2 ms·

The problem is, the US has invaded more countries in the last 50 years than the rest of the world combined and it's always based on lies and/or ulterior motives

by yucky 4y ago

The problem is, the US has invaded more countries in the last 50 years than the rest of the world combined and it's always based on lies and/or ulterior motives. So we have zero credibility on this. At this point, if you don't instinctively assume our CIA/State Dept are actively working to undermine other nations then you haven't been paying attention. Why should we ever trust anything they say or do? Because Putin is a dick? Sorry, that's not quite enough to undo decades of lies I've had to listen to these turds shovel down our throats.

int_19h 4y ago
As it happens, I am still a Russian citizen, so you might consider that your perspective about "why do we ever trust those guys when they always lied to us" is equally applicable from the other end. I don't need to listen to Biden to tell me that Putin is a dick; I lived under him for a decade, and still have family and friends who do. As far as comparisons go, US did a lot of shitty things internationally in the past 50 years, but I don't recall a war to directly annex parts of another country being one of them. And yes, it is far worse than "regime changes" (which are also bad, to be clear) just because of how inherently destructive such a thing is.
- yucky 4y ago
  We have economically & culturally annexed huge swaths of the world. When nations push back, we bomb them into submission.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Yes, you did. And while it's not a positive influence on the world, it's far better than physical occupation. There are countries that had a chance to compare the two, and you might note that most of them are currently in NATO - because their population wanted it. But if you want to seek redemption, helping a nation pushing back against another, even more brutal empire trying to bomb it into submission seems like a perfect chance, no?
    - yucky 4y ago
      > it's far better than physical occupation. We did that too. We invaded and occupied Iraq for 20 years and just recently left. Same for Afghanistan. We're still in northern Syria, illegally. So the point stands - we have no credibility on this issue.

by yucky 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

As it happens, I am still a Russian citizen, so you might consider that your perspective about "why do we ever trust those guys when they always lied to us" is equally applicable from the other end. I don't need to listen to Biden to tell me that Putin is a dick; I lived under him for a decade, and still have family and friends who do. As far as comparisons go, US did a lot of shitty things internationally in the past 50 years, but I don't recall a war to directly annex parts of another country being one of them. And yes, it is far worse than "regime changes" (which are also bad, to be clear) just because of how inherently destructive such a thing is.

yucky 4y ago
We have economically & culturally annexed huge swaths of the world. When nations push back, we bomb them into submission.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Yes, you did. And while it's not a positive influence on the world, it's far better than physical occupation. There are countries that had a chance to compare the two, and you might note that most of them are currently in NATO - because their population wanted it. But if you want to seek redemption, helping a nation pushing back against another, even more brutal empire trying to bomb it into submission seems like a perfect chance, no?
  - yucky 4y ago
    > it's far better than physical occupation. We did that too. We invaded and occupied Iraq for 20 years and just recently left. Same for Afghanistan. We're still in northern Syria, illegally. So the point stands - we have no credibility on this issue.