[woodruffw]

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.

[jollybean]

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]

> 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]

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

[azinman2]

How many hundreds of thousands of Americans troops surrounded Cuba during bay of pigs?

Is not the same thing.

[lnxg33k1]

And that's what's great about the western world, you can't have a maniac at the top moving 200k soldiers without congressional approval and discussion? That's why if I have to pick between a country like US that is intermittently maniac and a country like Putinstan where a maniac has to decide that million of people have to suffer in and out the borders, then I would always pick the US

[bigthymer]

> And that's what's great about the western world, you can't have a maniac at the top moving 200k soldiers without congressional approval and discussion?

I guess we're ignoring the 200k+ troops sent to Iraq w/o a declaration of war by Congress? I will agree with you on one point though...the President wasn't a maniac.

Excerpt:

"At 5:34 a.m. Baghdad time on 20 March 2003 (9:34 pm, 19 March EST) the surprise[130] military invasion of Iraq began.[131] There was no declaration of war.[132] The 2003 invasion of Iraq was led by US Army General Tommy Franks, under the code-name Operation Iraqi Freedom,[133] the UK code-name Operation Telic, and the Australian code-name Operation Falconer. Coalition forces also cooperated with Kurdish Peshmerga forces in the north. Approximately forty other governments, the "Coalition of the Willing," participated by providing troops, equipment, services, security, and special forces, with 248,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from Special Forces unit GROM sent to Kuwait for the invasion.[134] The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000.[135]"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

[lnxg33k1]

I think your idea of lack of a declaration of war ignores that a year before it was voted by congress, on the basis of: The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

    Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
    Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
    Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
    Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
    Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
    Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
    Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
    Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
    The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
    The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
    The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
    Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

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

And I would put some emphasis on the state of the relation on: Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

[eganist]

This isn't an intelligence organization or unlabeled fighters. This is an actual, state-backed military and a declared invasion.

[denton-scratch]

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.

[brightstep]

I don’t think the residents of an invaded country care very much if they are killed by regular armed forces or intelligence. They’re dead either way.

[lnxg33k1]

Yes, you're right, but it could be interesting to understand that for the living in order to prevent to be made dead by regular armed forces or intelligence in the future, in fact right now it's mostly the living that are trying to understand what happened/is happening

[lnxg33k1]

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]

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]

.-. I am not sure where or what point in my writing made you think that this fact was not very "abundantly" clear to me

[distances]

Sorry if I misread your message, I guess I didn't get your meaning and took it too literally.

[woadwarrior01]

The Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 was similar to Bay of Pigs (with the difference that the former succeeded, while the latter failed miserably). The current situation is a full blown war and nothing less than that.

[wernercd]

"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]

> "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]

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]

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]

Ah, I misread it as "just two wars".