If we held a light to crimes of the US (aka the sinister CIA= Truman's words) as we are about Soviet Union/Russia, I think it would be comparable.
Only imbeciles believe their own country's ''media''
It's not right when we do it either.
share^^^ this!
shareDo what? We've never used our military to try and seize a nation from its government.
shareThat was literally what the war in Iraq was (the second time).
The U.S., military destabilized an entire country based on an unverified lie, and a lot of idiots bought into and then gave up their freedoms with the unconstitutional ratification of the Patriot Act.
MANY MANY TIMES OPERATION PBSUCCESS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE
shareKosovo cough cough
shareGo away Russian troll.
shareIt is different. There are so called "super media groups", I think about 10 to 15 of them control the majority of world media, of course they are all owned by billionaires, majority of them are US billionaires.
If you have their supports, you control the narrative.
Russia clearly does not have it. So there is that.
The two scenarios bear no resemblance. The wars involving the U.S. / Western countries in recent decades have largely been fought in the Middle East or Afghanistan and while horrible, they were were wars to defeat terrorist insurgencies or topple dangerous dictators. And each had the goal of returning civilian democratic control to the country’s citizens. Fifty nations sent military personal to Afghanistan while Russian manifestly has zero international support or contribution for its Ukraine invasion. Kuwait is a shining example of Western intervention in the Middle East; the end result being a sovereign country with an elected National Assembly and no U.S, interference in its government whatsoever. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a war of pure imperial conquest by a stronger nation fully intending to decapitate the elected civilian government and absorb a weaker European neighbor so that it no longer exists.
shareReally? That is really naive, or do you work as a press officer for US government?
Maybe you can explain to me what you think of what Lawrence Wilkerson said about the strategic goals of US in Afghanistan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3f_EKnH7Tw
Bear in mind Lawrence B. Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.
When Colin Powell holding a small glass bottle of white powder, knowingly lie (which he admitted in his book) to UN about Iraq chemical weapon program, Lawrence wrote the speech.
Kuwait is a shining example of Western intervention in the Middle East;
"And each had the goal of returning civilian democratic control to the country’s citizens."
The kind of democracy where 51% tell the other 49% how to live, or the kind where the one with 3 million less votes wins? I'm pretty sure no one is interested in our kind of democracy.
Well that’s a legitimate point and I hope America does not continue to impose it’s political system on others anymore (although I do believe in the electoral college for America precisely due to your other concern about majority tyranny). Nonetheless, this does not justify what Russia is doing to Ukraine which is identical to what you’re describing
shareSo you like the ones in which 3% (arbitrary number) tell others how to live or else?
shareSure, as long as they're doing their job of promoting health, harmony and sustainability. I don't believe authority is about getting what you want, it's about taking full responsibility for others and making sure everything is arranged in the best configuration for proper functioning. So bare minimum, they can't be a fucking sociopath.
share"Sure, as long as they're doing their job of promoting health, harmony and sustainability." I guess you missed the "or else" part ...
And can you list the countries in which US was involved that would conform to that???
Let me guess ... Iraq? Syria? Libya? Afghanistan? They were ALL beacons of "health, harmony and sustainability", right?
We destroyed Iraq, sure Saddam was brutal but that's what was needed because that's their perspective. Not sure what's your point with this one.
Afghanistan, can't say I know much about the politics, but we had no business being there, and no one even knew what the goal was.
Syria, they aren't doing bad, unless you're in terrorist controlled areas.
Libya was the most successful country in Africa.
My perspective is that in NONE of the countries I mentioned this was happening "Sure, as long as they're doing their job of promoting health, harmony and sustainability."
Was it USA's job to "fix" the problems? I don't know, probably not. But you must admit that there are problems in those regions and they are not, as you would seem to suggest, beacons of humanity, human rights and happiness ...
Welcome to world leadership.
shareYou THINK it would be comparable. Now that's an aware person ladies and gentlemen ! Way more documented than any journalist.
Mixing up opinion and verifiable facts is a gross mistake. When comparing both, one will always lose to the other. But nowadays it's more about belief than truth. Ignorant SOB's like this one are spreading worse than any epidemic.
Mixing up opinion and verifiable facts is a gross mistake.
I know the CIA was involved in some shenanigans during the Cold War BUT this was a fight to stop the spread of communism. Most communist governments failed unless they resorted to oppression or reforms. China and Vietnam are still ruled by communist parties BUT they have embraced "market reforms". It is troubling that so many US manufacturing jobs went to communist countries.
You cannot compare a mostly free nation like the US with a totalitarian Communist regime like the USSR. Russia flirted with democracy but it looks like they have become a totalitarian dictatorship under President-for-life Putin. Don't forget about the iron curtain that was designed to keep people IN and not OUT.
These self hating idiots like the OP are out of their minds. The US and other free countries are not perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
shareThen maybe you can tell me what you think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y0RmLLjpHw
shareI know the CIA was involved in some shenanigans during the Cold War BUT this was a fight to stop the spread of communism.
Your links are all CRAZY conspiracy theory websites. I support the war on DRUGS. Drugs DESTROY people, families, communities and societies. The war in Vietnam was fought during the cold war mainly/partly to stop the spread of communism. Vietnam is still a communist country.
I don't think you can blame the CIA for the opioid crisis. People will always want to get high and they'll find a way to do it. People get high off whipped cream dispensers and gas grills. China fought the Opium Wars back in the 19th century and it was fought partly over their crackdown on the opium trade. Even back then, China realized that opium was destroying its people, families, communities and society. If people can't get opioids, they'll get crack, meth, weed or anything.
The failures of the CIA are well-known but a lot of their successes are classified. A lot of sensitive information is classified for 50 - 75 years so we don't know what really happened.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19970917&slug=2560839
Your links are all CRAZY conspiracy theory websites.
The war in Vietnam was fought during the cold war mainly/partly to stop the spread of communism. Vietnam is still a communist country.
I don't think you can blame the CIA for the opioid crisis.
Michael Collins Piper was a conspiracy theorist who hosted a radio show and wrote a few conspiracy theory books. He had ZERO government experience so he doesn't know what he is talking about. Any idiot can write a book. Dennis Rodman wrote a book.
Read the reputable source below instead of your CRAZY conspiracy theory links. I saw NOTHING on page 58 and 241 to support your CRAZY conspiracy theories.
https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-history * History that isn't CRAZY *
We'll have to agree to disagree. You buy into too many conspiracy theories. We won't know the truth until fifty years or more.
I saw NOTHING on page 58 and 241 to support your CRAZY conspiracy theories.
I actually read page 541 but I accidentally typed 241. There is nothing in your sources and it's full of redactions. The Vietnam War was primarily fought to stop the spread of communism. The US was not there to stop narcotics production. That's called mission creep and it sounds like there were a bunch of TRIBES doing TRIBAL shit.
I'm not a liberal. I provided my links for all to see. I will not convince you of anything since you are a believer in fringe conspiracy theories. I'll pass on Revolutionary Worker. It sounds like Commie propaganda to me. Your links are mostly BS and they are not from reputable sources.
The New York times is a reputable source:
https://archive.is/a2RXC
The Intercept is a reputable source:
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/18/the-history-channel-is-finally-telling-the-stunning-secret-story-of-the-war-on-drugs/
You have nothing to counteract or refute the facts.
It sounds like Commie propaganda to me.
Nope. The New York Times is a lefty rag that produced the discredited 1619 Project and spread all sorts of woke CRT lies. The Intercept was founded in 2014 by that wacko Glen Greenwald and it's a lefty site full of conspiracy theories. I posted my facts and you ignored them. We will not agree.
shareI posted my facts and you ignored them. We will not agree.
The history channel has been around for 27 years and I've seen zero evidence that is biased. The Seattle Times article that I posted was written by an ASSOCIATED PRESS reporter so all of your criticism of the Seattle Times was a wasted effort.
For the record, the Russian collusion/interference narrative was NEVER debunked. There is plenty of evidence but charges were not filed for whatever reason. There is a problem lately with prosecutors not pressing charges and it's happening at every level.
Manafort gave his associate campaign polling data and it ended up with Russian intelligence agents. Roger Stone was coordinating with Wikileaks about Hillary's e-mails that were released by Wikileaks. Trump granted Presidential pardons to both Manafort and Stone to protect himself. The Trump campaign met with the Russian lawyer in Trump Tower about opposition research on Hillary Clinton. Facebook blocked Russian propaganda accounts that attempted to influence the election. Trump also asked Russia in a speech to hack into Hillary's e-mails. Kremlin documents were unearthed that show the Kremlin intended to help elect a mentally unbalanced Trump to the Presidency.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/trump-campaign-chief-paul-manafort-employee-kilimnik-gave-russia-election-data.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/roger-stones-murky-relationship-wikileaks/574852/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-no-evidence-trump-knew-about-trump-tower-meeting-n995816
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/facebook-blocks-russia-backed-accounts-other-sites-keep-churning-out-n1242683
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-find-clintons-emails-on-or-around-the-same-day-russians-targeted-her-accounts
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house
We will not agree because you rely on CRAZY conspiracy theories and crappy websites.
Wow you really are a Liberal.
First of all, History supported the BLM domestic terrorists, and fails to mention how many people they killed and how much damage they caused rioting. In fact, they don't mention the rioting at all:
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/black-history-milestones
You have no defense for that, because, again, you support Liberal propaganda.
Next, the Muller report literally indicated there was no Russian collusion like the links you posted say:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion
Every single one of your links is a Left-wing propagandist website that either pledged support to Hillary or has people working there that pledged support to Hillary, as indicated in John Podesta's emails that were leaked by Wikileaks.
What's more is that those Left-wing rags (including History) also leave out the fact that the Chinese also interfered with the elections:
https://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/china-russia-pay-washington-post-to-publish-their-propaganda/
Also, there was ZERO evidence Russia interfered and affected the elections in any substantial way, opposite of what the media links you posted purported. In fact, RE-READ your own paragraph, none of what you posted is actual evidence of interfering with the actual elections.
Literally, what you're doing is begging the question. A fallacy you aren't even aware of.
You can't derive a conclusion based on nothing and then chase the answers (which is exactly what the Russian collusion conspiracy theory was, since Hillary made the claim with ZERO evidence, and you're regurgitating it with zero evidence).
What's bizarre about all of this is that it turns out YOU'RE the one who relies on crazy conspiracy theories from crappy Left-wing websites.
Ironic, no?
The History channel/website link you provided is a summary of African-American milestones so it's a huge list of big moments for African-Americans. Your link also mentions the 1968 riots, 1992 riots and the George Floyd protests that resulted in burnt police cars. The article in the History website did not support or condemn the BLM movement.
Your NPR link is for the Barr summary that was released in March 2019 in advance of the April 2019 release of the redacted Mueller report. Barr mischaracterized the Mueller report. Andrew Weissman notes in the NPR article that Barr's summary did not accurately summarize the full report.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918129496/a-lead-prosecutor-on-muellers-team-weighs-in-on-where-the-investigation-fell-sho
Mueller did not think there was sufficient evidence to charge anyone with the Trump campaign BUT he did charge several Russians with interference. The Mueller report also noted on p.394 of the pdf that report did not conclude that the President committed a crime but it also did not exonerate him.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/robert-mueller-russians-charged-election
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/robert-mueller-declined-charge-trump-jr-roger-stone
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/a-misleading-message-on-muellers-conclusions/
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download *full report *
I don't plan to discuss China since this is a Russia thread and Mueller's mission was to investigate Russian interference in the election and he didn't want to cross any red lines.
We will not agree but I wanted to post this info so others are not misled by your misinformation.
The article in the History website did not support or condemn the BLM movement.
Mueller did not think there was sufficient evidence to charge anyone with the Trump campaign
I don't plan to discuss China since this is a Russia thread
There is a fact check link at the bottom of every History.com article so you can contact them to complain about historical inaccuracies. You can send them your complaints about the BLM blurb and they might update it. I know there was burning and looting in the streets of the USA. Please enlighten everyone with your CRAZY conspiracy theory about HISTORY lied by omission.
You have no point and you clearly cannot read. The NPR article states that Mueller did not want to investigate Trump's finances for fear of being fired. That was the red line that he did not want to cross. It turns out that Mueller did charge several people with crimes but he didn't want to press additional charges.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury
There was no Lie and nothing was debunked. There are prosecutors who decide not to press charges based on their and Bragg of NYC is another prosecutor who makes a decision not to prosecute based on his interpretation of the law.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371907/Open-season-violence-Fury-woke-Manhattan-DA-Alvin-Bragg-WONT-prosecute-criminals.html
We will not agree but I just wanted to replay to some/most of your CRAZY conspiracy theories.
There is a fact check link at the bottom of every History.com article so you can contact them to complain about historical inaccuracies.
It turns out that Mueller did charge several people with crimes but he didn't want to press additional charges.
There are prosecutors who decide not to press charges based on their and Bragg of NYC is another prosecutor who makes a decision not to prosecute based on his interpretation of the law.
We will not agree but I just wanted to replay to some/most of your CRAZY conspiracy theories.
We'll have to agree to disagree. You buy into too many conspiracy theories. We won't know the truth until fifty years or more.
The failures of the CIA are well-known but a lot of their successes are classified. A lot of sensitive information is classified for 50 - 75 years so we don't know what really happened.
Lol, you sound like a complete idiot for even comparing them.
shareOk, gaslighter.
shareLol, and you sound like a complete idiot for using a term you heard incorrectly. Look shit up first before throwing it out there.
shareLike when someone makes a common sense observation, and instead of reasoning whether it's correct, you act like they're crazy for noticing. Cowardly ass shit.
shareLook Cartercunt, don't get pissy with me because you used a term you didn't understand and sounded like a fucking idiot and I called you out for it.
shareOk gaslighting coward with no argument.
shareLol, you saying a phrase doesn't make it true. You do know that, don't you punkin'? It's cute how you're trying to goad me with the added insult "coward", which you've used twice now. It shows the transparency in your effort to try to troll, since cowardice has nothing to do with this discussion. I can tell you're young, ignorant, and mentally beneath me, so I'll leave you to continue your weak attempts to antagonizing for someone else. Have a great evening chap.😘
shareI already told you why you're a coward. You act like it's a secret. People who are secure in their views don't duck arguments or try to use cheap gaslighting tactics to influence people. Even freaking 14 year olds on tik tok could see you're an obfuscating coward.
shareQuit gaslighting me, it's so craven of you.
shareRemind me how many territories the US has annexed in the last 50 years.
shareThey didn't have to annex them when they overthrew regimes and pilfered off the backend.
Here's the list, by the way:
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11584918
The OP said "no difference".
SO there is AT LEAST one difference ...