[raprp]

USA's bombing list for the last 20 years alone speaks for itself:

    Sudan 1998
    Afghanistan 1998
    Yugoslavia 1999
    Yemen 2002
    Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
    Iraq 2003-2015
    Afghanistan 2001-2015
    Pakistan 2007-2015
    Somalia 2007-8, 2011
    Yemen 2009, 2011
    Libya 2011, 2015
    Syria 2014-2016

[VonGuard]

Go back further and the US has been involved in overseas conflicts every year save for one year in the 1800's when we had a major steel strike, here.

[senorjazz]

Panama 1989 - Operation Just Cause (gotta love the operational names)

[senorjazz]

oops morning coffee fail, that is 30 not 20

[factsaresacred]

Tell us, what territory was the US annexing in these attacks?

And while they were saving Muslims from genocide in the Balkans, what islands did they steal?

Not all acts of war are the same.

[yongjik]

US is not annexing Iraq because then US will have to grant US citizenship to Iraqis and they will be free to move to mainland US. Nobody wants that, so instead US bombs the shit out of Iraq, honors its "independence" by erecting a pro-American puppet government, and acts surprised when shit falls apart.

So yeah, not all wars are the same, but people suffer all the same.

[poof131]

A puppet government? Hardly. We simply replaced Sunni for Shiite and slightly shifted things in a millennial old civil war. It was naive optimism of the Potomac chess players that we could reshape a country by invading it.[1] Others have mentioned the US supporting heinous countries like Saudi Arabia. This is sadly true and should stop, despite what the referenced article says about “staying engaged”. Ceasing support of tyrants and ending overtly militaristic policies is not disengaging, but reevaluating failed policies.

But the US also acts through a democracy, while the countries mentioned above do not. I can criticize the stupid policies of the US in a public forum. The citizens of the countries listed above can not. Democracy is not the equivalent of an oligarchy or tyranny. The people of a country are different from the government that represents them. Unelected governments are illegitimate and a danger to the free world despite what their minions of propaganda post.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_C...

[raprp]

> A puppet government? Hardly. We simply replaced Sunni for Shiite and slightly shifted things in a millennial old civil war.

When I read these type of comments I get truly scared on how the lives of non-western people don't really mean anything to lots of people.

There wasn't as slight shift in a conflict but an all out invasion causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in a few years. Millions if you consider the last 20 years.

> But the US also acts through a democracy, while the countries mentioned above do not.

Crimes committed by a democracy, a theocracy or a dictatorship are crimes all the same. That is how the rest of the world sees it and it's time for the west to start seeing it too.

[senorjazz]

> > But the US also acts through a democracy, while the countries mentioned above do not.

I guess the innocent men, women and children feel better having died at the hands of a democracy.

But, your comment did bring a smile to my face, especially as what is happening right now [0]

Democracy? Iraq War pt II. Led by Bush, declared illegal by many, unwanted by more. Led by Bush, democracy. How did he get installed again? Ahh yes, the Florida "recount". Where the governor was his brother and the partisan SCOTUS decided along partisan lines rather than recount.

------ [0] POTUS stating the current recount in Florida should be stopped, even though is mandated by state law. Democracy?

[e_proxus]

That the US is a proper democracy can be discussed: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

[chillwaves]

The US occupied Iraq for a decade and is still in Afghanistan. While we did not overtly annex, it is clear that the US attempted to control these countries. You would do better to make your point without the moralizing.

The fact is that the US is a global aggressor just as much as the other countries on the list.

[Bendingo]

> they were saving Muslims from genocide in the Balkans

If you're referring to the NATO bombing of Serbia, then you are incorrect -- there was no genocide in Kosovo.

The justification for the Western intervention (100,000's of people murdered by Serbia) was a lie [1] [2], and Milosevic (the "Butcher of the Balkans") was exonerated of the charges of war crimes, twice [3] [4].

[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008/08/pilger-kosovo-wa...

[2] https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/feb/28/warcri...

[4] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hague-tribunal-exonerates-...

[ctchocula]

[3] is an opinion piece, [4] says that he was exonorated. However, the wikipedia page says: "After Milošević's death, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded separately in the Bosnian Genocide Case that there was no evidence linking him to genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces during the Bosnian War. However, the Court did find that Milošević and others in Serbia had committed a breach of the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the genocide from occurring and for not cooperating with the ICTY in punishing the perpetrators of the genocide, in particular General Ratko Mladić, and for violating its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court."

Just because he was personally exonerated does not imply no genocide happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

[acqq]

Note that the parent didn't make argument about Bosnia at all.

[vertline3]

So what it is speaking to me is

It seems there is a war against Radical religious terrorists which is stateless and more regional, and stopping dictators.

[zanny]

As long as Saudi Arabia is one of Americas "greatest" allies there is no leg to stand on arguing any aspect of US foreign policy involves a moral war against totalitarianism.

[vertline3]

Unlike software, the world is not binary.

[Jerry2]

>and stopping dictators

If the US cared about stopping "dictators", why are there so many dictators allies of the US?

[azinman2]

Because politics and circumstance.

[andrepd]

Which implies that they do not care about "dictatorships".

[azinman2]

I think that there are strong tendencies and actions towards democracies where convienent and possible.

Unfortunately the world is a messy place — ideological purity gets you no where.

[lucisferre]

> ideological purity gets you no where.

While I also disagree with the parent, these facts are not in evidence.

[lucisferre]

That is a bit of a simplistic conclusion.

The hypocrisy is clear, but hypocrisy is not sufficient to prove that one does not care at all.

What is pretty clear is that the USA takes a strategic and occasionally very partisan view when making their choices of alliances as well as their use of power and force. I'm not sure they are very unique in this respect though.

[ekianjo]

Even if they genuinely cared about it, 90 percents of regimes worldwide are dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. So you can not work with anyone if you have very strong principles.

[raprp]

You mean war against radical religious terrorists and dictators that are not allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and etc?

Countries which support the Al-Nusra front, which was affiliated to Al-Qaeda, which masterminded 9/11 an event which 90% of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia or other gulf countries and 0 from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Iran.

The concept of righteous crusades has been around forever and it's stunning that it still works.