415

Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

Well, BRICS isn't really a formal alliance but if it were? Yeah, joining a hostile alliance while sharing a border with the US is asking for trouble, and the US has committed all matter of atrocities in latin america. I do think an outright invasion would be less likely than their usual method of military coups and death squads.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

So just to reiterate, you are okay with America invading Mexico to enforce its will on them?

[-] Pili@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago
[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Mate, it’s not hard.

It’s a yes or no question.

[-] Pili@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

Your question wasn't for me. And no, USA should give back all the land they stole from Mexico. And until they do that, it's ridiculous for them to expect Russia to return land that's populated with Russian ethnics to a fascists state that tried to exterminate them before the war.

[-] xNIBx@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

When did the last military coup in Latin America, orchestrated by CIA ,happen? I am not saying that the US is great but at some point, we need to talk about the present. And at the present(and recent past), the US is not trying to overthrow a government, at least not by using military force in Latin America.

As far as the war in Ukraine in concerned, the US is doing the right thing, even if they are doing it because it benefits them. This is the only time since WW2 that the US is doing the right thing. Have you ever wondered why historically neutral countries like Sweden want to join NATO now? What caused that change?

Mexico has every right to join the Warsaw Pact and i would be on Mexico's and Russia's side if the US invaded Mexico for wanting to join an alliance.

Now let's talk about how NATO is threatening Russia. How would that happen? If Ukraine joined NATO, do you think NATO would invade Russia? You do realize that Russia has nukes, right? NATO is not about invading Russia, it's about preventing Russia, a big country with nukes, from invading smaller countries with no nukes.

[-] Marxine@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

In 2014, Brazil, the coup on Dilma Roussef from the Worker's Party received backing from the USA. In 2018, the unlawful conviction of Lula from the same party, was not only backed but also had strategical support from the USA through instructions on how then judge Sergio Moro should conduct the trial and how he should work with and favour the prosecution, even by the use of fake witnesses and evidence.

They also had the heaviest of hands against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela a few years later.

So the USA never stopped meddling and forcing their way on South America, really.

[-] xNIBx@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago

Did the US deploy military troops in Brazil?

[-] Marxine@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not necessary to have a military base or troops in order to threaten the sovereignty of a country. This is not only a bad faith argument, but it's incredibly braindead as well.

And if you're insistent on semantics, yes, the USA deployed troops for a "joint training" with Brazilian troops during (far-right USA backed) Bolsonaro's government.

[-] xNIBx@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not semantics. True, you can overthrow a government without a military invasion but doing a military invasion is much more serious and more "bad". My point is that the US hasnt recently done the "more bad" thing(except for Libya but not even Russia gave a fuck about that), while Russia is actively doing the "more bad" thing.

The expanding of NATO depends on democratically elected governments of sovereign countries choosing to join an alliance. NATO didnt roll tanks over those countries forcing them to join NATO. If NATO did that, i would agree that it would be a very bad thing.

There are a lot of degrees of interactions between countries. Soft power, hard power, hybrid warfare, etc. Not all of them are equal or destructive. Just because Russia is currently doing the worst kind of interaction(invasion), you cant equate all negative interactions between countries to rationalize "but all countries are doing bad stuff".

Russia had very little soft power and with this invasion, they wasted large chunks of it. They proved to everyone that ultimately, they are willing to use military force to achieve their objectives. The fact that the US did/does it, doesnt justify it. Both sides can be bad and in this specific situation, one side is clearly in the wrong while the other side is supporting the "good" side(for their own reasons).

Do you not think that we should respect country borders and their governments, especially when they are democratically elected? The whole "it was a coup, thats how Zelensky got elected" is bullshit that was started by Russia AFTER the invasion.

I went back and checked the russian statements after the latest ukranian elections, where the actual antirussian candidate(Poroshenko) had lost. The Kremlin was tendative but hopeful since their main "bad guy" had lost. Kremlin didnt say anything about staged elections, didnt say anything about CIA conspiracy to elect Zelensky or anything like that. Kremlin was "well, at least that asshole(Poroshenko) lost, maybe we can find some common ground with Zelensky".

But Russia lacked the soft power to do that. So they overplayed their hand and used hard power to achieve it.

the USA deployed troops for a “joint training” with Brazilian troops during (far-right USA backed) Bolsonaro’s government.

I mean the US is training people from other countries and when it comes to Latin America, those people are usually far right. Is this a good thing? No. But this isnt as bad as invading a country. Again, it is a spectrum. There is a difference between Russia training for example people from Donbas(bad), or giving them Buk missiles(more bad) or straight up invading(most bad) or straight up going after Ukraine's capital instead of just liberating/securing the separatist regions(you have gone full disney bad guy).

This is what i am talking about Russia overplaying their hand. You cant really talk about "protecting the people of Donbas", when you are literally speed marching(literally airlifting and dropping) to Kiev. You dont give a fuck about Donbas, you just want a regime change(through violence, against the democratic results) in Ukraine.

The last coup was Bolivia in 2019, unless we're doing the old it's not true because it hasn't been declassified yet shtick

[-] xNIBx@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Did the US deploy military troops in Bolivia? You do understand the difference between saying "yeah, we support you" and then local forces do a coup and literally invading and using your own troops to violently overthrowing a government. Dont you think there is a huge difference there?

You know exactly what someone means when they say the US did a coup, stop playing dumb.

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
415 points (90.6% liked)

World News

32352 readers
420 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS