6 ms·

> Or try being a neighboring country, like Taiwan The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country > Cuba have zero worries of any invasion Because the US alrea

> Or try being a neighboring country, like Taiwan The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country > Cuba have zero worries of any invasion Because the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there, despite the Cuban government demanding the US leave for over 60 years (incidentally the US "renditions" and tortures Arabs in Guantanamo Bay in a manner that is against even US law).

toss1 4y ago
>>The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country Not officially, but in every way but officially >>the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there That should not make Cuba feel less worried, but more, but the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, just look at what China has done to Hong Kong and Taiwan in the last year. Or the cultural genocide of Tibet and the Uighers. Again, while absolutely no country is perfect, if you are trying to equate the nations defending democracy vs autocratic countries, you are either deeply misinformed or are deliberately lying. (and no, just because you can point out that what you said is an isolated fact does not mean you aren't lying, misleading is another form of lying, whether you are doing it intentionally or merely because you are deliberately or gullibly misinformed).
- GAN_Game 4y ago
  > the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuban missile crisis blockade? I could go on...
  - toss1 4y ago
    That is why I mentioned six decades later. That was one bad incident, was not a US military operation, it done by Cuban exiles (yes, launched from and partially financed by the US) and as I said, zero similar has been done in over six decades. Contrast with China just in the last year, and Russia in the last hour. If you had a clue about actual history, you might know that the issue in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the blockade was NOT against Cuba, it was against Russian military gear, specifically nuclear missiles which could strike the entire East and Gulf coasts with near-zero warning. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. That is NOT an action against Cuba, but against the Soviets, who were using Cuba as a military base with it's permission. Again, this attempt at false equivalence is nonsense. You are either playing the role of a Useful Idiot, cluelessly spreading misleading arguments supporting authoritarian states, or are knowingly and willfully doing so. Which is it?
    - pphysch 4y ago
      US soldiers are occupying Eastern Syria and facilitating the theft of oil and other resources to--among other places--northern Iraq, which the US also aggressively invaded much less than 60 years ago. You are not well informed.
      - toss1 4y ago
        The situation is a hell of a lot more complex, and is certainly not driven by "theft of oil". Yes, the US are in territory formerly ruled by the Syrian dictatorship. The US are: 1) opposing Russia (remember Syria is a client state of Russia, another autocracy, & Assad survived protests from his people only due to Russian intervention), 2) keeping a lid on ISIL resurgence, and 3) supporting the Kurds who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators. The IS destroyed most of the oil infrastructure when they were there. The US helped defeat them. To the extent that the US has helped rebuild the infrastructure, yes, the Kurds are benefiting, and yes, their territory also extends into northern Iraq. The Kurds have a better claim to any of these resources than either the dictatorial regimes of Assad/Putin, or of ISIL. You think that we should simply withdraw and leave the Kurds to whichever of two murderous regimes, Assad/Russia or ISIL, can murder them and take the oil first? Or are you just taking cheap shots mischaracterizing the situation? Even a casual glance at the situation shows that someone should be in there helping the Kurds, and keeping the lid on authoritarian regimes. I'd be happy if they can do it alone, or if someone else could help in our place. But again, it is key to be better armed, prepared, and allied than authoritarians if democracy is to survive. The Kurds are key regional allies (and the US under Trump did screw the Kurds badly, in this area). Helping them is important to maintaining democracy. It certainly is not as simple as your ill-informed pot-shot 'argument'.
        pphysch 4y ago
        What mental gymnastics! These are literally the same (well-founded) arguments of Moscow proponents. Observe: Russia, in territory formerly ruined by the Kiev puppet regime, are 1) opposing Washington/NATO (remember Ukraine is a client state of Washington, another plutocracy, & Kiev survived protests from its people only due to American intervention), 2) keeping a lid on neo-Nazi/fascist resurgence, and 3) supporting the ethnic Russians who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators. It is absurd to pretend that Washington has any moral high ground over Russia. The main difference between the two is that Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep. What business does Washington have arming the Kurds or Banderites, on the opposite side of the planet?

toss1 4y ago

>>The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country Not officially, but in every way but officially >>the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there That should not make Cuba feel less worried, but more, but the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, just look at what China has done to Hong Kong and Taiwan in the last year. Or the cultural genocide of Tibet and the Uighers. Again, while absolutely no country is perfect, if you are trying to equate the nations defending democracy vs autocratic countries, you are either deeply misinformed or are deliberately lying. (and no, just because you can point out that what you said is an isolated fact does not mean you aren't lying, misleading is another form of lying, whether you are doing it intentionally or merely because you are deliberately or gullibly misinformed).

GAN_Game 4y ago
> the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuban missile crisis blockade? I could go on...
- toss1 4y ago
  That is why I mentioned six decades later. That was one bad incident, was not a US military operation, it done by Cuban exiles (yes, launched from and partially financed by the US) and as I said, zero similar has been done in over six decades. Contrast with China just in the last year, and Russia in the last hour. If you had a clue about actual history, you might know that the issue in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the blockade was NOT against Cuba, it was against Russian military gear, specifically nuclear missiles which could strike the entire East and Gulf coasts with near-zero warning. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. That is NOT an action against Cuba, but against the Soviets, who were using Cuba as a military base with it's permission. Again, this attempt at false equivalence is nonsense. You are either playing the role of a Useful Idiot, cluelessly spreading misleading arguments supporting authoritarian states, or are knowingly and willfully doing so. Which is it?
  - pphysch 4y ago
    US soldiers are occupying Eastern Syria and facilitating the theft of oil and other resources to--among other places--northern Iraq, which the US also aggressively invaded much less than 60 years ago. You are not well informed.
    - toss1 4y ago
      The situation is a hell of a lot more complex, and is certainly not driven by "theft of oil". Yes, the US are in territory formerly ruled by the Syrian dictatorship. The US are: 1) opposing Russia (remember Syria is a client state of Russia, another autocracy, & Assad survived protests from his people only due to Russian intervention), 2) keeping a lid on ISIL resurgence, and 3) supporting the Kurds who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators. The IS destroyed most of the oil infrastructure when they were there. The US helped defeat them. To the extent that the US has helped rebuild the infrastructure, yes, the Kurds are benefiting, and yes, their territory also extends into northern Iraq. The Kurds have a better claim to any of these resources than either the dictatorial regimes of Assad/Putin, or of ISIL. You think that we should simply withdraw and leave the Kurds to whichever of two murderous regimes, Assad/Russia or ISIL, can murder them and take the oil first? Or are you just taking cheap shots mischaracterizing the situation? Even a casual glance at the situation shows that someone should be in there helping the Kurds, and keeping the lid on authoritarian regimes. I'd be happy if they can do it alone, or if someone else could help in our place. But again, it is key to be better armed, prepared, and allied than authoritarians if democracy is to survive. The Kurds are key regional allies (and the US under Trump did screw the Kurds badly, in this area). Helping them is important to maintaining democracy. It certainly is not as simple as your ill-informed pot-shot 'argument'.
      - pphysch 4y ago
        What mental gymnastics! These are literally the same (well-founded) arguments of Moscow proponents. Observe: Russia, in territory formerly ruined by the Kiev puppet regime, are 1) opposing Washington/NATO (remember Ukraine is a client state of Washington, another plutocracy, & Kiev survived protests from its people only due to American intervention), 2) keeping a lid on neo-Nazi/fascist resurgence, and 3) supporting the ethnic Russians who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators. It is absurd to pretend that Washington has any moral high ground over Russia. The main difference between the two is that Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep. What business does Washington have arming the Kurds or Banderites, on the opposite side of the planet?