World News

You should ask yourself then, why all these wars had insanely large protests, both in the US but especially in Europe. Also why most political parties and many countries in Europe opposed those wars. And why this war in Ukraine is different.

These previous wars were american imperialism, while this Ukraine war is about stopping russian imperialism. Stopping russian imperialism isnt only the moral thing(like it was opposing those previous american wars) but also aligns with our geopolitical interests. Thats why literally everyone but tankies/far right support helping Ukraine.

So let me ask you, what do you think we should do? Should we let Russia invade and take over Ukraine? Should we let Russia invade and take over the Baltic Countries? What about Russia taking over Poland? Are countries sovereign and do they have the right to decide their foreign policy?

In 5 years, Turkey might decide to grab a few greek islands, in order to get some "breathing space" in the Aegean. Should we let Turkey do that? Is it ok for countries to invade other countries and grab whatever they want? I am just trying to understand your logic.

Should we never oppose invaders in order to minimize cost and human casualties?

Except that in this case the situation really is black and white, no grey area. A peaceful sovereign country was invaded by some genocidal fucks and it is our duty to help them. Corruption is not an excuse to stop the support, because Ukraine is actively trying to sort it out too. They know what life is like in the EU and they want more of that.

For the record, I live in EU, some 60 miles from the nearest russian military base. I have personal interest in Ukraine's victory because if it falls, then my country might be next.

Except if you actually lived in Russia in the 80-90's moved to the west, saw the life here and look where putler is going towards with his so called "rule of law", you would actually understand why it matters to stop that idiot. Out of the two clearly both evil, self serving entities of Nato or Russia, I know under which I would much rather live, even if neither is perfect.

Corruption happens everywhere, look at a UK, scandal after scandal, after scandal, do those involved in scandals resign? You wish they did, no those cocks cling on to power like a bad std. Only recently we had a string of relatively high profile resignation which had to be forced.

Sorry ranted on, but really the problem is that putlers regime is actually evil, Ukranians are dying to protect the rest of Europe from them. So paying for sending weapons to them is the least that I think I can personally do. For America it is better to stop putler before he attacks a Nato country and you would have to send your soldiers on the ground here.

(By the way, I agree with your Iraq statement, it was always about resources, and so is this war for putler, just look where "conveniently" gas deposits were found in 2012....)

What has corruption got to do with Russia invading them?

You're right, what excuses do the Russian invaders have for Ukraine? It sure blew up in their faces. And I hope it continues to until the invaders return to their miserable little circle of hell thry built for themselves.

Ahhh, it's the extremely rare false equivalence fallacy in the wild.

America will always fight wars because their interests in resources, political alliances, and ideological stability. It's for the money. It's always the money at the end.

America is the cultural and military hegemon due to the proliferation of free trade enforced through an unmatched navy. America becomes more powerful by maintaining this status quo. It's why dangers to the oil supply have driven 3 out of the 4 examples you rightfully point out. Sadly the Middle East is the oilbasket of the world with the worst borders ever designed. If you want energy, you spread influence there.

However, there is one instance where the interests of the USA align with the general interest of the average Westerner.

People don't like democracies getting invaded. And potential democratic trade partners getting invaded is bad for business. You can have both at the same time. I will not defend the Gulf War under this banner, but the faster that we can prove that land grabs are nonnegotiable in this Pax Americana, the better.

And also, you don't have to convince me that war is inefficient. I've read Catch-22. But you do have to convince me that the destabilization of the breadbasket of Europe (and the world) is less important than the opportunity cost of a couple million lost to a few hundred corrupt officials.

They are like rats, or cockroaches. Everywhere, scare normal people away, and live in the darkness.

The biggest post on conservative was someone trolling and asking how hard it is to build an echo chamber for one person.

So what, am I going to defederate from lemmy.world which is like the most generic possible instance but posts there still attract these loonies? At that point I can just ditch the fediverse because it's useless as a reddit replacement.

Nobody in their right mind is hating on the USA for not being world police. It's just White Man's Burden in disguise. Oh dear me you're so burdened by having to civilize the rest of the world, boohoo. Nobody asked them to, people even push back against it, and yet they do it anyway and then have the gall to complain about how much doing so is inconvenient. Then, two minutes later, the USA will complain about "sovereignty" and pretend they aren't encroaching on sovereignty every time they pretend to be world police.

International injustices like the US helping the Saudis genocide Yemenis? The problem is that the US is self-serving in its self-appointed role of world police. They don't care about injustices and only use (or even create) them as excuses to carry out selfish geopolitical objectives.