5 ms·

you conveniently left Russia out of your “acting outside of their borders” discussion… In case you haven’t noticed they started a bloody war in Ukraine this yea

by option 4y ago

you conveniently left Russia out of your “acting outside of their borders” discussion… In case you haven’t noticed they started a bloody war in Ukraine this year.

starfallg 4y ago
Or CCP troops engaging in bloody border skirmishes with shovels.
- bigcat12345678 4y ago
  What is this?
  - bpye 4y ago
    The China-India border? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53071913 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53071913
    - lenkite 4y ago
      5x more folks die in shootings per day in the USA than in that border conflict. Please note that neither Chinese soldiers nor Indian soldiers escalated to using firearms - despite carrying them - in order to stick to a mutual agreement!
pastacacioepepe 4y ago
The USA have ~800 military bases over 85 different countries. Russia has 21, all in neighbouring countries. China has only 1 foreign base in Djibouti. Who's acting outside of their borders again?
- another_story 4y ago
  I don't care about the US in this instance, but how many of those bases are wanted by the countries they are in? In most cases it seems US citizens are subsidizing the defense of many other countries.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Define wanted? In Australia's case they're 'wanted' by the government insofar as the PM that tried to get rid of them was unlawfully ejected from parliament. Tye populace are at best indifferent, and this is after decades of pro US propaganda. Most of these 'wanted' bases are wanted in the same way the subjects of any other protection racket want their opressor.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      In a protection racket, isn't the victim paying the oppressor money for "protection"? But when the US maintains foreign military bases, isn't the US footing the bill?
      - lmm 4y ago
        The relationship is complex and contingent, but generally the host country will be making a range of concessions to the US (e.g. ceding land, giving US troops a range of indemnities, agreeing to purchase weapons systems from the US). It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
        josephcsible 4y ago
        I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there?
        lmm 4y ago
        > I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? It's generally both - they're getting both American and foreign taxpayers to pay for their stuff. > And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there? If you're only looking at the direct impact of the base, sure, it tends to mean there are a bunch of young American men with money to burn around (though they also tend to be a not entirely positive influence in terms of e.g. sexual assaults). But the full package of obligations that goes with it tends to add up to something that's costly for both sides, and the people with the supply contracts are the only real winners.
- option 4y ago
  ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    > ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato That doesn't make it right. Ukrainians are scared right now, that's not the right mental state to take decisions that will trap you for decades or more into a state of subjection to the US. Also I don't care wether they want or not, the US must not expand further or we're basically asking for them to rule the world even more then they're currently doing. Plus I know by experience Ukraine will be better off without US bases. My country has several US bases and this makes us a target for any US enemy and at the same time makes us a puppet state, lacking any sovereignty especially when it comes to foreign politics. Ask most people in my country, they'll tell you the bases can burn to hell. Those bases are not there to defend us, their role is that of an offensive platform. We have many nuclear weapons ready to launch in case Biden decides it's time to fuck up some population. I feel my safety and wellbeing are actively compromised by having foreign military bases on our soil. Plus the American soldiers hosted in our country committed violence and rape several times and this is all documented and confirmed by our courts. Those yankees can definitely and quickly go home.
    - macmuras 4y ago
      This exactly the moment that Ukrainians would like to make quick decision given information at hand. Other countries are making sam choice (e.g. Sweden, Finland). I am from Eastern Europe and closer ties with US, although have a price, are the preferred option. Soldiers should be judged accordingly, but it’s an incident and not US supported norm. I think you don’t get sentiment from this part of the world.
lmm 4y ago
WTF does Russia have to do with TikTok?

by option 4y ago

you conveniently left Russia out of your “acting outside of their borders” discussion… In case you haven’t noticed they started a bloody war in Ukraine this year.

starfallg 4y ago

Or CCP troops engaging in bloody border skirmishes with shovels.

bigcat12345678 4y ago
What is this?
- bpye 4y ago
  The China-India border? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53071913 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53071913
  - lenkite 4y ago
    5x more folks die in shootings per day in the USA than in that border conflict. Please note that neither Chinese soldiers nor Indian soldiers escalated to using firearms - despite carrying them - in order to stick to a mutual agreement!

pastacacioepepe 4y ago

The USA have ~800 military bases over 85 different countries. Russia has 21, all in neighbouring countries. China has only 1 foreign base in Djibouti. Who's acting outside of their borders again?

another_story 4y ago
I don't care about the US in this instance, but how many of those bases are wanted by the countries they are in? In most cases it seems US citizens are subsidizing the defense of many other countries.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Define wanted? In Australia's case they're 'wanted' by the government insofar as the PM that tried to get rid of them was unlawfully ejected from parliament. Tye populace are at best indifferent, and this is after decades of pro US propaganda. Most of these 'wanted' bases are wanted in the same way the subjects of any other protection racket want their opressor.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    In a protection racket, isn't the victim paying the oppressor money for "protection"? But when the US maintains foreign military bases, isn't the US footing the bill?
    - lmm 4y ago
      The relationship is complex and contingent, but generally the host country will be making a range of concessions to the US (e.g. ceding land, giving US troops a range of indemnities, agreeing to purchase weapons systems from the US). It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there?
        lmm 4y ago
        > I believe it's profitable for Lockheed, etc., but isn't that at the expense of the American taxpayers? It's generally both - they're getting both American and foreign taxpayers to pay for their stuff. > And doesn't the foreign location usually make money from the base being there? If you're only looking at the direct impact of the base, sure, it tends to mean there are a bunch of young American men with money to burn around (though they also tend to be a not entirely positive influence in terms of e.g. sexual assaults). But the full package of obligations that goes with it tends to add up to something that's costly for both sides, and the people with the supply contracts are the only real winners.
option 4y ago
ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  > ask Ukrainians whether they want US bases and whether they want to be part of Nato That doesn't make it right. Ukrainians are scared right now, that's not the right mental state to take decisions that will trap you for decades or more into a state of subjection to the US. Also I don't care wether they want or not, the US must not expand further or we're basically asking for them to rule the world even more then they're currently doing. Plus I know by experience Ukraine will be better off without US bases. My country has several US bases and this makes us a target for any US enemy and at the same time makes us a puppet state, lacking any sovereignty especially when it comes to foreign politics. Ask most people in my country, they'll tell you the bases can burn to hell. Those bases are not there to defend us, their role is that of an offensive platform. We have many nuclear weapons ready to launch in case Biden decides it's time to fuck up some population. I feel my safety and wellbeing are actively compromised by having foreign military bases on our soil. Plus the American soldiers hosted in our country committed violence and rape several times and this is all documented and confirmed by our courts. Those yankees can definitely and quickly go home.
  - macmuras 4y ago
    This exactly the moment that Ukrainians would like to make quick decision given information at hand. Other countries are making sam choice (e.g. Sweden, Finland). I am from Eastern Europe and closer ties with US, although have a price, are the preferred option. Soldiers should be judged accordingly, but it’s an incident and not US supported norm. I think you don’t get sentiment from this part of the world.

lmm 4y ago

WTF does Russia have to do with TikTok?