227 ms·

I've worked at tech companies that despise helping the US military. Please understand that the world is complex and although all superpowers have done terrible

I've worked at tech companies that despise helping the US military. Please understand that the world is complex and although all superpowers have done terrible things, helping the US is the only way our children will live in a peaceful world. This isn't about democrats or republicans, the future of humanity will be decided in the next decade.

k41da 5y ago
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  - k41da 5y ago
woodruffw 5y ago
Any abject suffering that occurs over the next hours, days, and weeks doesn't excuse the historical record of abject suffering imposed by the US military. It's perfectly consistent to be opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and also reject the myth that the US's military is the only thing that maintains world peace.
- wernercd 5y ago
  "abject suffering" And what about some of the most peaceful decades in human history? That means nothing, eh? "only thing" Not the only thing by any stretch... but definitely a major reason and a hugely stabilizing force.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > "abject suffering" And what about some of the most peaceful decades in human history? That means nothing, eh? The US, in a brief moment of national clarify, participated in exactly two just wars in the last century. The outcome of one of those wars was the establishment of liberal democracies across Western Europe, which is indeed a tremendous stabilizing force. But it's not clear to me that the US gets to claim outsized credit for the subsequent years of peacemaking under those nations.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Us participated in Vietnam War too which would made it third War. In Korea War too, four. Plus, supported various guerrilas (taliban) and dictators materiály. And that is me being lazy to lookup whether there were other conflicts.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I think you missed the "just" in "just wars." The US has been in lots of wars over the last century; what I said was that only two were just.
        watwut 5y ago
        Ah, I misread it as "just two wars".
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's not a 'myth' that the US maintains world peace, it's a most obvious reality and it's disturbing that anyone wouldn't be able to see it plainly. The world is not a 'peaceful place' with a bunch of wars now and again. It's held together by force. Peace is a balance of, and righteous management of power. The US+NATO+Allies form the basis of that power. Unfortunately, without the US, that 'Team' would basically be dysfunctional and wouldn't really work. The Panama Canal, Suez Canal, the Gulf, S. China Sea - all of it would be controlled by various regimes if it were not for US power basically keeping it all open for everyone. Israel and Egypt the 'lynchpin' of peace in the ME is kept that way because of US power. All of he Middle East would be like Syria were it not for US/West. Obviously Taiwan would be in China and Korea would be vanquished by N. Korea. It's hard to know exactly how the cards would fall, but they would definitely fall one way or another. Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO. The same sentences were written two weeks ago with respect to Ukraine. You can't make any assumptions about what Russia will or will not do. Taking over the Suwalki gap could easily happen. The frog is best boiled slowly, and with ample time to get used to the new temperature.
- lnxg33k1 5y ago
  Also because what Russia is doing right now is the same thing that US tried to do in the Bay of Pigs, settling a puppet government in a portion of a country then make it ask for help? That's CIA 101
  - eganist 5y ago
    This isn't an intelligence organization or unlabeled fighters. This is an actual, state-backed military and a declared invasion.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      It's not a declared invasion. I've read headlines that said Russia had "declared war"; in the body of the article, it turns out that Russia has sent a "peacekeeping force" into Donbas. There's been no declaration of war. Russia has responded to requests for help from the rebel leaders in Donetsk and Luhansk. I mean, there is a war; Russia has been bombing and rocketing Ukrainian military installations all over the country. But it's not a declared war.
    - lnxg33k1 5y ago
      Yeah but my point was that the declared invasion is happening due to the rebels that took over Donetsk and Lugansk asking for help from Putin to defend themselves from the ukrainian govt
      - distances 5y ago
        That is a very naive take. It's abundantly clear that Kremlin orchestrated the rebel areas to "ask for help" so they have a pretext for the invasion. I mean that was so transparent that I honestly thought it was only meant for Russian local audiences and absolutely nobody would buy that in the West.
        lnxg33k1 5y ago
        .-. I am not sure where or what point in my writing made you think that this fact was not very "abundantly" clear to me
sschueller 5y ago
The US moto is the same as that of the fictional character Peacemaker: "I cherish peace with all my heart. I don't care how many men, women, and children I need to kill to get it."
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Yesterday we'd have laughed at this. Today we get it.
justshowpost 5y ago
> helping the US is the only way When people are convinced that there is only one way, then the propaganda worked.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Russia is a openly currupt oligarchy dictator state and China runs slave camps and genocides. It seems to pretty much just be helping the US or the EU at this point. Honestly I would say EU over us in a ideal world, probably.
  - Siira 5y ago
    The EU’s the weakest of the powerful. I don’t think that’s not related to its more … progressive ideals.
wyager 5y ago
Nuclear proliferation, like it or not, has done more for global peace than US military/trade hegemony. Ukraine gave up all its nukes in the 90s which is why this is happening now.
- sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
  It's hard to say, right now it looks like it's just letting countries armed to the teeth with them dominate whoever they want
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Seems like an exageration. Do you think any country armed with nukes is dominating people as much as British empire, Romans, Mongols did? The fact that Russia (or China with Taiwan and Hong Kong) actually has to fight so hard for one country kind of shows they can't dominate whoever they want.
    - freeopinion 5y ago
      This reminds me very much of the slow motion train wreck leading into WWII. Germany had to fight hard in the same kind of political way back then, too. That was obviously pre-nuke. It takes a long time to build the many (logistical, psychological, political) facets required to lead your country down this path. With or without nukes. To answer your question, yes. A country with nukes is dominating people as much as the British empire, Romans, and Mongols did? How is that even a serious question? With military forces spread through Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Poland, Lithuania, Arizona, Alaska, Dominican Republic, Cuba, you name it. From sea to shining sea, then another sea and another sea.
- zionic 5y ago
  They gave up those nukes with the promise we would protect them. That trick of ours won’t work again.
  - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
refurb 5y ago
I would argue the US needs to batten down the hatches and become more isolationist. Let Europe deal with European problems. It's clear from the last 70 years, since WW2, that the US meddling in others' affairs only leads to death, destruction and more negative sentiment against the US. If LBJ stuck to his promise, we could have avoid a ton of mess in Vietnam: "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." We don't have a dog in this fight. Edit: Apparently arguing for the US to not get involved in yet another foreign war warrants my comment being flagged.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
- icedistilled 5y ago
  A similar sentiment was expressed in the 1930s.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    History doesn’t start in 1930. Many have argued that it was US intervention in WWI that created the economic and political situations that allowed such a bad outcome to take place in WWII.
    - icedistilled 5y ago
      Is that your point US should have stayed out of WWII because of WWI?
      - logicalmonster 5y ago
        I'm talking about WWI here and the unintended consequences of US intervention there. The US getting involved in WWI arguably extended that conflict, the action that made WWII possible, and had many drastic unintended consequences for humanity. The very short version is this. * During WWI, there were lots of peace overtures being pushed in Europe because a lot of people were sick of fighting. Because a lot of powerful people were hoping to drag the United States into that relative stalemate, these peace offerings were not taken as seriously as they otherwise would have been. * Because the US's entrance tilted the scales at the end of WWI so dramatically, Allies were able to enact a little revenge in the Treaty of Versailles and impose punitive and humiliating economic and political measures. Rather than a normal, face-saving peace-treaty, Germany was punished harshly and this tilting of the scales is what led to conditions for the Nazis to take power. * If Russia's economic and political attention wasn't directed externally at the time, it's likely the Russian Revolution would have failed and the world would have been spared a great deal of grief from Communism. Obviously this is all alternative history speculation, but there's a strong case to be made that absolute US neutrality in WWI would have ended WWI sooner, not created the economic/social conditions that led to Nazis taking power in Germany, and Communists would have never taken root.
konart 5y ago
chunghuaming 5y ago
denofgen 5y ago
What you're witnessing right now are the deathroes of the dictatorships like Russia and China with its aging leaderships. These dictatorships know that their time is limited; the democratic countries are getting stronger and more united. China, the one dictatorship that is supporting all the other dictatorships like Russia or Iran, is going into the final stages of debt/demographic/economic collapse. This is a pivotal time for the citizens of the free world to fight against these dictatorships. And you can help by asking your government to sanction China. And stop buying goods from China
- landemva 5y ago
  ' the democratic countries are getting stronger and more united. ' I see no evidence for this statement in western Europe countries. EU negative interest rates are an indicator of failure not success.
unityByFreedom 5y ago
We aren't sending troops to Ukraine so that's irrelevant.
- k41da 5y ago
  Give it 72 hours. The news cycle is leading the announcements tomorrow and the announcements that will inevitably come next week. If the news is already talking WW3 (and yes, they are) then it won't be long before the UN deploys it's own "peacekeeping forces" and the world goes hot.
  - BeefWellington 5y ago
    I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there. As sad as it may be for Ukraine, they're going to have to do what they can to defend themselves with aid and supplies. The one thought I have around this is Canada. Spitballing: There's a huge Ukrainian population there and the deputy PM has personal ties to the region. It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way. They'd also have to try to convince the other parties helping them maintain government. Even if that happens though, I suspect that won't make a difference to the outcome and the rest of NATO would look at it as a Canadian solo operation. I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less. Any politician who got boots on the ground (barring some unforeseen change in circumstance) would probably be skewered public opinion-wise and be essentially kissing re-election goodbye.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there. I hate to say it, but I agree. Germany sent Ukraine a few thousand hats to help them resist Russian aggression, for Christ's sake. Western powers will drop a strongly worded letter in the mail and implement economic sanctions that'll do diddly squat to the Russian authorities, besides maybe push them into a closer alliance with China. Honestly, the least they could have done is massed NATO troops in Poland, the Baltics, etc. and kept strategic ambiguity about whether they planned to actually use them (instead of explicitly announcing, like dumbasses, they weren't going to get involved in any way that would bother Putin). > It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way....I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less. Definitely less. IMHO, if they were going to have to get involved, they would have needed to have been moving troops and equipment for quite some time. I don't think they've done that.
8note 5y ago
This requires a very specific version of peace, where it's still peaceful for those in power to use violence against those who don't.
VictorPath 5y ago
- friedman23 5y ago
  Stop spreading Russian propaganda that is 60 years out of date.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I think you're just repeating what the parent comment said. Some big tech companies refuse to work with the American military. I don't know if that's a good idea or not. I'm conflicted by my own hatred of the American government. At the same time, the obvious consequences of big tech refusing to work with the American military is a relative loss of power compared to countries like Russia.
paxys 5y ago
Is what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now too different from the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan?
- majgr 5y ago
  I wonder if this is bot or paid Russian troll..
- rectang 5y ago
  It's certainly different from Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States was preceded by an attack by Al Qaeda on New York City. The attack by Russia on Ukraine is completely unprovoked.
  - Fricken 5y ago
    I feel like I'm being way too obvious here, but Al Qaeda is not Afghanistan or Iraq.
    - rectang 5y ago
      I also feel like I'm being obvious here: Al Qaeda was sheltered by Afghanistan during and after the attack on NYC. (I agree that there were essentially no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.)
      - Fricken 5y ago
        All the people who did the attack on NYC died in the attack on NYC. None of them went back to Afghanistan after flying planes into towers.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    You're right. Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine is much more equivalent to America's unprovoked attack on Iraq.
    - 5y ago
speedgoose 5y ago
US the only way for a peaceful world? You should read a bit on the USA history and its military conflicts and you may change your mind. Wikipedia is a good starting point.
- goldenshale 5y ago
  The period of US hegemony from WW2 until today has by far been the most peaceful time in the history of civilization. Unlike previous super powers, the US did not take over any other countries or colonize by force. We have done many horrible things, like support dictators, invade Iraq based on lies (to depose a dictator), etc., but we have also supported people all over after natural disasters, helped with foreign aid to relieve famines, policed global trade to enable fair markets, and many other good deeds. It's definitely not the only way, and we could do much, much better, but show me another major country that you would prefer hold the reigns of global power?
  - calf 5y ago
    You're obviously a single child, if you think the only options are for one person to dominate another and vice versa.
  - lopis 5y ago
    Peaceful for who?? Certainly not for Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Middle East. The US has absolutely imposed "peace" by force and by pushing its own agenda everywhere.
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      > Eastern Europe I beg your pardon? Eastern Europe is eternally grateful to the US that they won the cold war allowing them to break free from the Big Bear. Nations comprising 100+ million people from Estonia to Bulgaria are living their golden ages right now, because of US.
  - MayeulC 5y ago
    Not necessarily true. What do you make of pax romana? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana
probably_wrong 5y ago
I resent the implication that the US military is the only reason the world is at peace, and I bet plenty of NGOs feel the same - if anything, the US military is the one that has been pushing for new conflicts. And while it's true that all superpowers have done terrible things, the difference with the US is that plenty of them have stopped doing terrible things since. I was not born yet when Germany started WWII, but I was alive to see the US declare torture as a valid means of interrogation and bomb civilians with no repercusions. And my living relatives who suffered under a US-backed military coup may not be as quick to forgive either. Maybe your children will live in a peaceful world, but for many of us that's cold comfort.
zthrowaway 5y ago
While I agree, I’m afraid all your comment did was pull the anti-US Russian trolls out into the open.

k41da 5y ago

anothernewdude 5y ago
- k41da 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

Any abject suffering that occurs over the next hours, days, and weeks doesn't excuse the historical record of abject suffering imposed by the US military. It's perfectly consistent to be opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and also reject the myth that the US's military is the only thing that maintains world peace.

wernercd 5y ago
"abject suffering" And what about some of the most peaceful decades in human history? That means nothing, eh? "only thing" Not the only thing by any stretch... but definitely a major reason and a hugely stabilizing force.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > "abject suffering" And what about some of the most peaceful decades in human history? That means nothing, eh? The US, in a brief moment of national clarify, participated in exactly two just wars in the last century. The outcome of one of those wars was the establishment of liberal democracies across Western Europe, which is indeed a tremendous stabilizing force. But it's not clear to me that the US gets to claim outsized credit for the subsequent years of peacemaking under those nations.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Us participated in Vietnam War too which would made it third War. In Korea War too, four. Plus, supported various guerrilas (taliban) and dictators materiály. And that is me being lazy to lookup whether there were other conflicts.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I think you missed the "just" in "just wars." The US has been in lots of wars over the last century; what I said was that only two were just.
      - watwut 5y ago
        Ah, I misread it as "just two wars".
jollybean 5y ago
It's not a 'myth' that the US maintains world peace, it's a most obvious reality and it's disturbing that anyone wouldn't be able to see it plainly. The world is not a 'peaceful place' with a bunch of wars now and again. It's held together by force. Peace is a balance of, and righteous management of power. The US+NATO+Allies form the basis of that power. Unfortunately, without the US, that 'Team' would basically be dysfunctional and wouldn't really work. The Panama Canal, Suez Canal, the Gulf, S. China Sea - all of it would be controlled by various regimes if it were not for US power basically keeping it all open for everyone. Israel and Egypt the 'lynchpin' of peace in the ME is kept that way because of US power. All of he Middle East would be like Syria were it not for US/West. Obviously Taiwan would be in China and Korea would be vanquished by N. Korea. It's hard to know exactly how the cards would fall, but they would definitely fall one way or another. Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO. The same sentences were written two weeks ago with respect to Ukraine. You can't make any assumptions about what Russia will or will not do. Taking over the Suwalki gap could easily happen. The frog is best boiled slowly, and with ample time to get used to the new temperature.
lnxg33k1 5y ago
Also because what Russia is doing right now is the same thing that US tried to do in the Bay of Pigs, settling a puppet government in a portion of a country then make it ask for help? That's CIA 101
- eganist 5y ago
  This isn't an intelligence organization or unlabeled fighters. This is an actual, state-backed military and a declared invasion.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    It's not a declared invasion. I've read headlines that said Russia had "declared war"; in the body of the article, it turns out that Russia has sent a "peacekeeping force" into Donbas. There's been no declaration of war. Russia has responded to requests for help from the rebel leaders in Donetsk and Luhansk. I mean, there is a war; Russia has been bombing and rocketing Ukrainian military installations all over the country. But it's not a declared war.
  - lnxg33k1 5y ago
    Yeah but my point was that the declared invasion is happening due to the rebels that took over Donetsk and Lugansk asking for help from Putin to defend themselves from the ukrainian govt
    - distances 5y ago
      That is a very naive take. It's abundantly clear that Kremlin orchestrated the rebel areas to "ask for help" so they have a pretext for the invasion. I mean that was so transparent that I honestly thought it was only meant for Russian local audiences and absolutely nobody would buy that in the West.
      - lnxg33k1 5y ago
        .-. I am not sure where or what point in my writing made you think that this fact was not very "abundantly" clear to me

sschueller 5y ago

The US moto is the same as that of the fictional character Peacemaker: "I cherish peace with all my heart. I don't care how many men, women, and children I need to kill to get it."

radu_floricica 5y ago
Yesterday we'd have laughed at this. Today we get it.

justshowpost 5y ago

> helping the US is the only way When people are convinced that there is only one way, then the propaganda worked.

thatguy0900 5y ago
Russia is a openly currupt oligarchy dictator state and China runs slave camps and genocides. It seems to pretty much just be helping the US or the EU at this point. Honestly I would say EU over us in a ideal world, probably.
- Siira 5y ago
  The EU’s the weakest of the powerful. I don’t think that’s not related to its more … progressive ideals.

wyager 5y ago

Nuclear proliferation, like it or not, has done more for global peace than US military/trade hegemony. Ukraine gave up all its nukes in the 90s which is why this is happening now.

sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
It's hard to say, right now it looks like it's just letting countries armed to the teeth with them dominate whoever they want
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Seems like an exageration. Do you think any country armed with nukes is dominating people as much as British empire, Romans, Mongols did? The fact that Russia (or China with Taiwan and Hong Kong) actually has to fight so hard for one country kind of shows they can't dominate whoever they want.
  - freeopinion 5y ago
    This reminds me very much of the slow motion train wreck leading into WWII. Germany had to fight hard in the same kind of political way back then, too. That was obviously pre-nuke. It takes a long time to build the many (logistical, psychological, political) facets required to lead your country down this path. With or without nukes. To answer your question, yes. A country with nukes is dominating people as much as the British empire, Romans, and Mongols did? How is that even a serious question? With military forces spread through Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Poland, Lithuania, Arizona, Alaska, Dominican Republic, Cuba, you name it. From sea to shining sea, then another sea and another sea.
zionic 5y ago
They gave up those nukes with the promise we would protect them. That trick of ours won’t work again.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

I would argue the US needs to batten down the hatches and become more isolationist. Let Europe deal with European problems. It's clear from the last 70 years, since WW2, that the US meddling in others' affairs only leads to death, destruction and more negative sentiment against the US. If LBJ stuck to his promise, we could have avoid a ton of mess in Vietnam: "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." We don't have a dog in this fight. Edit: Apparently arguing for the US to not get involved in yet another foreign war warrants my comment being flagged.

MattGaiser 5y ago
icedistilled 5y ago
A similar sentiment was expressed in the 1930s.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  History doesn’t start in 1930. Many have argued that it was US intervention in WWI that created the economic and political situations that allowed such a bad outcome to take place in WWII.
  - icedistilled 5y ago
    Is that your point US should have stayed out of WWII because of WWI?
    - logicalmonster 5y ago
      I'm talking about WWI here and the unintended consequences of US intervention there. The US getting involved in WWI arguably extended that conflict, the action that made WWII possible, and had many drastic unintended consequences for humanity. The very short version is this. * During WWI, there were lots of peace overtures being pushed in Europe because a lot of people were sick of fighting. Because a lot of powerful people were hoping to drag the United States into that relative stalemate, these peace offerings were not taken as seriously as they otherwise would have been. * Because the US's entrance tilted the scales at the end of WWI so dramatically, Allies were able to enact a little revenge in the Treaty of Versailles and impose punitive and humiliating economic and political measures. Rather than a normal, face-saving peace-treaty, Germany was punished harshly and this tilting of the scales is what led to conditions for the Nazis to take power. * If Russia's economic and political attention wasn't directed externally at the time, it's likely the Russian Revolution would have failed and the world would have been spared a great deal of grief from Communism. Obviously this is all alternative history speculation, but there's a strong case to be made that absolute US neutrality in WWI would have ended WWI sooner, not created the economic/social conditions that led to Nazis taking power in Germany, and Communists would have never taken root.

konart 5y ago

chunghuaming 5y ago

denofgen 5y ago

What you're witnessing right now are the deathroes of the dictatorships like Russia and China with its aging leaderships. These dictatorships know that their time is limited; the democratic countries are getting stronger and more united. China, the one dictatorship that is supporting all the other dictatorships like Russia or Iran, is going into the final stages of debt/demographic/economic collapse. This is a pivotal time for the citizens of the free world to fight against these dictatorships. And you can help by asking your government to sanction China. And stop buying goods from China

landemva 5y ago
' the democratic countries are getting stronger and more united. ' I see no evidence for this statement in western Europe countries. EU negative interest rates are an indicator of failure not success.

unityByFreedom 5y ago

We aren't sending troops to Ukraine so that's irrelevant.

k41da 5y ago
Give it 72 hours. The news cycle is leading the announcements tomorrow and the announcements that will inevitably come next week. If the news is already talking WW3 (and yes, they are) then it won't be long before the UN deploys it's own "peacekeeping forces" and the world goes hot.
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there. As sad as it may be for Ukraine, they're going to have to do what they can to defend themselves with aid and supplies. The one thought I have around this is Canada. Spitballing: There's a huge Ukrainian population there and the deputy PM has personal ties to the region. It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way. They'd also have to try to convince the other parties helping them maintain government. Even if that happens though, I suspect that won't make a difference to the outcome and the rest of NATO would look at it as a Canadian solo operation. I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less. Any politician who got boots on the ground (barring some unforeseen change in circumstance) would probably be skewered public opinion-wise and be essentially kissing re-election goodbye.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there. I hate to say it, but I agree. Germany sent Ukraine a few thousand hats to help them resist Russian aggression, for Christ's sake. Western powers will drop a strongly worded letter in the mail and implement economic sanctions that'll do diddly squat to the Russian authorities, besides maybe push them into a closer alliance with China. Honestly, the least they could have done is massed NATO troops in Poland, the Baltics, etc. and kept strategic ambiguity about whether they planned to actually use them (instead of explicitly announcing, like dumbasses, they weren't going to get involved in any way that would bother Putin). > It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way....I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less. Definitely less. IMHO, if they were going to have to get involved, they would have needed to have been moving troops and equipment for quite some time. I don't think they've done that.

8note 5y ago

This requires a very specific version of peace, where it's still peaceful for those in power to use violence against those who don't.

VictorPath 5y ago

friedman23 5y ago
Stop spreading Russian propaganda that is 60 years out of date.
ALittleLight 5y ago
I think you're just repeating what the parent comment said. Some big tech companies refuse to work with the American military. I don't know if that's a good idea or not. I'm conflicted by my own hatred of the American government. At the same time, the obvious consequences of big tech refusing to work with the American military is a relative loss of power compared to countries like Russia.

paxys 5y ago

Is what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now too different from the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan?

majgr 5y ago
I wonder if this is bot or paid Russian troll..
rectang 5y ago
It's certainly different from Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States was preceded by an attack by Al Qaeda on New York City. The attack by Russia on Ukraine is completely unprovoked.
- Fricken 5y ago
  I feel like I'm being way too obvious here, but Al Qaeda is not Afghanistan or Iraq.
  - rectang 5y ago
    I also feel like I'm being obvious here: Al Qaeda was sheltered by Afghanistan during and after the attack on NYC. (I agree that there were essentially no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.)
    - Fricken 5y ago
      All the people who did the attack on NYC died in the attack on NYC. None of them went back to Afghanistan after flying planes into towers.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  You're right. Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine is much more equivalent to America's unprovoked attack on Iraq.
  - 5y ago

speedgoose 5y ago

US the only way for a peaceful world? You should read a bit on the USA history and its military conflicts and you may change your mind. Wikipedia is a good starting point.

goldenshale 5y ago
The period of US hegemony from WW2 until today has by far been the most peaceful time in the history of civilization. Unlike previous super powers, the US did not take over any other countries or colonize by force. We have done many horrible things, like support dictators, invade Iraq based on lies (to depose a dictator), etc., but we have also supported people all over after natural disasters, helped with foreign aid to relieve famines, policed global trade to enable fair markets, and many other good deeds. It's definitely not the only way, and we could do much, much better, but show me another major country that you would prefer hold the reigns of global power?
- calf 5y ago
  You're obviously a single child, if you think the only options are for one person to dominate another and vice versa.
- lopis 5y ago
  Peaceful for who?? Certainly not for Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Middle East. The US has absolutely imposed "peace" by force and by pushing its own agenda everywhere.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    > Eastern Europe I beg your pardon? Eastern Europe is eternally grateful to the US that they won the cold war allowing them to break free from the Big Bear. Nations comprising 100+ million people from Estonia to Bulgaria are living their golden ages right now, because of US.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  Not necessarily true. What do you make of pax romana? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana

probably_wrong 5y ago

I resent the implication that the US military is the only reason the world is at peace, and I bet plenty of NGOs feel the same - if anything, the US military is the one that has been pushing for new conflicts. And while it's true that all superpowers have done terrible things, the difference with the US is that plenty of them have stopped doing terrible things since. I was not born yet when Germany started WWII, but I was alive to see the US declare torture as a valid means of interrogation and bomb civilians with no repercusions. And my living relatives who suffered under a US-backed military coup may not be as quick to forgive either. Maybe your children will live in a peaceful world, but for many of us that's cold comfort.

zthrowaway 5y ago

While I agree, I’m afraid all your comment did was pull the anti-US Russian trolls out into the open.