5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Invasions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Invasions_by_the_Unit... It's an entire category.

deaddodo 3y ago
When was the last time the US attacked a nation to annex them into their sovereignty? Not in some abstract or vague manner, directly annexing them. Not defending any of the US' wars, but it's a little disingenuous to compare them to the Ukrainian conflict.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >When was the last time the US attacked a nation to annex them into their sovereignty? So invading and bombing other countries is now fine as long as you don't annex them? Good to know that's how far the goalposts have moved.
  - siva7 3y ago
    It makes more sense if you view america as a police officer. An officer would pull sometimes his weapon to prevent bad things from happening but the officer would never take the suspect as his personal slave like russia.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >It makes more sense if you view america as a police officer. That's an absolutely insane comparison. Police are funded from your taxes to protect you. Countries haven't paid taxes tot he US to come invade/drone strike them. In your country, do police officers from other countries routinely break into your house to tear it up, steal your shit and beat you up for doing nothing? Sounds more like criminals than police.
      - stonogo 3y ago
        Police in the United States have conducted airstrikes on civilian homes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
      - benterix 3y ago
        It's a more nuanced issue. Roméo Dallaire would have to say something about it.
      - KSteffensen 3y ago
        Well, it happens: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-serbian-joint-police-patrols-in-key-serbian-cities/ https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-serbian...
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Much like a police officer would never rape women? The U.S. would like to be named world-police, however, that is mostly wishful thinking.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        Nobody said a police officer free of corruption.
    - d1sxeyes 3y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk In all seriousness, America does not pull their weapon to prevent bad things from happening (or at least, not primarily). The US primarily works through Nato and the UN to intervene in their 'world police' role, but they are happy to start other conflicts without the support of Nato and the UN (see Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, ~~Korea~~). If the US were really the 'world police', then where were they in Rwanda, in Sudan, in North Korea, in Sri Lanka, in Nigeria, in Myanmar, in DRC, in Ethopia, what are they doing for the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas... EDIT: see correction from OfSanguineFire, I was wrong about Korea, which was indeed a UN-led intervention.
      - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
        > without the support of the UN... Korea The US involvement in the Korean War was organized under the nascent UN.[0] "During the course of the war, 22 nations contributed military or medical personnel to UN Command. Although the United States led the UNC and provided the bulk of its troops and funding, all participants formally fought under the auspices of the UN, with the operation classified as a 'UN-led police action'." [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command
        d1sxeyes 3y ago
        Thanks for the correction—I was labouring under the impression that the US were in Korea independently.
  - postingawayonhn 3y ago
    Yes, there certainly can be justification for doing so.
- walteweiss 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - malermeister 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - kmac_ 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - malermeister 3y ago
        I'm literally answering a comment claiming the US has never done anything of the like. It's not whataboutism to bring up a counterexample in this case and calling it such is nothing less than jingoist propaganda.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        Any military force will have such incidents. What separates them is the extent they try to prevent and punish such things. The US is certainly not perfect, but there have been attempts to curb such behaviour. Meanwhile, a UN envoy collects extensive evidence that the torture and murder of Ukrainian (civilian and military) prisoners held by Russia is not only widespread, but shows clear signs of being coordinated in method and promoted from above in command.
        mardifoufs 3y ago
        Blatant imperialism apologia lol. You lose your entire credibility of being against an invader when you then downplay what the US did. I guess the one million deaths was fine since it was just an oopsie and the Americans didn't mean it.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
- concordDance 3y ago
  Hawaii probably? But is the annexing part the part that really matters or is it the countless dead and wounded civilians?
- lynx23 3y ago
  It is rather hypcritical to pretend the actions of the US are any different.
- dna_polymerase 3y ago
  > Not in some abstract or vague manner, directly annexing them. Do you mean like not calling it an intervention? It's been sometime, but I don't think the Ukrainians care too much about Russia calling it a “special operation”…
throwaway65546 3y ago
Half of the articles in the category are WWII campaigns.
- malermeister 3y ago
  Which were invasions, your point being?
  - throwaway65546 3y ago
    They are part of a wider context of a war they did not initiate, often in occupied territories, fighting alongside the native People of said territories (eg. Siegfried Line campaign, Invasion of [German occupied] Elba, Allied invasion of [German occupied] Italy, [German occupied] Normandy landings, Operation Overlord, Battle of [German occupied] Marseille.)
    - kfjdskjf 3y ago
      [flagged]

deaddodo 3y ago

When was the last time the US attacked a nation to annex them into their sovereignty? Not in some abstract or vague manner, directly annexing them. Not defending any of the US' wars, but it's a little disingenuous to compare them to the Ukrainian conflict.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>When was the last time the US attacked a nation to annex them into their sovereignty? So invading and bombing other countries is now fine as long as you don't annex them? Good to know that's how far the goalposts have moved.
- siva7 3y ago
  It makes more sense if you view america as a police officer. An officer would pull sometimes his weapon to prevent bad things from happening but the officer would never take the suspect as his personal slave like russia.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >It makes more sense if you view america as a police officer. That's an absolutely insane comparison. Police are funded from your taxes to protect you. Countries haven't paid taxes tot he US to come invade/drone strike them. In your country, do police officers from other countries routinely break into your house to tear it up, steal your shit and beat you up for doing nothing? Sounds more like criminals than police.
    - stonogo 3y ago
      Police in the United States have conducted airstrikes on civilian homes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
    - benterix 3y ago
      It's a more nuanced issue. Roméo Dallaire would have to say something about it.
    - KSteffensen 3y ago
      Well, it happens: https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-serbian-joint-police-patrols-in-key-serbian-cities/ https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/incident/chinese-serbian...
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Much like a police officer would never rape women? The U.S. would like to be named world-police, however, that is mostly wishful thinking.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      Nobody said a police officer free of corruption.
  - d1sxeyes 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk In all seriousness, America does not pull their weapon to prevent bad things from happening (or at least, not primarily). The US primarily works through Nato and the UN to intervene in their 'world police' role, but they are happy to start other conflicts without the support of Nato and the UN (see Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, ~~Korea~~). If the US were really the 'world police', then where were they in Rwanda, in Sudan, in North Korea, in Sri Lanka, in Nigeria, in Myanmar, in DRC, in Ethopia, what are they doing for the Uyghurs, the Rohingyas... EDIT: see correction from OfSanguineFire, I was wrong about Korea, which was indeed a UN-led intervention.
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      > without the support of the UN... Korea The US involvement in the Korean War was organized under the nascent UN.[0] "During the course of the war, 22 nations contributed military or medical personnel to UN Command. Although the United States led the UNC and provided the bulk of its troops and funding, all participants formally fought under the auspices of the UN, with the operation classified as a 'UN-led police action'." [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command
      - d1sxeyes 3y ago
        Thanks for the correction—I was labouring under the impression that the US were in Korea independently.
- postingawayonhn 3y ago
  Yes, there certainly can be justification for doing so.
walteweiss 3y ago
[flagged]
- malermeister 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kmac_ 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - malermeister 3y ago
      I'm literally answering a comment claiming the US has never done anything of the like. It's not whataboutism to bring up a counterexample in this case and calling it such is nothing less than jingoist propaganda.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        Any military force will have such incidents. What separates them is the extent they try to prevent and punish such things. The US is certainly not perfect, but there have been attempts to curb such behaviour. Meanwhile, a UN envoy collects extensive evidence that the torture and murder of Ukrainian (civilian and military) prisoners held by Russia is not only widespread, but shows clear signs of being coordinated in method and promoted from above in command.
        mardifoufs 3y ago
        Blatant imperialism apologia lol. You lose your entire credibility of being against an invader when you then downplay what the US did. I guess the one million deaths was fine since it was just an oopsie and the Americans didn't mean it.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
concordDance 3y ago
Hawaii probably? But is the annexing part the part that really matters or is it the countless dead and wounded civilians?
lynx23 3y ago
It is rather hypcritical to pretend the actions of the US are any different.
dna_polymerase 3y ago
> Not in some abstract or vague manner, directly annexing them. Do you mean like not calling it an intervention? It's been sometime, but I don't think the Ukrainians care too much about Russia calling it a “special operation”…

throwaway65546 3y ago

Half of the articles in the category are WWII campaigns.

malermeister 3y ago
Which were invasions, your point being?
- throwaway65546 3y ago
  They are part of a wider context of a war they did not initiate, often in occupied territories, fighting alongside the native People of said territories (eg. Siegfried Line campaign, Invasion of [German occupied] Elba, Allied invasion of [German occupied] Italy, [German occupied] Normandy landings, Operation Overlord, Battle of [German occupied] Marseille.)
  - kfjdskjf 3y ago
    [flagged]