4 ms·

The similarities with Iraq are insane https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=09nRUo_ddUd5H3D7 https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=09nRUo_ddUd5H3D7 The Daily Show segment

by e40 10mo ago

The similarities with Iraq are insane https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=09nRUo_ddUd5H3D7 https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=09nRUo_ddUd5H3D7 The Daily Show segment on comparing them.

cm2187 10mo ago
[flagged]
- gpderetta 10mo ago
  > When US supports dictators, US bad. When US topples dictators, US bad… there is a third option.
  - rglullis 10mo ago
    "Don't do anything, let China handle it" ?
    - kakacik 10mo ago
      No just the first part, China ain't doing no ground invasion for oil, minerals and power half around the world. Iraq and whole surrounding region became a hellhole due and only due to US failed invasion, gave the world ISIS and screwed entire region badly for decades to come. Afghanistan became (again) a hellhole due to failed US invasion too, 0 positive long term things achieved, just death all around. US military-industrial complex (aka the republicans in power but not only) will try and force any way US will spend trillions on military equipment again and again, thats glaringly obvious to literally whole world and not something new or secretly done behind many curtains. If US would actually want to have an image (and not just self-image) of somebody standing up to tyranny and genocide and protecting the weak and just, they would support Ukraine and not backstab it frequently as they do. Thats a fine litmus paper for this in current times, don't need anything else. The fact that enemy there is a mortal enemy of US itself and all principles US holds (held?) dear like freedom, democracy, capitalism or right to self-determination is just the proverbial cherry on the top of the cake. No amount of words can bullshit around this simple fact. Also in the process US is losing its by far biggest and strongest ally in whole world on all existential, moral and societal levels - Europe. An army of expert spies and hackers wouldn't be able to achieve in decades what current potus achieved in less than a year.
      - rglullis 10mo ago
        > No just the first part, Ok. Then the question is "If the US really goes full isolationsist and packs it home, who takes the power vaccum?" > China ain't doing no ground invasion for oil I didn't say that "China handling it" is about invading anything. I also didn't say anything that the US is justified in invading Venezuela. I am just wondering that if those saying "the US shouldn't do anything" understand that someone will do something, even if this something is stupid, counterproductive or plain evil.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  - wiseowise 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - fakedang 10mo ago
      Well as long as they're just fucking around within their borders, yeah? Or maybe the US should start with instituting regime change in its allies in the Persian Gulf?
    - drysine 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - wiseowise 10mo ago
        > created: 11 months ago > 90% comments are about Ukraine and US :^)))
        drysine 10mo ago
        I don't think you should laugh. Not even a tiny grin is appropriate. Come and see.[0] Watch desperate mother whose son was grabbed on the street and "busified"[1]. She later died in the ER after the stroke she suffered. Just found some random telegram channel for you which apparently collects the videos of Ukrainian forced mobilization[2]. The channel's admins sarcastically call them "volunteers" which I find despicable, but just watch the videos. Some of the videos have logos of popular Ukrainian telegram channels, you can find them there. [0] https://t.me/ASupersharij/42745 https://t.me/ASupersharij/42745 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busification [2] https://t.me/busification https://t.me/busification
        maximinus_thrax 10mo ago
        I see you ran into our resident Russian troll, protomolecule's new HN account. Don't engage. Flag and move on.
    - vkou 10mo ago
      Strange how this humanitarian concern only comes up when they have oil, or are somehow geopolitically relevant. (You may also want to look into the US' track record for installing dictators throughout the Americas. It's not great.)
- sirfz 10mo ago
  I think the problem with your take is your assumption that the US topples regimes because of dictatorship or to support "democracy".
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - cm2187 10mo ago
    US foreign policy goals are self serving like every other country. And it has supported lesser of two evils many times (like a non communist dictatorship vs a communist one). I don’t think the Iraq war was to establish democracy, it was to get rid of a dictator hostile to the US at a time when after 9/11, the US decided to it would not tolerate further aggressions. But a byproduct of that policy has been the establishment of a democracy and historically the US considered that democracies as natural allies and therefore the more the better.
    - oersted 10mo ago
      In practice, just the act supporting the lesser of the two evils has brought so much more evil. If you want to do good, fine, but make sure you are smart about it and actually achieve that aim. The US has shown that its not good at this, regardless of intentions, they should just refrain from action until they get their shit together.
- oersted 10mo ago
  When US initiates aggressive unilateral military action on other sovereign countries, US bad yes, of course. Old-school UN-led "police action" as in Korea is one thing, at least there's a somewhat universal institution making judgements on which countries need to be "saved" under a consistent legal framework, but that's such a slippery slope too. The US does not have the authority to make such decisions and definitely does not have a good track record of them. It's just vigilantism at a large scale, at best. Even when being charitable about intent, the US did do some things in legitimate good faith, at least partially, the results are always catastrophic. There's been no instance of actually positive outcomes for the local population, it has always destroyed the country for decades to come and set the stage for significantly worse regimes.
  - cm2187 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - oersted 10mo ago
      No, that's not at all what I said, read it back please. My point is that history has shown that such action is extremely counterproductive if you actually care about doing good for people under such regimes, particularly when the decision is made impulsively by a single country with a biased perspective and no consistent system or criteria to make sure it's a smart thing to do. Anyone that supports such action is using inconsistent moralistic arguments to justify blatant power grabs. It may be well intentioned, but you are just making yourself feel good by fighting the bad guys, while doing even more harm to innocent people and making it all worse in the long-run. Very American indeed. And frankly, right now, the US is not exactly in a position to be a judge of what is moral in the first place.
      - cm2187 10mo ago
        History has also shown dictators engaging is mass genocide like in Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, RDC, etc. I am not sure that the idea that leaving dictators alone does less harm to their people is a lesson from history. Read my comment back as well! I am saying this is neither a moral nor legal matter. So I am not using a moralistic argument.
- drysine 10mo ago
  >I don’t care that much which pretext is used to topple him. The US also destroyed the country in the process and caused more deaths than Saddam.
- matwood 10mo ago
  The problem with your argument is there are dictators all over the world the US ignores. If anti-dictator is enough, why the tepid response for Ukraine? What about the various African nations? What about Haiti and the violence there? The difference is oil, and Trump's also very petty and Maduro has told him to pound sand. > Oil is unconvincing since it took years before production recovered, so that clearly wasn’t the priority. Haliburton, Exxon, Chevron, etc... made a ton of money rebuilding the infrastructure and continue to make money on the oil reserves.
- oersted 10mo ago
  He did just get the FIFA Peace Price that was created out of thin air this year :) Yes FIFA as in the football/soccer league.
kristopolous 10mo ago
let's get a time stamp: https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=lr30ZcfhKQgGCe1t&t=597 https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=lr30ZcfhKQgGCe1t&t=597
cloflaw 10mo ago
The real insanity is that nearly everyone, on "both sides", now agrees the US invasion of Iraq was a terrible outcome and a terrible idea built on lies about "weapons of mass destruction". Despite all of that this admin is using the exact same rhetoric while needing to redefine a drug, that largely is imported from places other than Venezuela, to make it a "weapon of mass destruction" in order to do it all over again.

by e40 10mo ago

The similarities with Iraq are insane https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=09nRUo_ddUd5H3D7 https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=09nRUo_ddUd5H3D7 The Daily Show segment on comparing them.

cm2187 10mo ago

[flagged]

gpderetta 10mo ago
> When US supports dictators, US bad. When US topples dictators, US bad… there is a third option.
- rglullis 10mo ago
  "Don't do anything, let China handle it" ?
  - kakacik 10mo ago
    No just the first part, China ain't doing no ground invasion for oil, minerals and power half around the world. Iraq and whole surrounding region became a hellhole due and only due to US failed invasion, gave the world ISIS and screwed entire region badly for decades to come. Afghanistan became (again) a hellhole due to failed US invasion too, 0 positive long term things achieved, just death all around. US military-industrial complex (aka the republicans in power but not only) will try and force any way US will spend trillions on military equipment again and again, thats glaringly obvious to literally whole world and not something new or secretly done behind many curtains. If US would actually want to have an image (and not just self-image) of somebody standing up to tyranny and genocide and protecting the weak and just, they would support Ukraine and not backstab it frequently as they do. Thats a fine litmus paper for this in current times, don't need anything else. The fact that enemy there is a mortal enemy of US itself and all principles US holds (held?) dear like freedom, democracy, capitalism or right to self-determination is just the proverbial cherry on the top of the cake. No amount of words can bullshit around this simple fact. Also in the process US is losing its by far biggest and strongest ally in whole world on all existential, moral and societal levels - Europe. An army of expert spies and hackers wouldn't be able to achieve in decades what current potus achieved in less than a year.
    - rglullis 10mo ago
      > No just the first part, Ok. Then the question is "If the US really goes full isolationsist and packs it home, who takes the power vaccum?" > China ain't doing no ground invasion for oil I didn't say that "China handling it" is about invading anything. I also didn't say anything that the US is justified in invading Venezuela. I am just wondering that if those saying "the US shouldn't do anything" understand that someone will do something, even if this something is stupid, counterproductive or plain evil.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- wiseowise 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - fakedang 10mo ago
    Well as long as they're just fucking around within their borders, yeah? Or maybe the US should start with instituting regime change in its allies in the Persian Gulf?
  - drysine 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - wiseowise 10mo ago
      > created: 11 months ago > 90% comments are about Ukraine and US :^)))
      - drysine 10mo ago
        I don't think you should laugh. Not even a tiny grin is appropriate. Come and see.[0] Watch desperate mother whose son was grabbed on the street and "busified"[1]. She later died in the ER after the stroke she suffered. Just found some random telegram channel for you which apparently collects the videos of Ukrainian forced mobilization[2]. The channel's admins sarcastically call them "volunteers" which I find despicable, but just watch the videos. Some of the videos have logos of popular Ukrainian telegram channels, you can find them there. [0] https://t.me/ASupersharij/42745 https://t.me/ASupersharij/42745 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busification [2] https://t.me/busification https://t.me/busification
      - maximinus_thrax 10mo ago
        I see you ran into our resident Russian troll, protomolecule's new HN account. Don't engage. Flag and move on.
  - vkou 10mo ago
    Strange how this humanitarian concern only comes up when they have oil, or are somehow geopolitically relevant. (You may also want to look into the US' track record for installing dictators throughout the Americas. It's not great.)
sirfz 10mo ago
I think the problem with your take is your assumption that the US topples regimes because of dictatorship or to support "democracy".
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- cm2187 10mo ago
  US foreign policy goals are self serving like every other country. And it has supported lesser of two evils many times (like a non communist dictatorship vs a communist one). I don’t think the Iraq war was to establish democracy, it was to get rid of a dictator hostile to the US at a time when after 9/11, the US decided to it would not tolerate further aggressions. But a byproduct of that policy has been the establishment of a democracy and historically the US considered that democracies as natural allies and therefore the more the better.
  - oersted 10mo ago
    In practice, just the act supporting the lesser of the two evils has brought so much more evil. If you want to do good, fine, but make sure you are smart about it and actually achieve that aim. The US has shown that its not good at this, regardless of intentions, they should just refrain from action until they get their shit together.
oersted 10mo ago
When US initiates aggressive unilateral military action on other sovereign countries, US bad yes, of course. Old-school UN-led "police action" as in Korea is one thing, at least there's a somewhat universal institution making judgements on which countries need to be "saved" under a consistent legal framework, but that's such a slippery slope too. The US does not have the authority to make such decisions and definitely does not have a good track record of them. It's just vigilantism at a large scale, at best. Even when being charitable about intent, the US did do some things in legitimate good faith, at least partially, the results are always catastrophic. There's been no instance of actually positive outcomes for the local population, it has always destroyed the country for decades to come and set the stage for significantly worse regimes.
- cm2187 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - oersted 10mo ago
    No, that's not at all what I said, read it back please. My point is that history has shown that such action is extremely counterproductive if you actually care about doing good for people under such regimes, particularly when the decision is made impulsively by a single country with a biased perspective and no consistent system or criteria to make sure it's a smart thing to do. Anyone that supports such action is using inconsistent moralistic arguments to justify blatant power grabs. It may be well intentioned, but you are just making yourself feel good by fighting the bad guys, while doing even more harm to innocent people and making it all worse in the long-run. Very American indeed. And frankly, right now, the US is not exactly in a position to be a judge of what is moral in the first place.
    - cm2187 10mo ago
      History has also shown dictators engaging is mass genocide like in Russia, Germany, China, Cambodia, RDC, etc. I am not sure that the idea that leaving dictators alone does less harm to their people is a lesson from history. Read my comment back as well! I am saying this is neither a moral nor legal matter. So I am not using a moralistic argument.
drysine 10mo ago
>I don’t care that much which pretext is used to topple him. The US also destroyed the country in the process and caused more deaths than Saddam.
matwood 10mo ago
The problem with your argument is there are dictators all over the world the US ignores. If anti-dictator is enough, why the tepid response for Ukraine? What about the various African nations? What about Haiti and the violence there? The difference is oil, and Trump's also very petty and Maduro has told him to pound sand. > Oil is unconvincing since it took years before production recovered, so that clearly wasn’t the priority. Haliburton, Exxon, Chevron, etc... made a ton of money rebuilding the infrastructure and continue to make money on the oil reserves.
oersted 10mo ago
He did just get the FIFA Peace Price that was created out of thin air this year :) Yes FIFA as in the football/soccer league.

kristopolous 10mo ago

let's get a time stamp: https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=lr30ZcfhKQgGCe1t&t=597 https://youtu.be/C5QGzYFjVaU?si=lr30ZcfhKQgGCe1t&t=597

cloflaw 10mo ago

The real insanity is that nearly everyone, on "both sides", now agrees the US invasion of Iraq was a terrible outcome and a terrible idea built on lies about "weapons of mass destruction". Despite all of that this admin is using the exact same rhetoric while needing to redefine a drug, that largely is imported from places other than Venezuela, to make it a "weapon of mass destruction" in order to do it all over again.