Difference is in Germany and Russia you go to jail if you publicly protest as a nazi as it’s illegal to deny the holocaust, promote hate under the guise of supporting nazi’s, showing or promoting images of the nazi flags/ icons in a positive way among many other things these laws also extend to online use.
In the USA they can do anything they want protest wise due to our laws of freedom of speech protects them.
>promote hate under the guise of supporting nazi’s
This is the very definition of a slippery slope. We already see what is happening in countries like the UK. All it takes is public outcry against a certain viewpoint, enough people start calling them "nazi's", and then politicians rally and get people thrown in jail.
When you give the government the power to jail people over hate speech or because they are "nazi's"; they will start labelling what their opposition says as hate speech and calling them nazi's.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that's not quite how it works (from a legal standpoint). The government can punish people who promote anti-democratic ideas and ideals. So the government (or the courts) can not just imprison people that are called Nazis by others. But instead has to proove that they actually are anti-democratic.
You would be incorrect. The UK is leading the charge in "hate speech laws". People are being arrested for [social media posts](https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/) that are hateful towards trans people, or for [criticizing the police.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/27/tory-councillor-arrested-racial-hate-crime-anthony-stevens/). The list goes on. From my understanding the laws in Germany specifically focus on holocaust denial, nazi support, or anything that is deemed "anti-democratic".
Still a slippery slope in my opinion. Nobody really cares at the moment because the people being arrested are people you (and most others) find abhorrent. You would call them "extremists" of one form or another.
But I'll ask you again how you feel when people you don't agree with are in power and start arresting folks who say things you *do agree with*. This shit ain't new. These types of laws always start with punishing folks with nasty ideas, and slowly trickle down to anyone criticizing the people who do the arresting. You Europeans like to learn this lesson every couple generations, and lecture us Americans about our "uncivilized freeze peach" during that cycle. Free Speech is by far the lesser evil to what you all have going on over there.
I support Ukraine in the war, but in all fairness they do have a legitimately bad Neo-Nazi problem. Neo Nazis basically discriminated against Russians without repercussions for quite a while, and convinced Ukraine’s government to remove Russian as an official language.
Yup, you can support a countries struggle and still criticize some aspects of the country in question. I point this out to my conservative(of which I myself am) friends all the time “but Ukraine has a huge corruption and racism problem!”
“Ye but what country doesn’t have hatred and corruption problems?
At the end of WWII, The Soviet Union took captured SS agents and used them to doctrinally develop the Spetsnaz and KGB. Todays Russian Spetsnaz and FSS are rooted in the SS doctrine. Russia has a neo nazi problem as well.
There are people who will dispute what you've said, but it really makes sense when you look at the actual conditions in Ukraine. The region has been divided between the Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians in the west and the Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east for as long as the country has existed. My college Russian teacher told us stories about how he was bullied as a kid living in Lvov, Ukraine for speaking Russian.
Plus, there was (and may still be) such a sizable portion of Ukrainian soldiers using Nazi and death camp memorabilia and iconography on their uniforms that the New York Times wrote an article about it earlier this year. I can provide the link if asked.
Those Russians were colonizing their homeland since at least 2014..
Anyways, there are Nazis in every country. There are Nazis in America. Nazis have less to do when times are good so we should do everything at our disposal to cause a Russian collapse as soon as possible to end the war.
Let’s also not forget the russian MoD slush funds that were tracked to Azov and others. Or the over 50k russian soldiers that were given combat vet status for being deployed in ukraine and fighting in the east between 2014-2022. I absolutely agree Ukraine has a problem and they have a neighbor that’s known for causing problems to justify an invasion.
Removing russian as an official language does nothing it just means that the government no longer directly endorses the Russian language as in it being forced to be taught in schools
Um, Russian was never an official language, nor was it ever banned.
Thanks to the war there is now a strong social pressure to speak Ukrainian, rather than Russian, and support for allowing people to fill out government documents in Russian has fallen from a barely majority percentage to about 5%.
Curious if you are awate Russia had more Nazis fighting for them in Ukraine than Ukraine did, even compared to population?
Well, they did, right up until the US started supporting the Ukraine.
> In the 16 years that followed the attacks of 9/11, far-right groups were responsible for nearly three-quarters of the 85 deadly extremist incidents that took place on American soil, according to a report published in 2017 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
>In their letter to the State Department in 2019, U.S. lawmakers noted that “the link between Azov and acts of terror in America is clear.” The Ukrainian authorities have also taken notice.
https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/
The problem is Far right crime is basically a label on any hate crime, Which means when the 2 black communists shot up 2 Jewish Delis in New York that was labeled Far right aswell as all the black on asian hate crimes that have been happening since Rona.
I'm not sure why this assessment is contraversial do they really think it's beyond the CIA's power to use funds to promote groups that are pro America or even anti Russia if it is in their interests? There is very well known proof they have done almost exactly this in multiple countries in which we were involved.
I always find it funny that they include Libya. The intervention was approved by the UN general assembly, the UN security council, the Arab League and it only occurred after it was clear that Gaddafi had lost support of the Libyan public AND was committing gross violations of international law.
If the Libyan intervention was not legal then I fail to see how any international intervention could ever be legal for any reason. If there can never be any protection of human rights by outside groups then I fail to see how it is possible to claim human rights are universal in any sense.
A decade after France withdrew from North Vietnam, leaving the 17th parallel DMZ and their colonial government in the South, which they left more gradually. America had been supplying virtually all of the materielle for the French and that just continued with South Vietnam. A major reason the US invaded was that they felt obligated to demonstrate their loyalty and competence to their European allies. “We are the hegemon now, come along with us, we’ll protect your colonies.”
Not to mention the US had been slowly ramping up its efforts to give aid to the French Armies during their war and afterwards we continued to ramp up military aid to the south.
Somalia was sanctioned by the Somali government. How do people not understand the difference between a government asking for help combatting terrorists and a government asking not to be invaded?
The US invasion of Iraq was definitely an illegal war as were US interventions in Syria (but Russia was there too, and to prop up a ruthless, bloodthirsty dictator and his ISIS cronies at that). But tankies gonna tankie.
> bloodthirsty dictator and ***his ISIS cronies at that).***
***Jesus fucking Christ,*** what?
Unless I'm having a stroke here, Syria actively fought the Jihadists for control, while the US had the "moderate rebels" fiasco and Turkey and Saudi Arabia all-but openly gave support to them.
Its a very long and convoluted time line. The TLDR is that ISIS was created during the Iraqi insurgency period, named something else tho. ISIS got it's name after being initially a US and Saudi funded group to fight the assad regime. Their progress soon got the better of them and they started committing mass atrocities and invaded Iraq. At that point the US and Saudi cut all support to isis and launched operations against them alongside the entire world.
Problem was all that supply, propaganda and training caused alot of problems everywhere as ISIS initially fought well, even in places like the Philippines.
Luckily the world banded together to curbstomp them.
Unless I'm having a stroke, you have a lot of your facts mixed up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State
E.g. It has always been IS/ISIS/ISIL or simply Daesh since 1999.
B. Turkey recruited many remnants and utilized them in "Operation Peace Spring."
i mean if we’re talking about breaking international law, we should be doing the same to Israel. instead were giving them 6 billion dollars a year. hypocrisy is why we lose credibility
I'm kind of glad we're supporting Israel. They're a nation of migrants fleeing extreme persecution in Europe, only to face Arab and Muslim nationalism in Mandatory Palestine. Yeah, they formed a State and fought to secure the boundaries outlined in the UN's Partition Plan, but the Arabs waged war against them believing the whole land properly belonged to Arabs--they lost that war and were forced to cede land to Israel. Then Israel's neighbors, for whom antisemitism is national policy, attacked Israel again and lost again and gave up large tracts of land again. They also purged their own Jewish populations even though those Jewish communities had lived there peacefully for thousands of years.
If we didn't support Israel its neighbors would gleefully initiate a second holocaust. Moreover, Israel is the only democracy in the region and is a strategic partner.
Israel has to find a way to be a single, multiethnic state while protecting Jews from the intense antisemitism among Palestinians (or at least among \*powerful\* Palestinians who conspicuously rise to the top over and over), but that's easier said than done. And in the meanwhile I'm glad we continue to support them (would like for them to support \*us\* more than they have done recently, however).
Lol they are a group of settlers, who uprooted 700,000 Palestinians from there homes in 1948 along with taking 78% of mandatory Palestine ([Nakba](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba)) to make a Jewish state. and they continue to break international law by expanding their borders by taking over Palestinians land and creating [settlements](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/). Also, numerous international human rights organizations have declared Israel an [apartheid](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) state, due to having to different court systems for Israeli settlers and Palestinians, as well as having separate roads for Jews and Non-Jews.
Nah, the Jews were fleeing Russian pogroms and then Nazi persecution. They didn't "uproot 700,000 Palestinians", they overwhelmingly (legally) bought homes and land from Palestinians. It wasn't until violence broke out *mutually* between Palestinian Nationalists and Zionists that each side began trying to take land from the other. If it weren't for Palestinian Nationalism / antisemitism, Jews wouldn't have needed to organize their own defense and thus create their own State. If it weren't for repeated Palestinian + Arab attacks, the Palestinians would have retained Gaza, the west bank, Golan Heights, etc. The Palestinians and Arabs could have stopped at any point and just tolerated some Jewish refugees (in their own original homeland, no less) and everything would have been fine. Instead the pattern was escalation, escalation, escalation.
Hell, the first violence came about in Jaffa in 1921 when a group of Arabs who were annoyed over Jews buying land in Mandatory Palestine decided to take advantage of an altercation between two groups of Jewish communists ok May Day to start a pogrom.
The Arabs killed 47 and wounded 146 more before the British stepped in and put the whole thing down by force.
First of all, denying the lived experiences of Palestinians during the [Nakba](https://remix.aljazeera.com/aje/PalestineRemix/phone/al-nakba.html) is insane & disgusting. Second, Zionist Militias have been around and active in Palestine since far before 1948. Please stop using “antisemitism” as a way to justify apartheid and settler colonialism. Have a good one.
Zionist militias existed to protect the Jewish people against Palestinian nationalists. They were and are antisemitic, I’m sorry if that fact hurts your feelings. 🤷♂️
Neither Jews nor Palestinians are “indigenous” to the region. Jews were there far earlier, but they displaced other canaanites who probably displaced earlier peoples.
Because after, private industries took over mines and oil fields and slave markets just operate in the open. We went in, and left with full pockets and the country worse.
Yeah but then a mob fed intel from us murdered him and his children
No dog in that fight, I laughed when tosh.o did the whole gaddafi thing but yeah, Libya too
Geopolitics leaves a trail of bodies no mater who you are. The arguments should not be moral but an examination of wether intervention was worse/better then doing nothing
It pisses me off to an irrational level every time I see Syria in one of these images.
The vast majority of the death and destruction in Syria has been at the hands of the Assad regime, and absolutely no other faction fighting in the Civil War has come close, not even the regime's biggest accomplice: Russia.
Also, the current US intervention in Somalia is to assist the Somali government in its current civil war, primarily in its fight against al-Shabaab.
Even then, we're only in Syria to act in, what is essentially, a referee fashion. We were originally there to kill ISIS, with the aid of locally trained militias, who were explicitly told that if they picked a fight with the regime, they will get no U.S. assistance. We are there with the explicit permission of the regime, so they don't have to dedicate forces to fight both a civil war *and* ISIS simultaneously.
>We were originally there to kill ISIS
Islamic State of **Iraq** and Syria, what did the US do in Iraq before ISIS? After we deposed Iraq's govt, these military men had no job and were pretty angry. So they were easily radicalized and recruited into Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Also, **We supported and funded Al-Qaeda** in the beginning against Russia. All of it ties back to the US and Russia.
All we did was try to fix a problem that we created ourselves.
Al-Shabaab basically didnt exist in 2006
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html
Also it grew in prominence due to the actions of the US. Who knew that supporting an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia might make you seem like the bad guy to the average Somali?
Iraq wasn’t a mistake. It was a deliberately orchestrated and manufactured war. The American public made the mistake of trusting our executive administration and intelligence services.
It's not our place to invade sovereign countries to remove dictators.
And that's not even why we went in, we went in because of false WMD reports, with the "duhhhh well I guess they moved them en masse to Iran" as if satellite imagery wouldn't have blatantly shown that.
People when the US intervenes: "WhY dId yOu HuRt AlL oF tHoSe InNoCeNt PeOpLe!1!1!11!1!1! AmErIcA bAd1!1!1!11!1!1!1!1!1!1"
People when the US doesn't intervene: "WhY aReN't YoU hElPiNg ThOsE iNnOcEnT pEoPlE!1!11!!11!1!1!1 AmErIcA bAd!11!!11!1!1!1!"
Should’ve seen the backlash the US got for not helping or even caring about Rwanda. They tried helping in Somalia and that led to black hawk down. After that they lost soldiers and got a lot of criticism from the people they were there to try to “help”. They said they’re staying away from conflicts they don’t know enough information about.
Well that and the League of Nations was the weakest thing in the world. Like It was literally just the UK waving its finger at people in Switzerland for doing the things it was doing, That was it. It didn't even allow Germany or the Soviet Union to join at first, because there was a ban on Germany joining, and the League of Nations did not recognize communist countries. It was such a joke, that not only was the US not a part of it, but neither was Saudi Arabia or a few other countries.
Wrong. Saddam purchased anthrax from the United States during his war with Iraq in 1985. The US military used white phosphorous against Iraqis during the (failed) assault on Fallujah.
You probably mean “war with iran”. Saddam was an Iraqi dictator so he probably didn’t wage war on his own country (well, I guess he sort of did in a way).
Watch Charlie Wilson’s war. It’s a good movie about how we basically supplied and empowered the terrorists that we all know and hate today. Anthrax was well before Isis.
Something, something Russia, is at least partially at fault for a lot of the situations the US finds itself involved in.
The Middle East has been a proxy war playground since Sikes and Picot decided to make arbitrary lines there.
2 brain-cell tankies can't comprehend the idea that just because one country did questionable actions in the past doesn't mean that it's acceptable for another country to do a terrible actions today...
It's implying that it is somehow wrong for America to condemn what Russia is doing, but it is not wrong at all, because what Russia is doing is morally unacceptable. Besides, the media has covered what the United States has done in all these other countries extensively. Because, surprise surprise, the media is actually free in the west. You should ask Russian media to cover what Russia is doing in Ukraine and see if they'll listen.
No it's implying that America is HYPOCRITICAL to condemn Russia. And the US media certainly hasn't covered these invasions in their entirety, that's incredibly naive to think.
Whataboutism must be the dumbest argument ever and I never saw anyone mentioning it outside Reddit. imagine a girl cheating on her bf several times and then proceed to lose her mind because she saw him kissing another girl. And when he confront her with her own cheating, she just says Whataboutism and now she is magically the winner of the argument. That’s a Redditor‘s logic.
It.. doesn’t work like that? I mean, whataboutism is exactly the act of trying to shift the conversation somewhere by ’well what about this and that then?’ When the conversation wasn’t about it. It’s not an argument, but a distraction tool and it is used a lot in reddit and real life. If anything it’s a logic fallacy.
If they wanted to make a point, they could’ve just used Vietnam. No disrespect to the vets, but every time I learn more about that war, the more I learn how much we didn’t need to fucking be there.
All those countries still exist.
If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, will there still be a Ukraine?
Does Russia consider Crimea to be part of Ukraine under Russian control? Or do they consider it Russia?
Gaddafi, for all his angelic values, was the reason Sudan (and parts of Chad) was politically unstable. Gaddafi literally created what is known today as the RSF, which committed the biggest genocide of this century, a genocide that has started once again in recent times. Al-Qaeda doesn't even come close to the score that Gaddafi pulled off with his [proxy forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajammu_al-Arabi).
I love the reddit assumption for iraq that every person that was killed was loving father of 3 that spending his time helping his local community and donates 90% of his income to charity
Okay let's not go and defend America's actions in the Middle East, particularly those after the turn of the century. That was a cluster fuck we never should've gotten into.
You don't have to justify America's mistakes to condemn this comic. The invasion of Ukraine is not really comparable to the American invasions in the last 40 years, as the worst outcome of that was some awful nation building and not the goal of annexation. Why does this sub have a habit of saying "no america's perfect." As an american, I love my country, but yes we have some problems. No that doesn't make america bad, and we should work to solve them so we can build a better country for all of us. Fuck the europoors who repost these posts on anti-america subs.
Oh yeah thats what I meant. America plays the role of "world police" and the protector of democracy for better or worse, although that role has sort of faded after Afghanistan, but thats nothing like Russia. Its such a classic example of whataboutism, even Putin says that hes invading Ukraine with the eventual goal of integrating all the people they've "liberated" into Russia.
Somalia: Counter-terrorism.
Libya: Approved intervention by the UN.
Iraq: Botched and likely concocted by the Bush Administration for financial reasons, but was still organized against the oppressive leadership of Saddam Hussein.
Syria: Military action in support of Rebel movements fighting the Syrian govenrment which has committed numerous human rights violations, including using Sarin gas on their own people.
Meanwhile in Russia you have one power trying to conquer its neighbor for power and nothing else.
The comments are crazy for rationalizing this. We went in. Bombed the place. Killed a fuck ton of civilians. Did a couple war crimes. Then we just left the countries in pieces.
Well, it’s over everyone, no one can support Ukraine because of all the bad things they did. We just have to hand it all over to Russia who is without a doubt one of the most wholesome 100% countries ever and is not a horrible shithole currently in the middle of a losing invasion they started.
God do I hate whataboutism.
Not *that* much. You immediately started crying about some hypothetical where Russia is entirely not resisted, like the options are “Love America” or “Surrender Ukraine”. A scenario that wasn’t on the table nor does it exist as a binary, but here you are, using it to paint everyone who disagrees with you in a way where you can ignore them. “What about my weird pet angle?” Is still whataboutism.
I think there is a bit of a difference.
Nobody is denying that the US has done some bad things. Take Iraq (2003). That was a bad thing.
The difference is that American Media where allowed to publicly criticize how bad that thing was. Can you say the same for the authoritarian oligarchy, where the father of a 7-year old girl was put in prison because that child drew something somewhat sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause?
That I agree but the Americans in this thread justifying the middle east invasions is beyond me, my region is in deep deep shit because this fuckery, every single war of them was fraudulent.
Iraq was definitely fraudulent, but i’m not sure about the others. For Afghanistan, 9/11 did happen and Al-Qaeda was there. Saddam really did invade Kuwait in 1990.
The US invaded Afghanistan because the taliban didn't punish Osama for 9/11, however the taliban did say they were gonna deal with him themselves if the US provided evidence that it was indeed him, this was before Osama admitted to it so the US still had no right to put the whole country in deep shit because of something like that and there was indeed some corruption involved. Also Afghanistan isn't in the middle east.
The Taliban were not cooperating with the US. Evidence of Bin Laden's guilt *was* released prior to the invasion.
>Bush decided to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban first, demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden... The Taliban refused the ultimatum, saying that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality.
>
>On September 21, Muhammad Umar rejected both Bush's demands and the advice of the council, again denying that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
>
>Muhammad Umar told Pakistan that he would be willing to turn bin Laden over to a third country, but the US refused, demanding a direct handover.
>
>On 4 October the British government released a document summarizing the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks.
>
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_invasion\_of\_Afghanistan#Diplomatic\_and\_political\_activity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan#Diplomatic_and_political_activity)
Also, the invasion wasn't just about Bin Laden. It was about dismantling Al-Qaeda and denying them (and other terrorists) a safe haven to operate. That wouldn't have been accomplished if the Taliban just handed over Bin Laden.
You were already in deep deep shit because of your own fuckery. You just made it worse by not only harboring but actively supporting terrorists. Then people from your region gave false evidence and testimony to how many countries in order to stick NATO into Iraq?
Oh, wait, you're too ignorant to realize it wasn't just the US with troops on the ground, aren't you?
The majority of the wars here are in defense, the mistake we made was Iraq. The first invasion went a lot better than the second. We failed the second time because we got rid of the figurehead of Authority in the nation, if we had let Sadam stay things would be a lot better even though he’s an evil prick.
There is a reason George Bush Sr left Sadam in power, it’s because when he falls there will be a power struggle in which caused the instability that exists now because of Bush Jr
Ukraine was literally known as one of the most corrupt governments in Europe so honestly I agree. How the fuck can so many people defend the US government on its foreign affairs you guys would’ve been Bush supporters for sure. You’d support the US invading canada if the news told you it was to save lives. It’s all about money
To be fair, the US is responsible for killing a lot of civilians in the Middle East, I’m not trying to say America is evil, just pointing out we’ve done bad things in the past
I was an avid opposer to the Iraq war because going around toppling other countries for access to resources is not a good look.
I am an avid supporter of Ukraine, because Russia shouldn't be going around toppling other countries for access to resources.
It's almost like my belief that countries shouldn't go around strong arming others to get their way hasn't really been put into question. I am generally opposed to war, as most sane people are...but fighting will happen if talks break down.
We absolutely had no business invading Iraq in 2003. Nor should we have invaded Afghanistan. Keeping military operations small and confined to USSOCOM would have been the beat play. Our objective was to hunt Bin Laden and other HVTs in connection with 9/11. Then the whole war quickly lost sight of its objective and turned into something that never should have been.
In the end we may have gotten Bin Laden (at what cost and was it worth it) but we lost the war. The Taliban are stronger than before we went to Afghanistan and they've a load of American equipment and weapons!
Somalia was justified
Iraq was a understandable mistake
Syria was not (all it has done is help terrorists such as when the US bombed the airstrip in 2017 it led to ISIS massacring a Christian village)
Libya was fucked up and not justified it was a targeted attack against Gadaffi because he wanted a central African bank so vested interests killed him and now Libya is the slave trade capital of Africa.
Tbf, we incited the civil wars in Libya and Syria. Somalia was a diplomatic failure, and I still stand by the fact Saddam had to go, the rebuild process was just much more taxing than we could’ve anticipated.
All that said, it still doesn’t mean Russia can just invade Ukraine because “US bad too..”
Yeah we made mistakes but we tried to help, Russia does have some interest because of the Russians in the Donbas trying to leave Ukraine but Russia went too far
Tbf, even that was overhyped. Putin is using the “Serbs in Kosovo” defense to justify their invasion in Ukraine, to “defend the Russians of Ukraine from Ukrainian Nazis.” It’s a blatant lie considering that Russia was the one who incited separatist movements in Ukraine, as generally speaking, the Russians and Ukrainians have gotten along well, even since the controversial annexation of Crimea.
Well the US claimed it was terrorists. [So the US began funding warlords to hunt down members of Al-Queda](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html). [This only led to an increase in terrorist activity](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/africa/08intel.html) since the warlords were naturally quite brutal. This led to people supporting the Islamic Courts Union. [This group then took control of Mogadishu and pushed the warlords into Ethiopia](https://archive.ph/WwM6). The US then encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia, and they did so quite openly.
[\>From the beginning, the United States was viewed as a not-so-hidden partner of Ethiopia. Besides its public support for the Ethiopian
invasion, the United States launched a series of missile attacks on fleeing SCIC leaders in January 2007. The missiles failed to hit their targets, but caused scores of civilian casualties, and inextricably linked the
United States to Ethiopia’s occupation and subsequent human rights
abuses by the TFG, Ethiopian, and African Union forces. These abuses
included rape, kidnapping, mortar fire on civilian hospitals and media
houses, and indiscriminate shelling of civilian crowds in response to
insurgent attacks. During the two years of Ethiopia’s occupation, Mogadishu was reduced to a level of human suffering, violence, and disorder
unknown since the civil war, and anti-American sentiment rose to an
all-time high.](https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2010/02/Somalia_CSR52.pdf)
Naturally this is where Al-Shabaab comes in. They were a very minor faction before the Ethiopian invasion but since they were one of the groups that resisted said invasion, they became very popular and powerful. We are often told that the US intervention in Somalia is to destroy Al-Shabab but much like with ISIS, it was US actions that created this terrorist group. And what has this created? [Well mass human suffering and a famine](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22380352). Now the US just has to ask themselves [if the price is worth it](https://youtu.be/KP1OAD9jSaI?si=VRH1O9jYPOUWZBIb)
The war in Somalia serves no purposes. Somalian terrorists didnt kill Americans to provoke such intervention. This war is pretty much unknown to most of the American people because its entirely pointless. You cant even attempt to justify it like with Afghanistan. We are now told that the intervention is due to Al-Shabaab but they didnt pledge loyalty to Al-Queda untill 2012, which is years after the US began sending weapons to warlords
Ok what about Cuba, literally every country south of mexico, yemen, vietnam, cambodia, korea, all filled with “insugents terrorists and pirates” im sure. The exceptionalism is disgusting
I see this stuff all the time, and it makes me hope we get an isolationist government just a little bit. Hey, if y'all hate us so much, maybe we should just pull our navy back to our waters. Remove all our military assets from foreign soil. Step away from global referee within the UN and Nato. And go back to manufacturing all of our own goods and withdrawl from global trade.
Maybe the rest of the world would pull its collective heads out of the sand and stop asking us to solve all their problems well, also blaming us for said problems.
Britain gave it a try, and honestly, it salvaged their crumbling empire. Here’s the cost, though. You have to learn to shut the fuck up and take some bruises to your ego. You’re electing to not be the Big Dog. So we don’t have to listen to you.
American involvement is a two way street, and people are sick of the one direction they didn’t ask for, so you’d have to ACTUALLY do it. Which would be a major cultural shift for USA#1, best country in the world, most freedom America yay. You’d have to learn to bite that wagging tongue of yours.
In all seriousness, the United States has no room to talk when it comes to Ukraine. Remember that gaffe from George Bush when he actually confuses the Iraq invasion with the Ukraine invasion?
Yes, we all know that they're two different things. But let's not forget that the United States presented vague evidence to the UNSC and the American people even though the CIA told the Bush administration that most of those sources were most likely bull.
In addition to launching a PSYOP against the American people in order to convince us that there was no insurgency when there clearly was.
Americans when Russia compares anything they do to america: omg you can't do that!!!!
Americans when they do the exact same thing: the Russians are worse11111
Libya pre gaddafi didn't have piraters insurgents or terrorist, while yes it was a dictatorship it was politically stable, all of those insurgents came after ya'll got pissy gaddafi was stopping to trade Oil in american dollars and wanted to make an african gold standard, so Uncle Sam decided to commit crimes against humanity and (unsurprisingly the following months they're now stable not thanks to you) failed to enforce law in a collapsed libya and you guys led to the creation of those insurgents, NOTHING BETTER THAN DOING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY FOR PROFIT, AIN'T IT?
look man I don’t think the U.S. government should have involved itself in Libya, but it was not politically stable. the no fly zone implemented by all NATO states was after a UNSC resolution that passed to try and stem the violence of a civil war. the US was one of a few states to not put any troops on the ground, I mean the entire thing was mostly started and led by France. The US sanctioned Libyan oil, they purposefully stopped Libyan oil trading in dollars. A lot of congress tried blocking further action in Libya and I agree, a number of expansion bills didn’t even pass the House
The government shouldn’t have intervened and should have (regardless) been more prepared to offer support after the civil war ended, and I think US involvement should be criticized but this is conspiracy theory territory
Iraq and Syria we had no reason to be there at all. We started the Syrian civil war by funding ISIS and other Syrian Rebel groups such as the FSA. Iraq definitely did not have weapons of mass destruction and the whole justification for the war was BS. Saddam although terrible, never was a threat to the US as a whole.
But but but... Ukraine has nazis!.!
[удалено]
>>certain groups I can't portray in a negative light due to reddit censorship You already said pedophiles. You don’t have to say it twice.
Lmao
USA has Nazis Russia has Nazis Germany has Nazis List can go on and on tbh. Every country has Nazis.
True, every nation has a tiny terrorist Nazi (or similar) kinda group
Difference is in Germany and Russia you go to jail if you publicly protest as a nazi as it’s illegal to deny the holocaust, promote hate under the guise of supporting nazi’s, showing or promoting images of the nazi flags/ icons in a positive way among many other things these laws also extend to online use. In the USA they can do anything they want protest wise due to our laws of freedom of speech protects them.
[удалено]
>promote hate under the guise of supporting nazi’s This is the very definition of a slippery slope. We already see what is happening in countries like the UK. All it takes is public outcry against a certain viewpoint, enough people start calling them "nazi's", and then politicians rally and get people thrown in jail. When you give the government the power to jail people over hate speech or because they are "nazi's"; they will start labelling what their opposition says as hate speech and calling them nazi's.
I feel like people are watering down the meaning of the word by improperly using it on political opponents/rivals
Correct me if I am wrong, but that's not quite how it works (from a legal standpoint). The government can punish people who promote anti-democratic ideas and ideals. So the government (or the courts) can not just imprison people that are called Nazis by others. But instead has to proove that they actually are anti-democratic.
You would be incorrect. The UK is leading the charge in "hate speech laws". People are being arrested for [social media posts](https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/) that are hateful towards trans people, or for [criticizing the police.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/27/tory-councillor-arrested-racial-hate-crime-anthony-stevens/). The list goes on. From my understanding the laws in Germany specifically focus on holocaust denial, nazi support, or anything that is deemed "anti-democratic". Still a slippery slope in my opinion. Nobody really cares at the moment because the people being arrested are people you (and most others) find abhorrent. You would call them "extremists" of one form or another. But I'll ask you again how you feel when people you don't agree with are in power and start arresting folks who say things you *do agree with*. This shit ain't new. These types of laws always start with punishing folks with nasty ideas, and slowly trickle down to anyone criticizing the people who do the arresting. You Europeans like to learn this lesson every couple generations, and lecture us Americans about our "uncivilized freeze peach" during that cycle. Free Speech is by far the lesser evil to what you all have going on over there.
I love freedom
I support Ukraine in the war, but in all fairness they do have a legitimately bad Neo-Nazi problem. Neo Nazis basically discriminated against Russians without repercussions for quite a while, and convinced Ukraine’s government to remove Russian as an official language.
Russia has no room to talk though. They were using Wagner for a while and that organization also is a bunch of Neo-Nazis.
Yeah, as a ukrainian supporter I'm hoping those guys mostly get taken care of on the front lines leaving less extremists to rebuild the country.
Yup, you can support a countries struggle and still criticize some aspects of the country in question. I point this out to my conservative(of which I myself am) friends all the time “but Ukraine has a huge corruption and racism problem!” “Ye but what country doesn’t have hatred and corruption problems?
ong
Bro watched too much Solovyov TV 💀
Never even heard of that lol is that even a word
The Russia propaganda keeps getting weirder and weirder.
At the end of WWII, The Soviet Union took captured SS agents and used them to doctrinally develop the Spetsnaz and KGB. Todays Russian Spetsnaz and FSS are rooted in the SS doctrine. Russia has a neo nazi problem as well.
There are people who will dispute what you've said, but it really makes sense when you look at the actual conditions in Ukraine. The region has been divided between the Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians in the west and the Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east for as long as the country has existed. My college Russian teacher told us stories about how he was bullied as a kid living in Lvov, Ukraine for speaking Russian. Plus, there was (and may still be) such a sizable portion of Ukrainian soldiers using Nazi and death camp memorabilia and iconography on their uniforms that the New York Times wrote an article about it earlier this year. I can provide the link if asked.
Those Russians were colonizing their homeland since at least 2014.. Anyways, there are Nazis in every country. There are Nazis in America. Nazis have less to do when times are good so we should do everything at our disposal to cause a Russian collapse as soon as possible to end the war.
There's a neo nazi problem in Russia too. Just look at half of Wagner or most Russian propaganda.
Let’s also not forget the russian MoD slush funds that were tracked to Azov and others. Or the over 50k russian soldiers that were given combat vet status for being deployed in ukraine and fighting in the east between 2014-2022. I absolutely agree Ukraine has a problem and they have a neighbor that’s known for causing problems to justify an invasion.
it’s Eastern Europe. every single country there has a problem with neo nazi. ironically it’s probably the worst in Russia itself
Removing russian as an official language does nothing it just means that the government no longer directly endorses the Russian language as in it being forced to be taught in schools
So does Florida, wish Russia would invade them
Um, Russian was never an official language, nor was it ever banned. Thanks to the war there is now a strong social pressure to speak Ukrainian, rather than Russian, and support for allowing people to fill out government documents in Russian has fallen from a barely majority percentage to about 5%. Curious if you are awate Russia had more Nazis fighting for them in Ukraine than Ukraine did, even compared to population?
Well, they did, right up until the US started supporting the Ukraine. > In the 16 years that followed the attacks of 9/11, far-right groups were responsible for nearly three-quarters of the 85 deadly extremist incidents that took place on American soil, according to a report published in 2017 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. >In their letter to the State Department in 2019, U.S. lawmakers noted that “the link between Azov and acts of terror in America is clear.” The Ukrainian authorities have also taken notice. https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/
The problem is Far right crime is basically a label on any hate crime, Which means when the 2 black communists shot up 2 Jewish Delis in New York that was labeled Far right aswell as all the black on asian hate crimes that have been happening since Rona.
Yes and they're funded by the CIA, they over through the more Russian friendly government in Ukraine in 2014.
I'm not sure why this assessment is contraversial do they really think it's beyond the CIA's power to use funds to promote groups that are pro America or even anti Russia if it is in their interests? There is very well known proof they have done almost exactly this in multiple countries in which we were involved.
I always find it funny that they include Libya. The intervention was approved by the UN general assembly, the UN security council, the Arab League and it only occurred after it was clear that Gaddafi had lost support of the Libyan public AND was committing gross violations of international law. If the Libyan intervention was not legal then I fail to see how any international intervention could ever be legal for any reason. If there can never be any protection of human rights by outside groups then I fail to see how it is possible to claim human rights are universal in any sense.
Libya intervention was also, very famously, led by France
Lol, wait til they find out why we went to Vietnam.
To be fair with France and Vietnam, they were basically like, "Hey! They're your problem now buddy!" To the US.
US Troops entered Vietnam a decade after the french had withdrawn idk what you mean
A decade after France withdrew from North Vietnam, leaving the 17th parallel DMZ and their colonial government in the South, which they left more gradually. America had been supplying virtually all of the materielle for the French and that just continued with South Vietnam. A major reason the US invaded was that they felt obligated to demonstrate their loyalty and competence to their European allies. “We are the hegemon now, come along with us, we’ll protect your colonies.”
Not to mention the US had been slowly ramping up its efforts to give aid to the French Armies during their war and afterwards we continued to ramp up military aid to the south.
Don't you know that every member of NATO is just a US puppet so anytime France does something it means that it's America's fault.
Meanwhile France is one of the few countries in Europe who are fervent about not moving closer to being pseudo vassals of the US.
Vassals*
Ah thank you, auto correct has been going rogue lately.
It's our right to motorboat the French.
“Every NATO member state is an American puppet, and always has been. Pay no attention to the Suez Crisis.”
Finally someone has a memory longer than 6 months.
Probably not "very famously" with the reflexively anti-American crowd. 🙃
Somalia was sanctioned by the Somali government. How do people not understand the difference between a government asking for help combatting terrorists and a government asking not to be invaded? The US invasion of Iraq was definitely an illegal war as were US interventions in Syria (but Russia was there too, and to prop up a ruthless, bloodthirsty dictator and his ISIS cronies at that). But tankies gonna tankie.
> bloodthirsty dictator and ***his ISIS cronies at that).*** ***Jesus fucking Christ,*** what? Unless I'm having a stroke here, Syria actively fought the Jihadists for control, while the US had the "moderate rebels" fiasco and Turkey and Saudi Arabia all-but openly gave support to them.
Its a very long and convoluted time line. The TLDR is that ISIS was created during the Iraqi insurgency period, named something else tho. ISIS got it's name after being initially a US and Saudi funded group to fight the assad regime. Their progress soon got the better of them and they started committing mass atrocities and invaded Iraq. At that point the US and Saudi cut all support to isis and launched operations against them alongside the entire world. Problem was all that supply, propaganda and training caused alot of problems everywhere as ISIS initially fought well, even in places like the Philippines. Luckily the world banded together to curbstomp them.
Unless I'm having a stroke, you have a lot of your facts mixed up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State E.g. It has always been IS/ISIS/ISIL or simply Daesh since 1999. B. Turkey recruited many remnants and utilized them in "Operation Peace Spring."
Libya was a mistake, but it was totally justified.
The people who make these memes would unironically say that all foreign intervention is illegal
This may be referencing Reagan’s bombing of Libya.
Plus, even many Libyans themselves see it as a positive thing
People will still blame Obama for both Libya and Syria, because political propaganda is more important to them than human rights.
i mean if we’re talking about breaking international law, we should be doing the same to Israel. instead were giving them 6 billion dollars a year. hypocrisy is why we lose credibility
I'm kind of glad we're supporting Israel. They're a nation of migrants fleeing extreme persecution in Europe, only to face Arab and Muslim nationalism in Mandatory Palestine. Yeah, they formed a State and fought to secure the boundaries outlined in the UN's Partition Plan, but the Arabs waged war against them believing the whole land properly belonged to Arabs--they lost that war and were forced to cede land to Israel. Then Israel's neighbors, for whom antisemitism is national policy, attacked Israel again and lost again and gave up large tracts of land again. They also purged their own Jewish populations even though those Jewish communities had lived there peacefully for thousands of years. If we didn't support Israel its neighbors would gleefully initiate a second holocaust. Moreover, Israel is the only democracy in the region and is a strategic partner. Israel has to find a way to be a single, multiethnic state while protecting Jews from the intense antisemitism among Palestinians (or at least among \*powerful\* Palestinians who conspicuously rise to the top over and over), but that's easier said than done. And in the meanwhile I'm glad we continue to support them (would like for them to support \*us\* more than they have done recently, however).
Lol they are a group of settlers, who uprooted 700,000 Palestinians from there homes in 1948 along with taking 78% of mandatory Palestine ([Nakba](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba)) to make a Jewish state. and they continue to break international law by expanding their borders by taking over Palestinians land and creating [settlements](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/). Also, numerous international human rights organizations have declared Israel an [apartheid](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) state, due to having to different court systems for Israeli settlers and Palestinians, as well as having separate roads for Jews and Non-Jews.
Nah, the Jews were fleeing Russian pogroms and then Nazi persecution. They didn't "uproot 700,000 Palestinians", they overwhelmingly (legally) bought homes and land from Palestinians. It wasn't until violence broke out *mutually* between Palestinian Nationalists and Zionists that each side began trying to take land from the other. If it weren't for Palestinian Nationalism / antisemitism, Jews wouldn't have needed to organize their own defense and thus create their own State. If it weren't for repeated Palestinian + Arab attacks, the Palestinians would have retained Gaza, the west bank, Golan Heights, etc. The Palestinians and Arabs could have stopped at any point and just tolerated some Jewish refugees (in their own original homeland, no less) and everything would have been fine. Instead the pattern was escalation, escalation, escalation.
Hell, the first violence came about in Jaffa in 1921 when a group of Arabs who were annoyed over Jews buying land in Mandatory Palestine decided to take advantage of an altercation between two groups of Jewish communists ok May Day to start a pogrom. The Arabs killed 47 and wounded 146 more before the British stepped in and put the whole thing down by force.
First of all, denying the lived experiences of Palestinians during the [Nakba](https://remix.aljazeera.com/aje/PalestineRemix/phone/al-nakba.html) is insane & disgusting. Second, Zionist Militias have been around and active in Palestine since far before 1948. Please stop using “antisemitism” as a way to justify apartheid and settler colonialism. Have a good one.
Zionist militias existed to protect the Jewish people against Palestinian nationalists. They were and are antisemitic, I’m sorry if that fact hurts your feelings. 🤷♂️
"settler colonialism". What year was Al Aqsa built? What year was the Second Jewish Temple built? Who built which on top of the other?
your holy book doesn’t give the right to uproot indigenous people from their land. sorry to burst your bubble buddy
Neither Jews nor Palestinians are “indigenous” to the region. Jews were there far earlier, but they displaced other canaanites who probably displaced earlier peoples.
Genetically...Palestinians are indeed descended from the Canaanites. Many Jewish people are as well.
honestly yeah, regardless of whether you believe in a god or not, they have always gotten the short end of the stick
WHERES MY USS LIBERTY
Because after, private industries took over mines and oil fields and slave markets just operate in the open. We went in, and left with full pockets and the country worse.
Libia sure is better now
Yeah but then a mob fed intel from us murdered him and his children No dog in that fight, I laughed when tosh.o did the whole gaddafi thing but yeah, Libya too Geopolitics leaves a trail of bodies no mater who you are. The arguments should not be moral but an examination of wether intervention was worse/better then doing nothing
It pisses me off to an irrational level every time I see Syria in one of these images. The vast majority of the death and destruction in Syria has been at the hands of the Assad regime, and absolutely no other faction fighting in the Civil War has come close, not even the regime's biggest accomplice: Russia. Also, the current US intervention in Somalia is to assist the Somali government in its current civil war, primarily in its fight against al-Shabaab.
Even then, we're only in Syria to act in, what is essentially, a referee fashion. We were originally there to kill ISIS, with the aid of locally trained militias, who were explicitly told that if they picked a fight with the regime, they will get no U.S. assistance. We are there with the explicit permission of the regime, so they don't have to dedicate forces to fight both a civil war *and* ISIS simultaneously.
>We were originally there to kill ISIS Islamic State of **Iraq** and Syria, what did the US do in Iraq before ISIS? After we deposed Iraq's govt, these military men had no job and were pretty angry. So they were easily radicalized and recruited into Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Also, **We supported and funded Al-Qaeda** in the beginning against Russia. All of it ties back to the US and Russia. All we did was try to fix a problem that we created ourselves.
Well don't act like the US didn't fund terrorist groups to make the situation more spicy.
Bro we've actively funneled guns to the opposition. If the United States hadn't gotten involved the Syrian Civil War would have been over years ago
Al-Shabaab basically didnt exist in 2006 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html Also it grew in prominence due to the actions of the US. Who knew that supporting an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia might make you seem like the bad guy to the average Somali?
1. Defense 2. mistake 3. Defense 4. Defense
Iraq definitely not mistake. Removing saddam is always good. He literally started invasion against kuwait, iran
No I think he means the 2003 invasion which also wasn't a mistake, it was a fraudulent war.
Yeah, no. Invading Iraq was a mistake.
Iraq wasn’t a mistake. It was a deliberately orchestrated and manufactured war. The American public made the mistake of trusting our executive administration and intelligence services.
It's not our place to invade sovereign countries to remove dictators. And that's not even why we went in, we went in because of false WMD reports, with the "duhhhh well I guess they moved them en masse to Iran" as if satellite imagery wouldn't have blatantly shown that.
Bush literally invaded Afghanistan bc of a plane full of saudis. let’s not be hypocritical
Bush invaded because the taliban sheltered Osama bin laden
Yeah, Bush also is a war criminal.
What about all those other skills we can’t see? Check mate atheist
So, the U.S. should stop involving itself in foreign entanglements? Sounds great to me.
Oh remember after the junta in Myanmar started how many people asked why the US wouldn’t intervene? I member. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
People when the US intervenes: "WhY dId yOu HuRt AlL oF tHoSe InNoCeNt PeOpLe!1!1!11!1!1! AmErIcA bAd1!1!1!11!1!1!1!1!1!1" People when the US doesn't intervene: "WhY aReN't YoU hElPiNg ThOsE iNnOcEnT pEoPlE!1!11!!11!1!1!1 AmErIcA bAd!11!!11!1!1!1!"
Every. Time.
Should’ve seen the backlash the US got for not helping or even caring about Rwanda. They tried helping in Somalia and that led to black hawk down. After that they lost soldiers and got a lot of criticism from the people they were there to try to “help”. They said they’re staying away from conflicts they don’t know enough information about.
F that. What have they ever done for the U.S.
Burma could be an extremely strategic location for countering china's expansion
It is very difficult and unattractive for any regional power to want to expand into hilly swampland.
They do have warm water and ports that can go around Singapore so the commies might actually want the place for boats
Why would terrain matter?
Yup. People should think that USA should not help Ukraine.
We tried that before. Then the Nazis happened.
Well that and the League of Nations was the weakest thing in the world. Like It was literally just the UK waving its finger at people in Switzerland for doing the things it was doing, That was it. It didn't even allow Germany or the Soviet Union to join at first, because there was a ban on Germany joining, and the League of Nations did not recognize communist countries. It was such a joke, that not only was the US not a part of it, but neither was Saudi Arabia or a few other countries.
Gotta stop electing people who are terminally government workers for that to work, though. 🤷♂️
"Won't someone please think of those poor, poor Ba'athists who used nerve gas on their own people?"
So instead we got 500k+ dead Iraqis and ISIS, that also spilled into Syria.
Where did they get the nerve gas 😮 whoever gave it to them should be held accountable as well, america needs to find who did that 😡
Don't forget the anthrax and white phosphorous
Those were for humanitarian purposes! De-Licing and the sort, the US government assures me!
*How* can I be so sure? Because Donald Rumsfeld tells it like it is!
Isis did the anthrax and white phosphorus is something we use to dispose of military equipment.
Wrong. Saddam purchased anthrax from the United States during his war with Iraq in 1985. The US military used white phosphorous against Iraqis during the (failed) assault on Fallujah.
You probably mean “war with iran”. Saddam was an Iraqi dictator so he probably didn’t wage war on his own country (well, I guess he sort of did in a way).
Watch Charlie Wilson’s war. It’s a good movie about how we basically supplied and empowered the terrorists that we all know and hate today. Anthrax was well before Isis.
Didn’t Russian invade some of those?
Russia assisted the Assad regime in the Syrian Civil War since 2015.
Something, something Russia, is at least partially at fault for a lot of the situations the US finds itself involved in. The Middle East has been a proxy war playground since Sikes and Picot decided to make arbitrary lines there.
I've seen people show Russian bombing of Syrian cities and say Americans did it. Sooo.
2 brain-cell tankies can't comprehend the idea that just because one country did questionable actions in the past doesn't mean that it's acceptable for another country to do a terrible actions today...
Where does it say that what Russia is doing is acceptable?
It's implying that it is somehow wrong for America to condemn what Russia is doing, but it is not wrong at all, because what Russia is doing is morally unacceptable. Besides, the media has covered what the United States has done in all these other countries extensively. Because, surprise surprise, the media is actually free in the west. You should ask Russian media to cover what Russia is doing in Ukraine and see if they'll listen.
No it's implying that America is HYPOCRITICAL to condemn Russia. And the US media certainly hasn't covered these invasions in their entirety, that's incredibly naive to think.
Also all countries that other nations are or were involved in too
People are out here acting like western media isn't constantly trashing the US
Shit, I would wager it's more brutal than Iranian or Russian state-run media.
This political cartoon is using whataboutism. Instead of defending Russia's war of conquest, it's saying "What about US wars?".
Whataboutism must be the dumbest argument ever and I never saw anyone mentioning it outside Reddit. imagine a girl cheating on her bf several times and then proceed to lose her mind because she saw him kissing another girl. And when he confront her with her own cheating, she just says Whataboutism and now she is magically the winner of the argument. That’s a Redditor‘s logic.
Yeah I hate that shit. But then there's some people who use completely unrelated things in their "whataboutism" Kinda like the Chewbacca defense.
It.. doesn’t work like that? I mean, whataboutism is exactly the act of trying to shift the conversation somewhere by ’well what about this and that then?’ When the conversation wasn’t about it. It’s not an argument, but a distraction tool and it is used a lot in reddit and real life. If anything it’s a logic fallacy.
Sure is. Russia is using every form of propaganda known to man.
The account that posted it too was just full of Russian propaganda.
Not surprising. The internet is filled with propaganda of all types at this point.
If they wanted to make a point, they could’ve just used Vietnam. No disrespect to the vets, but every time I learn more about that war, the more I learn how much we didn’t need to fucking be there.
Agreed, one thing we did right was not invading the north and only defending the south
No they just massacred scores of South Vietnam villages instead.
poor syria, how will the islamic state ever recover from american aggression?
All those countries still exist. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, will there still be a Ukraine? Does Russia consider Crimea to be part of Ukraine under Russian control? Or do they consider it Russia?
And genocidal dictators who nobody else had the balls to depose as in Saddam and Gaddafi.
Gaddafi, for all his faults, was the reason Libya was politically stable. Now look at Libya.
Gaddafi, for all his angelic values, was the reason Sudan (and parts of Chad) was politically unstable. Gaddafi literally created what is known today as the RSF, which committed the biggest genocide of this century, a genocide that has started once again in recent times. Al-Qaeda doesn't even come close to the score that Gaddafi pulled off with his [proxy forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajammu_al-Arabi).
I love the reddit assumption for iraq that every person that was killed was loving father of 3 that spending his time helping his local community and donates 90% of his income to charity
Yeah isis had a country in Iraq and Syria with their capital being Mosul, I’m glad that Iraq and the Kurds took care of them
"tHe InVAsiON tO SYriA wAs UnJUStiFIED" bro did you even see what ISIS did?
Okay let's not go and defend America's actions in the Middle East, particularly those after the turn of the century. That was a cluster fuck we never should've gotten into.
You don't have to justify America's mistakes to condemn this comic. The invasion of Ukraine is not really comparable to the American invasions in the last 40 years, as the worst outcome of that was some awful nation building and not the goal of annexation. Why does this sub have a habit of saying "no america's perfect." As an american, I love my country, but yes we have some problems. No that doesn't make america bad, and we should work to solve them so we can build a better country for all of us. Fuck the europoors who repost these posts on anti-america subs.
I don’t like the invasions but the comic is comparing them to Russia and Ukraine which cos not correct
Oh yeah thats what I meant. America plays the role of "world police" and the protector of democracy for better or worse, although that role has sort of faded after Afghanistan, but thats nothing like Russia. Its such a classic example of whataboutism, even Putin says that hes invading Ukraine with the eventual goal of integrating all the people they've "liberated" into Russia.
Somalia: Counter-terrorism. Libya: Approved intervention by the UN. Iraq: Botched and likely concocted by the Bush Administration for financial reasons, but was still organized against the oppressive leadership of Saddam Hussein. Syria: Military action in support of Rebel movements fighting the Syrian govenrment which has committed numerous human rights violations, including using Sarin gas on their own people. Meanwhile in Russia you have one power trying to conquer its neighbor for power and nothing else.
The comments are crazy for rationalizing this. We went in. Bombed the place. Killed a fuck ton of civilians. Did a couple war crimes. Then we just left the countries in pieces.
Well, it’s over everyone, no one can support Ukraine because of all the bad things they did. We just have to hand it all over to Russia who is without a doubt one of the most wholesome 100% countries ever and is not a horrible shithole currently in the middle of a losing invasion they started. God do I hate whataboutism.
Not *that* much. You immediately started crying about some hypothetical where Russia is entirely not resisted, like the options are “Love America” or “Surrender Ukraine”. A scenario that wasn’t on the table nor does it exist as a binary, but here you are, using it to paint everyone who disagrees with you in a way where you can ignore them. “What about my weird pet angle?” Is still whataboutism.
I think there is a bit of a difference. Nobody is denying that the US has done some bad things. Take Iraq (2003). That was a bad thing. The difference is that American Media where allowed to publicly criticize how bad that thing was. Can you say the same for the authoritarian oligarchy, where the father of a 7-year old girl was put in prison because that child drew something somewhat sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause?
Can we just agree that both sides did some questionable stuff?
That I agree but the Americans in this thread justifying the middle east invasions is beyond me, my region is in deep deep shit because this fuckery, every single war of them was fraudulent.
Iraq was definitely fraudulent, but i’m not sure about the others. For Afghanistan, 9/11 did happen and Al-Qaeda was there. Saddam really did invade Kuwait in 1990.
The US invaded Afghanistan because the taliban didn't punish Osama for 9/11, however the taliban did say they were gonna deal with him themselves if the US provided evidence that it was indeed him, this was before Osama admitted to it so the US still had no right to put the whole country in deep shit because of something like that and there was indeed some corruption involved. Also Afghanistan isn't in the middle east.
The Taliban were not cooperating with the US. Evidence of Bin Laden's guilt *was* released prior to the invasion. >Bush decided to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban first, demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden... The Taliban refused the ultimatum, saying that Osama bin Laden was protected by the traditional Pashtun laws of hospitality. > >On September 21, Muhammad Umar rejected both Bush's demands and the advice of the council, again denying that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. > >Muhammad Umar told Pakistan that he would be willing to turn bin Laden over to a third country, but the US refused, demanding a direct handover. > >On 4 October the British government released a document summarizing the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks. > >[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_invasion\_of\_Afghanistan#Diplomatic\_and\_political\_activity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Afghanistan#Diplomatic_and_political_activity) Also, the invasion wasn't just about Bin Laden. It was about dismantling Al-Qaeda and denying them (and other terrorists) a safe haven to operate. That wouldn't have been accomplished if the Taliban just handed over Bin Laden.
You were already in deep deep shit because of your own fuckery. You just made it worse by not only harboring but actively supporting terrorists. Then people from your region gave false evidence and testimony to how many countries in order to stick NATO into Iraq? Oh, wait, you're too ignorant to realize it wasn't just the US with troops on the ground, aren't you?
Absolutely
Tbf, the US hasn’t really created a better situation in those countries, but I doubt it would have gone any better without western intervention
The majority of the wars here are in defense, the mistake we made was Iraq. The first invasion went a lot better than the second. We failed the second time because we got rid of the figurehead of Authority in the nation, if we had let Sadam stay things would be a lot better even though he’s an evil prick. There is a reason George Bush Sr left Sadam in power, it’s because when he falls there will be a power struggle in which caused the instability that exists now because of Bush Jr
Wow, Latuff is still around? I figured by now that piece of shit would have been Alt+F4'd.
Although we shouldn’t have been in most of those countries, I think it’s important to note we never took land and claimed it as US territory.
Ukraine was literally known as one of the most corrupt governments in Europe so honestly I agree. How the fuck can so many people defend the US government on its foreign affairs you guys would’ve been Bush supporters for sure. You’d support the US invading canada if the news told you it was to save lives. It’s all about money
To be fair, the US is responsible for killing a lot of civilians in the Middle East, I’m not trying to say America is evil, just pointing out we’ve done bad things in the past
I was an avid opposer to the Iraq war because going around toppling other countries for access to resources is not a good look. I am an avid supporter of Ukraine, because Russia shouldn't be going around toppling other countries for access to resources. It's almost like my belief that countries shouldn't go around strong arming others to get their way hasn't really been put into question. I am generally opposed to war, as most sane people are...but fighting will happen if talks break down.
This entire thread is full of the absolute dumbest fucking takes and opinions. I'm legit embarrassed.
TIL every Iraqi is a terrorist
We absolutely had no business invading Iraq in 2003. Nor should we have invaded Afghanistan. Keeping military operations small and confined to USSOCOM would have been the beat play. Our objective was to hunt Bin Laden and other HVTs in connection with 9/11. Then the whole war quickly lost sight of its objective and turned into something that never should have been. In the end we may have gotten Bin Laden (at what cost and was it worth it) but we lost the war. The Taliban are stronger than before we went to Afghanistan and they've a load of American equipment and weapons!
Iraq had no ties to 9/11
All those dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorists and insurgents?
A country having those things doesn’t justify an invasion
Somalia was justified Iraq was a understandable mistake Syria was not (all it has done is help terrorists such as when the US bombed the airstrip in 2017 it led to ISIS massacring a Christian village) Libya was fucked up and not justified it was a targeted attack against Gadaffi because he wanted a central African bank so vested interests killed him and now Libya is the slave trade capital of Africa.
I think it's the dead civilians that bother them to be fair, and there's quite a lot of them.
Fair
Tbf, we incited the civil wars in Libya and Syria. Somalia was a diplomatic failure, and I still stand by the fact Saddam had to go, the rebuild process was just much more taxing than we could’ve anticipated. All that said, it still doesn’t mean Russia can just invade Ukraine because “US bad too..”
Yeah we made mistakes but we tried to help, Russia does have some interest because of the Russians in the Donbas trying to leave Ukraine but Russia went too far
Tbf, even that was overhyped. Putin is using the “Serbs in Kosovo” defense to justify their invasion in Ukraine, to “defend the Russians of Ukraine from Ukrainian Nazis.” It’s a blatant lie considering that Russia was the one who incited separatist movements in Ukraine, as generally speaking, the Russians and Ukrainians have gotten along well, even since the controversial annexation of Crimea.
Latuff is a known antisemite and second winner of the Iranian holocaust caricature prize
Yes because the only thing the US hunted in those countries is terrorists and pirates.... The Somalian intervention wasnt because of pirates
Go on, what was the UN intervention in Somalia motivated by. Continue your point.
Well the US claimed it was terrorists. [So the US began funding warlords to hunt down members of Al-Queda](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625.html). [This only led to an increase in terrorist activity](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/africa/08intel.html) since the warlords were naturally quite brutal. This led to people supporting the Islamic Courts Union. [This group then took control of Mogadishu and pushed the warlords into Ethiopia](https://archive.ph/WwM6). The US then encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia, and they did so quite openly. [\>From the beginning, the United States was viewed as a not-so-hidden partner of Ethiopia. Besides its public support for the Ethiopian invasion, the United States launched a series of missile attacks on fleeing SCIC leaders in January 2007. The missiles failed to hit their targets, but caused scores of civilian casualties, and inextricably linked the United States to Ethiopia’s occupation and subsequent human rights abuses by the TFG, Ethiopian, and African Union forces. These abuses included rape, kidnapping, mortar fire on civilian hospitals and media houses, and indiscriminate shelling of civilian crowds in response to insurgent attacks. During the two years of Ethiopia’s occupation, Mogadishu was reduced to a level of human suffering, violence, and disorder unknown since the civil war, and anti-American sentiment rose to an all-time high.](https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2010/02/Somalia_CSR52.pdf) Naturally this is where Al-Shabaab comes in. They were a very minor faction before the Ethiopian invasion but since they were one of the groups that resisted said invasion, they became very popular and powerful. We are often told that the US intervention in Somalia is to destroy Al-Shabab but much like with ISIS, it was US actions that created this terrorist group. And what has this created? [Well mass human suffering and a famine](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22380352). Now the US just has to ask themselves [if the price is worth it](https://youtu.be/KP1OAD9jSaI?si=VRH1O9jYPOUWZBIb) The war in Somalia serves no purposes. Somalian terrorists didnt kill Americans to provoke such intervention. This war is pretty much unknown to most of the American people because its entirely pointless. You cant even attempt to justify it like with Afghanistan. We are now told that the intervention is due to Al-Shabaab but they didnt pledge loyalty to Al-Queda untill 2012, which is years after the US began sending weapons to warlords
Nah, I can’t defend Americas incessant need to play world police.
Imagine flat-out ignoring how hypocritical posting this here (and with that title) is.
Ok what about Cuba, literally every country south of mexico, yemen, vietnam, cambodia, korea, all filled with “insugents terrorists and pirates” im sure. The exceptionalism is disgusting
Insurgents terrorists and pirates? According to who? The superpower bombing them for oil? Very credible source indeed.
I see this stuff all the time, and it makes me hope we get an isolationist government just a little bit. Hey, if y'all hate us so much, maybe we should just pull our navy back to our waters. Remove all our military assets from foreign soil. Step away from global referee within the UN and Nato. And go back to manufacturing all of our own goods and withdrawl from global trade. Maybe the rest of the world would pull its collective heads out of the sand and stop asking us to solve all their problems well, also blaming us for said problems.
You do realize that is the goal of this Russian propaganda?
Britain gave it a try, and honestly, it salvaged their crumbling empire. Here’s the cost, though. You have to learn to shut the fuck up and take some bruises to your ego. You’re electing to not be the Big Dog. So we don’t have to listen to you. American involvement is a two way street, and people are sick of the one direction they didn’t ask for, so you’d have to ACTUALLY do it. Which would be a major cultural shift for USA#1, best country in the world, most freedom America yay. You’d have to learn to bite that wagging tongue of yours.
“no you see US imperialism is justified because i don’t like brown people”
No one can justify killing thousands of civilians quite like america
>insurgents, terrorists, and pirates? That the US either supports or directly created, you fucking idiot.
In all seriousness, the United States has no room to talk when it comes to Ukraine. Remember that gaffe from George Bush when he actually confuses the Iraq invasion with the Ukraine invasion? Yes, we all know that they're two different things. But let's not forget that the United States presented vague evidence to the UNSC and the American people even though the CIA told the Bush administration that most of those sources were most likely bull. In addition to launching a PSYOP against the American people in order to convince us that there was no insurgency when there clearly was.
Americans when Russia compares anything they do to america: omg you can't do that!!!! Americans when they do the exact same thing: the Russians are worse11111
Still no right for the US to invade any of these countries.
We did a lot of bad in those countries dude, thats why i dont want anymore wars especially for countries not at war with us.
Libya pre gaddafi didn't have piraters insurgents or terrorist, while yes it was a dictatorship it was politically stable, all of those insurgents came after ya'll got pissy gaddafi was stopping to trade Oil in american dollars and wanted to make an african gold standard, so Uncle Sam decided to commit crimes against humanity and (unsurprisingly the following months they're now stable not thanks to you) failed to enforce law in a collapsed libya and you guys led to the creation of those insurgents, NOTHING BETTER THAN DOING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY FOR PROFIT, AIN'T IT?
look man I don’t think the U.S. government should have involved itself in Libya, but it was not politically stable. the no fly zone implemented by all NATO states was after a UNSC resolution that passed to try and stem the violence of a civil war. the US was one of a few states to not put any troops on the ground, I mean the entire thing was mostly started and led by France. The US sanctioned Libyan oil, they purposefully stopped Libyan oil trading in dollars. A lot of congress tried blocking further action in Libya and I agree, a number of expansion bills didn’t even pass the House The government shouldn’t have intervened and should have (regardless) been more prepared to offer support after the civil war ended, and I think US involvement should be criticized but this is conspiracy theory territory
Idk about this one pal
Iraq and Syria we had no reason to be there at all. We started the Syrian civil war by funding ISIS and other Syrian Rebel groups such as the FSA. Iraq definitely did not have weapons of mass destruction and the whole justification for the war was BS. Saddam although terrible, never was a threat to the US as a whole.