6 ms·

In the last decade : - Russia annexed Crimea; - Turkey took control of most of the Syrian land across its borders; - Israel continuously colonised bits of Pales

• magicsmoke 6y ago
  Because none of those annexations haven't affected "core" territories of the west or their "core" population. The west definitely did not ignore 9/11. Some people are more "western" than others. More specifically, the ones that can vote to mobilize the "western" military. Spill their blood and get demolished. Spill the blood of their worshipers and suddenly their own blood is too valuable to waste.
  • srtjstjsj 6y ago
    9/11 was an used as an excuse for pre-planned actions again unrelated entities. The US made huge efforts to avoid responding to the actual attackers for almost a decade. Iraq was not a threat to the "core".
• baybal2 6y ago
  You are completely right.
• adaisadais 6y ago
  The West is in many ways equally as guilty but the stakes have changed dramatically. Russia and China are armed to the teeth. Turkey hosts some of the US nuclear weapons as well. The West gets textiles from turkey and China, electronics from China (and many other natural resources), natural resources from UAE and Russia. And Israel has been viewed as a ‘stable’ partner in an unstable area. I would agree that the annexations / subjugations have not been legal or good. And in some ways could be equated to what the Nazis began to do. But again, the stakes have changed. One bad decision could totally wreck the world as we know it. It would make the Second World War look small. I believe the West desperately wants to avoid that. Plus, the US does not have a great (albeit recent) track record with helping out in regards to annexation / subjugation. See Vietnam war and Korean War and War on Terror and Bay of Pigs etc
  • andi999 6y ago
    That Russia and China are armed to the teeth is bollocks (at least compared to the US). Look at all aircraft carriers worldwide for example, its like what? 5⁵% US and 1-2(barely functioning) for china, and 1 for russia? (Here a probably not current visualization): https://www.pinterest.de/pin/252342385341710559/ https://www.pinterest.de/pin/252342385341710559/
    • adaisadais 6y ago
      I’m referring to nuclear capacity and abilities. I do not foresee the next War to be like the ones of old. Two+ massive powers competing will play ‘chicken’ until someone makes the wrong move. “ If the button is pushed, there's no running away There'll be no one to save with the world in a grave” -Barry McGuire ‘Eve of Destruction’
    • samus 6y ago
      Aircraft carriers are a somewhat irrelevant metric. The US depends on them because their contested interests are strictly overseas. China and Russia's interests are in Eurasia, along their borders. Unless they plan full-scale invasion of the Americar, Africa, or Western Europe, they don't really need them. What matters though are their nuclear arsenal and modern military technologies. They might or might not match the US's tech level, but it is more than sufficient to keep lesser powers from pestering them. And they probably have an idea or two about how to tackle the US aircraft carriers (ultrasilent submarines and hypersonic missiles come to mind).
• mytailorisrich 6y ago
  This is comparing apples and oranges. Hongkong is a Chinese territory that was annexed by a European colonial power then handed back (so pretty much exactly what the US want to see, right?). China is not annexing any foreign territory, it's managing its territory the way it sees fit. The aim of making noise is to create trouble for the Chinese government, it's a cynical, but classic, game with HK used as pawn because, of course, the West does not actually generously care about HK, they have 'friends' who manage their countries in the same way or worse. Crimea is objectionable because of the method used. But no-one is willing to make too much noise because it's Russia, sure, but also because everyone knows that Crimea was Russian territory until the 1950s when it was moved to Ukraine by the USSR and because the majority of the population is Russian and quite happy with being back in Russia. When the time is right for everyone to save face and get something this will be accepted and everyone will move on. On the other hand Turkey has indeed very plainly invaded a foreign country. But they are good friends of ours (well... at least still friends strategically). Arguably the same goes for Israel.
• Igelau 6y ago
  Any bigger reaction than that is too hawkish for my tastes. Not sure what you're looking for.
• moralestapia 6y ago
  Those annexations were "easy". Take Guam, for instance, I'd love to see someone try to annex it by force.
  • 8note 6y ago
    Didn't America annex it by force?
    • moralestapia 6y ago
      I'd love to see someone try to annex it by force, now.
• golemiprague 6y ago
  Israel is not colonising "Palestinian land", they occupy a land which was part of the Ottoman empire and was promised to them in the San Remo convention by the League of Nations, Jordan was part of it too. If anything it is the opposite, Britain did as much as they could not to adhere to this legally binding decision. In addition the Arabs in this area never agreed to recognise the non disputed part Of Israel and launched wars against it continuously, still do. Comparing it to HK or the invasion of Turkey to Syria which never threatened Turkey, is not honest and not relevant to the discussion, it is a completely different issue.
• shirakawasuna 6y ago
  Israel is "The West" and Turkey and Russia are close behind.
• agumonkey 6y ago
  Probably a natural cycle of violence. West grew their status after 2 world wars that no one wants to see again .. so nobody is ready to pull the trigger.