4 ms·

> The US Government has gone to War with or at the very least militarily involved with the entire World except for 3 countries: Andorra, Bhutan, and Liechtenste

by sofixa 4y ago

> The US Government has gone to War with or at the very least militarily involved with the entire World except for 3 countries: Andorra, Bhutan, and Liechtenstein Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Scandinavia, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it), Mongolia, Nepal, all of the former Soviet Union (except stuff like paying to get nuclear waste and weapons properly disposed of, which is even less of "militarily involved" and even less cause for bad blood), big chunks of Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunis (unless you count Operation Torch to free the Vichy France protectorates in favour of Free), South Africa, Rwanda, South Sudan, etc. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch even if I might be mistaken on one or two. All that to say, there's no need to exaggerate American warmongering, imperialism and neo-colonialism. It has done insurmountable damage to many counties and resulted in millions if not tens of millions of dead, all for profits of American corporations. Exaggerating it makes it more easily refutable and minimises the suffering caused. > recently blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline (in a covert operation no less). Citation very much needed. > You might want to include India in the list too. And it should come as a surprise to you that there are plenty of other countries, who have been historically neutral, are badly wanting to diversify and de-dollarize Historically neural implies something has changed by de-dollarising. Nobody owes the US trade in USD. If sovereign countries want to trade with their own currencies, more power to them.

Dolores12 4y ago
>Citation very much needed. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM
- sofixa 4y ago
  Bloody hell I know the alternative was a near brain-dead wannabe neo fascist, but how did anyone vote for this guy? He can barely string a sentence together (not that Trump could, wow, the bar is extremely low in US politics), let him retire and live peacefully as an old man. And that proves absolutely nothing. Promises and threats are cheap.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
    Given the choice between a fascist and a moldy piece of bread, I'm pulling the lever for the moldy bread. It's a bad choice to have to make but the choice itself is quite easy. As an increasingly old white man, I am ready for old white men to get the hell out of the way.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  No you see that's not proof. Video footage of US operators clearly wearing American flags while conducting the strike would be the bare minimum to prove American involvement. In the meanwhile we should just assume that Russia blew up its own pipeline until the US publicly admits to doing it (Biden doesn't count, either). They wouldn't lie about foreign covert operations after all!
shri_krishna 4y ago
> unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it Yes by militarily involved I do mean having military bases as well. "Doesn't cause bad blood" -> you are talking from perspective of a Westerner/American (I am making an assumption here). It benefits US to have a military base but need not necessarily benefit the host country. Almost always there will be a compromise, "a choosing of lesser of two evils" so to speak, when a Nation has to give up sovereign space for a military of another Nation to occupy its lands. It is out of desperation. In some cases it is out of pressure too. Which is why I consider it "military involvement". There is a stark contrast between having an Embassy in a Country vs a Military Base in a Country. The host country can always call for shutdown of a foreign Embassy and expel Diplomats. These rules are governed by World organizations like the United Nations. However, a Host country cannot expel a military base from its land unless it is written down in the agreement between the two Nations. Even then, the actual ability to shut down an already established military base is significantly costlier on the host nation if it has lesser military strength (which it most certainly has, else why would it want to host another Nation's military in the first place?). I also include coup-de-tats as there is covert operations which involves using militia or even military of countries where USG wants Government to be toppled. The most recent example is that of Pakistan where there is widespread allegation within the country that USG along with Pakistani military toppled the previous regime. Now whether those allegations are true or not is secondary. The sentiment within the country prevails. So when I said "bad blood" I mean it as a "perception of the people on ground" sort of thing. > Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Scandinavia, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it), Mongolia, Nepal, all of the former Soviet Union (except stuff like paying to get nuclear waste and weapons properly disposed of, which is even less of "militarily involved" and even less cause for bad blood), big chunks of Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunis (unless you count Operation Torch to free the Vichy France protectorates in favour of Free), South Africa, Rwanda, South Sudan, etc. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch even if I might be mistaken on one or two. I talked about military involvement. It need not necessarily mean the War was not justified. It could very well be justified and it could be fought on the sides of Allies too. However, when a foreign Nation involves in any War to assist another Nation (especially in civil wars), there will always be bad blood created within the Nation as there is one section of the populace who would be targeted by strikes. You can call them "rebels" but for those "rebels" it is an invasion of their homeland. I am sure if I do further research I'll be able to find US military involvement in every one of these countries that you listed in some form or the other. Of the top of my head, US was involved in the Nepalese Civil War where it supported the Gorkha Empire against the Communist Party of Nepal. > All that to say, there's no need to exaggerate American warmongering, imperialism and neo-colonialism. It has done insurmountable damage to many counties and resulted in millions if not tens of millions of dead, all for profits of American corporations. Exaggerating it makes it more easily refutable and minimises the suffering caused. Not exaggerating. "Militarily involved" does not necessarily mean going into a country guns blazing. One can always covertly bring about regime change or tilt an ongoing civil war within another country in one's favour. Almost always creates bad blood among a section of the populace.
zo1 4y ago
I would go further and include embargoes and sanctions as falling under the militarily involved banner. That already includes South Africa where I am atm. The world is playing nice with America because most countries individually are rounding errors. But collectively and once they reach a certain point, they won't play nice anymore. Meanwhile, the US is faffing about with all sorts of internal initiatives that are detrimental and pointless on a grand scale. Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture. Just try and imagine how much collective brain-time is spent in the US discussing animal rights, DEI, free speech, activism, left/right politics, gun rights, drug legalization, etc. That is brain time that could be spent feeding and uplifting the poor, building housing, mobilizing tech and military, building infrastructure and transport and and and.
- FredPret 4y ago
  > Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture. Please lay off the news and look at stats. Facts trump narratives. Narratives exist to get clicks. Facts exist regardless of what people think. That there are people in the US doing things you consider a waste of time does not mean "US on the way down". Go to this chart and click on Max time frame to get an idea of what's been happening with all the "faffing about" Americans have been doing: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp Compare to the Eurozone, China, India, and Africa to get a relative idea. USA, China, and India have been going up like rockets.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > I would go further and include embargoes and sanctions as falling under the militarily involved banner. That already includes South Africa where I am atm I'm inclined to agree, but you had to provide the one counterexample that actually shows sanctions being legitimately used for good against a terrible human right abusing regime. > Just try and imagine how much collective brain-time is spent in the US discussing animal rights, DEI, free speech, activism, left/right politics, gun rights, drug legalization, etc. > Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture. Agree, the US is generally on a downward spiral for multiple reasons (mostly political deadlock due to a broken political system, massive amounts of time and efforts wasted on stupid niche issues, exceptionalism making them blind to fighting with problems the rest of the developed world has solved decades ago, economic and geopolitical development in the EU, China, India, Brazil, etc.). However, as of now, and for the foreseeable future they're still the primary military and economic power in the world. However better balance, for better and worse, is on the horizon.
AlbertoGP 4y ago
> Spain [...] (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it) The USA went to war against Spain on false pretenses, that was more than 100 years ago but not a small thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#USS_Maine_dispatch_to_Havana_and_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#U... The Wikipedia article presents different sides of the story, and my take is that the USA wanted to carve off the Spanish Empire and would use any excuse for that, a pattern repeated many times. Not that the USA is unique in that. The point is that there are reasons for the rest of the world to resent the USA’s unchecked power, being wielded by small groups in there often to the detriment of the USA’s general population, as is happening now with de-dollarization. The USA and its Western European puppets are becoming a much less reliable partner than we used to be, and the alternatives do not look as bad by comparison as they once did.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  What are those alternatives?
  - AlbertoGP 4y ago
    In this topic, as the article mentions those alternatives are other currencies: > The US currency now represents about 58% of total global official reserves, down from 73% in 2001 when it was the “indisputable hegemonic reserve,” the Eurizon pair said.
ekianjo 4y ago
> Citation very much needed. i hope you dont believe the absurb propaganda BS that Russia blew up their own pipeline...
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  You know that there are countries other than Russia and USA who could have done it, right?
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    You know Biden talked about it right? And other sources mentioned clearly it was an US operation. Which would not be surprising since the main country involved in this proxy war is the US, in terms of support size and budget.
    - The_Colonel 4y ago
      > You know Biden talked about it right? Source? > And other sources mentioned clearly it was an US operation. You mean the Danish ones which point at Russian naval activity in the vicinity in the time shortly preceding the explosions?
      - ekianjo 4y ago
        > source ? https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005 https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-... Are you living under a rock?
- sofixa 4y ago
  Because Russia is a trustworthy actor that always acts in a logical way? They literally invaded a one of the biggest countries in Europe with 40 million inhabitants, nobody can be that stupid to think they can forcibly control that much land and humans. And yet, they invaded.
  - 4y ago

by sofixa 4y ago

Dolores12 4y ago

>Citation very much needed. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM

sofixa 4y ago
Bloody hell I know the alternative was a near brain-dead wannabe neo fascist, but how did anyone vote for this guy? He can barely string a sentence together (not that Trump could, wow, the bar is extremely low in US politics), let him retire and live peacefully as an old man. And that proves absolutely nothing. Promises and threats are cheap.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
  Given the choice between a fascist and a moldy piece of bread, I'm pulling the lever for the moldy bread. It's a bad choice to have to make but the choice itself is quite easy. As an increasingly old white man, I am ready for old white men to get the hell out of the way.
mardifoufs 4y ago
No you see that's not proof. Video footage of US operators clearly wearing American flags while conducting the strike would be the bare minimum to prove American involvement. In the meanwhile we should just assume that Russia blew up its own pipeline until the US publicly admits to doing it (Biden doesn't count, either). They wouldn't lie about foreign covert operations after all!

shri_krishna 4y ago

> unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it Yes by militarily involved I do mean having military bases as well. "Doesn't cause bad blood" -> you are talking from perspective of a Westerner/American (I am making an assumption here). It benefits US to have a military base but need not necessarily benefit the host country. Almost always there will be a compromise, "a choosing of lesser of two evils" so to speak, when a Nation has to give up sovereign space for a military of another Nation to occupy its lands. It is out of desperation. In some cases it is out of pressure too. Which is why I consider it "military involvement". There is a stark contrast between having an Embassy in a Country vs a Military Base in a Country. The host country can always call for shutdown of a foreign Embassy and expel Diplomats. These rules are governed by World organizations like the United Nations. However, a Host country cannot expel a military base from its land unless it is written down in the agreement between the two Nations. Even then, the actual ability to shut down an already established military base is significantly costlier on the host nation if it has lesser military strength (which it most certainly has, else why would it want to host another Nation's military in the first place?). I also include coup-de-tats as there is covert operations which involves using militia or even military of countries where USG wants Government to be toppled. The most recent example is that of Pakistan where there is widespread allegation within the country that USG along with Pakistani military toppled the previous regime. Now whether those allegations are true or not is secondary. The sentiment within the country prevails. So when I said "bad blood" I mean it as a "perception of the people on ground" sort of thing. > Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Scandinavia, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it), Mongolia, Nepal, all of the former Soviet Union (except stuff like paying to get nuclear waste and weapons properly disposed of, which is even less of "militarily involved" and even less cause for bad blood), big chunks of Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunis (unless you count Operation Torch to free the Vichy France protectorates in favour of Free), South Africa, Rwanda, South Sudan, etc. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch even if I might be mistaken on one or two. I talked about military involvement. It need not necessarily mean the War was not justified. It could very well be justified and it could be fought on the sides of Allies too. However, when a foreign Nation involves in any War to assist another Nation (especially in civil wars), there will always be bad blood created within the Nation as there is one section of the populace who would be targeted by strikes. You can call them "rebels" but for those "rebels" it is an invasion of their homeland. I am sure if I do further research I'll be able to find US military involvement in every one of these countries that you listed in some form or the other. Of the top of my head, US was involved in the Nepalese Civil War where it supported the Gorkha Empire against the Communist Party of Nepal. > All that to say, there's no need to exaggerate American warmongering, imperialism and neo-colonialism. It has done insurmountable damage to many counties and resulted in millions if not tens of millions of dead, all for profits of American corporations. Exaggerating it makes it more easily refutable and minimises the suffering caused. Not exaggerating. "Militarily involved" does not necessarily mean going into a country guns blazing. One can always covertly bring about regime change or tilt an ongoing civil war within another country in one's favour. Almost always creates bad blood among a section of the populace.

zo1 4y ago

I would go further and include embargoes and sanctions as falling under the militarily involved banner. That already includes South Africa where I am atm. The world is playing nice with America because most countries individually are rounding errors. But collectively and once they reach a certain point, they won't play nice anymore. Meanwhile, the US is faffing about with all sorts of internal initiatives that are detrimental and pointless on a grand scale. Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture. Just try and imagine how much collective brain-time is spent in the US discussing animal rights, DEI, free speech, activism, left/right politics, gun rights, drug legalization, etc. That is brain time that could be spent feeding and uplifting the poor, building housing, mobilizing tech and military, building infrastructure and transport and and and.

FredPret 4y ago
> Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture. Please lay off the news and look at stats. Facts trump narratives. Narratives exist to get clicks. Facts exist regardless of what people think. That there are people in the US doing things you consider a waste of time does not mean "US on the way down". Go to this chart and click on Max time frame to get an idea of what's been happening with all the "faffing about" Americans have been doing: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp Compare to the Eurozone, China, India, and Africa to get a relative idea. USA, China, and India have been going up like rockets.
sofixa 4y ago
> I would go further and include embargoes and sanctions as falling under the militarily involved banner. That already includes South Africa where I am atm I'm inclined to agree, but you had to provide the one counterexample that actually shows sanctions being legitimately used for good against a terrible human right abusing regime. > Just try and imagine how much collective brain-time is spent in the US discussing animal rights, DEI, free speech, activism, left/right politics, gun rights, drug legalization, etc. > Every year they are poorer as a country, society and culture. Agree, the US is generally on a downward spiral for multiple reasons (mostly political deadlock due to a broken political system, massive amounts of time and efforts wasted on stupid niche issues, exceptionalism making them blind to fighting with problems the rest of the developed world has solved decades ago, economic and geopolitical development in the EU, China, India, Brazil, etc.). However, as of now, and for the foreseeable future they're still the primary military and economic power in the world. However better balance, for better and worse, is on the horizon.

AlbertoGP 4y ago

> Spain [...] (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it) The USA went to war against Spain on false pretenses, that was more than 100 years ago but not a small thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#USS_Maine_dispatch_to_Havana_and_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#U... The Wikipedia article presents different sides of the story, and my take is that the USA wanted to carve off the Spanish Empire and would use any excuse for that, a pattern repeated many times. Not that the USA is unique in that. The point is that there are reasons for the rest of the world to resent the USA’s unchecked power, being wielded by small groups in there often to the detriment of the USA’s general population, as is happening now with de-dollarization. The USA and its Western European puppets are becoming a much less reliable partner than we used to be, and the alternatives do not look as bad by comparison as they once did.

actionfromafar 4y ago
What are those alternatives?
- AlbertoGP 4y ago
  In this topic, as the article mentions those alternatives are other currencies: > The US currency now represents about 58% of total global official reserves, down from 73% in 2001 when it was the “indisputable hegemonic reserve,” the Eurizon pair said.

ekianjo 4y ago

> Citation very much needed. i hope you dont believe the absurb propaganda BS that Russia blew up their own pipeline...

The_Colonel 4y ago
You know that there are countries other than Russia and USA who could have done it, right?
- ekianjo 4y ago
  You know Biden talked about it right? And other sources mentioned clearly it was an US operation. Which would not be surprising since the main country involved in this proxy war is the US, in terms of support size and budget.
  - The_Colonel 4y ago
    > You know Biden talked about it right? Source? > And other sources mentioned clearly it was an US operation. You mean the Danish ones which point at Russian naval activity in the vicinity in the time shortly preceding the explosions?
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > source ? https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-resurfaces-after-pipeline-leak-1747005 https://www.newsweek.com/video-biden-saying-end-nord-stream-... Are you living under a rock?
sofixa 4y ago
Because Russia is a trustworthy actor that always acts in a logical way? They literally invaded a one of the biggest countries in Europe with 40 million inhabitants, nobody can be that stupid to think they can forcibly control that much land and humans. And yet, they invaded.
- 4y ago