4 ms·

So, the United States can invade Iraq, completely fuck Lybia, promote brutal dictatorships across latin america that tortured and killed thousands because of so

So, the United States can invade Iraq, completely fuck Lybia, promote brutal dictatorships across latin america that tortured and killed thousands because of some vague idea that this is required to satisfy US security concerns in countries thousands of miles across the globe. But at the same time, after the US promoted a state coup in Ukraine because its government was not interested on severing ties with Russia, after the US and NATO trained and provided the Ukrainian army and hinted at NATO expansion, after the US admitted that Minsky accords, Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns and they should just accept American encroachment, the subversion of their internal politics via american financed NGOs (just like they do in a fucking lot of countries). I find it amazing that most people still believe USG bullshit. The same fucking government that had no qualms on fucking their citizens with projects like MK Ultra, the same fucking government that was caught spying on its own citizens and jailed the whistleblower who brought this to their attention. A government that via its think tanks never made a secret of their intentions on regime change in Russia to enable the pillage of its natural resources: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

coliveira 2y ago
The US-based system is the modern version of a religion. They promote their interests based on abstract "values", so you have to believe in these values to be a good person (whatever they're promoting as good), and believe that the US gov is the leader in pursuing these values, just like the Catholic Church proclaimed during the middle ages. If you accept these illogical premisses, other governments are necessarily against democracy and freedom, and therefore have no reason to exist and need to be destroyed from within or from outside if needed. To be clear, the main problem in Western ideology is not the values themselves, but the idea that they're the best and other countries that don't support them need to be conquered or destroyed. It is barbarism by other means.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  taking this morally relativistic position to its logical conclusion, should the preeminent military power intervene with force to stop a country genociding its own people within its own borders, for example? how about intervening without force to stop the institutionalized subservience of women, through political meddling?
aguaviva 2y ago
But at the same time, after the US promoted a state coup Except there was no "coup", but unfortunately you've been led to believe that there was one. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689807, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481317 Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns And Russia's "security concerns" had nothing to do with current conflict. That's the language of the bully, and you're eating it up. That, and the other word salad you've been dropping here ("American encroachment", "subversion via NGOs") suggests you've been reading from some highly propagandized sources.
- coliveira 2y ago
  > That's the language of the bully It is a mirror of the language used by the US who claims that anything happening in the other side of the world is a national security threat. So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works. Which is basically like saying "the world is amoral, so everything is justified". So forget "justified". The point is that it's obviously deceptive, manipulative language. And so when we hear it being used on us -- it's time to start thinking about who is doing the manipulation, and why. More to the point, the whole argument being made here is completely absurd, from the very get-go: "The US did X bad, Y bad. We don't like that. So therefore when Russia does Z bad, we should start treating it with empathy in regard to its security concerns, and all the awful things that the US did to not provoke it, thereby actually causing it to do Z".
    - coliveira 2y ago
      No, it is not justified. It is part of how the world works. They deal with the same crap coming from the USA, they will do it too. Just deal with it.

coliveira 2y ago

The US-based system is the modern version of a religion. They promote their interests based on abstract "values", so you have to believe in these values to be a good person (whatever they're promoting as good), and believe that the US gov is the leader in pursuing these values, just like the Catholic Church proclaimed during the middle ages. If you accept these illogical premisses, other governments are necessarily against democracy and freedom, and therefore have no reason to exist and need to be destroyed from within or from outside if needed. To be clear, the main problem in Western ideology is not the values themselves, but the idea that they're the best and other countries that don't support them need to be conquered or destroyed. It is barbarism by other means.

rangestransform 2y ago
taking this morally relativistic position to its logical conclusion, should the preeminent military power intervene with force to stop a country genociding its own people within its own borders, for example? how about intervening without force to stop the institutionalized subservience of women, through political meddling?

aguaviva 2y ago

But at the same time, after the US promoted a state coup Except there was no "coup", but unfortunately you've been led to believe that there was one. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41689807, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481317 Russia somehow is not entitled to have their security concerns And Russia's "security concerns" had nothing to do with current conflict. That's the language of the bully, and you're eating it up. That, and the other word salad you've been dropping here ("American encroachment", "subversion via NGOs") suggests you've been reading from some highly propagandized sources.

coliveira 2y ago
> That's the language of the bully It is a mirror of the language used by the US who claims that anything happening in the other side of the world is a national security threat. So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  So, even if it is deceiving language, it is justified by how the world currently works. Which is basically like saying "the world is amoral, so everything is justified". So forget "justified". The point is that it's obviously deceptive, manipulative language. And so when we hear it being used on us -- it's time to start thinking about who is doing the manipulation, and why. More to the point, the whole argument being made here is completely absurd, from the very get-go: "The US did X bad, Y bad. We don't like that. So therefore when Russia does Z bad, we should start treating it with empathy in regard to its security concerns, and all the awful things that the US did to not provoke it, thereby actually causing it to do Z".
  - coliveira 2y ago
    No, it is not justified. It is part of how the world works. They deal with the same crap coming from the USA, they will do it too. Just deal with it.