3 ms·

> The US launching random and unprovoked invasion or destabilising their neighbours is normal behaviour. It is not. In which parallel reality do you live where

> The US launching random and unprovoked invasion or destabilising their neighbours is normal behaviour. It is not. In which parallel reality do you live where this is normal behavior? > Look at the Afghanistan/Iraq wars for example; Are you referring the multi-nation coalitions that built a consensus on military intervention? Heck, the first gulf war was a coalition of 42 countries which follow a UN resolution after the Iraqui regime invaded a neighboring country. Is this your term of comparison? And what are you talking about proxy war? Russia, much like Iraq, is trying to annex a neighboring country. If anything, the response is timid. > If Canada or whoever think they're immune to that because ... What the hell are you even talking about? Are you comparing Canada with Saddam Usein's Iraq? Are there UN resolutions targeting the Canadian government? What can possibly go through anyone's mind to even suggest there are parallels? Are you trolling?

roenxi 2y ago
> Are you comparing Canada with Saddam Usein's Iraq? Are there UN resolutions targeting the Canadian government? Yes & http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm - I don't know why UN resolutions would be a factor here. The UN was pretty up front that the invasion was illegal. The US doesn't have time for paperwork. There aren't major differences here. Both Canada and Iraq are sovereign countries, neither done anything to morally justify an invasion. The US has just as much right to go into either of them and if they care about outcomes they should avoid using the military. > Are you referring the multi-nation coalitions that built a consensus on military intervention? Yes. And having a gang assist doesn't justify a crime. > And what are you talking about proxy war? Russia, much like Iraq, is trying to annex a neighboring country. If anything, the response is timid. After 30 years of provocation as the US geared up for war with a country that is, we might note, a neighbour. And we see in the aftermath why the Russian military had real concerns. The Ukraine invasion should have been a close parallel to Iraq. A vicious assault; local government folds and then everybody moves on and lets civilians start trying to pick up the pieces. Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. If the US had a history of trying to promote peace and stability among their neighbours then a lot of that bloodshed would never have happened. We're lucky to have Trump back in the big seat pointing that out too. A lot of nervous warmongers in a shambles over that. > Are you trolling? Far worse; I'm empathetic with the poor people who were on the receiving end of US policy and and interested in moral consistency. I don't like casual hypocrisy that gets people killed.
- mopsi 2y ago
  > Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. The US has been the main stabilizing force for Russia in this war, ensuring that Ukraine does not lose while also preventing Russia from disintegrating - driven by the same misguided and exaggerated fears that the US government had when the USSR was collapsing.[1] Had the US wanted to destabilize Russia, it would have had a long list of steps to take to make the city-state of Moscow lose control over its colonized regions, primarily through economic sanctions to prevent Moscow from flooding the rest of the country with oil money to buy loyalties. When the USSR became unable to provide essentials like food and fuel to its population in the early 1990s, every major city and region took matters into its own hands, established local councils to manage essential needs, and outright ignored orders from Moscow until the central government became entirely impotent and ceased to exist in any meaningful way. From this grassroots level, they built a new Russian central government to replace the Soviet one. In the end, the USSR had shrunk to a few office blocks in central Moscow, while the populace had established a new country - the Russian Federation - everywhere around it. The US tried to prevent the USSR's disintegration into self-governed regions then and is repeating the same mistake now by doing everything it can to keep the Russian federal government in control of the entire country. The narratives about the US "destabilizing Russia" are completely disingenuous fiction, hollow accusations with no substance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech
  - roenxi 2y ago
    It is amazing to look back at policy from before the USSR collapsed and see how much more sensible it was. That speech is a good example of how, when the US political class were taking the situation a bit more seriously, they understood that Ukraine was important to Russia's interests and they shouldn't be trying to align it with NATO. Had they maintained that attitude in the intervening period instead of the big push to expand NATO that actually happened then this bloody and tragic land war in Europe would have been avoided. And saying this is stabilising Russia is ridiculous. I may as well go back to motorest and tell him to relax because at worst a US invasion is only going to stabilise Canada. So far the US is the most responsible party [0] for around a million Russian casualties and there are concerning factoids [1] coming out that we had a nuclear near miss. [0] We're being treated to the dark comedy where Russia doesn't even need to negotiate with Ukraine to get the war ended, they went straight to the US. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/new-bob-woodward-book-takeaways/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/new-bob-w... - hopefully Woodward is a known liar.

roenxi 2y ago

> Are you comparing Canada with Saddam Usein's Iraq? Are there UN resolutions targeting the Canadian government? Yes & http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm - I don't know why UN resolutions would be a factor here. The UN was pretty up front that the invasion was illegal. The US doesn't have time for paperwork. There aren't major differences here. Both Canada and Iraq are sovereign countries, neither done anything to morally justify an invasion. The US has just as much right to go into either of them and if they care about outcomes they should avoid using the military. > Are you referring the multi-nation coalitions that built a consensus on military intervention? Yes. And having a gang assist doesn't justify a crime. > And what are you talking about proxy war? Russia, much like Iraq, is trying to annex a neighboring country. If anything, the response is timid. After 30 years of provocation as the US geared up for war with a country that is, we might note, a neighbour. And we see in the aftermath why the Russian military had real concerns. The Ukraine invasion should have been a close parallel to Iraq. A vicious assault; local government folds and then everybody moves on and lets civilians start trying to pick up the pieces. Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. If the US had a history of trying to promote peace and stability among their neighbours then a lot of that bloodshed would never have happened. We're lucky to have Trump back in the big seat pointing that out too. A lot of nervous warmongers in a shambles over that. > Are you trolling? Far worse; I'm empathetic with the poor people who were on the receiving end of US policy and and interested in moral consistency. I don't like casual hypocrisy that gets people killed.

mopsi 2y ago
> Instead it turns out that this was indeed something that the US was aiming for and they started ramping up the slaughter because they want to destabilise the Russians. The US has been the main stabilizing force for Russia in this war, ensuring that Ukraine does not lose while also preventing Russia from disintegrating - driven by the same misguided and exaggerated fears that the US government had when the USSR was collapsing.[1] Had the US wanted to destabilize Russia, it would have had a long list of steps to take to make the city-state of Moscow lose control over its colonized regions, primarily through economic sanctions to prevent Moscow from flooding the rest of the country with oil money to buy loyalties. When the USSR became unable to provide essentials like food and fuel to its population in the early 1990s, every major city and region took matters into its own hands, established local councils to manage essential needs, and outright ignored orders from Moscow until the central government became entirely impotent and ceased to exist in any meaningful way. From this grassroots level, they built a new Russian central government to replace the Soviet one. In the end, the USSR had shrunk to a few office blocks in central Moscow, while the populace had established a new country - the Russian Federation - everywhere around it. The US tried to prevent the USSR's disintegration into self-governed regions then and is repeating the same mistake now by doing everything it can to keep the Russian federal government in control of the entire country. The narratives about the US "destabilizing Russia" are completely disingenuous fiction, hollow accusations with no substance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech
- roenxi 2y ago
  It is amazing to look back at policy from before the USSR collapsed and see how much more sensible it was. That speech is a good example of how, when the US political class were taking the situation a bit more seriously, they understood that Ukraine was important to Russia's interests and they shouldn't be trying to align it with NATO. Had they maintained that attitude in the intervening period instead of the big push to expand NATO that actually happened then this bloody and tragic land war in Europe would have been avoided. And saying this is stabilising Russia is ridiculous. I may as well go back to motorest and tell him to relax because at worst a US invasion is only going to stabilise Canada. So far the US is the most responsible party [0] for around a million Russian casualties and there are concerning factoids [1] coming out that we had a nuclear near miss. [0] We're being treated to the dark comedy where Russia doesn't even need to negotiate with Ukraine to get the war ended, they went straight to the US. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/new-bob-woodward-book-takeaways/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/08/new-bob-w... - hopefully Woodward is a known liar.