In respect to Iran US has poor history as it relates to the Iranian Revolution, but with things as they currently are - do you believe Iran should be unopposed?
By the way, it’s not that I think people should ignore what happened 80 years ago, but at the same time I think it’s a long time, politics change and old conflicts are not as relevant as some like to argue. UK is not the colonial Britain, modern Germany and Japan are not the Axis of WW2.
Though Russia appears to be good ol’ scarecrow Russia, so I guess some things change and some stay the same…
And call me naive, but I am of the opinion that US of the last 30 years honestly tries to be on the right side of history and it’s not the hegemon real despots of the world try to paint it as.
And lastly Afghanistan - I mean you can argue with me I guess, but I think the 20 years and trillions spent can serve as an evidence that there US really tried to do something at least well intentioned.
I guess what I am trying to say that these days I hear a lot of “but look over there!” kind of argument, and they often even contain some truth to them, but I think they also contain a lot of differences that are overlooked to better serve the argument.
But even if they were exactly the same - you don’t justify an atrocity by pointing at another atrocity.
You stated that the west, in scare quotations, was only weaponizing commerce because of the exceptional circumstance being that the target was engaged in an invasion of a country. Contradicting the assertion of the parent comment that the imperial core countries will weaponize everything that they have against countries that don't align with their interests.
I brought up an example of three countries that have been similarly condemned and were not invading anybody.
Regarding The Iran comment. Why are you even thinking about a far-away country needing to be "opposed"? This is a very weird world police mindset to me. Do you think NATO shouldn't be opposed?
America spent 2 trillion on it's own military budget in Afghanistan. Half of which were interest payments. The US didn't spend trillions to sponsor Afghanistan's infrastructure.
The US occupied that country for 20 years and destroyed not only it's infrastructure but the fabric of that society as well as the mental well-being of several generations of Afganis. The toll is incalculable. How you spun 20 years to be evidence of benevolence, I'll never know. So I assume Russia occupying civilized Ukraine for the next two decades, despite violent, traumatic and desperate resistance will also be seen as benevolence?
In ~May 2020 when US and Colombian mercenaries sponsored by the CIA attacked the country in military speed boats near the capital Caracas with the aim of killing/capturing the President and linking with dissident groups inside Venezuela and do a coup
I mean to say that I am sure Maduro will claim that he foiled a CIA plot there, but I haven’t seen any evidence that US government has anything to do with that action.
Sorry, 60 of them. This is what wikipedia has to say about that:
“ Commentators and observers, including Guaidó officials who initially contacted Silvercorp, described the operation as amateurish, underfunded, poorly-planned, having little or no chance of success, and a suicide mission.”
Just some randos out for a little assassination fun. Happens all the time in the world that a bunch of foreigners attempt a stupid but audacious assassination attempt right in the middle of a concerted effort by an adversary to overthrow a government. You know the CIA wasn't involved because American movies depicts them as superhuman secret agents and these guys were the opposite of that.
I am sort of running out of steam keeping this up here.
I was honestly keeping an open mind to hearing some convincing evidence or even some mainstream reporting sources that this wasn’t a poorly put together private mercenary action.
In respect to Iran US has poor history as it relates to the Iranian Revolution, but with things as they currently are - do you believe Iran should be unopposed?
By the way, it’s not that I think people should ignore what happened 80 years ago, but at the same time I think it’s a long time, politics change and old conflicts are not as relevant as some like to argue. UK is not the colonial Britain, modern Germany and Japan are not the Axis of WW2.
Though Russia appears to be good ol’ scarecrow Russia, so I guess some things change and some stay the same…
And call me naive, but I am of the opinion that US of the last 30 years honestly tries to be on the right side of history and it’s not the hegemon real despots of the world try to paint it as.
And lastly Afghanistan - I mean you can argue with me I guess, but I think the 20 years and trillions spent can serve as an evidence that there US really tried to do something at least well intentioned.
I guess what I am trying to say that these days I hear a lot of “but look over there!” kind of argument, and they often even contain some truth to them, but I think they also contain a lot of differences that are overlooked to better serve the argument.
But even if they were exactly the same - you don’t justify an atrocity by pointing at another atrocity.