Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "What would happen if Russia collapsed?" video.
-
14
-
11
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
@happyelephant5384
"Mostly for good purpose"
You're willing to believe and support anything as long as it benefits you personally, I see.
The US continues to commit atrocities around the world, the only difference is Europe is their colony, so nobody can complain.
Germany can't do anything even after it found out that Denmark was helping it spy, Ukraine won't do anything even though the US keeps supporting its corruption (just like Russia did, just a different country doing it to you now).
No one cares about Palestine, or Yemen, or Afghanistan. Or Palau, or Bolivia, or Mexico.
When Russia does something bad, "we have to do something about this and stop them!!"
When America does something bad? "Oh my goodness, what a horrible mistake! It won't happen again, we promise! All is forgiven"
It's a horrible double standard, and this is what Russians mean when they say the West is Russophobic.
They are more than happy to have military power themselves, and sphere of influence, but don't let anyone else do the same.
Hypocrites.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ViriatoII
Costa Rica is an exception the the rule— and it happens to be a center for cooperatives and social enterprises, something very opposed by American policy.
They succeeded in spite of it, not because of it.
Panama is one of 2 (possibly 3) countries with access to a key global trade chokepoint, and is able to profit off it of (not just through enormous transit fees, but because their status also makes for good tourism).
I'm referring more to Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, and El Salvador, all of whom the US exploited for cheap labor and natural resources for decades, and are still recovering.
Hell, Mexico's cartel problem wouldn't exist if the Mexican government didn't agree to outlaw weed just because the US did it first.
2
-
@ViriatoII
"Being exploited for cheap labor is not necessarily super bad"
You've clearly never been forced to work in a factory, or worked a hard manual labor job, then.
It's no fun. The hardest I've worked was as a contractor, 9-10 hr days, with 15 minute lunch period. Constant physical activity, no breaks. That was only for a few months. It was wrenching.
And that's a luxury to someone in a sweatshop, or even working a field in the US.
While it's great for the country (and certainly it's leaders), this doesn't always translate to transitioning into middle-income economies.
India and Africa have been working those types of jobs for decades of not centuries, where's their reward? It only works if the government is willing to leverage its resources and work for its own people— something not likely if you're kowtowing to a Western corporation.
And you'll have to explain what you mean by 'society and culture'. The Guatemalans are descendants of the Maya (who are also still around today), you've seen the ancient pyramids, no?
As for the marijuana point, I was talking about the cartels. And how America specifically caused Mexico's problem. Which it did, in the 1920's.
If you haven't thought about it before, now you know. What is your response to that?
I don't care what other countries do (in all cases, gangs use drug trade as a way to make money and continue existing), I'm talking about Mexico right now.
So I'm hoping you're either able to justify what America did, or acknowledge that it was wrong.
2
-
1
-
1
-
@yarpen26
I don't think the argument from Putinists is that those were good examples of democracy, and that they failed in Russia. What they say is that a good example of democracy cannot be developed in Russia.
We are too late in history- too many foreign actors, for an uninhibited nurturing of democracy to happen, especially in an flat area so interconnected to Eurasia.
If we try (as in the '90s), a Western power will naturally swoop in to 'help', and derail the whole thing, using the political vulnerability to exploit natural resources and amass wealth.
The US and Europe were able to develop because they were either isolated and protected by geography, and had the luxury of experimenting, or were so powerful that nobody could interfere in their process, no matter how battered a country became (think France, or England).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1