It will discourage it, which is its right, but that does NOT mean it has the right to invade. Nobody disputes Russia's right to complain about things, just its right to conquer Ukraine, genius.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@louis9103 Uh, no, neither the Taliban nor ISIS was financially supported by the US. The US financially supported the Mujahedeen, which was a separate group to the Taliban. And the US supported the SDF, and some of the myriad groups then provided support to ISIS-affiliated groups in the midst of the Syrian Civil War though at no point did the US want that to occur.
Killing enemy combatants that happen to be Muslim is very different from how Muslims as a group are treated in civilian spaces, smart one. Just like how killing a bunch of Germans in WW2 is not indicative of German mistreatment in the US.
"Why not US just build them infrastructures, roads, schools, university, hospitals & others medical care?" The US literally did that after ousting the regimes in power. The issue being that the societies were based on dictatorships and shifting an entire culture within a decade is near-impossible. And simply working with the prior government doesn't change anything, really. Like how China boasts about "building roads" in African nations but those nations don't grow any faster than prior to Chinese investments. It doesn't matter due to the corruption of the regimes in power taking all the benefits. Wow, it's almost like you have no idea about what you're talking about.
Nothing dishonest here but you making easily disprovable claims like "US supported the Taliban". Fact is that China is oppressing its minority as we speak and committing cultural genocide, which is something no Muslim in the US would ever tolerate and are disgusted with. China is acting barbaric.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexh5725 Uh, he wasn't willing to have tanks for BLM until AFTER several riots occurred. I think that's at least somewhat reasonable. Just as I think it's reasonable for any movement that inspires people to burn down cities, including any right-wing idiots. Trumpists, for all of their stupidity, had yet to fall to the trap of becoming a riot. Now they have, and now they suffer a similar stigma as BLM.
And only specific people wanted to overthrow the government. Not leaders. Not representatives. Not the whole riot group. Seriously, BLM has leaders that express wanting to burn it all down, does that makes all of BLM a bunch o traitors that need to be shot? Tell me, how far does this hypocrisy go?
That being said, I do agree to an extent that Trump was shuffling his feet on purpose. Just not unreasonably so. The Senate agrees with me, apparently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hughmungus2760 "Inwards world view" Way to frame a literal unwillingness to adopt new technology or engage in the international community AT ALL as just "inwards world view". This is why I can't take you people seriously, instead of looking at the reality, you manipulate it to fit your world view. The US looks inward a lot, but so do a LOT of countries. In fact; most countries are "inflicted" with the same shit you're implying would cause a collapse.
But in reality, no country besides maybe the likes of North Korea engages in literal Qing isolationism. And no, the US doesn't have such a stubborn or selfish elite that they are so blind as to allow literal armies to rampage and sack cities. And "imperial overreach" is only an issue when the country as a whole can't actually protect what they have, and if the US can do one thing; it's protect what they have.
The Qing's issues with opioids was not even a reasoning for their fall, wtf?
Literally none of the Qing's issues are even present in the US today, not unless you dumb them down to the point that they're just common issues and can place them on whichever country you choose. FFS, you kinda ignored the massive revolts that lead to massive and constant erosion of authority, massive external threats that chip away and steal land, lacking technology, lack of allies, surrounded by enemies, weak military, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShabazzTBL I would say that, if I didn't have an inkling about Texas' situation. Texas never quite had a frost before, so its infrastructure was wholly unprepared for such a thing; mind you, still embarrassing, but at least based on prior assumptions and common sense. Now the Covid stuff? That's more fair; they had ample time and opportunity. But these are States; and Florida is memed already. A city is more...intimate. A perfect spot in terms of having available resources, and where having multiple bad events just kinda makes the place look bad. A bit harder for a State.
"Much of the South is on the verge of a healthcare collapse" Do you have a source for that? I keep seeing people repeat that, but they never actually have anything behind that when I ask. Maybe you do?
Well, the Covid stuff is definitely embarrassing, no doubt. But shortages is standard in such emergencies; everyone had those in the midst of their emergencies. Even my city of New York had an issue with toilet paper! :D
Richest city in the world! Lacking toilet paper! Imagine that! And yet it happened. So yeah, that's a pass too.
Dude.. If New York can have shortage issues, then anyone can have them. Chill out, this is what makes your attempt at deflection kinda land flat. You already have a prior opinion, and reveal your bigotry that way.
You wanna know what is embarrassing? Uber wealthy citizens from an uber wealthy city having authoritarian extremists from both sides fight each other while their cops are hiding since their residents are gonna crap on them anyway. Mind you, they deserve some of that crap, but they have an impossible standard these days if I'm reading the public opinion of Portland correctly. It was not necessary, happened in a contained location, at the same site with multiple other embarrassing stupid crap which altogether paints a picture. A picture of insane city that...you know, if it had the same mayor this entire time, should prolly be kicked out. Like now. And replaced with someone more moderate and who wouldn't tolerate a portion of her city declaring independence and subsequently having the single largest crime-per-population statistic on the planet.
1
-
1
-
@ShabazzTBL Hmm, I suppose that's a fair point. I haven't heard of this report, but I'll take your word for it. Okay, yeah, Texas definitely did a stupid in which people died because of it. Happy?
1) This "completely preventable disaster" is something which collapsed most first-world countries and their healthcare in the midst of their emergencies. So idk how crapping on Florida and claiming that they became third-world in a fashion makes sense when this applies to most of the "first-world" in the first place. This is more you being partisan and fingering right-wing places because...deflection, I guess.
2) You're the one that fingered the entire state when talking about shortages and how embarrassing it would be; so you set the standard here in which "shortages = Florida more embarrassing". Again, in a less serious variant than Delta, New York faced a much bigger crisis with a much bigger shortage of...almost everything. And yet you point at Florida specifically with its much less serious issue? Is it because New York is left-wing? Heck, I don't even hold it against New York because obviously the ubermensch left-wing, always right, uber-duper healthcare Europeans mucked up their response almost just as bad despite left-wing pundits celebrating them as geniuses for handling the crisis. Now France, the UK, freaking BELGIUM and SWEDEN have similar numbers per 1 million people dead. So again, why the hyper-focus on Florida for failure? I haven't checked the numbers, but to me that's more indicative of failure.
3) Might wanna look up what bigotry means. It doesn't mean an unfair opinion against a disadvantaged group of people; it's more the stubborn belief in a group of...anything that refuses to be shifted and instead is used to conform to your previous biases. In short; "I believe X are bastards, and I ignore everything that goes against that belief". Bigot was originally used to describe racists that refuse to see the error of their ways, but it applies to this as well. And I claim that you're deflecting because you keep pointing to other places which are specifically more right-wing (this in of itself is concerning, as it points to a predisposition to "dislike" and maybe even dehumanize the "other side") when several places/nations have similar issues that would be considered left-wing; and seems generally pretty standard. It's like pointing at "this country elected a stupid executive leader = this country being stupid" when that's a standard that a LOT of countries fit into. It's both hypocritical and intentionally ignorant to deflect from the real flat-out batshit stuff in Portland, at least imho. Just accept that Portland is weird and let it go, man.
4) I read most of it. But yeah, it was getting kinda long. Hope this wasn't too long either. If you respond, then great, but I may tap out here since idk if I wanna make another big response. :D
1
-
@Digger-Nick That happens to everybody. Sucks.
It's a "statistical anomaly" which occurs several times more often than in any other First-world country. Is it "relatively" rare? Sure, but the fact it happens at all when they are public officials and should be held to a higher standard makes the US look terrible. How can we claim to be a country of freedom if our cops beat our citizens like 10x more than in any other first-world country?
Jesus Christ, dude. Did you really just say there is a "dark skinned" crisis? While AA's as a group commit more crimes than other groups, it has genuinely been suppressed for centuries until relatively recently, and even recently there are some hiccups like AA's getting more jail time for the same crime as whites. Mind you, this exists at the same time as men getting more jailtime for the same crime than women, but still.
Hispanics as a group are improving rapidly, Asians already surpassed Whites in both wealth and lack of crime (I suppose we have a "light skinned" crisis now, huh?), etc. And to be blunt, police issues in the past and now lessens trust, making handling crime much harder. If you can't find empathy in simply helping your fellow American feel as if cops won't beat him, then at least help stop the issue for your own sake so that communities overall will be safer for everybody.
Now mind you, I do believe there are significant issues within that community itself that it ignores. Rampant misogyny, anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments and abuse, broken homes, issues with framing personal issues as ones caused by society/the state, etc. But again, one issues DOES NOT dissuade from the other.
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
-
@babaupede 1) I can't really cite anything because any comments doing so gets deleted by YT. You can easily find my claims easily verifiable in Google, if you want. Feel free to call me out if they're incorrect.
2) I repeat; G@za health ministry refuses to point out how many casualties are military or civilian and their official stance is that no military has fallen and its all civilians. Also, you know, they've been caught out lying multiple times in this conflict, like the hospital with 1k which turned out to be complete fabrication. The fact that international organizations take it as "reliable" is far more an indictment to how corrupt they are than anything else. You then act like Israel's numbers fit neatly with G@za's and even tacking on the belief that Israel conflates all adult males with military? If we are suddenly taking Israel's word, then that would mean that Gaza has lost 20k civilians, not 30k. These statistics are contradictory.
3) I already pointed out how the dtoll is massively higher elsewhere. I gave you the numbers, which if we are using G@za's penchant for conflating casualties, civilians, and military altogether; would massively outstrip the health ministry's claims.
Altogether, you have to simultaneously believe everything G@za says while ignoring the fact that they were caught lying before, simultaneously buy what Israel says but then doubt it specifically when the health ministry's claim is contrary, and finally ignore how G@za counts their number when compared to other hot zones. If everyone did as G@za did, then the toll in Ukraine is 500k, and I already pointed out how that massively outstripped G@za.
1
-
@babaupede 1) I can't really cite anything because any comments doing so gets deleted by YT. You can easily find my claims easily verifiable in Google, if you want. Feel free to call me out if they're incorrect.
2) I repeat; G@za health ministry refuses to point out how many casualties are military or civilian and their official stance is that no military has fallen and its all civilians. Also, you know, they've been caught out lying multiple times in this conflict, like the hospital with 1k which turned out to be complete fabrication. The fact that international organizations take it as "reliable" is far more an indictment to how corrupt they are than anything else. You then act like Israel's numbers fit neatly with G@za's and even tacking on the belief that Israel conflates all adult males with military? If we are suddenly taking Israel's word, then that would mean that Gaza has lost 20k civilians, not 30k. These statistics are contradictory.
3) I already pointed out how the dtoll is massively higher elsewhere. I gave you the numbers, which if we are using G@za's penchant for conflating casualties, civilians, and military altogether; would massively outstrip the health ministry's claims.
Sorry, had more here, but YT deletes the entire thing if its here. So yeah.
1
-
1
-
@babaupede 1) Feel free to call me out if they're incorrect then.
2) I repeat; the health ministry refuses to point out how many casualties are military or civilian and their official stance is that no military has fallen; kinda untrustworthy. Also, you know, they've been caught out lying before, like the hospital with 1k which turned out to be a fabrication. You then act like Israel's numbers fit neatly with G@za's and even tacking on the belief that Israel conflates all adult males with military? If we are suddenly taking Israel's word, then that would mean that Gaza has lost 20k, not 30k. Civilians. These statistics are contradictory. Also, due to the youth and extremism, many young people are prolly also taking part in conflict, marking them as military. Its hard to say.
3) I already pointed out how the toll is massively higher elsewhere. I gave you the numbers, which if we are using G@za's penchant for conflating casualties, civilians, and military altogether; would massively outstrip the health ministry's claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, no? Putler's original address denied Ukraine's existence as an independent state, claiming that it was a fact state made by Lenin. This in addition to the claim that NATO is threatened Russia by trying to incorporate Ukraine implies an intent to take over Ukraine to "keep NATO away" and "return lost brothers home" or some crap.
So Russia's original intent was completely BTFO'd. Thus they switched tactics, and losers online seem to eat it up by claiming ignorantly that Russia never actually intended to take Ukraine...as if Putler's address didn't happen and they can't read between the lines.
Also, "armed for the past 8 years"? What? It's true Ukraine got some Western arms, but hardly anything major; the most advanced weapons they had was the Javelins and NLAWS, but in terms of small arms, tanks, and aircraft they were still using generally Soviet-era equipment.
Mostly it was NATO training that helped shape them into an actual fighting force.
Imagine using the Gulf War as an example. Iraq was the #10 military power on the planet, with modern weapons and equipment from both the US and USSR. Iraq's economy back then was still larger than Ukraine's today, and comparatively a MUCH bigger share on the world economy.
Finally, you proved your ignorance by claiming Russia took more land more quickly. The US Coalition started the conflict against Iraq in January, 17 1991 and completed it in February 28 1991. That's a bit more than a month. With close to 0 Coalition deaths. A perfect liberation operation with the complete decimation of the Iraq military.
Russia in contrast looks pathetic, mostly because people mostly use the Iraq War of 2003 as a comparison and find Russia laughable at best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Benjamin Figgins You're crying about Cold War propaganda while regurgitating Cold War propaganda. There is zero proof that Diem was in league with the US prior to 1957, and even after that there were many hiccups along the way and it was an obvious "alliance" against Communists. Diem did TRY to get US support around 1951, I believe, but failed to do so; if that's what you're thinking of.
See, this is the issue with people like you. You NEED the US to be involved with everything to create a boogeyman, but in the process you have to literally strip the independence and actions of non-white people to do it. Newsflash; Diem was VERY active and South Vietnam was formed by taking advantage of the situation that was the French-Vietnam War. It existed as its own entity, and had 200,000 refugees stream from North Vietnam to the South; from the beginning, if anything, it looked like the North was the "fake" country. History doesn't see it that way since, you know, the North won, but you're looking at the end result rather than the actual circumstances.
Actually, the domino theory wasn't wrong, it just failed to take into account that Communism was not one giant bloc and had various differing ideas on how it could be implemented rather than "everyone gang up on the democratic capitalists". Which, wasn't an unfair assumption considering how often the USSR literally controlled Communist organizations across democratic countries like in the US, Germany, and most famously; in France, where Stalin instructed French Communists to push for anti-war protests during the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The Vietnam War was a mistake for the US, I won't argue against that basic premise; but you're dismissing literally everything just to push your narrative. Sorry, but I ain't some Chomskyite that blindly bites at any anti-US propaganda. Wanna talk about US coups in Latin America? That's fine, but don't go ahead and make intentional lies about the specifics to support your ideology. Much of this is on public record, and anyone with a Google search can fact-check you.
Anyway, you're now screeching that the Americans in the State Department should've known that the Vietnamese Communists weren't internationalists when that's a stupid argument. Every time the Americans made contact with Communists, they have essentially been lied to 24/7, whether it be Stalin promising free elections in Central Europe, the USSR's lies about its horrible conduct to its people throughout the decades, the CCP under Mao and its concealment of the horrible toll his social reforms cost, the handling of "Communist Internationalism" already having screwed the Western democracies multiple times since by the earliest the 1920's, etc, etc. Why exactly the US would have ever trusted a Vietnamese Communist to be telling the truth is mind-boggling. May as well ask the British to trust Hitler when he offered a ceasefire after taking over France to totally not attack them once he finished pummeling the USSR. We know NOW that the Vietnamese Communists under Ho Chih Minh were genuinely not a part of the USSR's Cold War; but hind vision is 20/20. It was impossible to say that at the time period.
And every time the US followed those principles it got screwed. Random American politicians or citizens can talk about principles all they want, but they have never served the common American since...ever, really. The world has never been run by principles, so again; I really don't give a shit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Darian___ It's propaganda lies, actually. You need to seriously ignore all context to make this up or believe it too. You need to ignore that NATO is just as much an organization needed to protect Eastern European sovereignty from Russian imperialism, as we've seen in Georgia and Ukraine. For the record; Ukraine never even wanted to join NATO, it wanted to join the EU, and Russia still saw fit to invade their "brother" nation, and now people like you unironically think that the Baltics have nothing to fear?
As for NATO; you're conflating NATO nations getting involved with NATO doing something. NATO only ever invaded Afghanistan, as indicated by the activation of Article 5 following 9/11, of whom the Taliban supported and aided. NATO didn't invade or bomb anyone else, just NATO nations which people just dumb down to "NATO". In reality, the US bombed Yugoslavia, justifiably to stop a genocide. France and the UK bombed Libya, etc, etc.
Again; if you ignore literally all context, then Russia may have a point. So only the ignorant can follow this logic, really.
1
-
@Darian___ Yes. Today. AFTER Russia invaded them in 2014. Check opinion polls on joining NATO prior to 2014, and it's usually abysmally low. Ukraine just wanted to join the EU.
They're wrong because they're using the NATO strategic command to more easily coordinate the strategic bombings; but NATO wasn't involved. Or rather, NATO wasn't activated. NATO is only a threat when all nations within it are forced to join something. US used NATO and any allies within it that wished to join it to bomb Yugoslavia. It isn't "NATO" if countries in NATO can pick and choose and not be forced into the war. Canada, Denmark, Turkey, the US, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, and Spain. And I don't even think Norway is in NATO, or beholden to it. Poland, Hungary, Greece, and the Czech Republic didn't join in. These nations willingly joined in the bombing campaign, again, because genocide.
Why are you talking about international law all of a sudden? I never once brought up international law. Besides, it's the duty of all nation-states to intervene to stop genocide; it's literally in international law to begin with. I forget the clause, but it's there. Though killing any civilians is against international law. Which proves that international law in general is a joke; it's against it to just sit around and let genocide occur, but its also against international law to accidentally kill a civilian trying to stop it. I won't apologize for it; just like I won't apologize for Allied bombings of Germany in WW2, which is also against international law. At times, you, what is right and moral personally takes precedence. Or are you gonna argue that it was against international law to stop a genocide now?
Geez, do I need to mention every single nation involved? France and the UK are the main instigators of the conflict; they initiated the no fly zone bombing campaign, and the US joined in later at French insistence since they ran out of bombs and required refueling. I won't defend Libya, mostly because everyone involved committed crimes against international law. Engaging in international politics at all effectively makes you against international law to some extent, like Germany selling weapons to Saudi Arabia who is using them to kill Yemenis, for example while denying the same to Ukraine.
Fair. You never did say that Baltics had nothing to fear from Russia; that's just the logic most people that argue like you have used, but that doesn't mean you believe that. My apologies, I can take that L.
No, the Russians do not have a point. People complained about Russia's interventions elsewhere, whether it be Georgia, Chechnya, or Syria -Russia has broken a lot of international laws, but the West did not lash out much against Russia for these. Call it Western hypocrisy where they bomb Serbs but tolerate Russians for crimes against humanity. Fact is; the West tolerated a lot of Russian BS. But Ukraine was a step too far, and the logic they use to justify it is literally the logic Westerners have been using to justify past Russian actions elsewhere. But now? Ukraine is an actual democracy, and next to countries that have faced such imperialism and feel VERY threatened. Even then, at worst Russia just got more sanctions.
Amplify all of this with 100,000 troops at the border, and there is ample reason for the West to be furious, and Russia has zero reason to justify why exactly they are instigating conflict. None. Zilch. Nada.
This is especially poignant when, again, you just inhaled Kremlin propaganda hook line and sinker. There are ZERO US missiles near Russia's borders. None. There are only anti-missile defense systems, specifically in response to the literal crap load of missiles and nukes in Kaliningrad. And those sCaRy US bases? The troops they hold reached at maximum 9,000 across all of Eastern Europe. This in contrast to 100,000, and Russia's claims are COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Understanding their POV is fine, but trying to act like they're reasonable at all is fucked up. There is nothing reasonable about the Russian position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@outsideconfidence12 You do realize that those "goat herders" defeated the USSR with far higher casualties than the US, right? When placed into context, your own logic doesn't work. Also, unlike the Taliban -Ukraine is actually fighting Russia as a country rather than tribal leaders fighting separately via guerilla warfare -a better comparison is the Iraq War under Saddam Hussein which was funded on and off by the US and USSR over the years and which was battle tested and had conquered Kuwait successfully before.
And in that comparison, again, Russia falls pathetically short. Iraq was a competent military power with all of the components of a modern military for the time; including combined arms approach, air defenses to the extreme, artillery, etc -all of which was efficiently crushed by the US Coalition within weeks leaving only pockets of resistance via guerilla warfare from external and internal groups.
In short, the US has proven to easily crush armies int he field but have difficulty defeating groups utilizing guerilla warfare; while Russia hasn't even been able to defeat armies in the field despite on paper being vastly superior. Ukraine didn't even really have artillery, anti-air, or aircraft to speak of, at least not compared to Russia. Ukraine getting Howitzers and HIMARS literally only matters in the context of an army being able to resist Russia to begin with.
So basically, I repeat; Russia is a joke. If the US was in its place, it would crush Ukraine easier than it crushed Iraq -not giving foreign rivals the opportunity to fund Ukraine's national resistance -though it would flounder again in the face of guerilla warfare where Russia likely just butchers everyone to get rid of it. Ukraine by every metric is a weaker Iraq, with the only advantage it has had over Iraq being that its better trained and had some new Western toys to fiddle with; but nowhere near enough to bridge that gap.
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
-
@kassieraine110 There's some leeway here, and you're taking an extremist approach. This is the same logic that let people tear down statues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or Gandhi. Past figures are always going to be filled with controversy. Heck, modern ones are. Statues of Mansa Musa exist in West Africa, despite hte fact that he owned like millions of slaves -at what point does tearing down just become attacking a country's history?
Whether you or I admit it or not, the Confederacy was a part of the South's history. That isn't gonna change. There wasn't and won't ever be a unified way of thinking of these figures since they represent one thing to someone, and another thing to another. Now, for something like the KKK which has no cultural significance, I can 100% understand not allowing such a statue to come up. Or Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler.
Ultimately, for me, I'd say that its up to the local community as long as they have a good reason to have such focus on a historical figure or monument. That's my take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriscarlone527 Sorry, but no. Nation-building means just that; "building up a nation", it doesn't matter the circumstances of how it started. But even if I did believe that, the logic that the US must do something purely out of good will is stupid. No nation can do that, and the US didn't do that with Germany to begin with. A country is made up of people and its leaders making decisions for, ideally, the greater good of said nation. It can't just give out money because "it's the right thing to do" since its the nation's money born from its people.
Iraq wasn't really a failure, but by uber-ludicrous American standards it was, sure. Afghanistan was definitely a failure, though, yeah.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rey6708 Germany was never destroyed until WW2, WW1 Germany was starved to be sure, but its infrastructure was mostly intact. And never before has large cities been taken down to their foundations like in the World Wars; and most of the devastation of WW1 was away from German territory. So idk why you're acting like Germany was ever devastated and could have rebuilt itself. It was a completely different level, nothing Germany or German states has ever dealt with since the Black Death.
West Germany was 3rd, actually, receiving 11% of the $13 Billion, which amounts to $144 Billion these days.
In time Germans could've rebuilt, but not as quickly, as well, or without being thoroughly subjugated by the USSR without the US around, no. And the Marshall Plan wasn't motivated out of fear; from the beginning the US pushed for other Western powers to treat Germany better, even in WW1. If the US feared Germany, then Germany wouldn't exist. Period, end of story. Which is essentially what the USSR and France wanted.
But sure, I'm certain the Germans in their broken state could have rebuilt and become an economic power today with the USSR and France making the decisions, not the US. Keep telling yourself 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
-
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
-
@shellybelly01 I don't they have tried, no. Because Haiti is still in the same rut as it always has been, and its people complain but don't do anything to change it. A country is a reflection of its people, ultimately. If Haiti and DR's people switched places, not moving any businesses or economies, then DR would just become like Haiti and Haiti would become like DR; because it's the people that matter ultimately.
Idk why Haiti paid reparations. I assume it's so that France doesn't come by and bomb Haiti, but I never actually read why Haiti decided to pay. But guess what? All independent colonial nations had to suffer from their colonizer's hand even after winning independence. Spain cost the mainland South American nations gravely with deep depopulation and excursions, the US faced constant attacks by Native British allies while encouraged with British weapons from Canada and literally stealing sailors from US ships, etc, etc.
Oh, I care about it. I just acknowledge it as an unfortunate reality that can't be changed because, all nations act like that. Including Haiti. DR's cry about Haiti's invasion of them too, and I tell them off since such things happen to everyone; it's how you move on that matters. And DR managed to. Haiti has never managed to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidt02 Are you seriously asking why poor and undeveloped countries were unable to utilize technology easily gotten through free trade? Seriously? Do you not know why "under-developed" is used? Do I need to hold your hand? Apparently I do. Here is the very brief and VERY obvious reason why: it's because the infrastructure necessary to do even basic development not only barely exists, the capital to further create new and improved infrastructure is nowhere to be seen. It's risky to pour money onto a an under-developed country since issues of corruption, weak government, issues with non-government parties screwing things up and/or blowing apart infrastructure (think terrorists or paramilitary groups), and waaaaay more.
You may as well ask why countries who had technology to make swords and shields for thousands of years don't have the capability to to conquer large empires like the big states of their eras have. The know-how is NOT the same as the ability to field new tech or build it. But you knew that, because I don't believe for a second that you're this incapable of thinking.
And finally; your insane comment on the SCS. Like, really? Yeah, no crap other countries have stupid claims. Wanna know the difference between all the other countries and China? It's a VERY obvious difference. So obvious, that I can't help but think that you're only pretending to be ignorant in order to disingenuously argue.
I'll give you a hint though; it has a lot to do with military forces, man-made islands, and the penchant for attacking ships from neighboring countries in order to bully them to accept their own ridiculous claims. Tell me; which country specifically in the South China Sea fits this criteria?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandshark2 Yes, and money has been growing almost consistently for the past thousands of years. That's literally why we use GDP as a metric. And yes, resources are finite; idk why you even brought that up for? Nobody needs new resources; growth feeds growth -its how resources are used that creates value and thus wealth. Tin by itself only has value because humans use tin for something. By itself, it has none.
It isn't about begging millionaires, its about capital flight, genius. It's a real issue across the planet; and the US has been a beneficiary of it. Millionaires are often the biggest sources of investments in new technology and in startups; among many other things. Investments are used to maintain wealth, but millionaires still splurge like everyone else.
Hey, feel free to raise taxes for the privilege and watch them move their wealth elsewhere because, unlike everyone else, they have the means and ability to do so easily. People, no matter their economic status, usually feels a semblance of loyalty to their home country; but not everyone does. The millionaires and billionaires that come to the US from other countries obviously didn't when they left their nations. In 2016, after a new wealth tax, something in the mode of 10,000 millionaires left France to different countries losing a LOT of revenue as a consequence.
Don't be like France.
"he military gets 3 trillion a year and yet still couldnt control the middle east, wasting that money on F-35s that cost more than their usefulness"
Way to tell someone that you're ignorant without admitting it, Jesus Christ. Do you know anything that goes on in the Middle East? You realize that throwing money at an issue doesn't solve anything, right? The US can be the ultimate badasses that complete every objective; but if they are given impossible missions then they can't accomplish it, you understand that, right? How exactly were less than 2,000 US troops supposed to "control" all of Afghanistan? And did you just claim the F-35 costs more than was useful??? Did you just wake up from 2016 or something???
I'm not gonna freaking educate you, just...read up more about that stuff you're complaining about. There are definitely military spending issues; but not in what you're inferring about. Especially about the F-35, which is extremely important for future US military superiority in which MULTIPLE NATIONS ACROSS THE PLANET are depending on.
And for the record; healthcare doesn't mean crap to Americans. Don't blame military or tax holes on a lack of healthcare; its already been estimated that the US would actually SAVE money if they switched to public healthcare. US doesn't do it...because Americans don't trust federal institutions enough for it.
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
-
@LMvdB02 USSR backed pro-Communist guerillas and far-left dictators across the planet, bruh. Every LatAm far-leftist group, which usually has a higher body count than any US-backed dictator, was backed by the KGB at some point. Not to mention the various puppet states in Eastern Europe which it crushed.
And the US backed almost every decolonization effort as well, I'm more speaking of the dictatorships that sprung afterwards or guerillas trying to implement dictatorships afterwards.
Everything you claimed that the US, UK, and Australia did so did the USSR except replace "fascism" with "Communism" which unequivocally killed more people. The Sandinistas killed far more than the Contras, the North Vietnamese far more than the South, North Koreans far more than the South, the CCP far more than the KMT, this trend is pretty common.
In the Muslim World the USSR backed repressive secular dictators which started constant wars between each other and backed terrorist groups against each other as well. The US never actually backed any hyper-religious group in the Middle East until the Mujahideen, and that was in response to an illegal Soviet imperialist invasion of Afghanistan to begin with, which brought rise to the hyper religious group to start.
The US didn't set anything in Indonesia, this is a complete lie on your part. The US tacitly backed anything Suherto did as long as he was anti-Communist, but before that backed the independence of Indonesia to begin with, threatening to completely strangle the Dutch economically if they did not do so. There is an excellent study of the US role in Indonesian Independence in the Cold War channel, if you actually want to do something more than repeat Soviet Cold War propaganda. The Soviets, by every metric, was much worse than the US; literally.
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
-
@yarpenzirgin1826 Also, finally saw your reply to me; I would actually like to apologize on the comment you responded to. I didn't mean to imply that Russia is literally worse than Nazi Germany. I meant more "Russia is more fascist than any current Western nation by far", not that its more fascist than any Western nation ever used to be.
First of all, Putin is by FAR more nationalist than Navalny is; he stokes anti-Western propaganda with government-backed news networks that gleefully talks about nuking the "disgusting Pindos", framing every event in existence as an attack on Russia, starting wars of conquest instead of improving the people's even worsening situation.
Literally the entire support group of Putin is far-right compared to any Western nation on the planet, genius. Putin crushed LGBT, suppresses democratic opposition groups, promotes religious dogma, and supports oligarchs for his power while his people have very few social democratic means to support themselves. Far less than the US. And support of him is somehow NOT far-right??? It's NOT right-wing idiocy???
Russia initially didn't support the Serbs, but even under Yeltsin (the uS pUpPeT) literally supported Yugoslavia(Serbs) and warned NATO not to send ground troops lest a world war start. Yeltsin just literally didn't have the option to stop them because Russia doesn't then or now have the means to stop such an invasion. This in the MIDST of claims and current PROOF of the Bosnian genocide. So what exactly are you talking about? Russia has ALWAYS supported the Serbs.
Considering the only thing you were right was out of thin air was the first claim, no, there isn't a pattern. But you do have a pattern of excusing Russian imperialism and fascism, though. All of the West is more left-wing by far than Russia, but tell me more about how Navalny is this "right-wing" threat as he condemns the oligarchs bleeding Russia dry while Putin works with them and enriches them lol
1
-
@yarpenzirgin1826 Your post is full of lies, unfortunately. I'll break it down for you.
1) Chechnya had a right to self-determination, period, end of story; and you can't cry that Chechnya was "rebuilt" and then unironically consider Crimea to be a case of self-determination. Especially when, like Kosovo and Bosnia, the locals fought against their oppressors while in Crimea the RUSSIANS came in in the first place and THEN started a referendum...with armed guards...and not allowing international observers to watch the proceedings. This is pure hypocrisy on your part to excuse one that is so obviously self-determination, and then claim the other is self-determination when it was engineered by Putin to begin with. "Putin says plan to take Crimea hatched before referendum
" by Reuters
2) Russia investing in Chechnya is obvious, it's within Russian territory well within its supply lines and no external country was funding terrorist groups; plus there was no exit vector for rebels/terrorists to escape to like the Taliban had with Pakistan. In Afghanistan it was far away from US territory and the likes of China and Pakistan were backing the Taliban while Russia was secretly offering bounties on US dead. Though to be entirely fair, that last one is more an assertion still; but hell, you seem to be doing nothing but asserting Kremlin propaganda so we can both play that game. There are lots of conspiracies which could justify US literally wanting to tear Russia to shreds as Russian TV boasts about nuking New York. But unlike you, what I believe are actually backed up by international organizations while yours are...backed by tyrants and government-sponsored propaganda.
3) To this day, Georgia has been trying to join NATO since the past decade of conflict with Russia. It also has nothing to do with excusing Russian imperialism. It happened, Russia caused it. THAT is the issue.
4) As I stated in 1, Crimea joined under INCREDIBLY suspicious circumstances to the point that acting like it was legitimate is a sick joke. There is no international organization that considers Russia's land grab to be legitimate. And while you are correct in that Crimea reportedly wanted to join Russia years prior, that is VERY different to legally voting in a referendum without Russian troops breathing down their neck. Russian action could have easily turned that poll on its head. We don't know; because Russia did the stupid thing and forced the issue and caused trouble when there was none before right at the borders of democratic Europe. The size of the ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea doesn't matter, just as the size of ethnic Germans in the US doesn't matter; what matters is how THEY voted, and Russia effectively stole that right from them with armed guards when they could have done the sensible thing and called for international backing for a referendum on the subject. It might have still ruffled a lot of feathers and be highly hypocritical due to their actions in Chechnya, but it'd be far more accepted and Kremlin shills would look far more reasonable than what you're showing. As I've said before; Putin planned to take Crimea, referendum or not - "Putin says plan to take Crimea hatched before referendum" by Reuters. Look it up.
5) Your list of "US conquests" is so insane, that I can't even take it seriously. Iraq and Afghanistan at least make SOME sense, but Libya where no US troops even set foot? Syria where they were far more concerned with fighting ISIS and far more effective than the Syrian-Russian alliance with far less civilian casualties? Hell, your info on Yemen shows your propaganda; there was o genocide, only a possible risk of one as brought forth by Human Rights Watch. And the US is "involved" in pretty much every event and country on Earth -that's not the same as supporting or endorsing it. Somalia? Uganda? Imagine thinking working in support with the governments there is "conquest", Jesus.
6) 90% of those "800 bases" are just supply depots or bases which are owned by the native government which the US can use from time to time. In reality, there are less than 30 bases with more than 100 US troops at any one time across the planet. None in Africa, South America, or North America. Almost all in East Asia (5-8, I think), the Middle East (1 in Saudi Arabia, 1 in UAE, 1 in Kuwait, 1 in Iraq, and some tiny ones peppered in places like Jordan I believe), and finally in Europe with most of them being Germany, Italy, and recently in the countries threatened by Russian imperialism in Eastern Europe. But that goes against your narrative, huh??
1
-
@yarpenzirgin1826 1) For your second reply, I'll first address your ridiculous source about the West ever promising to NOT expand. First of all, Gorbachev himself denied that the West/NATO ever promised such a thing.
Secondly, the source you provided was bunk; look through their citations and their first link they provided did NOT provide any proof that any Western leader provided any promises to not expand NATO beyond no military infrastructure being placed in East Germany. What Gorbachev criticized later was that the "spirit of the agreement" was violated, but he himself states; "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Hell, when Putin quoted NATO General Secretary Manfred Worner, he specifically left out the latter part of his words; "The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees." But the very next sentence is "Moreover we could conceive of a transitional period during which a reduced number of Soviet forces could remain stationed in the present-day GDR."
In short, Putin SPECIFICALLY left out the part where this was specifying EAST GERMANY, NOT the rest of Eastern Europe. And to this day, despite any attempts by Putin and his stooges, you CANNOT find any claim or promise in writing via treaty that NATO would NOT expand eastward. And Gorbachev himself has specified that that no violation was made.
2) No duh there is the largest concentration of troops in Russia's borders since Operation Barbarossa; there has been no concentration of troops since Operation Barbarossa to begin with. And again, those troop numbers are DWARFED by Russia by at LEAST a factor of 5-1. 100,000 Russian troops against a measly 9,300 NATO in the Baltics and 5,000 in Poland. So yes, you're sick for trying to act like Russia is under threat. And the Americans have every right to criticize since they are a higher echelon of human rights and freedom in terms of taking care of human rights in their home than Russia is in theirs; as shown by every study of human rights indexes across the planet. Russia is never quite high in those lists. With your logic, NOBODY can talk about human rights since everyone has done bad things, which is a braindead argument. For reference, CATO places the US as an 8.4 on its scale of human rights, while Russia is 6.31. That is among the most GENEROUS for Russia I could find.
3) Well, duh; the US uses human rights as a bludgeon. It's smart, it makes sense, and its logically consistent. It forces other countries to raise the bar or get harassed, and I fully support the US in doing that. All countries with higher human rights should be doing it until they can't since everyone's human rights is elevated. Including yours.
4) I never claimed that Russians didn't have social safety nets at all; just that they were dogcrap compared to a country like the US. Which, yeah, they are. And to put it bluntly; Russian immigration to the US has been a constant thing prior to 2017's sanctions. That's hardly an excuse. Russia's GDP was rising, but it was all concentrated on the oligarchs, never to the people. It's household income peaked in 2013 actually, and then fall drastically from 2014-2016. It has never recovered from that drop, and remains low and stagnant. US' has risen over time, with a slight dip here and there, but it is generally rising. And much higher than Russia's.
5) I mean, you are kinda a Nazi apologist in that you're excusing an imperialist power's attacks on innocent democracies and then gaslighting by framing it as it they are the victims when they have been the aggressors. Much like Nazi Germany had with Poland, the USSR, and the West. The poor Nazis were the victims to their apologists, and now here you are; doing the same exact thing. I've already torn to shred your claims, so acting as if I only follow what "MSM" says is humorous since none of the information I provided is from the "Western MSM". Not CNN, not BBC, nor NYT, not MSNBC. Mostly international sources, of which to you seem to be Western propaganda. How convenient that only Russian-backed propaganda is the "truth" to you.
You'll get your apology when you stop shilling for Russian imperialism.
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
-
@madeachanneljustcauseican3968 1) That doesn't stop lobbying at all. Lobbying is still extremely common throughout the developed democracies, with some nations having zero restrictions on lobbying such as France. Most nations don't even have a need to register themselves as lobbyists or what they're lobbying for; Germany in this month only just created that for their lobbyists. Again, you might wanna check up on Japanese lobbying, it's quite "rampant", if you consider lobbying to be a negative thing.
2) Well, I don't disagree with it. Executive orders are checked by the judicial branch like everything else and often require discretion from Congress to begin with. More than that, they aren't new laws; they work within the framework of existing laws passed by Congress. An Executive Order can't and doesn't make new laws in of itself. The only thing I agree with is the ability to pardon people; which while often used to pardon people that might have needed it, can also be abused.
3) No, Julian Assange is not protected by US law outside of the basic guarantees of the Constitution. The Whistleblower Act of 1989 doesn't cover Assange due to the method he used to get that information; the Act only protects people that came across war crimes, not people that intentionally broke into secret federal files to find past war crimes. It's the difference of how he got the information. It's the difference between seeing a crime occur, and breaking into someone else's home to find a crime occur without a good reason as to why. If Julian Assange saw the war crime in person, then you would be correct.
4) It really isn't. You're downplaying it in other nations. Lobbying in of itself isn't even a negative thing; it's considered an important feature of democratic practice.
5) I see. But I fail to see why this is inherently superior to the US' voting system. Again; democracy is hardly a hard science.
6) No prob. You didn't seem to be intentionally dishonest, so I don't mind not being snappish.
As to your edit; alright, I see the confusion. Yes, political funding during elections is lobbying, though I prefer giving money for those running for office just to give a level playing field, I also don't see the current system as necessarily negative. EU lobbying laws are not that much more transparent than US lobbying laws either. If anything, the EU only recently caught up to the US in lobbying disclosure: look up the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rdrrr As usual, chuds have no idea how freedom works. Freedom of speech just means the government can't silence you, it doesn't mean other people have to to listen to you. Just like a business owner can kick you out because they feel like it, so can other people refuse to associate with and isolate you.
You crying about that means that you want to FORCE them to continue to associate with you. Which is explicitly against the concept of freedom.
You also know damn well that its not just anti-semitism, but all forms of -isms that gets that reaction. Not that you care.
Lastly, the only group overrepresented amongst the super elite are WASPs. Jews are not high up there compared to them. I guess we should start harassing WASPs, with your logic?
Oh yes, because YouTube allows people to say mean things about blacks, or Muslims, or Asians, or anyone really. You people are beyond hypocritical and sad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karlvan6405 Well, no. The first modern concentration camp was made by Spain or the UK, in crushing the Cuban revolt or during the Boer Wars. The Native Americans being sent to boarding schools is not a concentration camp, and were not skinned; or at least the practice was not at all common. Sterilized was more common, but still not as common either.
Also, the Native American population has NOT been almost eliminated, you propagandist. For pete's sakes, I'm descended of one. Why the heck are you making this stuff up?
JESUS CHRIST. You're beyond a propagandist now. You're just straight up making stuff up and lying! Guantanamo Bay at MAXIMUM had no more than 800 detainees and was absolutely tiny. It can't fit 1,000,000 people even if it tried! And none of its inhabitants are political prisoners, blacks, or illegal immigrants; they're specifically from the Middle East in the US' wars there.
It's weird that you bring up that Native American boarding schools and then ignore the direct parallel to Xinjiang. What's up with that? Like, they're almost exactly the same with the CCP trying to erase cultural practices and boarding people up with fences like a real concentration camp. It'd be more understandable if they came into China illegally and China had to sort them out like the US does at its border, but that's not the case.
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
-
@anastasiagileva8711 "Another subject in Clinton and Yeltsin’s communication that directly concerned the Baltics was, of course, the enlargement of NATO. Russia never concealed its dislike of the continuation of the Alliance following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The US was well aware of this and tried to include Russia in the new European security environment. For example, on 27 April 1995, Clinton said in a phone conversation with Yeltsin that, for the future stability of Europe, it was important that Russia be a vital part of the emerging new security structures. Nothing could develop normally unless Russia was involved in the process, believed Clinton, who emphasised three directions with respect to NATO—expansion, but without acceleration, the Partnership for Peace and preparations for the base treaty between Russia and NATO."
The US under Bill Clinton actually bent itself into pretzels for Russia, but that's inconvenient to mention, I guess?
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
-
@ivansmirnov7342 And how do you know that? Do you understand how a military works? Not everyone in that army are made up of infantry which push deeper into enemy territory; there are cooks, artillerymen, engineers, tankers, fuelers, etc, etc. How much has Russia actually sent of its active infantry, those trained to fight and work together? We don't know, but we do know that Russia went into this assuming that this would be a quick victory in taking Kyiv and folding the Ukrainian resistance.
We also know that they have been having horrendous logistic issues, their overreliance on railroads becoming obvious. As far as we can tell; the 200k may just be the maximum they COULD send at all.
Regardless of the circumstances, Russia was expected to win by the West quickly, RUSSIANS expected to win quickly. But they have not only been unable to get Kyiv, they have been forced to switch its objectives. That by itself is a defeat.
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
-
@againstviralmisinformation510 "Across Asia" Barely East Asia, definitely not the Middle East yet. Run-of-the-mill influence is not the same as superpower influence. US has influence literally across the globe, not so with China, Not even in all of Asia yet.
No, it's rather unlikely. From demographic issues, to their massive issue with their housing/construction market, to the complete lack of trust in the CCP outside of their borders, to the complete lack of allies, etc, etc. You're using projections of China's economy, which are based on CURRENT economic growth. Newsflash; growth slows down the closer you reach a high-income society threshold. And even then, a country holding a high GDP is nothing compared to the average citizen holding a decent amount of wealth, which Chinese citizens do not have yet and likely will not for many more years down the line. Suffice it to say, there are a LOT of hurdles before China can really surpass the US in anything in regards to superpower status.
Dude, those hypersonic missile tests were not new, or at least the tech isn't; the US has those in the form of the X-37B Space Plane. They glide via hypersonic speeds upon re-entry. The big deal was the weaponization of it, which the US has not elected to do, that much is true.
America does not have much to lose as China does. And losing Taiwan IS the US losing, so it cannot happen. Period.
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
-
@stixinst5791 "Percentages of GDP are only one way to compare tax burdens. The issue changes a bit if you narrow the focus down to just income taxes.
The United States' top individual tax rate was 37% in tax year 2021. The North American average was 31.27%, according to accounting firm KPMG. Countries that had higher top tax rates in 2021 included Australia (45%), Austria (55%), and Norway (38.2%). Countries with lower top tax rates included Sudan (15%), Syria (22%), and Canada (33%).4
The average American household got to keep approximately $1,300 more of their earnings when the TCJA went into effect.5
The top tax rate in the U.S. dropped to 37% for 2018 through 2025 under the provisions of the TCJA, and only significantly wealthy individuals pay this much.6 The top rates are lower in 20 European countries.1
The TCJA additionally doubled standard deductions and upped the value of a few tax credits, although it imposed stricter limitations on some itemized deductions. But overall, 2018 tax reform treated many Americans kindly."
"Excise taxes are those imposed on specific goods and services—think gasoline and cigarettes and the like. For the most part, these are imposed at the state and local levels and they're buried in the purchase price.
The U.S. imposes far less in taxes on goods and services than any other OECD nation—18% of its revenue comes from this source compared to an average of 32%. This is largely attributable to the fact that it doesn’t have a national-level VAT."
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
-
@TheVardek13 That's a given that you don't owe me anything, genius. But your defensiveness and attempts to bash the literal victim in a war of aggression that they did nothing to deserve is disgusting imperialist propaganda.
Does the Azov Battalion exist? Of course. Does that mean that Ukraine is now suddenly a Nazi state that the US is protecting, NO. Are you repeating Kremlin propaganda to the point that you're justifying their imperialism? YES.
"Stop with the apologies for unethical groups" No, I will not, because imperialism often brings out the worst in people in the victim's nations. Whether it be Islamic extremism, Fascism, Communism, etc, etc. The issue is how these groups came to be; was it formed as a response to imperialism? If so, then the issue is the imperialists, not the victim. Also, do these groups actually have control over their governments? Because guess what? There are far-right/fascist groups everywhere in the West, as well as in Russia. We are "supporting" their nations, which by your logic equates to supporting them apparently. What's with this ludicrous double-standard for Ukraine?
Fact is this; the US is supporting Ukraine, not a specific group like the Azov Battalion. But you can't seem to do anything but mention them, thus making it into a "US is supporting Nazis".
So you are intentionally misrepresenting the situation to shift the narrative; how is this not intentional propaganda for the sake of the imperialists???
And yes, Nazism is comparable to Communism. They both have a horrible penchant for mass murdering people, don't try to and defend mass murdering ideologies.
So ultimately, I am not projecting; I'm all for backing democracies against imperialists; the only exception being when their democracies faulter to extremism. Ukraine is nowhere near that state. Cry me a river about you suddenly finding it hard to back a country that tolerates a small battalion of fascists when their national sovereignty and existence is on the line. Talk about punching down, imperialist.
1
-
@TheVardek13 You are pretty defensive, taking all this as if its an attack. I am using combative language, but you taking it so personally is weird. I thought you were hiding behind being defensive, but you really do seem to be oddly attacked. That's strange, relax dude. This is a comment reply. Don't want to engage? Then don't. That's your choice. If I keep responding to you after that, then that constitutes harassment.
Yeah, you didn't "bash" any victims, but you keep using Kremlin propaganda language, which confused me. Later in your reply you said that Russia doesn't have the right to attack Ukraine, great, but you still keep harping on about the Azov Battalion as if that matters at all; as if that's something the US should be ashamed of. Again; the US isn't backing them at all, its backing the state which uses them, which in this situation is hardly something to be ashamed of. This isn't the nice and peaceful West; this is a war for their right to exist, it just seems so utterly privileged to be concerned over that. That or intentional propaganda, which seems less likely now.
You don't need to live in Russia or someplace specific to believe in Kremlin propaganda. Me Abuela follows a lot of it in Peru, nowhere near Ukraine or Russia. It's quite pervasive. Are you really not aware of this?
Yes, Nazis and Communists and Islamic extremists are conflatable. What's your deal with being unable to conflate extremist groups together with their penchant for human oppression and mass murder?
Oh, now you want to stop? Okay, I'll stop, but the bit about you defending Communism as somehow not as bad as Nazism isn't centrist, it's called "not being a bad person". FYI.
1
-
1
-
@TheVardek13 I don't really want anything from you, just want to break down the flaws in your logic either for you to see, or for others to see. It seems to be born from a place of far-leftism which has a hate boner for the US rather than Kremlin propaganda.
I've seen the video, and you may as well have cited PragerU, wtf? It literally acknowledges itself as a leftist publication that is as biased as PragerU, why exactly would you take such a source as fact? It's LITERAL propaganda! And it proves to be just as bad as PragerU too...
But I listened to it anyway, and already halfway through it's forming a narrative that the far-right hijacked the protests and "exacerbated the protests", and even giving credence to the conspiracy theory that they orchestrated the sniper attacks in Euromaidan. FFS, police were beating and killing protestors, and they think it was these rightoids that exacerbated it? Seriously??? This is why people call these people tankies; because their hatred of rightoids or perceived rightoids leads them to justify the killing of innocents. Not literally, but by subtly pushing the "far-right is the one making things worse" stuff.
Also, the idea of painting Svoboda as entirely far-right is a complete lie. It's nationalist, 100%, but nowhere near fascist in flavor. I still think its regressive, especially when Ukraine shut down protests later, but to paint the idea that the eastern lands in Donbas attempted to secede BECAUSE some government jobs were taken by Svoboda because they feared fascists is disgusting propaganda on their part. Especially when they use the loss of equal recognition of the Russian and Ukrainian language as proof of their fears; which only occurred with the approval of Parliament and was no different from Russian laws.
Edit: I forgot to mention that Svoboda do seem to have some actual fascists among them, though they are a minority, it is 100% a good cause to minimize them. Thankfully, they seem awfully minimized; as I already knew they were. Though your source seems to think they are even more powerful. Convenient lies for her narrative.
Russia has language laws just like that, is that evidence of a far-right that these regions should be fleeing from as well? Hell, many Eastern European states have these laws as well; placing their own language at the forefront, they're common to stop their languages from becoming extinct after relentless Russification. As long as the Russian language isn't banned or their speakers repressed (socially it's a big issue in Ukraine, I hear) then its fine.
Even worst, this video absolutely refuses to talk about how the "separatists" were completely supported by Russian troops and that the "disputed referendum" occurred only after Russian troops occupied the lands there and shot at international observers trying to review it. Now, using these faulty findings, it paints Ukraine as a nation with growing neo-nazi power in its government, which is such a COMPLETE lie that any study on it completely debunks it. Again, very few members of Ukraine's government is made up of far-right groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#2014_and_2019_elections:_Losing_support
Hell, there are more far-right political support in France's Le Pen than there is in this country with "growing far-right power".
And fuck that final claim. Talk about reaching across the moons and stars. There is no actual "blowback" from supporting this tiny fascist group; because she is trying to paint this entire crisis as caused by the rise in the fa-right when the issue is that Russian troops literally invaded these territories and then forced a referendum.
This is the problem with the Left today. So damned needy to somehow pin every problem on the US that they will absolve other groups entirely just to do so. It's especially funny how they only do this when its when the US "backing" ever touches far-right groups, but then routinely ignore when it touches far-left groups that have more serious issues such as the YPG and their ethnic cleansing of non-Kurds.
You need to stop watching such obvious propaganda. I tell my abuela that all the time with the rot of Fox News, and you seem little better in this regard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@calvinblue894 Why do you keep crying about values as if that matters in the long-term? A little inflation is natural, as the Singaporean Dollar was worth as high as 1.2 USD in 2012, then fell back down as 1.4 USD in recent weeks. That's right, due to Singaporean inflation, USD value has GROWN in relative to your own currency. This is my point, by your own logic, USD has grown in value, not fallen in relative to everyone else.
Everyone has already been using alternate currency, genius; that's nothing special. Pro-CCP media just repeats it loudly so that their tools online think that they're winning when in reality nothing has changed yet.
US debt is high, but not relative to GDP-to-debt ratio. And China's debt to GDP ratio is also absurdly high, and you don't see anyone crying about it. Wonder why? US' international ranking with infrastructure is also among the highest on the planet. US homelessness per capita is standard.
You just keep drinking CCP kool aid and just ignore reality; ignoring how everything you said more applies to China than the US. And even then, I don't think China is in too bad of a spot short-term.
Wake up. You've been marinated, my guy -check other sources besides channels that spread easily debunked information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markward3981 Nope, but it did maintain peace in Japan, South Korea, Israel, France, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Norway, Morrocco, the Philippines, Australia, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Kosovo, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey.
US concept of peace consists of screwing over other countries trying to step into other countries and then leaving the victimized countries alone after that. Latin America has been at peace ever since the Cold War ended; literally making South America the most peaceful continent on the planet. So in terms of countries making peace, the US is genuinely number 1 on the planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toddmintz4269 Whether you admit it or not, internationally abortion is labelled under "civil rights", sweetheart. Because it has to do with the rights of the individual. The right to remain silent for example from Miranda Rights is not in the Constitution, does that mean that now the police should be able to force you to speak to indict yourself? This is a dangerous mentality for our American liberty -that only rights in the Constitution counts.
Yes, and maybe in the future some States will bring back Jim Crow. Again, just because its a majority in the State doesn't make it a positive thing.
So a poor woman has to drive to another State to get an abortion? Placing more restrictions on abortion without talking about the issue of poor women being unable to find an abortion clinic nearby and thus needing to either travel 100's of miles while off work, or turn to local black market means. Another criminal element while still having abortion but likely leading to more deaths/injuries. This is a braindead idea, ultimately; it saves no one and brings more money to the black market instead.
I'm not mad, tho. I'm being pretty logical. You're the one here that is being very emotionally invested in doing something so fruitless and ultimately hurtful. There is nothing positive about what you want; no silver lining. It doesn't help babies, it doesn't help women, it doesn't help America. It only hurts it while making it a laughingstock. Limit abortion to an extent, but removing it entirely is braindead.
It's like forcing everyone to take large tests to have the right to vote in each election, technically not harming civil liberties, but it disproportionally hurts the poor who may not have the time to spend on something like that to vote.
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
-
@NLTops Okay, so it seems I need to be a little specific. I didn't mean "forced" as in; "the US put a gun to their head" otherwise France would not have been able to leave NATO. I meant "forced" as in "that was the only real option" in the circumstances provided. The US offered backing, and the European nations needed it. More than that, what I meant by "external enemy and external support" more means that long stretches of such external-forced unity warmed the populations to each other to think positively to the point that conflict and rivalry from older generations fell away. So as to your point of why Europeans didn't fight after USSR fell apart? Well, it's because they were taught to think of each other as allies from the experience of the Cold War. Again; external pressure and external support led them to such an experience. That had far more to do with European alliances and good feelings than anything else. And even then, that only stretched so far; when East Germany being reunited with West Germany became an option, pretty much none of the big European states were accepting of the idea barring France who demanded Germany join the EU and adopt the Euro for its support.
Btw, your examples of the Greeks are flawed. The Greeks didn't have the Romans backing them into closer unity and the Greeks weren't under threat for half a century to get closer together, nor were they rebuilt with foreign support after a terrible inter-Greek war. Suffice it to say, the devil is in the details. Temporary Coalitions is NOT the same as being in the trenches for generations and rebuilding together, otherwise the myriad Coalitions in European history would also be long-standing unions.
It was the US that gave unequivocal support to German unification and pushed other European powers to do the same. So inter-European rivalry, even with the integrated trade and alliances of the 90's, still existed and perhaps even grew after the USSR fell. Even now, inter-European squabbles grow more; but what holds it together is fear of external rivals, real or imagined. EU Federalists often cite China, Russia, or even the US as a reason for unity; and is that not using the fear of an external enemy to bring closer unity? The same strategy that helped bring the EU into fruition in the first place?
While it's true that European interdependence is stronger today, it really doesn't change my point. Economic interdependence means jack shit in the face of a feeling of rivalry, nationalism, and/or fear. If the French continued to regard Germany as a possible threat, even if it managed to be like 80% of their trade, they'd still prepare for possible conflict with them, leading to rising tensions. Just look at East Asia today; many of their economies are tightly woven to China's, yet conflict is emerging due to fears and military buildups. If anything, I'd say the free movement of peoples and the visible political structures have done more to ensure there are less ability for Europeans to quarrel between themselves. But even that pales to the "external enemy" thing.
Bold of you to assume that people give a shit about GDP when they feel their country is under threat. Real or imagined. Just look at Turkey today, stabbing itself in the foot economically because its populace feel under threat by everyone around them. You overestimate the long-range that people can think when under pressure. People have ruined "good things" all the damn time because of fears of what they represent, or more accurately; holding something else in value over mere economic growth. The UK being a perfect example in Europe. Plenty more examples, such as Serbia that rejects EU growth in exchange for a worthless piece of land because of its cultural significance in Kosovo.
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
-
@xblade11230 Germany and Japan were burning husks. Most of Japan's cities were made of flammable material, and thus when US fire bombed their cities very few cities remained. Ditto with Germany. Though they were industrialized, sure; so was Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Just because a nation industrialized doesn't mean they leave poverty.
"South korea and Taiwan literally had everything handed to them for free to make them look good compared to their communist counterparts " You obviously never studied these countries and their histories. Taiwan got literally nothing. South Korea received some US aid, but it paled to the amount of aid given to North Korea by the USSR and China. South Korea industrialized only relatively recently in the 80's after the dictatorship fell, and while US protection helped a lot with the transfer of power, the leaving of poverty was almost entirely done by South Korean hands.
US barely gave either country anything outside of a promise to protect it. I'm pretty sure Philips is a Dutch company, so unless you're making the argument that other Western countries went out of their way to help Taiwan get prosperous, that's a rather dull accusation. By your logic, the West has been helping China for the past half a century too; the West has allowed China to keep high tariffs on their goods while keeping little to no tariffs on Chinese goods since at least the 80's. By your own logic, China "got everything for free".
Okay, hold up, Honda most certainly got technology transfers from the US, but they were hardly "for free"; that was a natural consequence of technology sharing through trade. C'mon now. Again, this is how most technology growth occurs; someone discovers something, nations trade, the ideas spread. Japan merely improved upon the Ford model and ran away with it. Germany did too.
I mean, it's rather kind of you to forget the billions spent in aid to China's government and the trillions given to China's economy by keeping tariffs low on Chinse goods while Chinese economy thrived from artificially "beating" US competition with high tariffs and CCP financial support. But sure, yeah, the US never did anything for China. Nope. Never.
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
-
@Juju-id6dw It's possible, but you can't just wish it, you need to actually form a security apparatus while conceding to the security concerns of members in the EU. It can't just be "France + Germany rules Europe" thing...which people already consider the EU to be.
I understand your point, and it would be a good thing, I think; but my point prior was that you need to actually get there by fixing the mentality first. Get trust, and all that. Because this recent crisis kinda points out the issue; both France and Germany were seen as splitting from the US when it was warning about the Russian invasion with Macron publicly declaring that Putin personally guaranteed that there was not going to be a Russian invasion. Downplaying the issue, until it literally happened. From an American POV, pro-EU federalists need to actually be seen fiercely acknowledging the concerns of EU member states from external forces. I understand that Macron was essentially trying to play the moderate, maybe even trying to use Russia to balance out US influence, but it backfired horribly and now Eastern Europe looks to Washington even more than before in contrast to Paris or Berlin.
Play smarter, not harder, basically. Even if it isn't easy, since naturally the French will want to bat for their interests first and foremost. That's just my POV.
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
-
@elseggs6504 "European" is a broad word for many nations. That being said, unless its a conflict which was partially forced (NATO or UN mandate) or its within their interests, nobody goes out of their way to "help" the US with anything, really. It's not like the US controls nations, literally. And yes, US isolationism had grown, though its relatively stagnant now; there is liable to be much opposition to a war the US starts itself.
True, the bananda republics were started by the US, though I thought we were speaking of the right-wing dictators the US backed in the Cold War. US policy shifted dramatically prior to the Cold War and after it. After all, you don't exactly see US-backed banana republics today, right?
True, "someone else was doing it" isn't necessarily an excuse. That being said, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the US was engaging in it specifically to fight the USSR; it had no other avenue to go through but in that fashion. Like US bombings in WW2, I frankly don't see an alternative if the US was to win the Cold War. Backing any democracy is a bad idea because many of them could easily transform to socialist dictatorships, thus making investments and resources wasted. I still don't believe that makes the US' actions justifiable, but I think it makes it understandable. What would you have done in their position? Serious question. It's an interesting thought experiment.
Macron has been making noise for a more federal EU for a while now. That being said, since Biden came to the picture, he has reverted to "US is leader!" mode, it seems. I recall him asking for more US troops in Syria, in fact. So the idea of Europe as a whole, where Eastern Europe is especially wary of Western European lack of will to oppose Russia, as a group kicking the US out is pretty much an impossibility anytime soon. And Russia hasn't been "emerging" for a long time now. It's a regional power, not a big power.
The only one "rising" is China, and to be frank, they've squandered a lot of good will by showing off their imperialist colors by claiming territories of their neighbors as soon as they became strong enough to do so. They don't have any semblance of control over their "backyard", so to speak. So that's questionable atm too.
Finally, to be frank, rival superpowers duking it out means a LOT more interferance in smaller countries for influence. So I don't think the "balance for power" thing will pan out like you think it could. I mean, if you want that, then go ahead, just be aware of the possible consequence of that, especailly if the US really does become isolationist one day.
1
-
@elseggs6504 Europeans getting involved in Afghanistan was a clause of NATO, since the US was attacked in 9/11 and Al Qaeda was allied with the Taliban, NATO members had no choice but to get involved. The action in Yugoslavia was actually mostly via the UN before the US got involved, and that was mostly a US-centric operation. Like I said, European countries "help" only if they have to or if its in their interests.
US hasn't gone to war for oil since...ever, actually. US took advantage of the coup in Iran which the UK convinced the US was going to side with the USSR, but it didn't go there for the oil in the first place. And the oil in Iraq was allowed to be sold to the highest bidder, which was China, I believe. Not the US. As for the "Non-Aligned Movement", in reality it was VERY aligned; the Swedes in public flipped off both powers, but in reality sided with the Americans in every single way. Ditto with India but with the USSR. The only one that could be truly considered "Non-Aligned" was Yugoslavia. No small nation could flip off a big nation unless they are balanced with another big nation, stable/strong, or the big nations is unwilling or unable to do anything to them. And btw, all nations have a "history of oppression" to an extent, and Sweden specifically has a big history of being THE oppressor in the region.
I'm sorry, are you acting like the US bombed the Chinese embassy on purpose? That's just insanity I'm sorry. The US had zero reason or wish to fuck with China; if anything, the US bent over for China since the Sino-Soviet split and the prevalent idea that China economic liberalization would equate to political liberalization.
I think that what you have is the ideal, but the fact of the matter is that geopolitics between nations is anything but ideal. Let's say the US did as you thought, that would mean that the USSR would have effective control over much of the world and enforcing that totalitarianism to boot. Domino Theory was flawed, but it was born out of a truth that the USSR would do its best to enforce the many totalitarian governments who in turn would also try to spread their ideology. In time they'd break free, I'm sure, but that conjoined effort could and would be used to force other countries to accept the status quo with nobody fighting it. And with the growth of hte ideology and the lacking (at the time) facts of the issues with it, people would only see the good about it too.
Europeans leaders bitch and moan about the US, but then use it to their own benefits. The French use the US a lot to aid with their ambitions in West Africa and in Libya, the British use them as an extension of their own influence, the Germans have them take the brunt of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe while they do little and less. Put frankly, the European powers talk a big game, but are themselves unwilling to be independent entirely.
Well, you're far more optimistic than I am. Imperialism via taking land is something that should've stayed dead and buried. It's the stealing away of a country's future permanently. All that aside, social progress is relative; it seems like "things advanced" because that's what history remembers. To me, I think the fact that the absolute poverty level fell so drastically after the USSR fell was more poignant. You're also forgetting the unfortunate reality that the world almost got blown up in nuclear fire for that "balance". So again, don't share that optimism. If the US isn't the sole superpower, then it should be another power, but there can't be two. Things get heated quickly.
1
-
@elseggs6504 Well, 3k people dying while one of the US' most important landmarks gets destroyed is kinda a bigger deal than singular terrorist attacks. And the EU is a loose confederation of independent states, the interests remain in the independent nations; not the EU.
Yes, Greece which had a positive opinion and relationship with the Serbs obviously wouldn't get involved.
Everyone gets fucked over by foreign powers. Even the Americans and Soviets. The issue with "cooperation" is that independent focuses on not getting fucked over means that distrust is the standard in the international community. One's "friend" and "ally" today could be your new enemy tomorrow. There's also the fact that major events are often complicated. For example, the Second Opium War, which was the one which led an international coalition you mentioned, only occurred because the Chinese outright tried to genocide every foreigner in the country. This goes to show that even a worthy cause can get screwed over, if only due to the fact that they did it all wrong.
100% true. The Domino Theory justified anything and everything even if the country in question more wanted independence than anything else. Though it should be noted that "independence" in this case meant "the right to conquer South Vietnam" since South Vietnam was its own country at the time. So its not like Vietnam was totally righteous either. Still, yes, the US should not have gotten involved at all imho.
To an extent, I agree that Europeans forced to acknowledge their government's dirty laundry would be better. But you should also note that totalitarian governments won't give a shit and will continue to act abroad as well. At what point will holding principals chain you to an ideal that will ultimately damn democratic practice? Because, for example, by principle, the US should've also never gotten involved in the Korean War. But I think South Koreans today would disagree. I'm just saying.
Emancipation of women was already a thing for the most part prior to the Cold War. Race issues is what would take precedence in the Cold War, but many other social reforms had already occurred without the pressure of nuclear war; remember that once "democracy" only meant "white rich men".
I'm not really speaking of just Eastern Europe. Planetwide, the status of "absolute poverty" where people literally could barely survive dropped dramatically and continued to drop after the Cold War. I'm sure it rose again with Covid, but it really was a massive achievement that isn't celebrated. Which I find unfortunate since it could do a lot to shut radicals up.
Operation Unthinkable as a plan would have occurred 3 years before the USSR obtained their own nuclear bomb. So it wasn't until the Korean War that any real threat of nuclear exchange could occur, tbf. That being said, considering the many close calls, as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons between smaller powers who have FAR looser moral qualms with using them, again I'm skeptical. But yes, I agree it helped stymie WW3 from happening.
1
-
1
-
@akouafray8616 Well, for one thing, China didn't have "outdated tools", they had relatively modern weaponry both made in China and provided by the USSR. The CCP even had the MiG-15's which were more advanced than the US' WW2-era planes. The US only just made the F-86 Sabre to counteract the MiG's by December of 1950, and even then didn't arrive in greater number until mid-1951. China effectively had ownership of the skies within that half-a-year time period. Does that sound like a technologically inferior country beating back a technologically superior one?
The US literally shed its MIC overnight once WW2 ended, and was in the midst of throwing away their Sherman tanks until the Korean War broke out; US leadership had to scramble to re-take much WW2 equipment and weaponry. If anything, to an extent, the CCP was far more prepared for the war than the US itself was since it didn't de-militarize prior to the conflict.
The US had no belief that it would lose in Korea because it had no idea that China would enter the war. Literally, General MacArthur dismissed the concept because nobody thought China would fight a war that literally had nothing to do with them. So idk where you get the idea that the US sent less troops out of fear of losing them, especially when the US held the line against millions of CCP/NK forces.
China CLAIMS it sent a volunteer army, but in reality that's just the name. It's pretty much taken for granted that the army sent was part drafted/part professional force; though most likely drafted. The CCP called it the "volunteer" army because it looks good, just like the UN called the army sent to Korea a "police" force.
1
-
@akouafray8616 Yeah, after doing a little research, it seems that many people in the "Volunteer" army themselves didn't even want to return to China once POW exchanges were discussed, as seen by this bit here:
"During the Panmunjom Truce negotiations, the chief stumbling block to the arrangement of a final armistice during the winter of 1951–1952 revolved around the exchange of prisoners. At first glance, there appeared to be nothing to argue about, since the Geneva Conventions of 1949, by which both sides had pledged to abide, called for the immediate and complete exchange of all prisoners upon the conclusion of hostilities. This seemingly straightforward principle, however, disturbed many Americans. To begin with, UN prisoner-of-war camps held over 40,000 South Koreans, many of whom had been impressed into Communist service and who had no desire to be sent north upon the conclusion of the war. Moreover, a considerable number of North Korean and Chinese prisoners had also expressed a desire not to return to their homelands. This was particularly true of the Chinese POWs, some of whom were anti-Communists whom the Communists had forcibly inducted during the Chinese Civil War into the PLA unit that was later transferred into Korea."
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
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn You're the one that made the comparison between Cuba and Taiwan in regards to China and the US tho... =P
You're conflating 2 very different countries in different times of their politics and in different leagues of power. The fact is that powerful countries often act out in their interests, and China had NO power outside of its immediate region. More to the fact; China could not act out too much lest it attract US attention much like the USSR's support of North Korea dragged US power into the Korean peninsula. And then later the new Sino-Soviet split made any action against US allies like Taiwan even more impossible with the fear of Soviet hostility. In short, China had NO CHOICE but to remain quiet in its little corner until relatively recently -and what has it done recently? Bully its neighbors for greater control of the region as well as trying to steal territory? Why, it's almost like China only recently had the power to project itself abroad and is now doing so with impunity!
Meanwhile the US was in the midst of a Cold War, a war of influence with the USSR. It's many "puppets" that it helped put into power were not so much like puppets as individual actors that also hated Communism, but hated it for their own ends -the US could never and would never bother trying to control these puppets of theirs. Sometimes they would nationalize US industries without a peep from the US, and even in the Falklands War, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, the US would ask the UK to just give them up before publicly supporting the UK when refused. But do you think the US controlled these puppets at all enough to stop that from happening at all?
Suffice it to say, US policy after the Cold War softened significantly, even if some conspiracy lunatics claim that the US was still trying to coup everything it doesn't like...with less than satisfactory proof of any semblance of it.
So basically you're comparing a Taiwan that China was too weak to harm in any way or even want to harm with its US support. To a Cuba that had nothing to stop US shenanigans. Plus, of course, refusing to trade with Taiwan when it planned to conquer it and thus lessen ties between the two would be stupid anyway.
So a good comparison would be if China was the sole superpower and had a "Cuba" on its border which it supported its prior dictator. But, of course, there is no proper comparison to that. They're wholly massive differences instead. It "looks similar" to you because you overestimate China's power until recent years and ignore its international politics of the era; as well as its goals. China didn't want a puppet in Taiwan, it wanted its direct control -and no amount of sancitons or embargos would change that even without US support of Taiwan.
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
-
@ZIGZAG12345 Might wanna look at these "whisteblowers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack#OPCW_investigation
Most of the team agreed with the findings, there were only 2 individuals, who did not even have the full facts on the ground that disagreed with the findings and made shit up to try and corrupt the findings. This article goes into detail: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/15/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-1-we-need-to-talk-about-alex/
The US never tried to silence anyone here either, that's just your idiotic claim with no backing. If anything, it was Russia and Syria that tried to stop the OPCW investigation by blocking off certain areas due to "security concerns".
"When the investigators arrived in Douma on 14 April,[73] their access to the site was blocked by Russia and Syria who cited security concerns."
OPCW completely supports the findings and disagrees vehemently with the claims from two unhinged individuals within: "Inspectors A and B are not whistle-blowers. They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence. When their views could not gain traction, they took matters into their own hands and breached their obligations to the Organisation. Their behaviour is even more egregious as they had manifestly incomplete information about the Douma investigation. Therefore, as could be expected, their conclusions are erroneous, uninformed, and wrong."
So basically, they sound just like you. Go figure. Imagine crying about the MSM when you're literally inhaling nothing but Russian-sanctioned news sources.
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
-
@petarzlatic8586 I don't really consider anyone culturally defective, but I do consider peoples to be so high up their nationalism that they'd justify literal imperialism, sure. You can use the argument that prior horrors inflicted on Serbs in WW2 justifies stepping in later; but does that justify the actions made by the Serb-dominated government to seize power by effectively taking control of multiple republics in Yugoslavia? You realize that's what precipitated the actual collapse of the country, right? You can point to the past all you like; but actions at the time is what ultimately triggered the horrors of war and independence movements.
And it's this attitude that I'm ultimately complaining about. Serbs, from my experience, use the past as a crutch to justify current actions.
As for foundation myths? Nah, they shift around. German, French, British, American, Turk, Greek myths have all massively shifted over time. Turks shifted from being the new Romans to being a part of the West and now changed to being some Turkic peoples -the origin remained the same, but the nationalist foundation myth surrounding it changed. Jews are unique in that their lack of a specific society of their own and persecution forced them to clutch onto their religion and culture and resist change.
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
-
@Writeous0ne "NATO is imperialism" How? NATO hasn't invaded countries -only NATO members have. Let alone literally conquered lands and annexed them ala a modern day Genghis Khan.
Except NATO has not met up with Russia, looney toons. Russia is the only one invading Ukraine; and the Ukrainian government is asking for help -making NATO or the West or whatever the "anti-imperialist" force in this specific conflict. Removing all context is exactly why I called you out before -you're acting like NATO and Russian troops are battling in Ukraine at the cost of Ukrainian people when that is NOT what is happening.
Donbas was literally INVADED by Russian troops before creating a BS referendum started by RUSSIAN TROOPS. US troops cannot go into another land and make a referendum which shoots at international observers from observing and suddenly wishes to "join the US". That's literally just conquest; and Russia did just that. Europe as a whole was taking the Russian line of "US is causing trouble" when the US was claiming loudly that Russia would invade, and has literally spat on US sanctions on Nordstream 2, you're so full of it.
The axis between Russia, China, India, NK, and Iran has literally been there for years now. Nothing bizarre there; and what a shitshow of imperialism barring India this group is. I hope you realize that India is also growing relations to the West too, right?
NATO-led coalitions have only been a thing authorized by the UN in the first place, genius. The exception being the bombing of Serbs to stop them from committing genocide. Excuse me if I don't have an issue with that so much.
Your "neutrality" sounds an awful lot like what fascists would say defending Nazi Germany, FYI. The Germans used the same logic Russia used when invading the Sudetenland and later Poland, and you wonder why people are dismissing you so thoroughly? Geopolitical experts have grown outright fascist recently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriss780 " property relations have to be maintained by the state and by violence" What you really mean to say is that there are laws that respect private property that need to be protected by the state, right? That's basic bitch rules in a system, regardless of ideology; you just don't agree with it and thus label it as "violence".
Funny how you mention the violent suppression of unions as if that means anything. Newsflash; that doesn't happen anymore in many capitslist countries unless the unions get violent -capitalism can and does exist without crushing unions. Meanwhile, in EVERY Communist state to exist, unions have ALWAYS been crushed if they go against the government. So not only hypocrisy, but also ignorant generalization on your part.
"All prisoners are political prisoners" Oh? So the people who are in jail for killing another man are political prisoners? Sorry, but nobody accepts such braindead logic, even in your Communist oligarchies where you jail everyone that speaks against it.
I am black and indigenous, boot licker. No question that the US has oppressed us, and there are inequalities today; but to argue that its all specifically because of capitalism is historically illiterate. It also ignores how much of the issues of the past have been mended today. Slavery used to be common, which is the use of labor without any recompense, but it ended during the time of capitalist nations and lessened over time as human lifespan, prosperity, and peace. Capitalism is amorphus, it can function in any government; tyrannical or not. You're framing it as ALL tyrannical when we SEE today that plenty of capitalist societies function PEACEFULLY with it to the benefit of society as a whole. Meanwhile, YOUR ideology is ALWAYS tyrannical. Always bloodthirsty. Always butchering people for daring to question.
Like I said, the tolerance of intolerance idea. The US also supported the mass murder of Fascists during WW2. And even originally plotted to coup Francoist Spain despite the deaths that would incur. As it turns out, the US is pragmatic and is fighting another superpower for ideological reasons. Once the Cold War ended the US left the Communists mostly alone without a superpower backing them.
Yep, we are morally superior to you. Communists did the same exact thing and butchered any non-Communists where they could, and would continue doing so and in much higher numbers than the US had. The difference between the US and USSR, really, is their treatment of their people WITHIN their countries. And within their countries the US is INFINITELY morally superior to the USSR. You are still alive, you can still talk shit, and you can organize. If the USSR won and the US was infected with your ideology, I'd be shot, my family would be shot, and everyone I love would be killed. So yes, the fact that you are even ALIVE makes us morally superior to you. What, do you want us to retract that principle and just hunt you down as you would us? Is that what you want? We'd do the same to the Fascists if we did, so maybe that'd be worth it for you.
Americans speak of other crimes because their opponents are infinitely worse than they are. Cry harder. You are not only morally fucked, no better than the Fascist you decry. You are in NO position to talk about morality. You don't have any.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aradicalkiwi806 The term is not utilized much at all in the mainstream for a reason; this is literally the first mention of it. And using "A People's History" is about as convincing as using "A Patriot's History". They're both just very biased works functioning more on the basis of ideological boosting rather than telling the coherent tale of the growth of the US as a civilization and nation-state.
Jesus Christ you listen to Chomsky? Do you also happen to deny the Cambodian and Bosnian Genocide too? Like seriously, you're waving way too many red flags for comfort here. These are all individuals who are so very biased that getting a coherent framework of reality no longer functions.
In a way the free market has existed for most of human history, sure; but the free market is only an aspect of capitalism. Free market means jack all without the guarantees of property rights so private interests can build up wealth and power. A "free market" in Ancient Rome sounds fine, until your name shows up in the Prescription lists and your entire family gets murdered at the whims of the Roman Emperor. The guarantee of some basic civil rights, which was considered necessary by John Locke, was the game changer for the concept of capitalism. That means that monopolies are bound to happen to be sure since guaranteed property rights allows for the buildup of capital to extreme levels, which is why capitalism is not a perfect system. But the beauty of capitalism is how easy it is to manipulate by government power.
You bring up this "anti-Capitalist Free Market", but you kinda miss the best part of Capitalism -the guarantee of property rights is precisely what allows for the build up of capital to create institutions to transfer credit to begin with. Before such things were only possible for wealthy merchants who were given the right by Monarchs to trade as representatives of said Monarchs. Now its accessible for everyone; but what is the incentive to do such a thing if it can just be taken away? More importantly; why would a Commune even bother doing that when there is no incentive to gather such wealth that is effectively belonging to the larger community and not their own small tribes/families/themselves? Patriots are fine, but they are rare.
And that's just the first problem with such an idea. It can be dumbed down to "lack of incentives", but that's just one massive incongruity in this idea. Such a decentralized structure would inevitably just devolve into people creating their own personal kingdoms for protection as their wealth gathers anyway. Either that or the project would collapse because the Marxist-Leninists would purge them anyway.
Either way, I am nowhere near eager to try such an experiment anytime soon.
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
-
@caymanhunter2612 I mean, you say all this, but Yeltsin literally asked Bill Clinton in their correspondence to split Europe between the US and Russia which Clinton wryly retorts that the Europeans wouldn't appreciate their sovereignty being stomped on like that. Here ya go:
"“I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”
Clinton suggested that the Europeans would not like this very much. Yeltsin, on the other hand, said:
I am a European. I live in Moscow, Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. … Bill, I’m serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afghanistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. … Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe."
Russia is not a Superpower. In what world of existence is Russia a Superpower? It's nowhere near the equal of the US, in any shape or form outside of nukes. Russia is not a threat to the US, its a threat to its neighbors. And despite everything you said, this correspondence proves that Russia has not changed; Russia wants control for power, not security. And the idea that the West should give concessions to a nation that has NEVER done the same and is extremely UNTRUSTWORTHY is laughable. Just another Munich Conference. I may have believed you pre-2014, but after that? Fuck no.
1
-
@caymanhunter2612 Ah yes, an anti-Russia alliance that never prepared the capabilities to attack Russia at any point in its history, never placed new missile systems near Russia's borders, never placed new nukes near Russia's borders, and never placed significant American presence near Russia's borders until 2014.
Your entire logic is fucked. Russia turned into an adversary because Eastern Europe needed guarantees and to prevent that, Russia needed to once again dominate a region that loathed Russia already against their will??? Do you understand how disgusting that logic is? To use an entire region of people as trading cards? This is pure imperialist style of thinking, and the main issue the US had with it is exactly that. The US bears no responsibility if Russia can't move on from the 19th century.
And NATO is not an anti-Russia alliance. NATO gave permission for Russia to join when Putin asked, but he demanded that unlike everyone else, NATO approached Russia rather than Russia do what everyone else does and apply for it like all the other "insignificant nations", as he put it. NATO is just a defensive alliance for everyone to hide under, not specifically against Russia. Evidence by the pure lack of defenses near Russia to begin with. It was insurance, no different from house security, and who would have an issue with that outside of a potential house thief?
Again, Russia was more than welcome to apply; it never bothered because Russia needs boogeyman that never once attempted to threaten Russia at any point or instigate anything. So Russia needed to instigate and cause conflict for the boogeyman trick to work.
Russia fearing an Operation Barbarossa when Russia fed the N@zi war machine with oil to begin with and attacked Poland with them instead of helping Poland beat them back is hilarious. Including all of the context, Russia destroyed potential allies for the sake of "more land", leaving themselves wide open to actual aggression, which is pretty much the case now. Besides, Russia has nukes, it fearing another Operation Barbarossa, self inflicted or otherwise, is absurd when it has nukes. Especially in Kaliningrad.
Acting like the West should have trusted Russia is the real fool's idea here. The West just blindly trusting Russia again to do what's right is beyond braindead. Another Munich waiting to happen. Playing with people's lives. What the Eastern Europe wanted was security with NATO. That's THEIR right, not YOURS.
It's a separate argument about US supplementing European defense. But the fact of the matter is, the US will supplement it for as long it perceives the need to do so. More troops are in Europe now because of 2014. US was already preparing for a shift to the Pacific, but leaving Europe at this stage is stupid. And Americans will not take the fall for Russian chauvinism and imperialism; all fault lays in Russia and Russia alone. No one forced them to be an adversary, they chose this path.
As for China, it is an issue, but we can handle both; and the US will NOT abandon allies for some fucked alliance that involves giving up our allies. Nobody would trust us if we did so anyway, and rightfully so.
Bruh. Your idea is based purely on the idea that Russia can be trusted at all to meet these concessions, that Europe will just tacitly accept these concessions and not just lead to a massive wave of justifiable anti-Americanism and possibly push Europe and Russia together against the treacherous US. All just to face China, which the US already has many allies in the region for. These are all massive concessions for Russia which has never earned the trust for, and which massively boosts Russian influence in exchange for US influence across an entire continent based on...blind trust. The US politician that actively pursues such a policy is more liable to be hanged than listened to.
NATO doesn't set any rules, dude. Turkey sometimes acts as an adversary to Western nations these days, and its in NATO. People seriously overestimate the power of NATO in forcing anyone to do anything; nations get involved in other NATO national wars because they're already allies, not because NATO forces it. Barring Article 5, NATO can't force anything.
Pride is fine, but Russian chauvinism is the issue. Russian leadership consider the countries in Eastern Europe to be objects and toys, or "insignificant nations" as Putin put it. Peace is not possible until such leadership disappears.
Again, NATO can't force anything, nor can the US really without applying economic pressure, as it has already been doing. Your ideas are just blind concessions for nothing in return, dude.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arrow1414 Well those Norwegians would not be welcome as differing circumstances, geography, and culture would make their input more than useless. American financial safety nets are stretched thin as it is and many Western European countries are comparable to the US' social security net. And many of those same Western countries have LESS litigation laws against big business than the US does while others have massive tax havens. The only real thing to take away from Norway to apply to the US would be prison reform and healthcare reform, everything else would either not function or would be disastrous for the US.
Also, why are you using Norway? Norway literally is far away from the troubles of neighboring poorer countries and is thus insulated from such things like mass migration like, say, the US, Greece, and even Germany to an extent is. Also, Norway's unique system only functions due to exporting military security to another nation, ie the US to begin with. Not to mention having a concentrated population, highly homogenous society, and having oil wealth to back it up. Countries like France would be more applicable, and they have bigger far-right issues than the US does; not even gonna bother bringing up the absurd racism issues that plague many European states, or the fact that abortion was essentially illegalized in multiple EU countries.
But that's all neither here nor there, I kinda went on a tangent. I was speaking in general of Western Europe, NOT Northern Europe which is extremely insulated. It's like using Canada as an example when Canada, obviously, isn't neighboring a country like Mexico or Turkey or Belarus with large migration of less fortunate peoples and the troubles they bring. Whether moral or not, their presence is an added complication when in bulk, affecting trade, crime, gangs, and yes gun access. And Mexico is quite a bit worse a spot than Turkey or Belarus. Western Europe is nowhere near as insulated and have far more issues that make it relatable to the US even if it's still nowhere comparable still, and again, they're NOT tolerant of US Progressive talking points whatsoever. And much of the things that Norwegians would support are things that are more questionable in Western Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FirstTakahashi There is really no proof of guerilla warfare or PR operations being paid for by the US government. Again, the US providing an avenue for Uyghurs to speak out is a positive on their part; you may as well be complaining about Jews speaking out on their oppression in Nazi Germany right now. How dare the oppressed speak out, huh?
The US isn't dictating in this topic via its own world view, its following international law; if anything the US is doing what all countries SHOULD be doing, in contrast to its conduct in Iraq. It's following international law.
Nobody said that the US is acting altruistically, but elements within it definitely do. And there are a LOT of Americans obsessed with saving minority groups from abroad, so much so that even the topic of illegal immigration is VERY contentious despite them...well, being illegal.
China can fund whatever it wants, but I guarantee you that the minorities in the US will absolutely loathe China, which already suppresses minorities, for trying to corrupt their ideologies. Blacks in the US already hate China, and there are no generally terrorist groups like that. And there are no Native American violent separatists, they're all loyal US citizens. Again, the difference between free citizens protesting public policy and oppressed minorities requiring an avenue outside the country to speak. You have some seriously screwed up ideas if you think they're even remotely equivalent.
For the record, human rights groups APPLAUD US action in helping Uyghers, so its hardly this internationally-disliked thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rangecow 1) Generally being among the wealthier nations on the planet means nothing, as Japan, SK, and China are not expected to take in peoples. Its the West in particular that gets saddled with that burden, even those who were not involved in less savory actions in the past.
2) The idea that its generally well educated "cream of the crop" people that flee is a long debunked joke. Those people use their wealth and means to go through the legal process or have the means to migrate without extreme means like going on a rickety boat. Either way, its the desperate dregs of society that go through such hardship. And the general excuse is that they take up jobs that Americans themselves don't want to do, not that they are well educated.
3) And even if you were correct; that doesn't change the fact that its illegal, its morally reprehensible to allow it, its hypocritical to expect it from nations like the US when its not applied to other wealthy non-Western states, and its generally unpleasant overall.
4) Lastly, people generally don't like the idea of many random people going to your country unvetted. Its never a good idea historically speaking, it causes immense social upheaval and tensions, and is only making people angrier.
Ultimately, your attitude is deeply problematic and hypocritical at best.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zoco101 Yeah? And I don't care; US companies are not the US government, what they do outside the US is not our concern barring it directly affects the US.
I never claimed the US had its hands clean, but I refuse to take fault for a free company of free individuals doing bad stuff as if it was US Government policy. And imagine talking about the US letting war criminals go free while ignoring that the USSR did the exact same thing. I don't blame either for that; good minds are good minds, and the Nazi Party inducted everyone of significance into itself regardless if they believed in the Nazi Party at all. So it's not like everyone protected was Goebbels.
The US had no idea what was fact or fiction until after the US took control over German territory, genius. It condemned several German actions that were obvious such as the invasion of Poland...and also ignored the USSR's invasion of Poland. So the US has plenty of sins in ignoring SOVIET war crimes.
The Nazi's failed to conquer Britain long before attacking the USSR, genius. The Nazi's main force was its army, its Navy and Air Force was nowhere strong enough to support a naval invasion. And why are you acting like anyone should be grateful for Russia when Russia financially supported Nazi Germany from government-to-government right until Operation Barbarossa? Literally feeding the Nazi war machine until the end in 1941.
I adore your logic. I hope you realize the Soviets were crushed by the Nazi's multiple times and beaten back all the way to Stalingrad until turning it around, right? If you're using the "US needed to be saved by the Australians in this ONE battle!" argument, then you need to reflect how by your logic the USSR was doomed because it lost almost every single battle until Stalingrad. And even then, the USSR's supply chains were so pathetic that it needed Western support to keep pushing west until Berlin.
You obviously have no idea how the War over the Pacific went. The US at no point was anywhere near close to surrender, and the first big battle of the Pacific resulted in the Battle of the Midway where the best of the Japanese Navy was crippled by a sole US Aircraft Carrier at the cost of multiple of theirs. This in 1942, long before the US industry started to seriously matter in the war. Literally half of the world's industrial capacity was in the US alone, in what world do you exist in could the US surrender?
As always, Russian propaganda is paper-thin.
1
-
@Zoco101 Ah, I know what you're talking about now, and it's kinda absurd. The Australians worked together with the Americans, but at no point was their inclusion so critical that the campaign was going to fail without them. The US lost 4k+ soldiers in that campaign, I think, and the Japanese lost something like 95% of their entire army sent to occupy the region there. Why are you acting like this would have been some critical setback that would lead to surrender when the US was pushing FORWARD? I'd understand if you were talking about the initial losses after Pearl Harbor as it inched closer to Hawaii, but that isn't this.
You realize the Japanese lost MULTIPLE aircraft carriers, right? Why are you even doing this? You're making random suppositions on what MIGHT have happened based on...what, exactly? You can just as easily say if the USSR lost in Stalingrad, that the entire country would collapse, but that's impossible to say. Even less so with the US war in the Pacific in that losing Australian territory somehow equates to the US losing the war and SURRENDERING...for some reason.
The Battle of Britain happened long before the Eastern Front was even a thing, Hitler wanted to conquer the British Isles before invading the USSR, but failed in doing so and decided to just go ahead with his plan before the USSR could wise up that their ally was planning an attack.
Wrong, the Nazi's sent "volunteers" to support Franco, while the USSR sent "volunteers" to support the Spanish Republic as it turned to Stalinist ideology. Why the British should send units or "volunteers" to die for a Soviet puppet is beyond me. And the invasion of Czechoslovakia is literally what ended British appeasement policies to begin with. That's not the same as literally funding their war machine by giving them oil in exchange for allying to split Eastern Europe between them, genius. The British didn't gain from letting the Nazi's run rampant, it just didn't want to fight; while the Soviets DIRECTLY benefitted with working with the Nazi's government-to-government. Making treaties to split up Europe between them.
American and British politicians also closed their eyes and ears of Soviet/Russian genocide in Holodormer. It's almost as if neither want a fight and just wanted to be left alone, while the Soviets were looking to benefit either way, even working with another monstrous regime to do so.
You're gonna have to cite when the US media began to "re-write" history. Everything about the US' actions prior WW2 and during it has been verified by international historians already. And its quite obvious that FDR was trying to push the US public into WW2, and was creating the groundwork for the manufacturing for the Allied powers via such things like Lend-Lease, Ships-for-Bases, etc, etc. It's unlikely the US would have directly joined WW2 without Pearl Harbor, but it would have continued the economic squeeze like the sanctions on selling Japan oil or preventing other countries from trading with the Axis. Though this was ultimately a moot point of yours; US actions was what led Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. And for the record, it's strange that you're acting like the USSR was planning to join the war for anything BUT their own benefit; they didn't join until they were attacked either, genius. And Stalin refused to believe US and UK claims that Hitler was planning an attack. So again; what point are you trying to make?
I literally never claimed that the Russians never won the biggest battles. They did. I also don't care, because they won those battles with Western aid, at the cost of the normal Russian, Soviet treachery allowed the Nazi's to become as powerful as they did with free oil in exchange for cutting up Eastern Europe via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and most importantly; the Soviets were monsters too. I celebrate them killing each other, I don't for a second believe they "saved" us.
US joined the war in 1941, and US aid to the USSR was already in full swing by the first battle of Stalingrad. USSR victory was not possible without Western support in the Eastern Front. That much is a fact, so much so that even Stalin and Zhukov admitted as such. The fact is; the Soviets did not win these large battles by themselves.
For the record, I believe that the USSR was critical for an Allied victory in WW2. No denying that. But that doesn't mean that I should feel any semblance of empathy for the state that was in many ways as cruel as the Nazi's. For Eastern Europe especially, the Soviets just changed places as a new jailer and oppressor, not as a savior. The Americans would be the heroes, helping bring old enemies and allies alike back up from devastation via Marshall Aid and such. The Soviets, yet again, just took advantage of the situation by making new puppet states. The USSR had their chance to actually do SOME good to balance out its negative aspects, but it chose the path of rampant imperialism instead without any semblance of humanity. At least the Americans can be both; hero and monster. Soviets were just monsters. So I just like spitting on their grave than I do "honoring" them.
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
-
@theofficialusri6052 In some ways there are direct contradictions, in other ways they are VERY related. They both rely on complete control over the populace via state police, government control over all forms of media, repressive policies, and extreme militarism to maintain control. Your snide start aside, you can't really deny these similarities.
You do realize that arresting US citizens for Marxist thought (which is indeed against the Constitution and rightfully villainized today, though there were plenty of lawful arrests from Marxist traitors as well who aided the USSR) does not constitute "killing", right? And you do also know that the US killed plenty of Communists that were NOT Soviets, right? For someone being snide about the American education system, you seem awfully ignorant of US history. Let me give you a hint; Vietnam and Korea. And those are only the obvious ones, that doesn't count US-backed juntas and trained-guerilla fighters against Communist ideologues around the planet.
Yeah, the US was really good at killing Communists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theofficialusri6052 The outcomes are exactly alike, just not the logic used to get there; human oppression of the like few have ever seen in human history. Oh yes, one is uber corporatist and crushes anything that is not of the Ubermensh, while the other is uber "people's republic" and has all political power focused on the state. While the specifics are different, the outcome is the same; secret police, people disappearing in the night, critics getting silenced, secret death camps, etc, etc.
"True of most government systems" Jesus Christ, what alternate reality do you live in? Where in the UK, Germany, or US are there people being spirited away for criticizing the government? And I don't mean spilling state secrets, since all of that is illegal everywhere, but I mean just CRITICIZING. Political prisoners just aren't a thing in these countries, not in the way like the USSR or Nazi Germany. Let alone death camps.
1
-
@theofficialusri6052 Again; if I make an ideology that states that utopia comes if you kill everyone you love; and then you do it and it doesn't work, is it your fault or the ideology's? At what point can you accept that the ideology is the issue? Virtually every attempt at Communist thought has led to either a quick collapse and/or immense human suffering via totalitarianism. The exceptions, like the one in Mexico (I forget the name) only exists as a peaceful commune within a much larger and stable democratic state. Such places always collapses when independent, even without the US stepping in. Sometimes even with the US propping them up like Yugoslavia (initially) and Rojava.
Are you actually comparing the gulags with its horrendous loss of life with what amounts to minor political persecution of Communists? From an American perspective it was terrible to be sure; but they are by NO MEANS comparable. And it's disgusting you even tried to make the comparison at all. What the heck is wrong with you? People died by the MILLIONS in the gulags, dude.
And now you're comparing for-profit jails with...literal death camps. Like, sucky conditions in a prison just cannot be compared to the gulags where PEOPLE STARVED AND FROZE TO DEATH. I should report you for genocide apologism for that alone.
Communism on paper cares for the people. So does literally every ideology. Monarchism claims that a wise king will fix everything, feudalism that the nobility will protect their serfs, that Fascism will protect the country and its honor, etc, etc. I don't care about the advertisements, I care about real-world application; and Communism is about as trash as Fascism is.
1
-
@theofficialusri6052 USSR reports are literally created without any actual freedom of speech or news; they're worth the dirt under my boot. And you wouldn't be citing CIA reports unless they were positive, so I can't help but roll my eyes at that. That being said, the CIA reports never at any point indicated that Soviet citizens were "happy", just that they were living decent lives all things considered; but even then that was the height of the USSR and has nothing to do with the USSR's state after a mere few decades. It's "happy" period was extremely short, so to speak. People "still alive today" have a thing where they only remember the positive of something without bothering to remember the negative; it's called nostalgia. If Communism was so loved, it would have been brought back; but it hasn't. Instead it had been dismantled thoroughly. I'll take the literal reality over the nostalgia-tinted glasses of old men.
Eh, 1.6 Million is generally the safest, but it has been registered quite a bit higher. Not the 20 million, but somewhere between the two; fact is that your believed USSR had a fun time of hiding the hundreds of thousands it killed.
I called it a death camp because it was a death camp; it wasn't designed as one, though. It was designed as slave labor far in excess than anything even remotely similar to the US'. They're entirely different worlds, which is why its disgusting you even made the comparison, let alone the Red Scare...
I don't recall saying the gulags were genocide, I just said that the USSR essentially committed genocide; and that was via Holodormer. Mind you, that's still an argued claim, but the sheer scale is pretty damn close to it.
The fact that 1.6 million died in a prison system AT ALL is BEYOND disgusting, and yet you STILL insist on trying to claim "it's not that bad". You cannot in any realm of morality claim any semblance of moral superiority with your mindset.
And btw, the monstrous deaths aside, my issue with Communism isn't even with the mass deaths that tend to occur. My issue is the TOTALITARIAN nature of it. I don't care if they give me a utopia, the second they deign to force their views on me and then send secret police to whisk me at night for complaining; I'm burning the entire damn project down. How dare ANY entity threaten my human liberty, and how dare you try and defend that. It's one thing if it was partial; some human liberties should be suppressed for the benefit of society; but this is total. Complete shut down of the human spirit.
For that alone, it deserves to die. And its adherents shunned.
Edit: Besides, this entire comment section is literally just a bunch of Marxists crying that the US is uber totalitarian. As if their favored ideology isn't infinitely worse. Why are you defending totalitarianism if its left-wing, seriously?
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
-
@dznuts123 No duh, but usually there comes a point where serving your own national interests comes to the detriment of other nations; or even multiple nations. We live in a time of internationalism; one act has repercussions elsewhere. Things are not isolated anymore.
While you are busy deflecting how tariffs on Chinese goods hurt the US consumer, I was talking about China's and the Chinese people's response to it. Which is to say; they cried that it was "unfair" and an act of aggression to weaken China. (China's tariffs on US goods has been MUCH higher than vice-versa for several decades so by your logic China's government has been hurting its people for many years) How about you stop deflecting and talk about what I was talking about? China's response and how it goes against your narrative about double-standards?
China's "success" in government has led to one of the largest amounts of deaths for Chinese people in all of human history. Are we just conveniently forgetting the many millions lost in the Great Leap Forward or are we just counting the era since Premier Deng? Because looking at it throughout history, the US government has done astoundingly better than China's has in a much shorter amount of time. Much higher HDI, much higher political liberty, the works. If we're only talking about the past 30-odd years, then yes China has done much better than the US...but that has far more to do with just how absurdly poor and downtrodden China was prior. It literally could do nothing but improve since it was mostly in absolute poverty. For reference, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Germany all did MUCH better than China has in a shorter timeframe and with far less bloodshed.
We do have serious problems in the US, but you live in an alternate universe if you're comparing US issues with China. There is a difference between fair criticism, and propaganda for a foreign state; and your obsession with talking about the US in relations to China smells of it. Newsflash; we can do both -talk about issues at home WHILE complaining about foreign imperialism against our allies in the region. If you can't do that, then maybe you should at the very least stop talking down people that can?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kynchan3332 Protests are as much a part of the democratic process as elections, genius. And while it did get out of hand, the process to kick Yanukovych out was done via the rules. The LEGAL process. You have no excuse. Stop lying and calling it a coup.
You can do your own surveys, I never said you couldn't, but randos doing their own surveys without support from other groups is pretty much impossible for an actual decent sampling. So basically; you're full of garbage and you know it. Because you're using this "survey" as an excuse to dismiss Ukrainian wishes and dismiss Russian imperialism. I can make up a "survey" and claim that Russia wants the US to annex it; that doesn't make it a valid opinion without an actual trusted org helping me.
The US started 2 wars in the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq. The former as a reaction to 9/11, the latter to get rid of a dictator and create a new society where Islamism won't flourish. The other conflicts in the region were between other "brown" people or self inflicted ala civil wars and non state actors like ISIS. As for civilians in US wars, we hear of them, we just don't hear the US intentionally butchering civilians barring a few exceptions which get VERY public very fast. And the perpetrators are publicly arrested. Civilians dying in war is unfortunate and must be actively lessened if possible; but intentional slaughter and preparation for genocide which RUSSIA ADMITS TO? Are you that much of a shill to not understand the difference? Did the US use cluster bombs on cities? Did the US order the slaughter of civilians and then deny it outright?
I also find it funny that you cry about brown people from the US or UK, while ignoring that Russia killed a LOT of brown people themselves. Aleppo still looks like it got nuked after Russian bombings, and Russia still defends Serbs who tried to genocide Bosnian Muslims. Wow, it's almost like you have a massive double standard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iliassss301 Uh. Wut? Do you think that Russia is the only country that sells gas?
And you must be living under a rock if you claim that nobody has been saying the Russian economy is in bad shape. The news originated from a study from Yale University.
"Yale’s research begins with Russia’s trade market, since there is widespread underappreciation of the damage already wrought to Russia’s status as a leading commodity exporter.
Note that energy revenue represents 60% of total Russian government revenue, so Russian commodity exports are far more important to Russia than the rest of the world.
“Russia’s strategic positioning as a commodities exporter has irrevocably deteriorated, as it now deals from a position of weakness with the loss of its erstwhile main markets, and faces steep challenges executing a ‘pivot to Asia’ with non-fungible exports such as piped gas,” writes Yale.
For example, in terms of natural gas, Russia is far more dependent on Europe than the other way round. So, although EU countries have made many headlines about the pain of decreased Russian gas, it is the Russian economy that is hurting most by the shift in natural gas supply chains away from its traditional and key market. To clarify, Russian gas exports to Europe have hit near-record lows, as has the revenue associated with it.
Meanwhile, Putin has made a lot of noise about diversifying commodity exports to Asia, but Russia’s Asian pipeline network contains but a fraction of the capacity of the European pipeline network. Even long-planned Asian pipeline projects currently under construction remain years away from becoming operational, according to Yale."
And this is only a part of the full picture. These facts are irrefutable. Meanwhile you claim that Western economies are dying? In what universe? A recession is likely, but no Western economy is dying by any metric.
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
-
@Cryptospirosis People also thought Russia invading Ukraine was teh stupidest thing they could do; yet they did it and now Russia is getting grinded down and losing tens of thousands of men for nothing. Leaders aren't always smart.
That being said, no one in BRICS barring Russia and China is moving against the USD. Population size doesn't matter in contrast to the overall GDP/wealth of a bloc -and the West alone makes up some 40% of the world's economy. With the US' closest allies that rises to as high as 60%.
Even if India aligned with China, it wouldn't matter in regards to USD dominance. The rest of the world's wealthiest countries which make up a larger share of the world economy would just take up their lost dollars and their economy would crash. Manufacturing and population means nothing compared to the currency needed to trade. You're living in the 20th century still, and it's hilarious.
BRICS isn't an alliance or a union, it's a trade organization. It's like being proud of NAFTA, ASEAN, or APEC. Only desperate people unironically think that it's some kind of alliance. I just pity you; especially in thinking that India which so obviously is a rival for China would align with it for...what, exactly? China has goals in Kashmir, Pakistan, funded terrorists in India, bankrupted Sri Lanka nearby; outside of Indian love for Putin, everything in India is anti-China.
China is alone in the world, and its all because of China's own imperialist actions. Keep whining about "de-dollarization" though, I'm sure it will happen some time this century. The USSR hoped for it too...and they had a bigger share of the world economy while actually aligned with India than China does today aligned with India(LOL).
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jbc13200 I never denied that, I just don't believe there is a wider interest beyond nation-state interests. Mutual interests can exist, but like "European" interests, I don't believe there is a "Western" interest either. Countries that are in the EU can have mutual interests born from their nation-states, but that's about it. Western Europe and Eastern Europe generally have very differing interests, and that's only the most obvious divide.
The US didn't even do anything to get this deal. This was all Australia; it sought out the UK for a better deal and the UK needed the US who shares a technology-sharing agreement on nuclear subs to do so. Without that, the US would have literally nothing to do with this. So let's not act like the US actively sabotaged anything.
Assimilation is often impossible due to the foibles of the people of a nation-state. It's the rallying cry of nativists, but very few when facing a multiple of "assimilated" non-native peoples are willing to accept them fully as "one of them". I understand where you're coming from, it just sounds regressive to me. A Melting Pot is superior, where immigrants keeps parts of their culture while melting into the greater whole of the nation.
Well, it's a state's prerogative to keep all power in its institutions, so no argument there. But again; beliefs change. Better or for worse. You don't need immigrants for 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
-
@MohammedYASSINE You asserted it, and you know you're full of it. But here;
~~~~"Iraq Body Count project data shows that the type of attack that resulted in the most civilian deaths was execution after abduction or capture. These accounted for 33% of civilian deaths and were overwhelmingly carried out by unknown actors including insurgents, sectarian militias and criminals. 29% of these deaths involved torture. The following most common causes of death were small arms gunfire at 20%, suicide bombs at 14%, vehicle bombs at 9%, roadside bombs at 5%, and air attacks at 5%.[88]
The IBC project, reported that by the end of the major combat phase of the invasion period up to April 30, 2003, 7,419 civilians had been killed, primarily by U.S. air-and-ground forces.[8][86]
The IBC project released a report detailing the deaths it recorded between March 2003 and March 2005[86] in which it recorded 24,865 civilian deaths. The report says the U.S. and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attributed to anti-occupation forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%). It also lists the primary sources used by the media – mortuaries, medics, Iraqi officials, eyewitnesses, police, relatives, U.S.-coalition, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), friends/associates and other."~~~~
So within 2 years or so the US killed 33% of 24,865 civilians. That's around 8.2k civilians.
As for Russia;
~~~~"From 24 February 2022, when the Russian Federation’s armed attack against Ukraine started, to 9 October 2022, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) recorded 15,592 civilian casualties in the country: 6,221 killed and 9,371 injured.
Most of the civilian casualties recorded were caused by the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects, including shelling from heavy artillery, multiple launch rocket systems, missiles and air strikes.
OHCHR believes that the actual figures are considerably higher, as the receipt of information from some locations where intense hostilities have been going on has been delayed and many reports are still pending corroboration. This concerns, for example, Mariupol (Donetsk region), Izium (Kharkiv region), Lysychansk, Popasna, and Sievierodonetsk (Luhansk region), where there are allegations of numerous civilian casualties."~~~~
The death count attributed to Russia is around 6k, or maybe 4k if we're being generous and say that some were killed by Ukraine despite Russia having far more artillery and being far more liberal in using said artillery. It should be noted that this occurs within 8 months and the OHCHR has been unable to corroborate the death count of civilians in small arms fire or even more of Russian territory, as the report admitted.
So around 8.2k civilian dead by US forces in Iraq in 2 years, and between 4-6k civilian dead by Russian forces in 8 months which is likely MUCH higher.
Yeah, Russia has been a lot worse in this war to civilians than the US has in recent memory. And that's only considering Iraq, Afghanistan had even less civilian deaths from the US while the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was literally considered an ethnic cleansing at the time. Or Russia's actions in Syria.
TLDR; Russia today is a fascist hellhole that kills civilians far more than the US at its worst, especially Muslims. And yet you cheerlead for it? Imagine hating Muslims as much as you do, sheesh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
e "German Chancellor Angela Merkel was famously outraged in 2013 when she heard that the U.S. had allegedly bugged her phone, telling then-President Barack Obama: "Spying between friends, that's just not done."
But Germany's foreign intelligence service spent years spying on American public and private sector targets, a report in the German news magazine Der Spiegel claimed Thursday.
The magazine said that it had seen evidence suggesting German security agency the BND had used almost 4,000 keywords in internal surveillance databases that related to American targets from 1998 to 2006. These included White House email addresses as well as phone and fax numbers, as well as the U.S. Department of State and Treasury.
Other targets included the US Air Force, the Marine Corps, the engineering company Lockheed Martin, space agency NASA, several universities and the NGO Human Rights Watch, Spiegel reported."
Wow, it's almost like you're assuming that the US having troops in Germany with the consent of Germany equates to a military occupation and thus you have a wrong interpretation of reality, huh?
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
-
@nickbrashov2146 1) Kosovo declared independence in 1991 via a referendum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Kosovan_independence_referendum
And NATO forces only started showing up in Kosovo in 1998 and more importantly; did not contribute at all in any referendum or control it, let alone stop international observers from watching it like what occurred in Crimea. Your comparison is flawed beyond belief.
2) Crimea was lawfully passed on to Ukraine. The Soviet Premier has virtually absolute power and no one could stop him. A referendum Post-USSR was the only way to fairly get Crimea, but Russia decided to do the imperialist thing instead. Also, Russians living in Crimea was only a thing because Russia ethnically cleansed it of Tatars, so let's not act like "legality" is an issue here.
3) There was no serious attempt to kill Yankovic, but there were claims during the violence that Russian snipers may have been deployed to justify a Russian invasion. "On 31 March 2014, the Daily Beast published photos and videos which appear to show that the snipers were members of the Ukrainian Security Services (SBU) "anti-terrorist" Alfa Team unit, who had been trained in Russia.[316]
On 2 April, law enforcement authorities announced in a press conference they had detained nine suspects in the 18–20 February shootings of Euromaidan activists, acting Prosecutor General of Ukraine Oleh Makhnytsky reported. Among the detainees was the leader of the sniper squad. All of the detained are officers of the Kyiv City Berkut unit, and verified the involvement of the SBU's Alfa Group in the shootings. Officials also reported that they plan to detain additional suspects in the Maidan shootings in the near future, and stressed that the investigation is ongoing, but hindered by the outgoing regime's destruction of all documents and evidence. Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs confirmed that Viktor Yanukovych gave the order to fire on protesters on 20 February.[317][318] During the press conference, Ukraine's interior minister, chief prosecutor and top security chief implicated more than 30 Russian FSB agents in the crackdown on protesters, who in addition to taking part in the planning, flew large quantities of explosives into an airport near Kyiv. Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, the interim head of Ukraine's SBU state security agency, said the agents were stationed in Kyiv during the entire Euromaidan protests, were provided with "state telecommunications" while residing at an SBU compound, and in regular contact with Ukrainian security officials. "We have substantiated grounds to consider that these very groups which were located at an SBU training ground took part in the planning and execution of activities of this so-called antiterrorist operation," said Nalyvaichenko. Investigators, he said, had established that Yanukovych's SBU chief Oleksandr Yakymenko, who had fled the country, had received reports from FSB agents while they were stationed in Ukraine, and that Yakymenko held several briefings with the agents. Russia's Federal Security Bureau rejected the comments as "groundless accusations" and otherwise refused to comment.[319]"
Oh, and speaking of "nazi violence", the Euromaiden protestors killed almost nobody, while the totally not-nazi-like Berkut killed 100's of protestors. So yeah, you're full of shit.
4) Russia claims to be a multinational Federation where every nation has its own rules and rights, true. That's obviously full of shit since anything the Kremlin doesn't like gets crushed or jailed. No Human Rights organization sees Russia's current political system as anything more than a oligarchy with near-absolute power in the Kremlin. Any Constitutional change can occur without issue for the President's benefit, and frankly any law can be ignored. There is a literal list of this stuff in sites like HRW.org if you bother to learn.
And really, for a country that claims to respect its minorities, it seems to do a LOT for Russification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification#Modern_Russia
As for Ukraine, it has done no more than Russians have done to their own minorities; making Russian language optional. But unlike Ukraine, it never promised to be a multinational Federation, so even in this Russia is just an abysmal hypocrite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@towaritch Yugoslavia was bombed to stop a genocide. One of the proudest moments of NATO's history by my estimation.
The UK-French bombing of Libya was for their own interests, and the US was called in later in the campaign. Though it should be noted that Gaddafi started that civil war, not outside actors.
Iraq was invaded and made better after the US left by every metric like economic, human rights, socially, etc, but was not ready for self-determination as ISIS proved.
The US was in Syria mostly to fuck ISIS and support the SDF. Assad released ISIS members specifically to make his people suffer and turn to him over the SDF. Assad started the civil war in the first place and made things worse.
Yemen has little to do with the US.
700+ of those military bases are either military depots, supply camps, or just the military bases of the native government which it allows US soldiers to live or pass through.
The US has not bothered to try and overthrow Castro since the Cold War.
I can and will ride my moral high horse. And Snowden is a Russian agent that specifically aimed at US interests while ignoring the sins and interests of other countries and even lives in Russia which has an infinitely worse effect on world stability. At least the US protects all of the world's democracies these days, while Russia works to undermine them and protects dictators. No wonder you're such a boot licker, when you're listening to the likes of Snowden.
1
-
@towaritch Uh, at no point did the US fund Al Qaeda. It funded the mujahedeen which broke apart, and some of that remnant turned into the Taliban...which the US also didn't fund.
Like, if you're gonna bitch about US policy, at least know what you're talking about.
The US never had any "Cold War mentality" against Russia in the first place until 2014. In fact, the US used to love Russia and consider it its biggest ally in Europe next to France pre-Soviet Revolution. After the USSR fell, even after Russia complained about NATO growth, the US still had a high opinion of Russia and never had any large troop numbers near Russia's borders at any point. Russia fucked that, now the US is wary of a possible Russian incursion into allied countries.
No, no, no, no, no. The US can't invade Venezuela, it will ruin any future stability, giving the taint of any future government as a "Pro-Gringo government", especially from the lunatic Chavezistas. Things have stabilized, and the US does not have the will to stay behind and build Venezuela back up either.
And come off it. You want the US to just...abandon Europe? Russia has not proven trustworthy with Ukraine, why should we take it for granted that they won't fuck with the Baltics or Poland? Again, the US was content to just let Russia do shit in the Caucuses and do nothing but complain about it, but the 2014 invasion made it impossible to ignore. And if the US does nothing, then that shatters US trust in the region. So again; why would the US stab itself in the foot like that, likely permanently?
1
-
@kormannn1 Are you seriously complaining about upgrading defensive capabilities? What, do you expect that as technology grows that NATO just won't upgrade them just to not offend Russia? Because this isn't about trust; it's about always being prepared for the future -in case Russia turns into an enemy in the future. No one complained about Russia's upgrading of their military, they only complained when they deployed them near the border. That's such a ludicrous standard to hold over NATO.
No one in any position to stop or tell NATO what to do promised such a thing. More importantly, no, informal agreement mean jack. They're broken literally all the time, and frankly, the US did not even move to push countries to join NATO anyway; the countries ran to NATO and pushed to join it. It's unreasonable to not let them in based on Russian fears since there was no major troop movement to Eastern Europe anyway. If anything, Post-Cold War, there was a major withdrawing of US military forces and downsizing of Western European militaries too.
I mean, I read the wiki page, but again this discussion seems meaningless to me. Informal agreements mean jack, no one had the position to make such a promise since NATO is not owned by the US or West Germany, and those countries came to NATO anyway, not the other way around. What, did Russia expect the US to just prevent them from joining? I can understand Russian anger if the US was immediately pushing for these countries to join NATO, but it took years for most of these countries to join.
The history lesson is interesting, in that I knew most of what you mentioned but also heard some new things. Appreciate it, but it really doesn't change my opinion. Letting Russia into NATO meetings I recalled, but letting it into NATO was also something I'd be wary of until Russia was consistently seen as to not threaten the US' eastern European allies. Indeed, the missile defense system is what Russia saw as an aggressive move when it's about standard for NATO to upgrade and no one complained about Russia's modernization -but the break for NATO came in the form of 2014.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TanyaAbah Bruh, you can't expect nations to take the word of another nation in the future if they break something kinda important like "respecting the national sovereignty of X". You do realize that with this logic, Russia can repeatedly break its word with ZERO consequence, right? There is a reason people are saying that giving in to Putin's demand is another Munich Conference -because Putin is NOT trustworthy.
Imperialism can be positive or negative, but in the type of imperialism in which another country and force an entire people into submission with no proper casus belli is asking for more wars like it. Which is exactly the issue here. What happens when the next country gets funny ideas and wants to invade YOUR country based on flimsy past grievances, huh? Are you just gonna give it up as a compromise and hope that it won't happen again?
Okay, we can't have a conversation if you believe in alternative reality. Fact is this; trusted international polling groups have found that Zelensky had middling popularity prior to this crisis, and now has a high popularity after it -countries unify in the midst of an invasion where the other side denies that their nationality even has a right to exist. Stop playing fence sitter here. There are zero trusted polling groups that find any significant pro-Russian opinions in Ukraine. NONE. ZERO. You are referencing literal RUSSIAN STATE MEDIA, which is about as biased as possible.
Stopping this miserable conflict is not the biggest issue here; it's stopping FUTURE conflicts as well. So again, let me reiterate; in what world can we possibly trust Russia to NOT invade again after it broke the Budapest Memorandum in the first place AND started this war using the logic that the Ukrainian identity and nation is fake? And then has state media arguing it should keep going to Moldova???
I don't want to use the N@zi reference, but this really does sound like a Chamberlain idea of "just give them what they want even if they proved untrustworthy and hope they'll be fine with it". The people afterwards note that attitude as a BETRAYAL from the West. And rightly so.
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
-
@tairusadiq3527 Why should I care for a dialogue of peace? Of course I'd want it, but its not my place to demand it; it's Ukraine's choice. Just as Vietnamese chose to fight on despite taking horrendous casualties against the US, so are Ukrainians today -it's literally no different.
Bruh, Russia literally invaded multiple countries prior to this latest one in 2022. Ukraine in 2014, Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Libya, and arguably Kazakhstan. Not including Mali because they were invited by the sole legitimate government. Either way, Russia got away with crap before, what makes this more heinous is the WHY they're doing it, how far they're going, and the complete LACK of moral ambiguity to it. In all wars in the 21st century, there was always a factor of moral ambiguity to disguise national interests. Whether it be the Russian invasion of Georgia, the US invasion of Iraq, etc, etc. But this? Russia is invading it by DENYING UKRAINE'S RIGHT TO EXIST.
If you can't understand the difference, then the problem is with you, and you need to get help.
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
-
@rickydee5863 The nuclear bombings are no different to the bombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities outside of the aftereffects. Deaths by war are hardly genocidal, smart one.
Your numbers are bullshit. "J Rummel estimated that American forces killed around 5,500 people in democide between 1960 and 1972, from a range of between 4,000 and 10,000.[27] Estimates for the number of North Vietnamese civilian deaths resulting from US bombing range from 30,000–65,000.[28][4] Higher estimates place the number of civilian deaths caused by American bombing of North Vietnam in Operation Rolling Thunder at 182,000.[29] American bombing in Cambodia is estimated to have killed between 30,000 and 150,000 civilians and combatants.[25][30]
18.2 million gallons of Agent Orange, some of which was contaminated with Dioxin, was sprayed by the U.S. military over more than 10% of Southern Vietnam[31] as part of the U.S. herbicidal warfare program Operation Ranch Hand during the Vietnam War, from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam's government claimed that 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of after effects, and that 500,000 children were born with birth defects.[32] The United States government has challenged these figures as being unreliable"
At most, you can say up to 500k Vietnamese civilians died due to US actions. Again, you lied.
Now you're just repeating lies. The US ousted South American governments if they thought they were siding with the USSR. Democratic or not, that was the focus -and Soviet-backed dictatorships uniformly killed far more people than US-backed dictatorships due to their Marxist nature. So in that aspect, the US even saved lives, funny enough.
As for Iran, again, the US was not even focused on Iran not following their interests. They were tricked by the British into thinking Iran was siding with Iran -and even then, the US extracted promises to modernize Iran afterwards. "British intelligence officials' conclusions and the UK government's solicitations were instrumental in initiating and planning the coup, despite the fact that the U.S. government in 1952 had been considering unilateral action (without UK support) to assist the Mosaddegh government.[19][20][21]"
Now you're acting like Vietnam kicked the US' ass despite the US inflicting a death toll of 10-1 for every American soldier dead. The North Vietnamese suffered abysmal casualty numbers, ditto with every single US enemy the US has faced. The US just does not have the political will to stay in a foreign land long without progress. Doesn't change the fact that the US absolutely militarily obliterates everything and everyone. The Russians literally were militarily battered in their invasions, unlike the US. Weak Russians died by 300 to 0 US casualties the last time they attacked the US. Get used to it.
This is actually hilarious because Chinese make a similar claim of kicking the US' ass despite taking horrendous casualties and being unable to kick a demilitarized US out of Korea. Wow, what an achievement. You lost several 100k men for a few thousand US troops and you're proud. 😂
The US did not even want to attack Libya's Ghaddafi, you dumb dumb. That was France and the UK that went in after the US proclaimed to stay out of it initially. But funny thing about having an ally; you need to maintain those allies by sometimes doing what they want. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2011/03/29/france-u-k-have-differing-motives-for-intervening-in-libya/?sh=b9b486a5ad53
As for the Native Americans, something like 90% of them were gone before the US even existed, smart one. God, you're ignorant as hell. And you speak of massacres which did occur and were terrible, but were NOT in any shape or form genocide. They did not in any shape intend to erase Native American tribes from existence. That's the difference.
And even if you DO add them all together. THEY STILL DO NOT MATCH THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY CHINA.
Get over your ignorance. It's appalling. I shouldn't be educating an adult, but you seriously need to go back to school. Your education is obviously abysmal. 😂
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
-
@Coneman3 WW1 conditions were too harsh yet too lenient; Germany was too humiliated to not want revenge, but was also left too strong and thus left the option open. But ultimately, it wasn't the harsh conditions, but the myth of the "Germany didn't really lose" or the "stabbed behind the back" myth that occurred because people in Germany refused to believe that their country lost in WW1 too. It was as much internal lies/propaganda that caused the rise of the Nazis as external fuckery. But yes, the stock market crash and the idiosyncrasies of Hitler taking advantage of that frustration and anger also had its place.
The US didn't want anything to do with any war at all; idk why you're saying that investment into the Ruhr Valley had anything to do with it. If anything, it was the French illegal occupation of the Ruhr Valley that won Germany some sympathy which made some side with the Nazis initially. Regardless of anything; the US had zero interest in leaving its isolationism to enter a European war, though US leaders hedged their bets just in case. You're ignoring a lot of the other issues that caused the war, with money being more of an excuse than anything else. Ideology, I would say, had far more to do with the war. After all; if money was the be all end all; the US would have never entered the war to begin with and would have sold to both sides. Heck, WW1 had powers which traded extensively with each other go to war. Money isn't the answer to everything.
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
-
@chandelier6811 First of all, according to Saddam, it was 1.5M children, not civilians. Second of all, that was long ago debunked. US sanctions did not have a fraction of that kind of power, especially not how minimal they were at the time period. Third of all, again, Golani did not know or care about any of this; the rise of Islamists happened independently of that.
I didn't ignore regime change, just the claim that the shah was this uber terrible leader when he was pretty moderate all things considered. The Iranian mullahs didn't dislike the shah because he was allied with the West specifically, but because he wasn't Islamist. That's a common trend with Islamists, actually.
You're going to have to name a country that wasn't founded on etn*c cle@nsing, because that's every nation. Including Pale stine
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
-
@TheEightfoldWay And the Trumpist protests were the same way, complaining and moaning about an election being stolen by the cOmMuNiStS while the anti-Trump protesters were complaining and moaning about the election being stolen by fAsCiSts and Russia. Usually both?
You don't need a coup to well executed or planned to try to start a coup. Just intention. A coup is just as much a group of people trying to kill a President and then declaring themselves President under the new Ancapistan as it is a fully-fleshed out attempt to cut off the head of civilian leadership by the military and starting martial law under a new dictatorship.
An "actual attack" being breaking in. It's an "actual attack" on US civilians in other riots too. Come on man, can you not see how the very words you're using to describe this "*attack*" can very easily be turned against any riot that emerged from a mostly peaceful protest against politics you don't like? Because just as you're doing here now, I defended against people calling for BLM protest organizers to be arrested because they organized the protest that turned into a riot and screwed many Americans and their livelihoods. And with your logic, it can be considered an attack akin to a small army sacking a city, no? Let's not go down that route. I call out both sides in this because both of ya'll have been utter hypocrites in this, so wound up by the news who write and talk inflammatory crap to get clicks and views.
Bruh, the Jan 6th riot was literally just people breaking into offices and wrecking the place. The only difference was the mess they made, and some of them verbally having a wish to hurt political leaders; and those people you are free to nail. But calling the entire thing a coup attempt is at best propaganda, at worst an attempt at political suppression and oppression.
Nah, looking at those incidents, those were just political divisions, but they weren't bitter. Every nation has them, democracies especially, but this is something different. In 2008 people were angry they lost, but they didn't automatically believe that the other side was trying to subvert democratic processes or that they were authoritarians trying to back terrorist groups against the other. For the most part is isn't the case, but the dialogue has turned more virulent, and it very much started to occur in 2016. Not helped by Trump at all, but the Dems really did start this trend by throwing everything and anything at Trump hoping it would stick. It was the case that he was a populist fool which you can reasonably criticize, but the Dems threw so much crap which did NOT stick that it created a class of people that perceived that the entire political establishment was out to get him; creating new distrust from professionals.
And I 100% agree with those people; there is no reason to trust news and "professionals". I just nowhere near distrust such people enough to deny reality that Trump was a populist fool that did damage to the US far more than any "establishment" politician. Also, yeah I'm fully vaccinated.
Even the most reactionary Republican doesn't agree with even a fraction of Putin's ideas. Like 77% of Republicans were all in favor of Afghanistan refugee program, for example.
That being said, if I did say "create", then I apologize. I meant exacerbate. If the US fights itself so thoroughly in the name of fighting racial injustice, then that comes at the expense of racial justice worldwide. The likes of Russia and China would love for the concept to die; and fact is we KNOW that both China and Russia use online bots to create fake news to radicalize activists online. Meanwhile both nations suppress and oppress racial minorities at a national level where minority rights are a joke. It's very much as important to seek to rectify racial injustice as it is to acknowledge the things we DO have. Expressing pride for how far the US has come in a world where minority rights are almost universally sick jokes is important. Because so people from foreign nations look at the US today and assume, with the dialogue of radical BLM activists who may have good intentions, that the concept of diversity is a complete failure. Fairly or unfairly, the US is the example of which so many people watch to see what fails and what doesn't fail. And we're losing in that game. China uses the examples of BLM riots as proof that they are right to oppress Uyghurs and the US can't talk about it since cultural genocide is totally the same as US Blacks facing racial injustice.
Anyway, I wrote a lot, so I think I'll exit out of this particular conversation. I made my opinions known. Have a good day.
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
-
@solinvictus39 LOL. The golden standard of the world are corrupt now? And let me guess; Russia is the sole not-corrupt source of news then? How convenient that the rest of the world is wrong while Russia is right. Pathetic.
Oh really? Would you like to see the myriad of "disappearances" in Russia? There are quite a few. Here, this is just 2006 alone:
8 January – Vagif Kochetkov, newly appointed Trud correspondent in the region, killed and robbed in Tula. Acquittal [nJ].
26 February – Ilya Zimin, worked for NTV Russia television channel, killed in Moscow flat. Suspect in Moldova trial. Acquittal [nJ].
4 May – Oksana Teslo, media worker, Moscow Region. Arson attack on dacha. Homicide [nJ].
14 May – Oleg Barabyshkin, director of radio station, Chelyabinsk. Homicide. Conviction [nJ].
23 May – Vyacheslav Akatov, special reporter, Business Moscow TV show, murdered in Mytyshchi Moscow Region. Killer caught and convicted. Homicide. Conviction [nJ].
25 June – Anton Kretenchuk, cameraman, local Channel 38 TV, killed in Rostov-on-Don. Homicide. Conviction [nJ].
25 July – Yevgeny Gerasimenko, journalist with Saratovsky Rasklad newspaper. Murdered in Saratov. Conviction [nJ].
31 July – Anatoly Kozulin, retired freelance journalist. Ukhta, Komi. Homicide [nJ].
8 August – Alexander Petrov, editor-in-chief, Right to Choose magazine Omsk, murdered with family while on holiday in Altai Republic. Under-age murderer charged and prosecuted. Homicide. Conviction [nJ].
17 August – Elina Ersenoyeva, reporter for Chechenskoye obshchestvo newspaper. Abducted in Grozny, Chechnya. Missing [?J].
13 September – Vyacheslav Plotnikov, reporter, local "Channel 41" TV, Voronezh. Incident not Confirmed [nJ].
7 October – Anna Politkovskaya, commentator with Novaya Gazeta, Moscow, shot in her apartment building's elevator;.[97][98][99][100] Four accused in contract killing, acquitted in February 2009 [J].
16 October – Anatoly Voronin, Itar-TASS news agency, Moscow. Homicide [nJ].
28 December – Vadim Kuznetsov, editor-in-chief of World & Home. Saint Petersburg magazine, killed in Saint Petersburg. Homicide [nJ].
Please tell me what journalists died in the US, UK, or the rest of NATO in such numbers? I'd love to know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluewanderer9903 Igor Ivanovich Strelkov(key player in Russian annexation of Crimea):
"During the summer, the enemy sharply (many times) increased the number of missile and unmanned strikes against the deep and close rear areas of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Armed Forces of the LDPR, achieving new successes, now quite comparable (in terms of damage) with missile strikes on their own territory, accepted from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation from the beginning of the NWO. Thus, in this respect, the RF Armed Forces have lost "exclusive superiority", while the Armed Forces of Ukraine have achieved a certain parity. Sad but true.
Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that within the framework of the NMD, the Russian command not only failed to achieve the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but even the complete displacement of the enemy forces from the territory of the DPR by the available forces fell into the category of "realizable dreams." It is clear that new offensive attempts will be made and may even lead to new tactical successes, but - on the whole - a balance has developed on the front. And the "bowl of the scales" on the part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is now very slowly but steadily outweighing the Russian one."
But cry harder, Kremlinbot. LMFAO
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
-
@Evan-iq8hd I literally never once disagreed with you in regards to Saudi war crimes in Yemen. I simply said that what they're doing doesn't classify as genocide yet; just a risk of one. It's still monstrous, but that needed to be corrected.
Also, I heard those reports FROM US media, genius. People like you shriek when your specific issue isn't brought up by US media all the damn time when it usually is, just isn't blared by every single news channel out there. Usually because its too far away to garner that kind of attention. Again, the Tigray War doesn't get that attention either -the reason is because Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia are very far from US influence while Ukraine is literally right next to Poland which is a center of US influence.
Sorry, but the US doesn't have to literally jump into every single war crime and war ever to parade as the good guys. That's beyond absurd. You sound like a guy crying that the cops pulled him over when they didn't pull over someone else; the fact is that the US can only do so much. Worse yet, unlike in Ukraine, Yemen is filled with foreign groups backed by foreign powers muddying up the situation. The war won't be solved by forcing the Sauds out, it will just become a civil war.
If the Sauds were the only ones responsible for the war, then I'd 100% agree with you that the US must condemn the Sauds for this war and apply pressure. But just like in Syria; the situation is way too complicated to do 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
-
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
-
@ahmedkhalifa5190 1) Yes, the US declares X thing and thus does it...right? Except almost every US President also declares their support for Palestinian peace and security as well. Biden literally did that too: "The President expressed his support for steps to enable the Palestinian people to enjoy the dignity, security, freedom, and economic opportunity that they deserve"
1.1) ...Huh? But Israel literally defeated the ocean of Arabs around then when they were a weak state without external support. Are you talking about immigration? Because Israel hardly needs help with that. US does want peace; but mostly for its own sake since disruptive conflict leads to issues the US doesn't want to deal with. US was pushing for peace in the region long before US support for Israel ever materialized.
1.2) Israel was already technologically superior to everyone around it before the US support. Also, the US wants to keep its allies up to date; so that's obvious, though it really isn't a plot to keep Arab nations weak. Just keep US allies up and about.
I was gonna get into everything you said, but frankly, after reading your last bit; it isn't worth it. Dude; what you want is constant war just for the sake of a nationalist dream. Nationalism is a disease that sparks endless conflict. Worse yet, despite your claims, Egypt attempting to start war for the sake of some Arab super state doesn't mean the other Arab states want that. If you want that; don't freaking start wars, but instead become wealthy, spread the dream to like-minded people to peacefully bring nations together if you want a superstate. The EU is a good example, and even they have issues. The US would support that, even if Israel would not.
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
-
LOAN NGUYEN Uh, no. There is a massive difference between silencing people for simply criticizing government (good) and silencing people that want to strip the freedom of their fellow citizens (not ideal, but fair). Just as even the most liberal of democracies have limitations of Freedom of Speech (can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded building because that threatens others), there are limitations to people that have no inclination to maintain or protect it. I know this is hard for you, but standing up for freedom means standing up to literal tyrants, even if its within your own soil. Like I said, it isn't ideal, and I'd prefer that DID NOT happen; but attempt something stupid like a coup, then us actual democrats are all for it.
A democracy defending its insttiutions is well within its rights, and is hardly hypocritical. What's hypocritical is preaching such things and then letting Marxists/Fascists have their way with it.
I love your argument for the Constitution. By your reckoning, anything associated with something bad is bad itself, then? So Marxism is bad because it was inspired by Hegel, which also inspired Fascism? Hell, all ideologies, tech, and architecture was initially built by people waaaaay worse than Presidents that owned slaves. Should we abandon all that too? What a tool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOAN NGUYEN I mean, yes? Because totalitarians overthrowing a democracy means there is no more democracy. This isn't hard. That being said, the US interfering in another country's affairs is morally wrong, but is the standard. All countries interfere in each other's affairs, since internationally there is no limit to what countries can do outside of what they agree upon. And to be frank, you overexagerrate the US' propaganda machine; the US has always been far more concerned with its own internal affairs, and propaganda has always been used inwards. And the US Government has never been all that great at advertising its goals, or justifying itself, let alone "demonizing people through propaganda".
I do NOT support censorship on people who engage in civil debate, period. Where the heck did you get that from??? I was speaking specifically about attempted coups and overthrows. But any attempt at trying to overthrow democracy CAN and SHOULD be met with an active defense of its maintenence. I'm never the guy to advocate for the "punching Nazi's" way of dealing with extremists, but I'm 100% certain that like half of the people subscribed to this dude were that way. So excuse me if I roll my eyes at this sudden "concern" for liberty. I believe that as much freedom should be conserved, but I'm under no illusions of the reality of what happened to other democracies when Fascists or Marxists get into power.
Again, this hypothetical suppression only occurs when an active attempt of overthrow occurs. This is self-defense. The people and the government attempting to protect their democracy from people that are trying to overthrow it is a consequence of Free Speech; because it's now a threat to all of them.
1
-
LOAN NGUYEN With the USSR gone, Vietnam can be Communist or whatever the heck it wants. With Nazi Germany gone, anyone can be Fascist or whatever the heck they want. The danger was not the ideology really, but the spread of it threatening everyone else. These countries were actively expanding and making noises to that effect.
To the contrary, 1945 was the watershed moment for the US to realize that sitting on its hands waiting in isolation does not protect it from outside sources. Japan's Pearl Harbor was a wake up call. It informed the US that it must engage in the world and ensure its own security by pushing conflicts far away from its borders. The US' system of alliances, the US' active interference abroad, the US' protection of international trade. All to ensure a web of shields to protect it from an attack on its soil.
And as you see, that includes backing Communist states now. The US backed the Marxist Kurds against ISIS, and backs Communist Vietnam against China. That's ultimately US foreign policy; back whomever against the bigger threat. We can talk about whether thats good or bad in the world overall, but that's switching discussions. I was only speaking of internal handling of extremist ideologies. Vietnam has their own path, and I don't advocate interrupting it, even if I very much loathe its crippling lack of personal liberty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@divdivic8120 Russians literally bombed Eastern Ukraine down to the dirt via constant artillery. In what world is it just Ukrainians killing both? What happened in Mariupol is worse than anything Ukraine can even contemplate, let alone did. And if you're gonna use Amnesty International, you might want to see what they say about Russia;
"Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an act of aggression that has unleashed the gravest human rights and refugee crisis in Europe since World War Two. Amnesty International is documenting serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, including the unlawful killing and injury of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and blocking of desperately needed aid for civilians. Attacks on hospitals and schools, employing “surrender or starve” sieges on civilians, the use of banned weapons such as cluster munitions, and strikes on populated areas using inaccurate weapons may constitute war crimes.
Exposed to constant attacks and with many cut off from water, electricity and heating, people caught up in conflict in cities such as Izium and Mariupol are on the brink of a humanitarian disaster. Diminishing food, water and medical supplies have left them at breaking point, as remaining civilians seek shelter in their basements. Amnesty International’s on-the-ground reports and digital investigations help ensure that evidence of these attacks reaches the world.
The Russian authorities have unleashed an unprecedented, nationwide crackdown on independent journalism, anti-war protests and dissenting voices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin remains hellbent on hiding the human cost of its war and has blocked independent news sites and social media. Meanwhile, anyone caught spreading what it regards as “fake news” about the conflict faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years.
Coupled with a campaign of disinformation, the media blackout seeks to entirely deprive the Russian people of access to objective, trustworthy information about the conflict. As repression mounts, at least 150 critical journalists have fled the country so far. Yet despite the risks, Russia’s anti-war movement continues to fill the streets with rallies — even though more than 15,000 protesters have been arbitrarily detained since the start of the invasion."
I agree that Ukraine has committed war crimes, buy you may as well compare the actions of the Imperial Japanese with the actions of the Philippines in WW2. They both did bad stuff, but the invader was INFINITELY WORSE to the point that bringing both up is absurd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@divdivic8120 The Minsk agreements which literally nobody followed? Both sides broke the damn thing, and it was after Russia broke the Budapest Memorandum to begin with. Why would anyone condemn Ukraine for that unless Ukraine was the one that invaded Russia?
Ok, see, you're saying a lot of stuff here, but the OSCE never published anything like this -so why would I take your word for it? I've seen pictures, but its a FACT that BOTH SIDES attacked civilian targets in the war so why are you attributing it all to Ukraine? Why are you studiously ignoring the fact that Russia started the conflict and had troops involved in the death of civilians in the region? You keep asking "where is the outrage", when there was also little outrage against Russia's actions which started the entire crisis.
There are no "NATO officers", let alone purely American ones. NATO is being led by a Norwegian I think atm, and while NATO members use the structure of NATO to coordinate -they still utilize their own officer and NCO corps unless its a big and planned international coalition.
There were no "American NATO officers" involved in that. And yes, the Dutch used American-made cluster bombs, and likely still has them; there is nothing wrong with that. Most wars across the planet use Russian-made equipment like the famous AK-47 and there's nothing wrong with that either.
Again, using cluster bombs are not illegal; only when used on a large civilian population center. Using them in Kuwait, Afghanistan, or Iraq is not intrinsically bad. Idk why you are trying SO HARD to make the US look bad here.
1
-
@divdivic8120 I didn't justify them, I was telling you why nobody cared since one side was considerably more guilty than the other -and even then the more guilty party in Russia didn't get much pushback.
The difference here is that the US had already crushed Japan for all intents and purposes prior to the atomic bomb and Japan was the aggressor to begin with. If the US was the one that attacked Japan for imperialist reasons and then atomic bombed it; it would be one of the worst atrocities in human history and the US should be shunned for it.
I mean, you provided zero proof that Ukrainians were killing Ukrainian civilians to begin with. Do you expect me to just believe you? Again, the OSCE claimed 1k civilians died, but did not attribute as to whom did what -and the fact of the matter is that whoever invaded unjustly bears far more responsibility than the one that is defending themselves. It should be noted that if it was REALLY just pro-Russian separatists that declared independence without Russian interference, then I think your argument would have more merit. As it stands though, its kinda obvious that the war was started based on Russian imperialism and little more than that; thus Russia shares the vast majority of the blame. Of course whoever kills civilians are the ones responsible ultimately, so if Ukraine did kill 1k civilians then they deserve that blame, but there is no proof either way.
How exactly do I disprove that there aren't US officers directing other countries? Like seriously, I'd think you would need to prove that there are US officers directing the Dutch to begin with before I can debunk it.
Literally nobody disputed that both sides killed civilians; it's why NATO did not step in in the first half of the conflict. It stepped in later when we had PROOF that actors were trying to commit GENOCIDE. Your victim complex is getting annoying here; nobody really reprimanded Yugoslavia until then, at least no more than the other factions -Croatia got sanctioned by the US for God's sakes in favor of the Serbs initially.
This is the last time I'm telling you; CLUSTER BOMBS ARE ONLY ILLEGAL WHEN USED AGAINST CONCENTRATED CIVILIAN POPULATIONS. Look it up, its real, idk what else to tell you. AK-47's are illegal to use against civilians too, btw. And guess what Russia is using WITHIN CONCENTRATED CIVILIAN POPULATIONS? That's right, they're using CLUSTER BOMBS.
Nothing you have said is "wrong" with the US, though. Everything seems to relate back to NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, which was morally correct for the most part, though its last bombing campaign was not legal and more morally questionable I will grant you -the cluster bomb thing wasn't done by the US however.
1
-
@divdivic8120 Jesus Christ, you just go on and on with your loony toons conspiracy stuff that its impossible to take this conversation seriously. Like what, do you expect the US to automatically side with you because you helped save a few soldiers? That's not how international politics work -but the fact is that the US favored the Serbs initially and argued in favor of maintaining Yugoslavia. Initially. Then Srebrenica happened.
I confirmed that BOTH SIDES DID WAR CRIMES, yes; and its because of that that while the US favored Yugoslavia by sanctioning the Croats it did not take its literal side. It's pathetic how you somehow feel like you DESERVE American support to the point that the US should fight for you. Everybody had a part to play in the war, but because there was no clear just side, the US stuck with diplomacy and economic pressure. Then a side emerged; victims of genocide -and the US had a moral obligation to step in at that point after so much effort was spent on Yugoslavia diplomacy already.
The US aligned with Communists against the Fascists in WW2, that doesn't mean that it supported Communism, genius. Same deal; Bosnians wanted independence and Serbs tried to exterminate some of them for it -Al Qaeda allying with whomever is not a factor.
I'm not literally going over every single point of Yugoslavia's genocidal war, all your arguments mean jack all when you attempt genocide. End of story. That's one time when morality should triumph over anything else; don't like it? Then don't commit genocide or is that hard to understand?
My government can be a bunch of crooks, but it just so happens in Yugoslavia that it crushed a band of genocidal murderers and I'm proud of that. Your mask slipped off, and your twisted beliefs are obvious; you don't care about human life, you are just mad the Americans stopped you and are now taking it out on Ukraine. At least be honest that you are only mad at the Nazis because they targeted your people; but you'd support them if they targeted people you don't like.
As for me? Nazis, whether German, Japanese, Croatian, Russian, Serb, and yes -American; they're always bad. Try to find your humanity before you cry about the US again; crying about US actions in its bombing campaign is fine, but you're obviously doing it because you're mad that you didn't get the chance to finish off the Bosnians rather than any moral stance. Like certain fascists that cry when they speak of Allied bombing of Dresden.
Why is it that every Serb I talk to end up being unironic fascists? Seriously???
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rakkatytam 1) You used a legal term with actual legal meaning. Whether its legal or not does not matter; you claimed something is a war crime and by our current definition of it, you're full of it. More than that, you doubled down and just cried about who made the definition when you have literally nothing to back up your own definition except "I said so". Genius, by your own logic, 99% of the world are war criminals. Including India.
2) "Dialectical materialism" otherwise meaning your own lived experience. The fact that you even mentioned other histories which themselves all massively contradict each other for the benefit of the nation writing them and all come from societies which have very little outlets for self-critical thought is exactly my problem with you.
All your criticism is based on what you've been force fed your entire life, meanwhile not a fraction of that thought goes to your own society, history, or culture. When your nation does wrong, you defend it regardless of how utterly disgusting it is. When Westerners do wrong, we have those types too, but we have those self-critical people that try and be better. Those types of people effectively don't exist in the societies you mentioned.
And that's why I pity you, because you will damn us all with your blatant hyper nationalism. But hey, if that's what the world wants, then I see no reason to deny it that. I don't care about holding the West to account anymore. Let's emulate what you guys are doing instead, and see how you fare, eh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rakkatytam All wars have a participant which declared an unjust war, genius.
And yeah, you can't just make up your own laws. Sorry, but that's not how reality works. As for your logic; you're only reinforcing my point. If everyone got to choose who is a war criminal because they feel slighted, then Russians can right now claim that Ukrainians are war criminals. Sauds can claim that Iranians are war criminals. The Kashmiri can claim Indians are war criminals, etc, etc. Inb4 you then cry that only the victims of a war can say so or something; whom are you to decide that? Who is the victim and who is the aggressor? You literally can't decide that because everyone has their reasons for war and pretend they're the victim. Your entire logic is just "I say so", which is 99% of human history.
I don't think you know what equality looks like. Equality to you is the jackboot stomping on the human spirit and then calling them anti-revolutionary to justify their oppression. Sure, there is nothing wrong with killing slave owners to free slaves; but what if they don't want to be free? What if the "freedom" being promised is a new set of chains? I can just as easily use your logic to justify all of the US' wars, especially against Marxist nations which can at best be described as slave states by default with the Politburo being the slavemasters.
Your own internal logic is hypocrisy incarnate. Imperialism doesn't care for morality; it's imperialism whether you come in the name of liberty or not -you ARE an imperialist. The worst kind of imperialist; the deluded kind.
Ultimately your logic comes down to; everyone is a slave to the upper classes so anyone trying to liberate them is just. That's it. Not only is that easily used by dictators to justify anything, you forgo the fact that those dictators in the CCP or the Soviet Union's Politburo were themselves just a new slave owning class by your own definition. Except worse, because they had zero oversight or political pushback.
You just want us all in chains. You do all this, and you call yourself just. This is why people link you to fascists, because despite all the logical inconsistencies you use; you reach the same end result.
Human suffering en masse.
TLDR; killing Fascists and Marxists is always self-defense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@QueenMooSuko You blame the person starting the war itself, fascist. Otherwise you will start defending the Nazis in their invasions of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR.
If the US tomorrow proclaims that Russia crossed a red line with calling the US a satanist country, will you declare that Russia started it? Curious.
At no point did the US "nudge" anything. The US even claimed from the start that if Russia invaded Ukraine, that no US troops would be involved; but that it would help Ukraine in other ways. Putin still claimed that Ukraine joining NATO was his red line, but he still invaded anyway after claiming he wouldn't. Nobody can trust a word he says, and yet you still blame the US for a war the US did everything short of abandon its allies to prevent.
Nobody but Putin and Russia is to blame for this war, just like the US is to blame for Iraq; unless Ukraine literally attacked Russia, nothing justifies this.
"Of course I'm not gonna sit here and demonize Russia because we would've done the same thing if it happened near us."
Literally nobody would excuse this if the US did something similar to Russia. It'd be infinitely worse than Iraq 2003 and the world would rightfully call the US monsters for it. But Russia does it, and all illiberals across the planet try to gaslight the world instead.
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
-
@vedun9439 Bosnian Genocide.
As for Kosovo specifically: "Numerous war crimes were committed by all sides during the Kosovo War, which lasted from early 1998 until 11 June 1999. According to Human Rights Watch, the vast majority of abuses were attributable to the government of Slobodan Milošević, mainly perpetrated by the Serbian police, the Yugoslav army, and Serb paramilitary units. During the war, regime forces killed between 7,000–9,000 Kosovar Albanians,[1] engaged in countless acts of rape,[2] destroyed entire villages, and displaced nearly one million people.[1] The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA or the UÇK) has also been implicated in atrocities, such as kidnappings and summary executions of civilians.[3] Moreover, the NATO bombing campaign has been harshly criticized by human rights organizations and the Serbian government for causing numerous civilian casualties, with estimates ranging from roughly 500[4] to over 2,500.[5]"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saravana21543 Well, duh. OAS is made up of the Americas, and the US is the wealthiest nation in the Americas. Obviously that means there is likely a bias, and I agree; but that doesn't automatically mean that they are lying.
Oh yes, so because Bolivia has awesome natural resources, that means that 100% the US will go out of its way to commit a coup. That's not an an absurd logical fallacy or anything, right? -_-
No, the US did not have such an intention. The US hasn't even done that stuff in the Middle East since 1951 or so. People like you just take any random Anti-US propaganda as fact and then cry unironically when others take Pro-US propaganda as fact. How about you take it all with a grain of salt and double-check your sources, huh? Because newsflash; the US did not steal any resources in its forays into the Middle East in the 21st century. This is easily verifiable, that you have no excuse for your ignorance.
Grow up. Just because Anez is an obvious dictator (which the US did NOT help in any way, btw!) doesn't mean Morales isn't a dictator too, you boot licker.
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
-
@joninator7858 First of all, the US have condemned the TPLF before in Etruria, but TPLF actions have not been so blunt as to massacre entire villages, at least not obviously. What we can say definitively is that Ethiopia has kicked out UN parties from the country, hidden knowledge on the ground from the international community, and has definitely started retaliatory massacres in Tigray -which is specifically what the US has condemned and sanctioned Ethiopia for. Regardless of the "why", that was beyond disgusting of Ethiopia to engage in.
"every Ethiopian knew that the TPLF were brutal and oppressive" Great, but no one else in the world knows this. Including the US. Maybe if Ethiopia allowed international observers to remain, we could have learned of this and condemned it; but that still wouldn't change that Ethiopia MUST BE BETTER; not just "not as bad". And frankly, it seems WORSE in terms of human rights violations. The US cannot be seen backing Ethiopia at this current juncture.
Oh please, the US has been very tight-lipped about everything going on in Ethiopia, including the other massive human rights violations in the region. It took claims of a GENOCIDE occurring to make the US finally take a stand, and you're bitching about the US not condemning TPLF for...taking USAID trucks??? You realize that there was a bunch of other fucked things going on in this war which the US has not condemned, right? Why is that the barometer?
The second the TPLF goes into a different ethnic group's land and starts massacring the population like Ethiopia has to Tigray, the US will condemn it. Until then, the US is gonna keep its mouth shut since any peep from the US is construed as massive support and legitimacy.
The US really doesn't care about who is in power, as long as they aren't committing massive human rights violations in front of the world. It can be a Communist government for all it cares.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joninator7858 "In November 2020, Genocide Watch upgraded its alert status for Ethiopia as a whole to the ninth stage of genocide, extermination, referring to the Gawa Qanqa massacre, casualties of the Tigray War, 2020 Ethiopia bus attack and the Metekel massacre and listing affected groups as the Amhara, Tigrayans, Oromo, Gedeo, Gumuz, Agaw and Qemant.[22] Peace researcher and 2007 founder of the Institute for Peace and Security Studies, Mulugeta Gebrehiwot, stated on 27 January 2021 that the killings of Tigrayans by the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) and Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF) were "literally genocide by decree. Wherever they're moving, whomever they find, they kill him or her, [whether it's] an old man, a child, a nursing women, or anything."[5]
Peace researcher Kjetil Tronvoll stated on 27 February that for the first time in his three decades of studying Horn of Africa conflicts, he considered the possibility that the term genocide might apply to the actions of the EDF in the Tigray War. He listed separate components as widespread and systematic: massacres of civilians based on their identity as Tigrayans; sexual violence as an aspect of a genocidal campaign; deliberate looting of infrastructure and looting and destruction of food resources for inducing starvation; and destruction and looting of cultural heritage to attack cultural identity. Tronvoll suggested that seen together, the pattern of all these separate war crimes and "likely" crimes against humanity could establish genocidal intent by the EDF against Tigrayans in Tigray Region. He stated that the federal Ethiopian authorities could hold part of the responsibility by having "invited and accommodated" the EDF to participate in the Tigray War."
1
-
@theelectricprince8231 "In November 2020, Genocide Watch upgraded its alert status for Ethiopia as a whole to the ninth stage of genocide, extermination, referring to the Gawa Qanqa massacre, casualties of the Tigray War, 2020 Ethiopia bus attack and the Metekel massacre and listing affected groups as the Amhara, Tigrayans, Oromo, Gedeo, Gumuz, Agaw and Qemant.[22] Peace researcher and 2007 founder of the Institute for Peace and Security Studies, Mulugeta Gebrehiwot, stated on 27 January 2021 that the killings of Tigrayans by the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) and Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF) were "literally genocide by decree. Wherever they're moving, whomever they find, they kill him or her, [whether it's] an old man, a child, a nursing women, or anything."[5]
Peace researcher Kjetil Tronvoll stated on 27 February that for the first time in his three decades of studying Horn of Africa conflicts, he considered the possibility that the term genocide might apply to the actions of the EDF in the Tigray War. He listed separate components as widespread and systematic: massacres of civilians based on their identity as Tigrayans; sexual violence as an aspect of a genocidal campaign; deliberate looting of infrastructure and looting and destruction of food resources for inducing starvation; and destruction and looting of cultural heritage to attack cultural identity. Tronvoll suggested that seen together, the pattern of all these separate war crimes and "likely" crimes against humanity could establish genocidal intent by the EDF against Tigrayans in Tigray Region. He stated that the federal Ethiopian authorities could hold part of the responsibility by having "invited and accommodated" the EDF to participate in the Tigray War."
This applies to both of you; this is far too egregious for the US to ignore any longer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zeissiez In what way is the entire West exploiting Africa for decades that other countries, including African ones, aren't? Usually it boils down to "Western countries support X leader" or "Western companies get cheap resources from X country" but then dismisses how such leaders have international support, not just Western, and that any attempt to remove said leader would get cries of "Western imperialism".
In short; there is literally 0 way to NOT "exploit" Africa to people like you. Also, you dismiss any Western help no matter what. It's a literal default. Also, US "oligarchy" is a helluva lot less oligarchic than like 99% of the planet. You're not waking anyone up, you're putting people to sleep with lies.
Edit: Misread your last comment, so ignore my last statement. But still man, everything rises and falls, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing for the best outcome.
1
-
@zeissiez America prints not much more than other big nations, including Russia. It prints to its means; which is to say that it prints money because everyone values it as a method of exchange. That inflation doesn't literally go anywhere, and the petrodollar theory is as braindead as it has been for many decades now. Seriously, why do people like you need a reason as to why the US prints so much money when EVERYONE prints a fuckton of money too? Does Japan have a petroyen? The EU a petroeuro? Maybe China has a petroyuan?
Iran never ever threatened to stop using dollars until relatively recently; long long after the US had sanctioned them. Ditto with Iraq and Russia. Hell, Libya never even threatened such a thing, it's just you making that up to sound smart.
You do realize that Venezuela economically collapsed because it literally depended entirely on oil, right? And then that price of oil fell, thus the entire economy's basis fell? US sanctions on Venezuela's economy didn't occur until LONG after the economy fell; all sanctions prior were against specific members of Vzla's government. I should know, I'm Latin American and have buddies there. But Russia is there stealing oil unironically though, in support of Maduro. But that doesn't really fit your narrative, does it?
Grayzone is literal extreme far-left propaganda, wut? May as well ask me to use Breitbart or RT for how utterly insane the reporting is. Seriously, it does nothing but bash the US and back every insane conspiracy theory in existence as long as its anti-US.
Seriously, just a quick Google search on MediaBias and here we have:
"Overall, we rate The Grayzone Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and consistent one-sided reporting.
"
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
-
@Djaperoni Idk what point you're trying to make here. Kosovo had a referendum, and voted for independence. Serbia didn't accept it, and got bombed for it. It's official declaration was for the world, but de-facto was already independent by 1991.
You realize that Kosovo was a government already before independence, right? So was Croatia, and Bosnia. These governments declared independence, and only govenments can declare independence. Unless the Serbs in these new countries had a government to declare independence, they're not independent. Serbs in these countries lost the referendum, so they either accepted it or lost.
Yeah, these states used to be Mexico, more than a century ago. You know where Serbia was a century ago? Under Ottoman rule. You wanna bring that back too?
Times have changed. What do the people want NOW? Texans, Californians, Floridans, and New Mexicans wanna be American. Kosovars, Croats, and Bosnians DON'T wanna be Yugoslavs. Get used to it, and quit blaming others for your country's fuck ups.
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
-
@alexrogov7186 I can't blame Russia for that, if it pertained to exposing secret classified information. NOT IF IT PERTAINS TO OPPOSING PUTIN'S LEADERSHIP. One is somewhat understandable in protecting state secrets, the other is a despicably totalitarian action which should be condemned.
Oh yeah, the US securing IMF grants for Russia is totally the same as enacting a misinformation campaign on Russian social media which stokes division and fear. The US didn't actively step into Russia's media network to influence anything, but Russia did; so cut the crap. Russia has "favored" certain US candidates all the damn time publicly, and the US has not complained about any interference seriously. And the US has a Russian PAC which represents Russian interests in Congress and the US has not bitched about it. So no, this isn't a 2-way street, Russia has blatantly gone far further than the US ever has in Russia's "elections" and God knows you'd be screeching to the high Heavens if the US did what Russia has done.
You realize that the US also said nothing in regards to Putin's increasing power in Russia UNTIL it started to become a literal dictatorship, right? The US can tolerate human rights violations until they get out of hand or unless the state in question is so important to the US' position that it can't. Yeltsin indeed BTFO'd rebels with a fucking tank, which is crazy, but is hardly the most anti-democratic thing ever. One thing if they were protestors, then you'd have a point, but they were armed rebels. And FYI; the US DID criticize Yeltsin's human rights issues, specifically in Chechnya where Russia DID literally just kill civilians haphazardly. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/18/osce.summit/
West does give a shit, but they have to balance geopolitical concerns. Some Western countries care more, like Canada. And sometimes, even when allied, they criticize human rights records like in Myanmar in criticizing Suu Kyi. And guess what? A certain other populist idiot is blaming the West for tearing her down and leading to the coup -so standing up for human rights even in an ally is a bad thing now, apparently. So even if the West was 100% consistent, you'd likely still find fault with it. I don't have that expectations for Russia.
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
-
@donnerwetter1905 "The infrastructure score is calculated based on the following factors: road connectivity index, quality of roads, railroad density, efficiency of train services, airport connectivity, efficiency of air transport services, linear shipping connectivity index, efficiency of seaport services, electrification rate, electric power transmission and distribution losses, exposure to unsafe drinking water, reliability of water supply.
The World Economic Forum made significant changes to their methodology in the 2018 edition of the report. Therefore, scores from previous years cannot be reliably compared."
You seem to be thinking os "surveys" as in "people's opinions" when this is obviously not the case. But fine, I'll get yet ANOTHER source. Also, your bigotry aside, Germany is a mostly static country in terms of weather and issues with climate while the US is EXTREMELY diverse. US electricity grid going down is far more often caused by weather issues (Texas got it's knocked out due to a snowstorm which almost NEVER happens for example) or other such phenomenoms.
1
-
@donnerwetter1905 "The infrastructure score is calculated based on the following factors: road connectivity index, quality of roads, railroad density, efficiency of train services, airport connectivity, efficiency of air transport services, linear shipping connectivity index, efficiency of seaport services, electrification rate, electric power transmission and distribution losses, exposure to unsafe drinking water, reliability of water supply.
The World Economic Forum made significant changes to their methodology in the 2018 edition of the report. Therefore, scores from previous years cannot be reliably compared."
Are you seriously so full of yourself that you think that this sounds like a survey? "Statista" almost never uses opinion surveys unless it states as such, and "survey" in this case is an inspection via gathering of information from other sources like the World Bank. But German bigotry seems to be acceptable across German society these days, huh? So much so that even if I cited the World Bank itself, which places Germany at 4.37 in Infrastructure and the US at 4.07 in Infrastructure...you'd still try and claim otherwise, right?
Grow up.
Edit: This is a classic European ignorance in your last sentence. The issue is not in natural disasters, it's in the immense diversity of climates the US deals with compared to any compact European state like Germany. Texas has never dealt with a snowstorm, not really, so its infrastructure never accounted for that and got its electrical grid knocked out. That doesn't even mention the fact that a sprawling population with few dense populations means that it costs the US far more to have similar infrastructure to Germany at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soasertsus Psht, as if "the West" needs something so elaborate to get cheap resources. Because African leaders love pillaging their own people, they'll never invest in their own countries to build up a middle class by using the currency garnered by those resources. Selling resources is actually a good way to build up early wealth; but African leaders squander it. And "the West" won't bother helping because firstly - they have literally no reason to. And secondly; even if they did out of a moral obligation, it would get twisted up into imperialism anyway. So basically the West can either accept what it is, or waste money, lives, and resources fixing the issue and still get shit on anyway.
So yeah, it's all on Africans to build themselves up, Lord knows anyone that can give a shit will only face the same suspicion and hatred that, while historically fair, also prevents any action against corrupt leaders. So sorry, but no, us Westerners aren't gonna die to fix your mess.
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
-
@youtubeaccount5153 "By proportion of crimes" is a very faulty way to dismiss this. Put frankly; even if that is true, police shouldn't be killing people more because of crime. That IS a bias, but you're at least partially right that it's more complicated than one might first see.
However, there are other issues that are far more cut and dry. Like blacks being given more prison time for the same crime as whites, for example; that I think is undeniable and clearly a bias that needs correcting. That doesn't get to other issues that blacks as a community face that others don't; yeah, it's nowhere near as bad as other people think, and frankly the US is better for it in talking about it while others ignore their mistreatment of minorities. But we shouldn't dismiss its existence.
Don't be obtuse, man. Democrats or Republicans; it doesn't matter who made the laws or why. What matters is that your fellow Americans get a shorter end of the stick when they should be getting a fair shot like everyone else. That alone, as an American raised on presumably American values, should get your blood pumping. Not necessarily equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity.
US being less racist than other countries doesn't mean we shouldn't work to diminish racism further. Also, to be frank, the US genuinely does have a police brutality issue. No other first world country has so many cops killing people, just generally.
1
-
@youtubeaccount5153 The implication is that Reps don't like minorities, yes. And that's a left-wing bias in media for you. If you want an easy way to debunk that, look up the statistics of Republicans in support of Afghan refugees. It was like 76%, I think, so that should shut some people up.
Still, blacks genuinely do face discrimination still. And it must be addressed. And it should be noted that like not all Republicans are like other Republicans, not all progressives are like other progressives. College-level political figures are uniquely insane in the US, for some reason.
Look, I argue with people in all politics, including against progressives when I think their ideology veers too much into racism against white people. I ain't a hypocrite on this; I just want everyone to be more empathetic to each other instead of labeling each other as enemies to shout down. So try and empathize with the black community that for too long were mistreated, and thus have plenty of reasons to be wary of authority. Improving things is the only way to slowly wean this mindset.
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
-
@technoartfest8708 I ain't answering everything, but I will say that firstly; you did not ask why there was no air defense in Iraq, you just tried to act like Iran was uber strong by hurting US soldiers as a "gotcha!" moment.
Secondly, there was no air defense or really, any decent military infrastructure because the last time the US had stuff there; it got jacked by ISIS when the US left. In short there was no trust remaining; especially with the then growing influence of Iranian proxies like Hezbollah.
Lastly, the "8 years of arms"...what are you even talking about? The US and the West in general didn't even really arm Ukraine. The only thing they got from the West was some NLAWS/Javelins and that was VERY recently. Everything else Ukraine had was what they had before but never utilized; old Soviet equipment. They had no NATO tanks, aircraft, artillery, or small arms -because they were not in NATO. Heck, they only recently got actual NATO artillery and mortars; and both in small numbers. Idk why you're acting like Russia has faced trained Ukrainian troops using modern Western tanks and aircraft and are still winning -but in reality Russia has faced Soviet-equipped Ukrainians with a fraction of their military budget with some Western Javelins/NLAWS. So with context, Russia doesn't look particularly impressive, especially since Iraq actually HAD a well-equipped military with a massive military budget. The aid Ukraine has received amounts to around $10 Billion; and Iraq's military budget likely after 1981 was around the $5 Billion mark for multiple years to maintain their aggressive military procurement and upkeep. And when considering inflation over time, amounts to around $8 Billion in military at the time. To have a decent military you not only need a lot of money, you need to maintain it over time with that high budget, and Ukraine's military was at $5.9 Billion in upkeep and maintenance using NOW obsolete equipment. Iraq's equipment was also obsolete, but considerably less so for the time.
My point being that Iraq was an actual military that engaged in large scale wars and conquests, but was easily slapped down by the US. Russian aid to Iraq would change nothing since the US destroyed a competent military quickly and efficiently while Russia stalled against an incompetent military in Ukraine which allows for constant aid to trickle in in the first place. It was the Ukrainians beating the Russians in Kyiv that allowed for Western aid to even be considered in the first place.
But sure, tell me more about the mighty Russians failing to be a third rate military and trying to deflect that they're ACKTUALLY fighting all of NATO at the same time. We'll just ignore Korea and Vietnam and how the US didn't complain about Soviet and Chinese aid there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VRSVLVS According to the structure of Feudalism, the commoners and peasants should be properly protected as per the social contract -under the Lords whom they work under. And the Knightly code of Chivalry indicates that they MUST protect the innocent and weak.
And we know for a fact how a load of BS that was; because the fine print of how an ideology or structure is SUPPOSED to work is very different to how it works in reality.
Socialism is exactly the same way. You can quote any definition you want, but the fact of the matter is every Socialist attempt to create a nation-state has led to some of the worst dictatorships in human history. And whenever ya'll try it again, you will fail and shrug and say "not real Socialism".
Democracy works, you can equate Socialism to Democracy all you want; but they are in reality OPPOSING ideologies. You can't advocate for democracy while advocating for Socialism, because the concept of Socialism demands the suppression of Democracy to properly obtain the means of production and nothing forced said authority from ever returning it to the people.
As for the USSR and Venezuela, sure there were some Socialists arguing against it, but the VAST MAJORITY of them defended them as examples of the successful revolution. And still do. You are an exception, not the rule; every Socialist I've ever spoken to has only ever defended the USSR and claimed that it was ruined by the CIA. Ditto with Venezuela. Excuse me if I have zero trust in an ideology that spawns such people.
Sorry, but your earnest beliefs are not good enough. Socialism as an ideology had plenty of chances. No more. It's as bad as Fascism in the sheer amount of death and destruction it has wrought as an ideology. Wanna help people? Advocate for Social Democracy ala the Norse countries. Socialism is a dead ideology, and it should stay dead.
1
-
@VRSVLVS You have to realize that by your own logic; you can use this to take away everything people privately own, right? I know Socialists make a distinction between private property and owning, say, a toothbrush -but this logic of "private property is antithetical to democracy" literally goes against this defense. After all, what's the difference between private property and ownership of things like a toothbrush? They're both items obtained by using resources of the planet which can be better decided by democratic assembly, no? You may claim this is a slippery slope fallacy, but I really do not see the difference outside of scope. A Socialist democracy of your thinking can make that argument unironically.
Anyway, democracy functions as a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society; too much rights to the individual can lead to said individual abusing the rights of others. Too much rights to society leads to society abusing the rights of the individual.
First of all; the assumption that taking the private property "for the workers" is intrinsically flawed since you need a strong centralized authority to do so and the will of the people; the latter of which is almost never gonna come since it involves taking their own private property. Promise whatever you want, but not just the richest capitalists of a country are gonna be against that. Idk where you get this absurd idea that private property has been abolished for everyone; but people who live in homes are owning private property. People who are renting own that private property even if its through a constant rate, people who own a small restaurant own private property. Private property is not just the sprawling mansions or the giant food chains -it's everything big and small that has land.
"This process is to be overseen and organised by the working class (i.e. the people)" And how exactly is that process supposed to be overseen? First of all, for it to be overseen by the "working class" that implies that there is one vision or group amongst that class to organize it. You can't do something like that with millions of voices crying out at once; you need a centralized committee ostensibly speaking on behalf of such a group -and that committee inevitably becomes the new Politburo that has all the power since their jackbooted thugs has to force people to surrender such property if they defend against it.
I'll assume that you're genuine, and all I'll say is that you're incredibly naive about the nature of power. Power has always been a siren call for abuse; and you can say it'll be "democratically" done, but any group that has so much power as to literally take private property away from everyone is a group that has near-dictatorial levels of power. And the assumption that the "working class" will be united at all is hilarious considering the history of Socialist revolutions.
Whether its the Spanish Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution, Mao's takeover of China, the rise of the Khmer Rouge; always the "workers' representatives" turn on each other as their vision of what true Socialism crashes against each other and then they purge people like you as "anti-revolutionary". Literally every time. Forcing people like me to now contend with a dictatorial group with all of the power with no way to stop them.
I'm sure in your head that's not gonna happen, but that's essentially what HAS happened every time these things occur. The difference between reality and ideology is stark.
As for your comparison of death count from capitalism, please be aware that I am not counting deaths under Socialist regimes from such things like imperialist conquest or deaths from lack of resources unless its specifically done in the name of said ideology. Capitalism as an economic system exists but not everything done by a country that is capitalist is done for capitalist beliefs; Socialism and Fascism are a bit different but they get the same treatment from me. Regardless of ideologies, countries with a lot of power tend to flex their power beyond their borders. You can count something like the US' coups for economic imperialist access to markets, as that was unique under capitalism -but you can't consider say the European partition of Africa was based purely on capitalism since such empire building functioned as terribly independently from capitalism. Fascism and Communism meanwhile tends to encompass far more of daily life due to them encompassing more of society while hiding the issues within due to a lack of freedom of the press. There's way more to this, but suffice it to say its far more problematic to talk about the deaths CAUSED by capitalism compared to the deaths CAUSED by ideologies that are far more encompassing of a country's actions. A capitalist country can give money for free despite the ostensibly selfish nature of the ideology, ala social services to its poorest citizens. Fascists and Socialists tend to do everything based on their ideology.
Look, stranger. Yes, you can't exactly treat the sayings of a Roman Catholic on what "true Christianity" is like and then dismiss the Ethiopian Church. But ideologies are things that people use to frame the world around them; a religion is based on faith alone and ideologies simply cannot and should not be treated that way. They affect too many lives and have too many consequences if we get it wrong. You can roll with whatever religions claim unless they start imposing it onto society, but ideologies impact society since they're MEANT to be used as frameworks for how society should function. So your comparison only works if we treat Socialism as a religion; as something that you can claim but we should NOT ever be used as the framework for society. And since that's not the case, we have no choice but to look at what it has been used for by those who call themselves "Socialist" and reflect whether that's what we want to use.
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
-
@LancesArmorStriking Bruh, there are already missiles in Kaliningrad. It's true most EU states would object, but they wouldn't threaten an invasion, would they? And that's the important context here; there is ZERO fear of a Western invasion of Russia, meanwhile there are very REAL fears of Russian invasions of neighbors.
And no, the Europeans would not really expect Russia to listen to them. Russia has literally never listened to them, why would they start now? Russia only seems to listen to strength. Germany disagreed and believed Russia could listen to economic interdependence...but that ship has sailed.
Europe literally has no legal reason to say anything against Russia placing nukes in Kaliningrad. It can literally and figuratively do nothing about it. But it can complain, or throw sanctions, or ban them from international orgs. That's their right, especially if Russia's actions make it harder to align with them. Which is kinda the point; yes ultimately nations can do whatever they want to an extent, but international relations dictates that certain actions are considered "unwise" for long-term stability.
So Russia, say, placing nukes in Venezuela could invite a response for the US to place nukes in Georgia, Japan, South Korea, Poland, and Estonia for example. It's a tit for tat that international law really has no answer for since its technically not violating the sovereignty of anyone assuming everyone agreed to it. Just like there was a reason why the US didn't just attack the USSR when Soviet pilots shot down US pilots in Korea, there is a reason why Russia has not placed more nukes in Kaliningrad. The unofficial response can be not worth the price for the action.
Geopolitics is not the be all, end all. Geopolitics presume that Poland would be better served forming its own bloc in Eastern Europe, and that aligning with Russia actually be an option to put both Russia and Western Europe against each other for their own benefit. However, historical animosities and cultural background makes that option impossible for the foreseeable future. This is the problem with a purely geopolitical lens; it removes context for a lot of very human aspects.
That being said, I'm not sure what in particular you're criticizing about my viewpoint here. So please clarify if you want a more concise response in regards to my "Individualist" approach.
1
-
1
-
@keoniramo7099 Jake Tran is generally the worst place you can go to for actual facts; it's just salacious rumor mongering for the most part with a few sprinkles of truth. ColdFusion is infinitely better unlike Jake Tran who always has massive leaps of logic.
In general corporations will always seek more, it's kinda what they're supposed to do, but acting like the US invaded Iraq for oil has always been an easily debunkable braindead theory. The US Government does not need corporations to convince it to literally further its own enlightened self-interest to protect an area from Russian imperialism either.
Ultimately, the MASSIVE problem here is that everyone in this damned channel can't help but try and be edgy teens and play the "everyone sucks" angle. If people lived in the 1940's ya'll would be crying that the US was just fighting the Nazis because corporations pushed it to do so. At a certain point it looks a lot less like trying to be fair, and more like an attempt to downplay the really screwed up actions of another state.
For example; Jake Tran released a video crying about "Stop pretending like you care about Ukraine" which while is good for those that never heard about the Georgian War -is also completely braindead in its assumptions. Like acting like the West was 100% convinced that Georgia was wronged and thus maliciously ignored it for their own interests; when the reality was that Russia played the same game its playing now by obfuscating the situation to make it seem like they were in the right. In short, Jake Trans mentions situations, and ignores ALL CONTEXT of the situation to make a point for which his audience eats it up without thinking or even checking on the situation.
Wanna complain about US actions in going into Iraq int he first place? Feel free, but when Jake Tran can't help but always "b-b-b-ut the WEEEEEEST THOOOOO" then you're already long gone as an actual source. Just like you can't cry about Russia when the US does something bad, you can't cry about the US when Russia does something bad. Is this simple concept so hard for "eNliGhteNeD cEnTriSts" to understand?
I also love how you cry that the US is benefitting from war when the US explicitly tried to stop this war. No doubt some "centrists" will come along and act like the US throwing Ukraine under the bus would have unironically stopped this war, and thus the US instigated it; but that says more about them then me.
Final fun fact; there is ALWAYS war going on, so making a new war does little but cost the US time and money, let alone benefit it. It requires a massive war which has nothing to do with the US for the US to explicitly benefit -like WW2 prior to US involvement.
Welp, that's all I had to say on the subject. Sorry about the bunch of stuff I wrote, but its kinda hard to debunk small sentences of BS without laying out the foundation, ya know?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daviddanielng Roads to where? Airports for whom? Bridges connecting what? Have you ever once wondered whether these new infrastructure projects actually HELPED the people? To put this into perspective, Africa in general didn't have increased growth after Chinese loans started. The period from 2000 to now, there wasn't any significant changes, at least nothing that points to China's loans.
Indeed, Chinese build infrastructure, but the West generally doesn't do this because you'd need to either bring your own people and companies to build it (what China does) which does NOTHING for the local economy. It destroys the purpose of investment; that the local economy, people, and governments get experience doing things themselves so as to build MORE LATER. Its supposed to be a feedback loop, and instead someone else is doing FOR YOU to such an extent that the money literally is given back to the loaner's economy while the loaned country STILL OWES THE LOANER. This is literally how European colonizers manages to take swaths of Africa by taking advantage of the corrupt African leaders prior to the Scramble.
"West created corruption in African policies" That's the most absurd logic I have ever heard. It's pathetic, actually.
China loans vary wildly. Highest I've heard it go is as high as 17% interest. Lowest I've heard is 2.7%. IMF sometimes doesn't charge interest rates or keeps it low at 1.5%. The point being that institutions MEANT to be used in emergencies are not comparable to debt from a government entity in China. General private debt tends to be between 2-5%, and this private debt is dominated by the West; but its also not promising literal construction and infrastructure work, nor are they backed by the government power of another country. Worse yet, there have been more than a few times that infrastructure projects led to collateral in those same projects, such as the lease of the Sri Lankan port for 99 years. Or is that "no strings attached"?
Hey man, when a deal sounds too good to be true, 100% it is too good to be true.
1
-
@daviddanielng People like you act like listening to the propaganda of someone else equates to "not listening to the MSM!" or some crap. In reality; taking anything at face value is a fool's errand, but have some common sense here. I never once claimed that Chinese debts caused the Sri Lankan crisis, nor have I implied that Chinese debts caused any other crisis.
I only have said that Chinese debt policies are VERY immoral, and people like you act like I've insulted your mom and get all defensive. If you're THAT defensive, then take your own advice and stop listening to the propaganda that promotes that viewpoint fi you can't stand having it questioned.
Heck, you're the one that said that the West is "selfish", which implies that the Chinese are not; so I have literally only responded to YOUR logic.
All I see is a vague hope born out of some weird ass envy. Why do you need to build something better than the Europeans? Build something to improve your country, not to show off; and its this mentality that makes China's loans so predatory; its like giving loans to people who easily buy into pyramid schemes; at a certain point it looks less like trying to improve your lot in life and more like trying to get back that the haters. And this mentality, more than anything else, is why Africa stagnates in many areas.
For the record, I ain't even White. I'm Afro Hispanic, and I find your comments more depressing than anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@madselmvig1457 It really doesn't matter what Bush said, what matters is if NATO was organizing it; which they were not. That's why France and Germany were not in Iraq, smart one. I'm not explaining this to you again.
I don't even think I've met a European who doesn't think that the US won't come running if they were attacked; and the reason most US troops are in Germany is because it acts as a base of quick deployment. Also, adding more troops in Eastern Europe will draw criticism of "raising tension", which btw would cause certain Europeans such as yourself to complain that the US was intentionally stoking tensions for our own benefit. Basically, we can't win with you people, so why do we even bother?
Psht, even with Trump, nobody actually believed the US was not gonna honor NATO. For God's sakes, he expanded the US presence in Poland, and tried ot move US troops from Germany to there...and German politicians bitched and moaned about it! Likely because they knew damn well that US troops was a big economic boon. So yeah, again, we can't win.
US didn't expect Afghanistan to fall, and certain US allies wanted the US to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. "Asking US allies" was bound to just kill the effort to leave.
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
-
@donaldlineker6140 This is BS, China has intervened in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, South Korea, the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, Tibet, and more countries. China's neighbors seek support against Chinese imperialism, and China doesn't have the power to deploy so far away from its borders.
And even if it did, it would show itself to be a hypocrite if it deployed in the Gulf of Mexico since...all countries there have already agreed on how to divide the seas there. They're cooperating peacefully, unlike China and its neighbors.
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
-
@ Canada has not ceased sending energy to the US, genius. Do me a favor and actually read up on the subject. And nobody here is defending 45, I very much dislike the man. But some of your claims are as nutty as the Trumpists. For example, the GDP of the US only dropped due to Covid, not because of anything any President specifically has done.
Canada's trade also has not stopped, so idk why you think trade has been dropped to .01% of its normal flow, because that would lead to Canada's complete fallout, since Canada's economy is almost entirely based on the US economy to begin with. And the US will not suddenly stop having access to such a small thing like corn syrup when it can trade from it elsewhere, US farmers will be forced to pay more for sure, but the US itself will barely feel it.
What makes this all bad is that Canada is who will suffer, not the US. The US will barely feel any of this, and it will lead to unnecessary bad feelings. I know Canadians want to think that they are this uber power that can hurt the US; but that is simply not the case.
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
-
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
-
@barseraydn4300 There are no documents about the US supporting a coup in Bolivia, though. The OAS called the election illegal, which it was, and also said that the couped government was illegal.
"Businessman joked about it" Oh, and these businessmen are representatives of the US Government now?
"OAS is a puppet" Jesus Christ, wtf dude.
US nor OAS can force anything, genius. They can pressure, but that's about it. And pressuring a country to actually pay back their IMF debts so they don't default and crash their country into the dirt is very much decent policy. Do you have any idea the cost of default? It BREAKS nations entirely.
US supported every right-wing group in Latin America...in the Cold War, yes. US hardly cares these days. Thus far you've only asserted propaganda, not any proof behind it; nor have I seen any from people asserting it elsewhere. It's always just "he said so, thus its true" or "US did it before several decades ago, thus its true".
Most human beings really don't really agree with you. They see a world power, sure, not really an imperialist one though. Otherwise they wouldn't be allied to the US.
1
-
@barseraydn4300 It's influencing, not forcing. World powers are not all the same; if the US was as you say, it would have used tanks to kill anti-US protestors in Europe throughout this past near-century when they disagreed on US policies. The US and USSR has similarities, sure, but the government systems and culture leads to different methods of influence and power. Proven when the Cold War ended, the first thing the US did was weaken its military spending and support the collapse of every right-wing dictator across Latin America.
US is a country and government, dude. It's policies shift. NSA doesn't actually spy on people either, it creates loopholes in programs of which it has the ability to study what people have been doing, but it requires a warrant in order to actively use any information it gathers from such processes. It can be considered spying if you stretch the meaning, if you want; but it's more complicated than implied.
Geez man, do you want me to go through everything wrong with the Bolivian election for Evo Morales? I can, but it's quite the process. Plus, to be frank, I don't remember it from memory; I just recall that he packed the courts somehow and may have used the government to restrict who ran against him, something like that. Polling irregularities and fraud too. Also something about a court appeal to run again beyond his term. Usual dictator stuff. Is Putin not a dictator in your eyes as well? Because that's pretty much the same stuff he does.
"Entire Washington is looking their mouth" Everything after this is just your own propaganda, my guy. Having money is the same as having power in society, but there are still severe restrictions on how money can influence politics not just in the US, but across most major democracies. You seem to be referring to lobbying, but you should know that the US actually has more lobbying restrictions than even some Nordic countries. Definitely more than Germany. People just see "lobbying" and just assume its rich dudes making politicians do things for money. Read up on it, start with lobbying laws across the world, I ain't gonna go through the gambit for ya.
1
-
@barseraydn4300 This is the only time I'm going to be doing homework for you, since you seem incapable of using a simple Google search.
In 1967 the US' spending on military was about 9.4% of its GDP. Massive. After that it steadily dropped to as log as 4.95% of its GDP in 1979, likely due to the ongoing detente treaties. It started to rise again as high as 6.9% in 1982 for a short but, but slowly started to fall again to 5.6% in 1990. Now it should be noted that the time I had been talking about has been ups and downs, but the TYPICAL US spending on military has almost always been quite high. Outside of 1978 and 1979, the US has maintained at least above 5% of its GDP on military. However, Post-1990, the US has consistently maintained it lower than that, falling as low as 3.11% in 2000. After that was the War on Terror, and the conflicts in the Middle East, etc, etc. But even then, the highest it came again was at 2010 at 4.92%, before falling again to 3.4%~ in 2019. Heard it may rise again.
My point with these numbers? The US most assuredly allowed its military to have far less money post-Cold War when talking about purchasing power. That isn't to say the US was perfectly peaceful, but US interventions dropped markedly; likely as an aftereffect of the US' "End of History" beliefs pre 9/11.
I can talk about the other stuff you talked about and find sources to dissuade you, but Jesus Christ, you're already far gone as it is. I ain't even saying that "all leftists are evil and wrong" or some crap that rightoids like to believe. But for leftists like you, who seem to have a penchant for believing every conspiracy against the US because you WANT to, you're kinda ridiculous. It'd be one thing if you had actual proof behind it, but because a leftist dictator says "US did this", you automatically believe it.
It's good to not take the US at its word at everything, but how about you spare even a fraction of that doubt on other parties that maybe, JUST MAYBE, have as much reason to lie to your face, hm?
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
-
@ArawnOfAnnwn I never said I don't have bias. I do. But I try to keep a lid on it, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. My opinion has been shifted before. That being said, do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "genocide" in the UN. It isn't just about deaths.
The deaths of wars means a lot. But that doesn't mean war shouldn't happen. I'm pragmatic, if it takes 1 million Americans to die to end a regime that has killed billions, I wouldn't mind. If the US kills 100,000 people but also saves 1 million lives, then the US is still on the right track but should be doing better. I apply that to every nation, not just the US.
Okay, so we're sticking with the 2000's then? I was always using the contemporary time period since, you know, the countries are still relatively led by similar leadership. The CCP still rules China, the US government still has a similar mindset as it did Post-WW2. If anything, it's strange that you'd specifically only mention the last...what, 20 years? Especially when you bring up overthrowing democracies which really was like half a century ago. I was just trying to keep a standard here. But ignoring everything pre-2000 seems to me to be a copout. The people who lived in the 1950's and 1960's are still around, so that's not exactly ancient history.
The US' Iraq War, in that the active conflict between the US and Iraq's governments, ended within months. But the Iraq War consists of the actual conflict and the resulting occupation and reconstruction of the country of Iraq where instability inevitably occurs. This is a uniquely American way of looking at things since in China's conflicts, it does not at all consider the deaths caused because of China's actions. For example, China's war with Vietnam was in defense and direct support of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge -and that support was critical to maintain the Khmer Rouge at all. So its not hard to pin the 2 million deaths on China in that instance, for example; almost exclusively civilians too.
My point being that you don't need to fight a conflict far away from home to cause immense human suffering. As for the US being trigger-happy, it's a little difficult to take that seriously when you omit that the USSR's conflict with the US was hardly the standard. The Cold War was fiercely fought and if the US didn't fight, it would've lost and the world would have been subjugated by Marxist ideology. Maybe it would've recovered in time, but I consider that to be a relatively good thing much like the fall of the Nazi Party. As for the modern era, you're pretty ignorant if you think the US is so trigger-happy. The US' conflicts occur far from home to be sure, but it occurs close to US allies whom it has made throughout the past century.
And a lot of it Post-Cold War were hardly unjustified. Yugoslavia was committing genocide, and the US stepped in after many years of negotiation between the sides. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and it led to a US response to kick Iraq out. The latest rounds of wars were in direct response to 9/11 which was orchestrated by Al Qaeda which was protected by the Taliban -and the US' War on Terror occurred specifically due to a fear that a small group could gain access to nuclear or chemical weapons and attack the US despite being relatively safe from a literal invasion from other countries. In short, the US is not even trigger-happy, it's just reacting to external pressure like it always has as well as honoring its many alliance systems. India has always been isolated with only really needing Russia, so it has never dealt with such responsibilities, and China too in its own way has been isolated as well.
The only other nations that have the ability to act abroad and aren't limited by Constitutional limitations (think Japan) have in fact intervened abroad for their geopolitical interests. So no, the US is not even unique in this. I know you have this utterly simplistic view of things, but you need to get a better perspective of how the world works.
Okay, you obviously don't know how to use the word "terrorist". A terrorist is not some random racist nutjob shooting up a synagogue. A terrorist is someone who is a part of a political fringe that uses violence to push forward an agenda. So someone doing a mass killing for shits and giggles isn't a "terrorist", regardless of their skin tone. And the white people you mentioned almost uniformly did it due to mental illness or due to racist/sexist beliefs; but they didn't try to advance any political ideology. Meanwhile, terrorists bombings inspired by groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS specifically do so with a political motivation to do something like "stop supporting Israel" or "leave Saudi Arabia" or "accept extremist Islam" etc, etc. And don't try to co-opt this by saying "colored people". Blacks almost never get called terrorists by US government sources; the only group that has had that label thrown at them are Middle Easterners and the occasional European. Blacks and Hispanics and East Asians dodge it almost entirely.
Your point of labels is stupid, I'm sorry. But the entire point is a work of mind twisting. Like, you may as well argue that its "labelling" if people concern themselves over China's invasion of India's territory because "some people died, but more people die by Indian hands within the country all the time!". My point being that yeah, "people being imprisoned" is bad, but the specifics in why, how, and for what reason is what MAKES it so terrible. So no, there is literally no comparison between US prison systems and the genocide to the Uyghurs. Like, imagine if the US let go of its entire prison system today, and then imprisoned all of its Muslims for "re-education"; that's likely be far smaller than the current population, but it'd also be targeted and genocidal. One is clearly infinitely worse than the other, but you're so damn bigoted that you can't recognize it, sheesh. How hard is it to NOT want to be targeted for re-education???
Okay? Nothing of what you said disproves what I said about the US' aid helping saves billions of lives though. And nothing you provided points to US loans ruining nations either. In fact, almost all of the nations that received US aid (NOT aid from IMF, which like I told you, is an emergency fund, NOT meant to help investment!) have been doing well for themselves. And I already agreed with you that relative to GDP size, the US isn't the biggest; I already explained to you that more lives saves is better than less in absolute terms in this case, and while that speaks better for the likes of Sweden for trying harder, that doesn't diminish the US saving lives.
I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that a website advocating for something automatically makes it untrustworthy? Does globalcitizen.org have a literal vested interest in keeping US Aid going, or is it just their opinion that it's good for the world so they wish to maintain it? Because nothing I saw indicated that they rely on US foreign aid at all; and if they're approaching this opinion from a moral place, then them being bias, while to be wary of, doesn't mean that they're wrong either. If you had evidence pointing against them, then I'd understand, but you don't, so it's obvious you just don't want to believe them anyway. So instead, how about I provide more links backing my beliefs! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-global-progress/international-aid-saves-700-million-lives-but-gains-at-risk-report-idUSKCN1MO0W9
^ This one is for the past 25 years alone!
https://www.care.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/US-Foreign-Assistance-Issue-Brief-2019-SCREEN.pdf
^A brief from CARE about the ill effects of lower US foreign assistance
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-foreign-aid/
^A Brookings.edu study on Foreign Aid, and they're usually pretty good
So yeah, how about you provide citation that disproves my notion? Because multiple sources agree with me, and it's not like they're paid for by the US government to have this opinion. :I
Well, if the US in the last 25 years alone saved 700 million lives, then yes, that completely overshadows pretty much every US war in its entire existence. And that's not comparing the grand total of over 2 billion, I believe. You keep trying to "gotcha!" me, but it really isn't working. Might wanna work on that hate boner though, you're making a lot of assumptions about me that is more telling of yourself than anything else. 😅
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
-
@johnm7267 1) Are you crazy??? So because the SCS has the name "China" in it its theirs??? So does that mean India gets to claim the Indian Sea? International law has set most of the SCS as international zones for trade and commerce; and while there have been claims disputing that, only one state in the region has literally placed militarized islands there and harassed weaker nations to accept their claims.
2) I wouldn't care about Chinese weapons near the US, unless China has clearly stated to want to hurt the US. Nobody cares about US weapons near their country unless they themselves have ill intent to begin with. The US bases are there at the permission of the local governments, and US allies have pushed the US to help them with China's aggressive actions in regards to their claims. More to the point; China has NEVER had an issue with US bases post-1970's and has only recently started crying about it in 2010's. Obviously so that the CCP can justify to its people why they're trying to steal territory.
3) I never once claimed that the US started having issues with China because of human rights; I said it was because of Chinese aggressive actions to US allies in the region. But human rights abuses doesn't help, or do you think the American public likes Saudi Arabia much despite the US being ostensibly allied with it?
4) China has also been at war for almost all of its history and has been for 99% of that history been an imperialist power that has bullied everyone in its region, but I'm not exactly talking about the past. I don't care about China's past, I'm talking about now. And NOW, China is bullying US allies, and the US cannot and will not stand for it. Period. End of story.
5) I dare and will continue to shame Chinese for it. Remember the past, I'm all for that, but this goes beyond that into a self-aggrandized propaganda meant to encourage a populace to war. It's war preparation hyping up ultra-nationalism, and its shameful. Should the Vietnamese hate China for all eternity because of the atrocities that have been inflicted on them by that people for thousands of years? Should the Koreans hold China responsible for economic exploitation via the tribute system for so many centuries? Should the Japanese consider their actions to be just fine because the Chinese have also economically exploited the Japanese for so many centuries via said tribute system? The answer is that its all stupid; it's stupid nationalist propaganda used to justify imperialist acts today. We need to be better and beyond that. So yes, shame on the CCP and China for using past atrocities as a way to disguise their own imperialism.
6) The US has China as its largest trading partner. Poland had Germany as its largest trading partner even days prior to the Nazi invasion of Poland. The UK was the US' largest trading partner prior to the War of 1812, and would remain so through British North America even though multiple wars almost started between them. Trade does not equate to an alliance or agreement with said nation. Also, again, US actions elsewhere really doesn't matter in this instance; we are talking about China's imperialist actions in the SCS, which you have continuously denied and have thus proven you are backing dictator propaganda rather than being fair. Why is China correct while everyone else in the region is wrong? Huh?
7) Weird tirade on the US and Americans but sure, okay. I really don't care what you think about my people. Your opinion kinda just falls in line with CCP propaganda, so it means nothing. Some weird historical revisionism in it though, or are you ignoring how the US was isolationist at the time period while its President FDR wanted to enter the war? A lot of historical stuff you're kinda ignoring to make your point, but you do you.
8) Funny how you are talking about OECD and using its education rankings as a measure of the best educational systems in the world. If I recall, OECD specifically looks at the hard sciences; like math, right? Well, last I checked, education is not just that. Its true the US doesn't do as well as it should in the hard sciences, but overall, according to every education world ranking I've ever seen, the US overall is usually in the top 10 at least. Some like Best Countries for Education has the US at #1. Still need to improve, I'll be the first to admit, but its hardly a terrible thing. Basically, if you're Chinese, you have better mathematical skills, but we think far more laterally with critical thinking skills. Take from that what you will.
9) I mean, you have done nothing but talked crap about the US and have acted like the SCS is rightful Chinese territory by citing the literal NAME as if that means anything while constantly deflecting back to the US when that wasn't even a part of the discussion...so I'd say you were completely biased and utterly hypocritical, actually. You unironically think that everyone in the South China Sea is wrong, but China is right. While everyone near Russia is wrong, and Russia is right. Shame on you.
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
-
@ЭЮЯ-о3к 1) Except NATO forces are not at Russia's borders; they're within member states borders and nowhere at the edge of Russia's borders and has been the case since 2016. So this logic makes no damn sense.
2) To this day there is zero actual proof of any "invasion" from any Western power to Ukraine; and all of the Euromaiden is legal by every metric you can use. The Russian-backed President literally shot at protestors and the Ukrainian Parliament had the legal right to dismiss him if they had enough votes. It literally, by definition, can't be a coup.
3) Russian troops have already been noted to literally be in Ukrainian soil in the midst of the "civil war", instigating conflict and literally invaded Crimea and started an illegal referendum while denying any international observers entry. It's by every metric ILLEGAL. You don't have a damned election with armed soldiers everywhere.
4) LOL. Your "70 observers" are jokes. They're all from Russian-backed propaganda groups and ZERO of them are from actual states or from internationally-trusted groups like the UN, or the OSCE, or other human rights groups. Kremlin propaganda screeches about "70 observers" but this is what they're made of; "Russian-controlled media and referendum organizers said that from nearly 70[citation needed] to 135[citation needed] international observers monitored the referendum without reporting any violations,[citation needed] but the objectivity of these has been questioned, because many of them had ties to far-right extremist groups.[112][113][114] According to reports by the state media, observers to the 2014 Crimean referendum included members of the European Union's parliament, as well as MPs from various European nations, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Poland,[citation needed] and that observers quoted regarding the conditions of the referendum corroborated claims of the referendum having adhered to international standards, with no irregularities or breaches of democracy.[citation needed]
According to Yale historian Timothy Snyder, the Russian government invited individuals belonging to European far-right, anti-semitic and neo-Nazi parties to serve as observers.[115] At least some of the international observers were managed and financed by the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE),[116][117] a far-right, NGO international election-monitoring organization.[118]
Shaun Walker from The Guardian reported that during a press conference on the eve of the referendum, some of the aforementioned observers "went on political rants against U.S. hegemony in the world", describing the press conference as "rather bizarre".[e]"
5) Mateusz Piskorski is not from a trusted international group and is a "Eurasianist" that has been arrested for taking money from Russia and for being essentially an acting Russian agent. It's like asking a Russian Pro-British dude to lead referendums after the US steals away Siberia after denying the UN entry to watch. It's ILLEGAL.
6) Name one time a mainstream US or EU news group has "planned" nuclear strikes on Russia. I can easily do that for Russia; I just type it and I can find several links. Can you?
7) "Russophobia" For Russian is in reality just "they won't let us re-conquer our old territories back". Meanwhile, propaganda against countries like the US has them screeching about fantasizing nuking them to "free the world of the Pindos". I've literally watched your fucked media, so don't deny it. Cry me a river about Russophobia when Russian permits WAY MORE fantasies of genocide and destruction of the West.
8) I've literally crapped on all your points since they're so easy to counter since they're not based on reality, but are based on Kremlin propaganda. Actually look up trusted sources instead of GOVERNMENT-BACKED MEDIA, genius. Imagine if Americans only just got information from VOA, that's you right now, that's how brainwashed you are.
1
-
@dahlbelzalan5892 What exactly are Intel planes compared to jets armed with missiles and weaponry constantly invading Sweden, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine? The US barely complains when Russia sends Intel planes to its borders, but yet here you are, crying about it?
There are few warships in the Black Sea, and those warships are in support of NATO allies. They're nowhere large enough to threaten Russia, only beat back any attempt of Russian aggression. Russia has sent warships near US waters too, and the US makes note of it but doesn't care. So what's the issue here? Both sides do it, but only Russia proclaims that it's threatened.
Ukrainian government has never been neo-nazi or fascist. In fact, by human rights standards, it's a better state than Russia is. By your logic, Russia is "more neo-nazi" than Ukraine is.
I don't give a shit about Crimea's history. I know it, but it literally doesn't matter; because SEVERAL countries owned Crimea at several points in history. The GREEKS had it longer than Russia ever has had it, but you're not arguing for THEM are you????
Yes, it's literally illegal because ARMED TROOPS FORCED a referendum and FORCED the population to vote their way. Which is why Russian disallowed the UN or any other international-rights group to inspect the referendum in the first place Only Kremlin-backed sources were allowed to come, including Neo-Nazis and Fascists btw.
So yes, the Crimean Referendum was illegal by EVERY metric of democracy, and Russia is now a pariah to the Free World. And will stay that way as it acts out. Obviously the region needs MORE US troops if Russia doesn't shape up soon.
1
-
@ЭЮЯ-о3к You do realize that when I say "troops at the border", I mean literally AT the border, right? No, sorry, but there aren't troops literally AT Russia's borders. All NATO troops are rather deep inland of their host countries. The only one even marginally close is the one in Orzysz; and that's a fraction of the total force and a fraction of a fraction of Russia's forces always at Poland's border.
There is literally zero proof that anyone "organized" Euromaiden. You just say so because the Kremlin says so, with zero backing from any trusted international source. You are literally trusting GOVERNMENT-BACKED PROPAGANDA over the international community at large. Don't claim someone else is filled with propaganda when you do this.
Ah lookie here, you showed your fascist colors by advocating for shooting protestors. How nice.
The US never spent $5 Billion on Euromaiden, you propagandist. It spent $5 Billion on supporting democratic openness in Ukraine as well as democratic institutions. It's literally just US Aid. Nuland said as such in 2013; "Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations," she said. "We have invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine."
Dude, there have been literally a boatload of evidence that there were literal Russian troops in Ukraine here on YouTube. Vice News covered it extensively, and while they're biased; their information in this case is very solid.
And dude, Putin already ADMITTED that there were Russian troops in Ukraine. Specifically in Crimea; the unmarked troops were literal Russian forces. Who do you think you're fooling? xD
The people sent were not representatives of the countries, genius. They were paid Kremlin Neo-Nazis. It's like inviting Noam Chomsky from the US to watch the proceedings and saying "71 observers from 24 countries".
I literally just looked it up; both the UN and OSCE noted that there were SEVERE human rights violations in Crimea. "ODIHR and HCNM report identifies widespread human rights violations, discrimination and legal irregularities in Crimea"
"UN report details grave human rights violations in Russian-occupied Crimea"
Yeah, I'm done. You live in an alternate reality where the US instigated war and the UN and OSCE claim that there were no human rights violations in Crimea. Newsflash; almost nobody in the international community recognizes Crimea as Russia's. You're ALONE because of your fucked actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@_Meng_Lan Leon Trotsky, Rose Luxembourg, and the usual famous suspects. Antifa is a black bloc; they hide themselves, how the hell is someone supposed to name a person within it? Hell, why does that even matter?
I'm a soldier. 42nd ID. I can and have met with Antifa idiots, and I'm not impressed. They're a bunch of virgin losers who hide behind masks and threaten to scare people whose political ideologies differ from them. If they were ONLY targeting Nazi people, then I'd at least somewhat understand, though I'd still disapprove of ANY political violence. But they take it to that next level.
Let me ask you something; is McCarthyism a good idea? Is it a good idea to have a label just be applied to someone, whether they're actually that label or not, and then strip them of civil rights because some idiot hiding behind a mask called them a "Nazi"? If you can understand why McCarthyism is a bad thing, then you can understand why Antifa is an evil to democratic practices. All groups that advocate for political violence are an evil. And the US military can and will crush them all if it comes down to it. I doubt it'll ever come to that, but I'm more than willing to kill authoritarians to preserve freedom for my children and your own.
"I dislike what you have to say, but I'll fight for your right to say it" as it were.
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
-
@igaTrinit Bruh, idk how the hell you can believe Russia didn't act imperialistic. It has been, this is literally nothing new; it has used the same excuse of "defending oppressed minorities" when there is zero proof of it that did NOT come from Kremlin propaganda.
Also, no you're not for "equal treatment" otherwise you'd be all for Russia getting the shaft for its previous imperialist wars. This is the first time Russia is getting pushback at all despite this being arguably the 5th imperialist war it has started since 1991. And this pushback is from nation-states threatened by Russia, not from a united international community, so that logic doesn't even make sense.
What was the belief that Russia would act as imperialist as it has literally always acted? You mean besides defending Soviet imperialism in their politics and school curriculum and constantly invading the air space of neighboring nation-states? Why are you acting like the USSR and Russia are completely different entities? The Soviet Union inherited the Russian Empire's ambitions for imperialism, and so has the Russian Federation inherited the USSR's. That means its up to the imperialist power to win the trust of its neighbors to NOT invade them in the future.
It has failed in this respect in every fashion possible.
Indeed the US has troops in multiple NATO states. Often as a demand by the local governments so that the US would have no choice but to step in; it's a guarantee of blood. And there's no question that the US holds massive influence in NATO, but controlling is something else entirely; as you can see with Turkey today, and multiple instances throughout these past decades, it isn't like the US can do anything when nation-states act on their own. So if Germany felt strongly to stop "NATO expansion", it could have stopped Poland from joining.
As for Yeltsin's imperialist ambitions, here's the quote from icds.ee, you can't give links in YouTube outside of YouTube: "I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”
Clinton suggested that the Europeans would not like this very much. Yeltsin, on the other hand, said:
I am a European. I live in Moscow, Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. … Bill, I’m serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afghanistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. … Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe."
So I misread that and assumed he was talking about splitting Europe between the US and Russia. This is even worse.
Hey man, you're literally shilling for Russian imperialism, what else do I call you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fryertuck6496 Uh-huh, and "maneuvering" repeatedly to the point that you lose almost all progress since April is all a part of the plan, huh?
There was and is no NATO army in Ukraine to begin with. And Ukraine mobilized a lot of men, but that's not the same as deploying all that men. You'd know that, but you've deluded yourself otherwise.
From the BBC:
"The death toll, which was published by the BBC on Friday, only includes officially confirmed fatalities, meaning that the true number of Russia’s losses in the conflict to date could be as much as twice that number, the U.K. public broadcaster said.
The number of Russia’s irreversible losses, a figure that includes the severely injured and the missing, could be as high as 100,000 people, the BBC said."
In short, you named the number of dead is what is guaranteed 100% confirmed by Moscow itself. Everyone else, even the BBC tacitly admits, the number of dead is likely MUCH higher. And the wounded:dead ratio is always around 4:1. So if 100k Russian casualties is roughly correct, that makes around 25k Russian dead.
Nobody knows, or cares about the Ukraine dead since no amount of death will stop them. Vietnamese suffered catastrophically worse in terms of death tolls and they still ended up winning via attrition.
Same applies here, except it's catastrophically worse for Russia than the US.
1
-
1
-
@HostageMax 1) Russia has claimed that Ukraine is Russia, so it saying it will "nuke everyone in defense" is literally a threat to start a nuclear war over Ukraine.
2) No, the US has never threatened anyone with nukes since WW2. Unless you count Trump, but nobody counts him.
3) "It is correcting mistakes done during soviet times"
So it's conquest, then? You can't "undo" someone's sovereignty, that's not how this works.
4) Even the UN has made loud noises of the amount of war crimes that Russia has done in Ukraine, in what realm of existence is what Russia did under international law???
5) This is what the OHCHR has to say about your claims of a lack of Russian war crimes: "Erik Møse, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, said that based on the evidence gathered by the Commission, it had concluded that war crimes had been committed in Ukraine. The Russian Federation’s use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas was a source of immense harm and suffering for civilians. Witnesses provided consistent accounts of ill-treatment and torture carried out during unlawful confinement. The Commission had found that some Russian Federation soldiers committed sexual and gender-based violence crimes, and had further documented cases in which children had been raped, tortured, unlawfully confined, killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons. The Commission would continue its investigations, making recommendations regarding criminal accountability and other dimensions of accountability."
Seriously, Russians are among the most brainwashed people int eh world to unironically think that they have done no war crimes. My brother in Christ; the only war crimes that Russia HASN'T done is nuclear and chemical in nature.
6) It's a common tactic in the Kremlin to obfuscate the truth by throwing up everything and anything. But the fact is this; Russia invaded Ukraine and Russians are still justifying it as their country commits mass murders with no restraint or bombs cities into ruins. All while their dictator continues to threaten the world with nuclear destruction in defense of the Russian state, all while claiming Ukrainian territory as territories of the Russian state.
Russia either needs to collapse, or leave. I am done making excuses for the Russians at this point.
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
-
@houssedecouette4056 You're literally crying about Western aggression on Russia while Russia has kept nuclear missiles aimed at the center of Europe makes your point moot. And furthermore, your point about "possibilities" is stupid; it takes a lot of mobilization to even begin an invasion of Russia. But you wanna know the best way to start something like that? By Russia attacking neighboring democracies and proving that NATO is necessary.
Every nation's goal is to secure their interests, but no one in the West was aggressively against Russia UNTIL 2014. All ill will starts almost all from there. All Russian screeching about US troops at their borders? Missile systems? Air power? Almost all of it came after 2014.
And you prove how ignorant you are btw. The US didn't take any oil in Iraq, Syria, or Libya; hell the US wasn't even IN Libya to take oil to begin with. The Iraqis sold oil to the Russians and Chinese since they were the highest bidder, and the US helped secure Syria's oil fields for the Kurds; but hasn't taken any for itself. Hell, it's literally the most braindead thing to do; stealing oil. The US would need to marshal its entire navy to take a decent amount of oil halfway across the planet.
Funny how you neglect how the US never targeted Russia, Libya, or Venezuela. The US engaged against Russia and Venezuela due to them causing mayhem in their regions with Colombia and Brazil calling for aid in the latter. And Libya was a Franco-British action and later called for US support in line with a UN directive. But by your own metric, the US also "targeted": Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Guatemala, Turkey, Ukraine, etc. Mind you, that's by your own braindead metric of "targeting", but I find it funny how you talk about outside of the 21st century but ignore how very few of the US' actions abroad had anything to do with oil-rich nations.
For reference, using your own metric, you can just as easily claim that Russia targets oil-rich countries. That would be a stupid claim, but by your metric it makes sense.
Either way, this is all super dumbed down in order for you to say; "Murica as bad as Russia" or some shit. Sorry, but no, Russia is much worse and deserves all of the sanctions for their actions in 2014 and the suspicion of Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LollipopUnicorny Here's the bit I posted expanded:
As if a student of Stalin, Yeltsin tried to reach a secret oral agreement on the new division of Europe. He proposed a “gentlemen’s agreement” to Clinton that no former Soviet countries would join NATO.
Clinton responded that he believed in the new Russia, which was not interested in annexing other countries. He recalled that he had been working towards a NATO that would not be a threat to Russia but that would permit the US and Canada to stay in Europe and work with Russia to build an undivided Europe.
Clinton said that
[i]f we were to agree that no members of the former Soviet Union could enter NATO, it would be a bad thing for our attempt to build a new NATO, but it would also be a bad thing for your attempt to build a new Russia. I am not naive. I understand you have an interest in who gets into NATO and when.
However, he stressed firmly that “there are no secrets in this world. … [This secret agreement would mean] Russia would be saying, ‘we still have an empire’.”
Yeltsin persisted and asked again. He wanted Clinton to confirm that the former Soviet republics would not become NATO members, at least in the following decade. Clinton didn’t crack and said that he couldn’t make promises on behalf of NATO or veto any country’s wish to join NATO, and least of all allow someone else, Russia included, to do so. “I’m prepared to work with you … to make sure that we take account of Russia’s concerns … . I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO,” said Clinton.
Yeltsin accepted this but proposed to agree that no former Soviet republics would be in the first wave of enlargement. Clinton did not agree to this either, because he felt that it would make it seem they were the old Russia and old NATO.
This concluded the NATO expansion saga. Clinton successfully defended the common interests of the West and Yeltsin did not miss out on an opportunity to express Russia’s discontent with it all. Add Yeltsin’s previously repeated assurances to Clinton that the reintegration taking place in the CIS space was the free will of the countries and their firm wish to increase well-being by restoring former economic relations, and it becomes clear that Russia wanted to steer the US away from preventing the rebirth of the empire.
This topic and this entire article are best concluded with a recollection from the last official face-to-face meeting, which took place on 19 November 1999 in Istanbul. Yeltsin started off the meeting, which lasted just under an hour, by throwing harsh criticism at the US—it was supporting Turkey in the training, on Turkish territory, of guerrillas who were fighting in Chechnya. Clinton did not respond to this, and a slightly calmer Yeltsin revealed a request that summarised the answer to the question: what did Russia want?
“I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.” To this Clinton responded: “So you want Asia too?” and Yeltsin answered: “Sure, sure, Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.”
Clinton suggested that the Europeans would not like this very much. Yeltsin, on the other hand, said:
I am a European. I live in Moscow, Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. … Bill, I’m serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afghanistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. … Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe.
It is not known how Yeltsin felt during this conversation, but it can be concluded from the verbatim report that his state of mind was confused. He ended the meeting abruptly by standing up while Clinton was talking about Europe’s attitude towards the new war in Chechnya. Clinton asked Yeltsin, who was leaving, who would win the elections. Yeltsin answered: “Putin, of course. … He’s a democrat and he knows the West. … He’s tough.”
^What Russia wants here is for the US to just give Russia an empire again. That's literally it. No other explanation, and even Clinton specifies it and Yeltsin doesn't even deny it. Stop acting like Russia is the innocent party; it's literally the one pressing the US to "give peace a chance" by giving Russia promises to recognize the lack of sovereignty of multiple nations. It's asking for a Munich Conference 2.0.
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
-
@ZZ-qu7bq China literally occupied everything that wasn't in its initial Huang He river valley civilization, genius. And its entire history was that of mass murders, enslavement, displacement, genocide, and destruction. But I don't especially hold that against China. If China wasn't bullying democracies in the region, I'd be more than content to just assume that China has grown up from that.
Apparently it hasn't, and now is becoming a monster that needs to be stopped. Guam wants to be a part of the US, everyone now a part of the US WANTS to be a part of it. Just as the land outside of the Huang He River wants to be a part of China...barring places like Xinjiang and Taiwan. But you'd know that if you weren't thinking like a 10th century barbarian warlord, like the CCP wants you to think.
China FORCES people to stay, and refuses to let people express their freedoms or their choices by ruthlessly stifling its media. Sorry, but the US doesn't crush its minority groups to such a point they want to be free of it, unlike China.
1
-
1
-
@zabluoc4549 An agreement which had an exit clause, and which it utilized; which AU had the right to use. Idk why this is so hard for you to accept. US competed, but lost and backed off; AU approached the UK for a different deal, not the US -the US just needed to be brought in for the nuclear sub's creation.
Both governments saw the French deal as trash, idk why you're acting like it took a new government to realize this. AU didn't substitute its national security to anyone, let alone the US; France changed 90% of its construction in AU into 50%, and it may have been getting even lower. Meanwhile, due to AUKUS, there will be intimate technology sharing, which was superior to France refusing to share its nuclear technology for the most part. In almost every way, this is literally a better deal. How is that substituting AU's national security in any shape or form?
Dude, you're the one with the emotional outburst. You keep acting like AU is bending over for the US, when AU didn't even really make a deal with the US, and more importantly; it's getting more out of the deal than with France. Let go of your national propaganda.
1
-
1
-
@florencioalexandre7873 Yeah, but I don't know why you're acting like AUKUS was born from the submarine deal; it was being built up without it. They are separate, and obviously it benefits Australia to take both.
So France claims, but no sane country goes withdraw ambassadors because a country didn't inform another of a contract cancellation; withdrawing ambassadors is usually a sign of war or born of extreme tension. We ultimately don't know the WHY, but we know how France is reacting, and its extreme something special. Beyond petty and borderline insane.
Oh please, there is no "normally" here. Countries, including France, have done plenty of "not nice" exchanges in the diplomatic sphere without the US withdrawing ambassadors. No deal was broken that wasn't done so legally, and only the EU leadership and French leaders are the only ones in Europe complaining about this. Obviously EU leadership who want federalization and thus increased power would want to stoke Anti-American sentiment regardless of how ludicrous it is. No one else is publicly siding with France on this, barring other countries who also have a reason to go against the AU-UK deal like India or China.
Well, yeah, that's the most normal reaction so far. Imagine if the US sanctioned France for creating a trade deal with China when Biden asked them to wait at his inauguration. Yeah, normal "allied diplomacy" was ignored then too, but the US would look really bad if it did something so absurd. This is literally the same but in reverse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@againstviralmisinformation510 You refuse to be reasonable here. The Baltics HAD NO CHOICE but to be a part of Soviet operations, and had NO CONTROL over said operations; it was all done under Soviet management which itself was just "Communist Russian" management. The failures of teh empire only applies to the actual leaders of said empire, unless the underlings are completely willing. With your logic the Russians were very much eager participants under hte Mongol Horde and thus are a part of their campaigsn of destruction and failures.
Let me tell you know; if you tell the Russians that they "failed" in the invasion of Hungary under the Mongols, then they will screech at you that they were under Mongol control and not actually a part of them. Which in this case is reasonable.
Wake up, its pathetic how you bend yourself into a pretzel to accommodate Russian feelings. Everyone else acknowledges that when they're an unwilling part of an empire, that they aren't responsible for what that empire does.
Bruh, imagine being this braindead? Like, did you really think that giving Crimea to Ukraine was to Ukraine's benefit? At no point did the Soviets (AKA the Russians) believe that Ukraine would break away from Soviets (RUSSIAN) control. It was an administrative move, not doing something to the benefit of non-Russians. Again, how many times do I have to mentioned RUSSIFICATION until to gets into your thick skull? You know, the literal attempt at cultural genocide in all parts of the USSR that was not Russian already???
For the record, nobody wanted the Kaliningrad Oblast in the Baltics specifically BECAUSE it had a bunch of Russians; to many it effectively functioned as a future Russian invasion by using the "Russian minorities oppressed" imperialist casus belli excuse. Which is quite consistent in Russian history as an excuse to conquer more land.
Stalin engaged in more Russification than almost any other Soviet leader in history, genius. Idk if you know this, but you can be a part of an ethnic group and still identify with the majority culturally. US President Biden is Irish ethnically but identifies himself as American culturally, and Ukrainians who are ethnically Russian can identify as Ukrainian culturally. FFS, you can't be an American, every American knows this basic fact and yet you can't seem to grasp it. Unless you're a full on ethnic nationalist or something.
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
-
@tepidbudgie I never said that racial oppression wasn't a thing everywhere; but I am saying that European empires that created their colonies in the New World often created strict racial caste systems which proved extremely troublesome to remove once independence was achieved. The nations of the Americas like Brazil have unique histories like being the epicenter of massive movements of African slaves which is, frankly, uniquely difficult to just "get over".
I mean that the European empires often used divide and conquer strategies to maintain power in their colonies. The Spanish Viceroys pitted the people of Columbia, Peru, and Venezuela against each other specifically so that they would never unite against them. There was also pitting racial, cultural, and different classes against each other as well. Again, not unique, but it made creating new societies extremely difficult afterwards for many of these nations.
Uniformly, the colonies were forced to trade with only their Mother countries. Often in only cash crops with slave labor, meaning the new nations would be burdened with having no way to feed themselves and with no way to diversify if they broke free. Haiti was especially crippled by this.
British and Spanish empires, yes. And again, I'm not saying that the Europeans are uniquely evil in engaging in slavery, just that they did their colonies no favor by making them so economically reliant on slavery to even function, while also forcing them to maintain trade with only their colonizers so that they get the profits. It created almost all dysfunctional nation-states afterwards. With a few exceptions.
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