Mexico, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines?
In the last 100 years the trend has been been for America to invade a country and try to install a friendly government rather than formally annex them - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria.
Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population. Invading to occupy, destabilise and depredate is much worse.
Someday it will be your country and yourself, and nobody will be outraged anymore, because everybody is the same. Stop this cycle and organize, instead of separating like-minded people with useless lines, standing aside and shouting about how things should be, in your opinion, and how everyone else should do... something, because you know better than insiders.
Thanks for answering my question and imploring me to drone some mantra (I counter with: everything is a system, my dog is a system), and I'll guess I have to wait for New Zealand to do some invading.
sigh Nevermind, it's obviously way too much to ask for a simple answer to a simple question after being strawmanned.
Do you understand that the difference in the Ukrainian case is literally caused by the actions of Western countries?
Venezuelans are going to work tomorrow because no one has provided their corrupt dictatorial government with hundreds of billions of dollars in military and financial aid?
No, you are worse. You need to let Russia attack at least 30 countries in next 30 years while you sit and watch. Then let’s recalculate who is worse.
America has invaded a lot more countries than Russia in the last 30 years...
How many countries did the US invade to make them part of the US?
Mexico, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines?
In the last 100 years the trend has been been for America to invade a country and try to install a friendly government rather than formally annex them - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria.
Oh plus all the overseas military bases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...
2 replies →
Invade, none. Continue to occupy to this day? Several. Edit: Although we did take a small chunk of Syria without asking.
Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population. Invading to occupy, destabilise and depredate is much worse.
15 replies →
It's only because of geography that they haven't done it.
16 replies →
Instead they just plant people into the government and pretend it is still a sovereign nation.
It would almost be less repugnant had they made Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Korea and Yugoslavia US states and their population US citizens.
That bar was one the ground with the patriot act and never left it since.
You're way worse than that. You invade everyone all the time and all of it is illegal and wrong.
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities...
The US has a much longer list of invasions and foreign interference than Russia. Its not even comparable.
Poor little $countryName exceptionalists, having to endure being compared to le bad country. (This isn't specific to Americans in any way BTW.)
squints at cold war
[flagged]
Someday it will be your country and yourself, and nobody will be outraged anymore, because everybody is the same. Stop this cycle and organize, instead of separating like-minded people with useless lines, standing aside and shouting about how things should be, in your opinion, and how everyone else should do... something, because you know better than insiders.
Repeat after me: individuals are not systems.
Organize for what? Protests? And the administration would care about it why, exactly?
4 replies →
Thanks for answering my question and imploring me to drone some mantra (I counter with: everything is a system, my dog is a system), and I'll guess I have to wait for New Zealand to do some invading.
sigh Nevermind, it's obviously way too much to ask for a simple answer to a simple question after being strawmanned.
Tomorrow the Venezuelans are going to work and the Ukrainians are going to hide in a bomb shelter. It's not really the same.
Then maybe we should provide a lot of weapons to Venezuelans so that they can fight back- this will make sure that they won't go to work tomorrow.
1 reply →
Do you understand that the difference in the Ukrainian case is literally caused by the actions of Western countries?
Venezuelans are going to work tomorrow because no one has provided their corrupt dictatorial government with hundreds of billions of dollars in military and financial aid?
4 replies →
Literally anything except answering the single, simple question... so we've had strawmanning, now whataboutism, which logical fallacy is next?
I have a friend from Venezuela (living in EU), and I remember how sad he was that Maduro was „elected”.
Unlike Ukraine, Maduro wasn’t elected democratically, so „unelecting” him through force is not as terrible.
> Silent downvoting intensifies, because of course it does
I downvoted specifically because of this