4 ms·

> It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion. Read some history o

> It is largely because of the previous Soviet invasion that Ukrainians would today fight to the last to prevent a future Russian invasion. Read some history of the cold war. USSR was happy to invade and subdue its weak neighbors in the past, in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, all the way up to the 70s. It won't do the same today because of international retaliation, part of which are sanctions. Russia had no right to invade Crimea. They just did because they had the military might to do so. If your argument is that they should be allowed to do so without consequences, then I strongly disagree. Your position makes you feel morally superior, but in reality it will pave the way to WWIII with Russia increasingly emboldened to extend militarily until an inevitable clash. > AQI developed in Iraq after we had completely destroyed civil society there and created a vacuum of law and order. By that logic, UK and France are responsible for the Nazi regime and all the evils it has done because they defeated Germany in WWI and created the conditions for the rise of the Nazi party. There's a fashionable trend to blame the US as "directly responsible" for everything bad that goes on the world, by applying preposterous liability standards that nobody has ever applied to any other nation in history.

jessaustin 8y ago
You assume a great deal about my moral feelings. I am practical, and I perceive our real enemies. There is no moral component to that. Like Iran, Russia's time as a major world player is limited. It has burned through all its human resources, and now its oil is worth less and less every day. They're not going to take over Europe, and if they were it's not as if USA could stop that with either sanctions or force of arms. The drunken walk of sanctions and other threats we've employed have not served the interests of USA citizens any more than they've served the interests of Russian citizens. They have served someone's interests. USA get the tiny amount of international criticism we receive because we keep doing the same awful misguided things while claiming that we expect different results. We aren't all crazy, so at least some of us are liars. Indeed those are the same liars who came up with the ridiculous "world police" canard of preposterous liability in the first place. Who kills whom in other hemispheres really doesn't affect us enough that we should waste our wealth and soldiers' lives pretending to do something about it.

jessaustin 8y ago

You assume a great deal about my moral feelings. I am practical, and I perceive our real enemies. There is no moral component to that. Like Iran, Russia's time as a major world player is limited. It has burned through all its human resources, and now its oil is worth less and less every day. They're not going to take over Europe, and if they were it's not as if USA could stop that with either sanctions or force of arms. The drunken walk of sanctions and other threats we've employed have not served the interests of USA citizens any more than they've served the interests of Russian citizens. They have served someone's interests. USA get the tiny amount of international criticism we receive because we keep doing the same awful misguided things while claiming that we expect different results. We aren't all crazy, so at least some of us are liars. Indeed those are the same liars who came up with the ridiculous "world police" canard of preposterous liability in the first place. Who kills whom in other hemispheres really doesn't affect us enough that we should waste our wealth and soldiers' lives pretending to do something about it.