4 ms·
Yes, setting army bases all around a country is defensive when it's the US, but it's an aggression if it is any other country. o)
by icare_1er 5y ago
Yes, setting army bases all around a country is defensive when it's the US, but it's an aggression if it is any other country. o)
- nickpp 5y agoWhen the country is a proven aggressor that held the region under occupation for 50 years, such a defense makes sense. Too bad they faltered.
- ghostwriter 5y agoPlease outline a framework under which a country could be recognised as an aggressor. It could happen that by the same standard the US would be an aggressor who keeps the Hawaiian Kingdom under occupation since after its annexation in 1893: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King...
- nickpp 5y agoI don’t need a framework, I lived under the Soviet occupation of the Eastern Europe. I visited Hawaii recently too - they didn’t seem occupied at all.
- ghostwriter 5y agoYou don't need a framework because you know you'll be inconsistent. Very conveniently so. > "they didn’t seem occupied at all" all you're saying is that you like the outcome. The fact remains the same though - that territory was occupied, and then annexed, and the government was overthrown by the U.S. military forces.
- nickpp 5y ago> you like the outcome Not me. The people living under that "occupation".
- trasz 5y agoI lived under what's now called the "Soviet occupation", and it didn't feel occupied at all too.
- icare_1er 5y agoNATO and US lecturing the planet about not being an "aggressor" is kind of funny. Putin is pretty much emboldened in playing with the rule of law because the US showed him how to trample international laws for the past 20years (Kosovo, Irak, Libya, Syria). Yeah yeah I know, invading and bombing countries when it's Washington is ok...