3 ms·

>After the NorthStream was blown up by the US (they even announced it), which constitutes as the biggest act of industrial terrorism EVER, I do not know if I be

by _djo_ 2y ago

>After the NorthStream was blown up by the US (they even announced it), which constitutes as the biggest act of industrial terrorism EVER, I do not know if I believe you that Russia is "more evil". While the US must be considered a suspect in the Nordstream demolition, it is by no means clear that they did it, and they certainly did not 'announce it'. There are several other plausible suspects, along with various bits of circumstantial evidence pointing in other directions, but no conclusive evidence of any party's involvement. Do you really think Europe would've sat by meekly if they had solid evidence that the US did it? >Not saying that they are uniquely terrible, I'm saying that they constantly want to remind everone that "rules based order" is so important, but when it comes to MKUltra or Gitmo they have no rules for themselves at all. It about the standard they set themselves and then only apply it to other countries. Superpowers are going to do superpower things. For those on the receiving end, the US comes closest to actually respecting the rules-based order most of the time, which is as a result of it not being run as a dictatorship and having a relatively free, open, and transparent society with a free press. It's obviously far from perfect, and things like the invasion of Iraq were a blatant abuse of power, but it's often the best chance of a win-win for populations rather than just leadership. Ask Russia and China's neighbours how much they appreciate those countries' 'might makes right' approach to international conflict, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's takeover of territorial waters belonging to the Phillipines and other countries.

chomskyole 2y ago
> Do you really think Europe would've sat by meekly if they had solid evidence that the US did it? What would their options be? Their military is tiny compared to the US. Another data point is that they did sit by meekly when they had solid evidence that their leaders were taped by the US. Merkel, Chancellor of Germany at that time, didn't even shrug.... EDIT: > Ask Russia and China's neighbours how much they appreciate those countries' 'might makes right' approach to international conflict, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's takeover of territorial waters belonging to the Phillipines and other countries. The difference is that the US doesn't limit it's meddling with territory to its neighbours. They takeover globally when needed (Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, Libya, Syria, etc....)
- _djo_ 2y ago
  > What would their options be? Their military is tiny compared to the US. Another data point is that they did sit by meekly when they had solid evidence that their leaders were taped by the US. Merkel, Chancellor of Germany at that time, didn't even shrug... Do you think Europe’s only response was a military one? If Europe was so scared of the US and willing to obey every move it makes, explain what happened over Iraq when even France and Germany opposed the US at the UNSC. As for the spying revelations, they were met with a shrug because those countries do or attempt to do the same to enemies and allies alike too. It’s part of the game. > The difference is that the US doesn't limit it's meddling with territory to its neighbours. They takeover globally when needed (Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, Libya, Syria, etc....) What? Russian forces are in Syria in large numbers as we speak. Their Africa Corps is in nearly a dozen African countries, and they’ve helped launch coups across the Sahel, far from their own borders. There are Russian troops helping to sustain an illegal enclave in Moldova which doesn’t even share a border with Russia. China, too, has become involved in conflicts and influence operations far from its own borders, including in Africa. Chinese ‘private’ security companies, which in actuality have clear ties to the state, are all over Africa and asserting ever stronger control over resources. In any case, it’s irrelevant: It’s just as wrong to break international law when illegal stealing territory from your neighbours as it is to break international law further abroad. The US at least had an unambiguous right in terms of international law to enter Afghanistan and Libya, complete with UNSC authorisations. What legal right do Russia and China have for their recent aggression and annexations?
  - chomskyole 2y ago
    This answer really is a bit of a handful. To start: an army is not only there for military response but also for threat of attack and denying defense. So I don't really see your point here. Europe bent over since they are weaker strategically, not because they are doing the same. Do you have any evidence for Europeans spying at the same scale? And just to clear up the other part: France and Germany were punished for their response to Iraq by the US. They also didn't do it again. Re Russian forces in Syria. Yes they are in Syria. Are you really saying that the Russian army has a similar scope to the US army? The Russian army tries to actively invade the poorest country in Europe and gets a bloody nose. You really can't compare the two countries here, since the US is in a different category, financially (as shown above) and also by experience. Same counts for China. Saying that those armies do things too isn't really saying much. Re rights: The US meddles in Afghanistan since the 70s. They have no rights there and particularly not in Iraq. They also had no rights to support the murderous Pinochet government, Islamic terrorists all over the world, murderous lunatics in the Philippines or central America. They had no rights to support Nazi refugees. Yet they still did all of this and more. Re Chinese security companies with ties to the state: Blackwater? Halliburton? All the other companies? The economy of the States is hopelessly centralised and couldn't be tighter with government. You might want to say the companies own the government.

by _djo_ 2y ago

chomskyole 2y ago

> Do you really think Europe would've sat by meekly if they had solid evidence that the US did it? What would their options be? Their military is tiny compared to the US. Another data point is that they did sit by meekly when they had solid evidence that their leaders were taped by the US. Merkel, Chancellor of Germany at that time, didn't even shrug.... EDIT: > Ask Russia and China's neighbours how much they appreciate those countries' 'might makes right' approach to international conflict, such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and China's takeover of territorial waters belonging to the Phillipines and other countries. The difference is that the US doesn't limit it's meddling with territory to its neighbours. They takeover globally when needed (Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, Libya, Syria, etc....)

_djo_ 2y ago
> What would their options be? Their military is tiny compared to the US. Another data point is that they did sit by meekly when they had solid evidence that their leaders were taped by the US. Merkel, Chancellor of Germany at that time, didn't even shrug... Do you think Europe’s only response was a military one? If Europe was so scared of the US and willing to obey every move it makes, explain what happened over Iraq when even France and Germany opposed the US at the UNSC. As for the spying revelations, they were met with a shrug because those countries do or attempt to do the same to enemies and allies alike too. It’s part of the game. > The difference is that the US doesn't limit it's meddling with territory to its neighbours. They takeover globally when needed (Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, Libya, Syria, etc....) What? Russian forces are in Syria in large numbers as we speak. Their Africa Corps is in nearly a dozen African countries, and they’ve helped launch coups across the Sahel, far from their own borders. There are Russian troops helping to sustain an illegal enclave in Moldova which doesn’t even share a border with Russia. China, too, has become involved in conflicts and influence operations far from its own borders, including in Africa. Chinese ‘private’ security companies, which in actuality have clear ties to the state, are all over Africa and asserting ever stronger control over resources. In any case, it’s irrelevant: It’s just as wrong to break international law when illegal stealing territory from your neighbours as it is to break international law further abroad. The US at least had an unambiguous right in terms of international law to enter Afghanistan and Libya, complete with UNSC authorisations. What legal right do Russia and China have for their recent aggression and annexations?
- chomskyole 2y ago
  This answer really is a bit of a handful. To start: an army is not only there for military response but also for threat of attack and denying defense. So I don't really see your point here. Europe bent over since they are weaker strategically, not because they are doing the same. Do you have any evidence for Europeans spying at the same scale? And just to clear up the other part: France and Germany were punished for their response to Iraq by the US. They also didn't do it again. Re Russian forces in Syria. Yes they are in Syria. Are you really saying that the Russian army has a similar scope to the US army? The Russian army tries to actively invade the poorest country in Europe and gets a bloody nose. You really can't compare the two countries here, since the US is in a different category, financially (as shown above) and also by experience. Same counts for China. Saying that those armies do things too isn't really saying much. Re rights: The US meddles in Afghanistan since the 70s. They have no rights there and particularly not in Iraq. They also had no rights to support the murderous Pinochet government, Islamic terrorists all over the world, murderous lunatics in the Philippines or central America. They had no rights to support Nazi refugees. Yet they still did all of this and more. Re Chinese security companies with ties to the state: Blackwater? Halliburton? All the other companies? The economy of the States is hopelessly centralised and couldn't be tighter with government. You might want to say the companies own the government.