4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    >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? There are many, many avenues open to states that don't include military force or the threat thereof. In the case of the spying scandal, for instance, Germany created a parliamentary committee into the issue, made public many embarrassing details about the US's role, and summoned the US ambassador for a diplomatic dressing down. They also increased oversight of the Operation Eikonal agreement and made it more restrictive. Given the relationship that exists between the two countries, that's enough. >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. Oh please, punished how? By getting some nasty comments from Congressmen? Neither country had any ill effect from it, and in fact came out stronger. >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. In Syria Russian forces did have a larger scope than US forces there, with more personnel deployed and more aircraft deployed long term. There's a reason most of the world expected them to conquer Ukraine with ease. China, meanwhile, has built a Navy and Air Force that are beginning to rival those of the US in terms of numbers and capabilities. >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. Way to go ignoring what I actually said and pretending I said something different. Also, if you're going to use examples dating from decades ago, there are plenty of similar Soviet and Chinese examples to draw on. I intentionally limited my discussion to the post-Cold War era. >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. Not nearly the same, we're talking about what are de facto state-owned enterprises with a CCP presence on their boards. Moreover, Blackwater? Seriously? They were so damaged by the bad publicity they (rightly) got over Iraq that they had to rebrand and are a shell of their former selves.

_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.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  >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? There are many, many avenues open to states that don't include military force or the threat thereof. In the case of the spying scandal, for instance, Germany created a parliamentary committee into the issue, made public many embarrassing details about the US's role, and summoned the US ambassador for a diplomatic dressing down. They also increased oversight of the Operation Eikonal agreement and made it more restrictive. Given the relationship that exists between the two countries, that's enough. >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. Oh please, punished how? By getting some nasty comments from Congressmen? Neither country had any ill effect from it, and in fact came out stronger. >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. In Syria Russian forces did have a larger scope than US forces there, with more personnel deployed and more aircraft deployed long term. There's a reason most of the world expected them to conquer Ukraine with ease. China, meanwhile, has built a Navy and Air Force that are beginning to rival those of the US in terms of numbers and capabilities. >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. Way to go ignoring what I actually said and pretending I said something different. Also, if you're going to use examples dating from decades ago, there are plenty of similar Soviet and Chinese examples to draw on. I intentionally limited my discussion to the post-Cold War era. >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. Not nearly the same, we're talking about what are de facto state-owned enterprises with a CCP presence on their boards. Moreover, Blackwater? Seriously? They were so damaged by the bad publicity they (rightly) got over Iraq that they had to rebrand and are a shell of their former selves.