4 ms·

Russia has invaded 2 sovereign countries since 2000; USA has invaded at least 4. That's roughly the same order.

arp242 4y ago
Afghanistan was ruled by a bunch of religio-fascist nutjobs. Iraq was ruled by a genocidal dictator. Does that mean those wars were a good idea? By my estimation, probably not, for a number of reasons. But they're not they're same thing at all as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's borderline bad-faith to even compare it. I don't which other two you're referring to, but I'm willing to bet they're not the same thing at all either.
- pphysch 4y ago
  Do you realize how Orwellian it is that you cannot name some of the most prolific and brutal invasions that the #1 superpower has carried out during your own lifetime? This is basic historical literacy. Libya and Syria (ongoing) are the obvious ones you are missing. Anyways, I'm not going to play the "let's take turns justifying the illegal invasions of distant sovereign countries" game.
  - arp242 4y ago
    United States never invaded Libya or Syria in the same way as Russia invaded Ukraine, or the US invaded Iraq. Both are essentially civil wars where the US was (and continues to be?) involved, but that's not the same thing as an invasion. You can dismiss it as a "game", but the reasons and specifics of the situation DO matter. A lot. Denying this means, for example, that the Nazi invasion of Poland is just the same as the allied invasion of Nazi Germany. After all, both are foreign invasions in a sovereign country. No reasonable person would agree these situations are the same; the invasion in to Nazi territory was horrible because all war is, but was, in the end, a good thing. The same cannot be said about the invasion of Poland.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      When you aggressively invade and destroy the government of a sovereign country, there is chaos, a power vacuum and civil war. This is what Washington did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (failed). Arguing that Washington technically didn't invade any of these countries because there were already internal tensions is laughably stupid (what has been happening in Donbass since 2014?). Kindly knock it off.
    - yucky 4y ago
      "We came, we saw, he died" ~Hillary Clinton, speaking about our role using the CIA to oust Ghaddafi leading to his death by anal knifing and the resulting power vacuum that they still deal with today. Now in 2023 Libya has open air slave markets[1] and tons of missing uranium[2], another job well done. We have zero moral authority, that ship sailed decades ago. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/21/595497429/migrants-passing-through-libya-could-end-up-being-sold-as-slaves https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/21/595497429/... [2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/tons-uranium-missing-libyan-site-iaea-tells-member-states-2023-03-15/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/tons-uranium-mis...
- hulitu 4y ago
  > Afghanistan was ruled by a bunch of religio-fascist nutjobs From an atheist perspective, the US looks exactly like being ruled by "religio-fascist nutjobs"
  - arp242 4y ago
    Not really; I have plenty of quibbles with the GOP, but its nowhere near the Taliban. Your somewhat racist and sexist uncle is also not literally Hitler.
jcranmer 4y ago
If you're going to count the US roles in interventions in Libya and Syria as "invading a sovereign country," it is only fair that you apply the same logic to Russia. This means you have to at least include Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war--which is larger than the US role in Libya or Syria, natch--and arguably it is fair to include interventions in which Wagner is a major player, which includes Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic.
- pphysch 4y ago
  This is false. The Syrian government invited Russian assistance against the combined invading forces of US/Israel/Turkey/ISIS. Accepting an official invitation is by definition not an "invasion". Heck, Assad was in Moscow just days ago! You are out of your depth here.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    I used the terminology "intervention", and not "invasion", for a reason. If you're going to quibble, the US never sent any forces to Libya. France and the UK provided aerial support to a no-fly zone imposed by a UN resolution, with the US providing some naval support as well. So why does that qualify as an "invasion"? (Actually, if you really want to quibble, Russia has invaded Ukraine twice in the past decade--the Russian invasion of Crimea/Donbass in 2014 should probably be counted as distinct from the invasion effort starting in 2022, given that they provided very different levels of support and had very different material war aims.)
    - pphysch 4y ago
      FYI, Russia also euphemises their "invasions" as "interventions". Which is more plausible when the target of your invasion shares a land border with you.
- yucky 4y ago
  > arguably it is fair to include interventions in which Wagner is a major player So then we need to include Blackwater and the like too? Well shit, we're well into the double digits now for US foreign "interventions".

Afghanistan was ruled by a bunch of religio-fascist nutjobs. Iraq was ruled by a genocidal dictator. Does that mean those wars were a good idea? By my estimation, probably not, for a number of reasons. But they're not they're same thing at all as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's borderline bad-faith to even compare it. I don't which other two you're referring to, but I'm willing to bet they're not the same thing at all either.

pphysch 4y ago
Do you realize how Orwellian it is that you cannot name some of the most prolific and brutal invasions that the #1 superpower has carried out during your own lifetime? This is basic historical literacy. Libya and Syria (ongoing) are the obvious ones you are missing. Anyways, I'm not going to play the "let's take turns justifying the illegal invasions of distant sovereign countries" game.
- arp242 4y ago
  United States never invaded Libya or Syria in the same way as Russia invaded Ukraine, or the US invaded Iraq. Both are essentially civil wars where the US was (and continues to be?) involved, but that's not the same thing as an invasion. You can dismiss it as a "game", but the reasons and specifics of the situation DO matter. A lot. Denying this means, for example, that the Nazi invasion of Poland is just the same as the allied invasion of Nazi Germany. After all, both are foreign invasions in a sovereign country. No reasonable person would agree these situations are the same; the invasion in to Nazi territory was horrible because all war is, but was, in the end, a good thing. The same cannot be said about the invasion of Poland.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    When you aggressively invade and destroy the government of a sovereign country, there is chaos, a power vacuum and civil war. This is what Washington did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (failed). Arguing that Washington technically didn't invade any of these countries because there were already internal tensions is laughably stupid (what has been happening in Donbass since 2014?). Kindly knock it off.
  - yucky 4y ago
    "We came, we saw, he died" ~Hillary Clinton, speaking about our role using the CIA to oust Ghaddafi leading to his death by anal knifing and the resulting power vacuum that they still deal with today. Now in 2023 Libya has open air slave markets[1] and tons of missing uranium[2], another job well done. We have zero moral authority, that ship sailed decades ago. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/21/595497429/migrants-passing-through-libya-could-end-up-being-sold-as-slaves https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/03/21/595497429/... [2] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/tons-uranium-missing-libyan-site-iaea-tells-member-states-2023-03-15/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/tons-uranium-mis...
hulitu 4y ago
> Afghanistan was ruled by a bunch of religio-fascist nutjobs From an atheist perspective, the US looks exactly like being ruled by "religio-fascist nutjobs"
- arp242 4y ago
  Not really; I have plenty of quibbles with the GOP, but its nowhere near the Taliban. Your somewhat racist and sexist uncle is also not literally Hitler.

jcranmer 4y ago

If you're going to count the US roles in interventions in Libya and Syria as "invading a sovereign country," it is only fair that you apply the same logic to Russia. This means you have to at least include Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war--which is larger than the US role in Libya or Syria, natch--and arguably it is fair to include interventions in which Wagner is a major player, which includes Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic.

pphysch 4y ago
This is false. The Syrian government invited Russian assistance against the combined invading forces of US/Israel/Turkey/ISIS. Accepting an official invitation is by definition not an "invasion". Heck, Assad was in Moscow just days ago! You are out of your depth here.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  I used the terminology "intervention", and not "invasion", for a reason. If you're going to quibble, the US never sent any forces to Libya. France and the UK provided aerial support to a no-fly zone imposed by a UN resolution, with the US providing some naval support as well. So why does that qualify as an "invasion"? (Actually, if you really want to quibble, Russia has invaded Ukraine twice in the past decade--the Russian invasion of Crimea/Donbass in 2014 should probably be counted as distinct from the invasion effort starting in 2022, given that they provided very different levels of support and had very different material war aims.)
  - pphysch 4y ago
    FYI, Russia also euphemises their "invasions" as "interventions". Which is more plausible when the target of your invasion shares a land border with you.
yucky 4y ago
> arguably it is fair to include interventions in which Wagner is a major player So then we need to include Blackwater and the like too? Well shit, we're well into the double digits now for US foreign "interventions".