3 ms·

Responding to your edit. Edit: You keep making your post longer and I'm not going to read your additional edits. > In terms of rational or irrational, it's irr

Responding to your edit. Edit: You keep making your post longer and I'm not going to read your additional edits. > In terms of rational or irrational, it's irrational to fight wars that destabilize the world and that you cannot win. The US is not fighting the war. Ukraine is. Additionally, it is Russia that had no way to win this war. There would be a forever insurgency had Russia succeeded as they didn't have enough troops to maintain the peace, assuming they hadn't lost any. > It doesn't matter that you really want to win. It doesn't matter if you think you should win. That's the difference between acting emotionally versus acting rationally. I agree. There was little chance for Russia to win this war and so they shouldn't have started it. > The US has attacked or invaded over 120 nations since 1991 You got a source on that? That's a pretty outrageous claim. > For example, we destabilized Afghanistan by sponsoring Islamic terror there, incentivizing the Soviets to invade. You reversed cause and effect here. The former happened after the latter. Soviets invaded and then we supported the Islamic rebels to successfully win out against the Soviets. If we hadn't history would have taken a very different course. And as usual, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. And none of that is relevant to Ukraine. Supporting the democratically elected government against an invading imperialist power. > The result was the radicalization and destruction of Afghan society Afghan society was based on tribal warfare, and is still based on tribal warfare. Nothing was changed. I've even heard anecdotes from some of those tribesmen who thought it was still the soviets invading when Americans showed up. > So this was irrational, even though it felt good to give the Soviets an L at the expense of destroying Afghan society. You think the Soviets would have preserved Afghan society had they taken the place over and integrated it into the Soviet Union? Just as minorities suffered in Russia, they continue to suffer to this day. They are second class citizens with their culture slowly being erased. And again, supporting Ukraine in fending off an invading empire does not "destroy their society", it preserves it. Edit: One last reply as you added some nonsense to your post at the end. > We engineered two violent color revolutions in Ukraine to install anti-Russian governments and urged Ukraine to not negotiate and not implement the Minsk 2 agreement, and now we are pumping it full of weapons so that they will fight until the last Ukrainian. Yeah this is pure lies. There was no US engineering of the revolution in Ukraine. It was entirely done by themselves. This type of propaganda you have fallen for is the problem with the nonsense put out by responsible statecraft. They repeat Russian imperialist state-written lies. Secondly, it is the actually the west (mostly Europe) who instead pushed Ukraine into Minsk 2. It is something that Ukrainians hate more than anything and why they push back against any US politician or European politican who says that something else like that is created. https://twitter.com/christopherjm/status/1592427657601650689 https://twitter.com/christopherjm/status/1592427657601650689 Zelensky hates the Minsk agreements and has vowed that he will never allow a "Minsk 3".

rsj_hn 4y ago
> You reversed cause and effect here. The former happened after the latter. Soviets invaded and then we supported the Islamic rebels to successfully win out against the Soviets. If we hadn't history would have taken a very different course. And as usual, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. No, you reversed cause and effect. Russia didn't invade Afghanistan for no reason. Why did it invade? Because the nation was plunged into a civil war with armed islamic groups, funded by the U.S., pouring into the country attacking the existing government that had good relations with Russia. Strange how the U.S. always funds radical, destabilizing groups all along the borders of its rivals. > You think the Soviets would have preserved Afghan society had they taken the place over and integrated it into the Soviet Union? The Soviets didn't care about "preserving society" because they are not hysterical children trying to engage in a moralizing foreign policy with a huge body count. E.g., they are not the United States. What the Soviets care about -- what any rational nation cares about -- is stability. They do not want radical groups causing chaos along its borders. Which is exactly why the U.S. funds radical groups causing chaos along Russia and China's borders. The U.S. is now getting kicked out of Syria -- why? Because they have been funding and arming radical Kurdish groups that have been causing terrorism in Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and all the nations of the region are uniting in opposition to this US proxy, and are actually inviting China in to help them deal with the Kurds. So the Kurds are going to get screwed once again - just like the last time the U.S. urged them to rise up against Saddam. The U.S. uses these groups as tools to smash enemies, and then the tools are the ones that get smashed. The same thing happened to the Uyghers, which the U.S. was supporting in various terror attacks in China and Southeast Asia until China had enough and decide to crack down on them. Again, the Uyghers suffer as a result of this policy. All over the world, you see this pattern, whether it is supporting contras in Nicaragua, neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine, muslim separatists in China, Kurdish separatists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran -- the U.S. funds these groups to attack and weaken their enemies, but the result is always blowback, first on the tools of U.S. policy, and then on the U.S. itself. This is not a rational foreign policy, nor a diplomacy-first foreign policy. This is a foreign policy based on destabilization and terror - of spreading chaos all over the world that ultimately weakens the U.S. and carries a great human toll. > Yeah this is pure lies. These are the facts. There is no defending the death squads and Georgian trained snipers of Maidan shooting police, anymore than there is no defending the violence of the Orange revolution. These are just violent coups to install puppet governments, using them as a tool to smash geopolitical enemies, and the result is great human suffering.

rsj_hn 4y ago

> You reversed cause and effect here. The former happened after the latter. Soviets invaded and then we supported the Islamic rebels to successfully win out against the Soviets. If we hadn't history would have taken a very different course. And as usual, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. No, you reversed cause and effect. Russia didn't invade Afghanistan for no reason. Why did it invade? Because the nation was plunged into a civil war with armed islamic groups, funded by the U.S., pouring into the country attacking the existing government that had good relations with Russia. Strange how the U.S. always funds radical, destabilizing groups all along the borders of its rivals. > You think the Soviets would have preserved Afghan society had they taken the place over and integrated it into the Soviet Union? The Soviets didn't care about "preserving society" because they are not hysterical children trying to engage in a moralizing foreign policy with a huge body count. E.g., they are not the United States. What the Soviets care about -- what any rational nation cares about -- is stability. They do not want radical groups causing chaos along its borders. Which is exactly why the U.S. funds radical groups causing chaos along Russia and China's borders. The U.S. is now getting kicked out of Syria -- why? Because they have been funding and arming radical Kurdish groups that have been causing terrorism in Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and all the nations of the region are uniting in opposition to this US proxy, and are actually inviting China in to help them deal with the Kurds. So the Kurds are going to get screwed once again - just like the last time the U.S. urged them to rise up against Saddam. The U.S. uses these groups as tools to smash enemies, and then the tools are the ones that get smashed. The same thing happened to the Uyghers, which the U.S. was supporting in various terror attacks in China and Southeast Asia until China had enough and decide to crack down on them. Again, the Uyghers suffer as a result of this policy. All over the world, you see this pattern, whether it is supporting contras in Nicaragua, neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine, muslim separatists in China, Kurdish separatists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran -- the U.S. funds these groups to attack and weaken their enemies, but the result is always blowback, first on the tools of U.S. policy, and then on the U.S. itself. This is not a rational foreign policy, nor a diplomacy-first foreign policy. This is a foreign policy based on destabilization and terror - of spreading chaos all over the world that ultimately weakens the U.S. and carries a great human toll. > Yeah this is pure lies. These are the facts. There is no defending the death squads and Georgian trained snipers of Maidan shooting police, anymore than there is no defending the violence of the Orange revolution. These are just violent coups to install puppet governments, using them as a tool to smash geopolitical enemies, and the result is great human suffering.