Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AnonymousPlanet 162 days ago
How many countries did the US invade to make them part of the US?
6 comments

Mexico, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines?

In the last 100 years the trend has been been for America to invade a country and try to install a friendly government rather than formally annex them - Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria.

Oh plus all the overseas military bases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...

So it's not longer 30 years but 100? What the US did pre WW2 was in no way abnormal or worse than that what every other powerful was doing..

Also US never technically invaded Lybia, Yemen or Syria (unless you count their intervention to support the Kurdish and Iraqi governments against ISIS an invasion...)

What happened in Korea was the opposite of the invasion (of course the South Korea regime they were saving was extremely oppressive and arguably not worse at all than the one in the North at the time).

Also are you implying that the majority of military bases US has in other countries (especially in Europe) is involuntary?

> the US did pre WW2 was in no way abnormal or worse than that what every other powerful was doing..

Whataboutism

Invade, none. Continue to occupy to this day? Several. Edit: Although we did take a small chunk of Syria without asking.
Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population. Invading to occupy, destabilise and depredate is much worse.
> Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population.

How is that relevant to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Whenever Russia takes territory they're filling mass graves with raped Ukrainian civilians.

American forces too have committed innumerable atrocities, and there is no forgiving that, but it doesn't support the premise above that Russia is in some way cleaner.

> Whenever Russia takes territory they filling mass graves with raped Ukrainian civilians

Frankly that's just propaganda.

Bucha, Irpin, Izium, the fate of civil activists in Kherson, horror in Yahidne (just near my hometown) - this list is very long
No intention to deny individual episodes of war crimes, but the ratio of civilian to military casualties in the conflict is pretty low, despite a drawn out war and massive military casualties: we're talking about 12-15 thousand civilian deaths in almost four years of war. Absolutely tragic but doesn't seem to indicate a genocidal intent. Compare with the widespread massacres of civilians perpetrated by Israel in Palestine.
Ukranian civilians sensibly fleeing for their lives when the front gets close has prevented many deaths, and doesn't change the facts of what happens when they don't escape.
Riiiiight, and so are all those dead Iraqi and Afghan civilians, amirite.
Based on the rest of your comments: it is you that is spreading propaganda.
Are you saying the Ukraine conflict is less bad than this Venezuela conflict?
We'll see about Venezuela, it's early to say. In Ukraine, a short conflict would have been better than a prolonged one, and in case of annexed territories, the status and civil rights of annexed populations should have been the focus of any peace agreement. The territory doesn't care who owns it, it's the people that suffer.

For example, the Israeli occupation and progressive annexation of Palestine is especially criminal because they have no intention of including the native population in their ethno-state- it's an annexation with ethnic cleansing or, if needed, genocide.

>Invading countries to annex them is not even that bad if you give full citizen rights to their population.

This is soviet bullshit, the Moscowitz did a lot of genocides you can find plenty of sources, so they were and are as bad as Israel because the Rusky/slavs in Ruzzia are indoctrinated to feel superior to the other non slaves in the empire and feel still a bit more superior then the rest of the slavs. You can look at the existing recent data from the Ruzzian stats and how the minorities are more in decline then the Ruskies.

So for uninformed people that might read this soviet guy comment, read a wikipedia summary of what moscowites did and Putin is still doing, I suggest not reading in detail, like reading books or interviews with vitims of this criminal empire you will fill a big amount of pain if you have empath on how this Ruscists treated humans , I will never forget the stuff Ir ead and better if I did not know the details.

Ruzzia, israle , USA all are bad but the situation is multidimensional and is not easy to say that Ruzzia is less bad then Nazis and are better then Israle etc., we cana dmit that criminal are criminals, dictators are dictators, bastardads are bastards and trolls are trolls.

It's only because of geography that they haven't done it.
That's just an opinion, the fact is they haven't.

Russia in the last 30 years invaded and occupied Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria - not to mention the atrocities committed in Africa.

But with the exception of Syria, Russia always had genocidal intent - deny cultures, erase them, and make those countries as unstable as possible while remaining occupied.

I'm not saying what the US did was good, or right, but there's a big difference.

The US never denied the existence of cultures, languages, etc.

> The US never denied the existence of cultures, languages, etc.

You seriously need to open up just one (1) history book about how the US was founded, to understand how wrong you are on just this point.

Right, so what's the scope of time we're talking about here? Are we talking about the world post WW2, or are we going back to the Roman Empire?

Because if you want to "win" arguments by randomly swinging hundreds of years to make a point, then it's pointless, because anyone can pick a point in thousands of years of History to show "look - they were bad here".

I think discussions about modern history are sufficient for the post-WW2 period, as there was a global consensus on international law and the Charter of the UN.

If you hold grievances about events hundreds of years old to make points about current events, then it's pointless.

If you say "The US never ..." then the timeframe is the short duration the US has existed as "The USA".
If you believe the US that colonized part of North America is the same as post-ww2 US, then I can understand.

I don't think they're the same, so many institutions were established that over the years that I don't see them as the former colony of the British crown.

But hey, if you want to discuss semantics, go for it.

Over a million people dead in the middle east as a direct result of US wars, including countries that nothing to do with 911 including Iraq
Saddam's Iraq has no History?
So all the countries Russia interfered with are neighbours, with hundreds of years of ethnic, cultural and religious disputes, while basically all the countries the US interfered with are across one or more oceans, with no historical disputes with the US, and happen to be resource rich.

Thanks for explaining why Russia is less unreasonable than the US.

"Historical disputes" is the most unreasonable claim to violate international law and the UN Charter lmao

You're basically saying that one countries interpretation of events is enough to annex another. That's the old logic of pre WW2 lol

Especially Russia that has revised their history so many times they even have a saying that "Russia's past is uncertain".

So to have that interpretation of what I said shows that you have a very poor understanding of History and current events, or it's just a deficient provocation.

>Chechnya

So they invaded their own internationally recognized territory. Wonderful. By that standard Ukraine invaded Donbass after they declared themselves independent of Ukraine.

>Syria

Even more outlandish claim, considering they were invited by the government. Whether the west considered the government illegitimate or not didn't matter.

>Moldova >Georgia

in both conflicts in protection of a minority, on whose territory a larger state laid claim using Soviet drawn borders and dissolution of the USSR. Since the Ukrainian conflict started I observed lots of enthusiasm for Soviet borders on the side of Russia's detractors, which were often drawn with territories assigned as a form of favoritism, simply because communist leadership in Moscow had better a relationship with the communist leaders of one of the ethnicities in question. That way historic Armenian land of Artsakh was assigned to Azerbaijan for example -- the recent ethnic cleansing outcome of that is well known.

The US just stole every good ever. The Maine. Union Fruit/Banana Company.

If the US tried to survive by just fair economics it would crumble into dust in less than a decade. Yet they use Latin America as their own backyard in order to avoid this.

And, well, as an European I have to say that France does the same with Africa in order to be semi on par with Germany. If not, their GDP would just be slightly better than Spain, if not worse because centralisation it's hell for modern times.

Some states in the US would do fine, OFC. But in order to support the whole USA, that's unfeasible. You can't have a country where a few powerhouses have to carry up the rest in a really innefective way, such as oil dependant transportation.

Meanwhile, the Chinese and Europe will just build non-polluting railways everywhere.

Instead they just plant people into the government and pretend it is still a sovereign nation.
It would almost be less repugnant had they made Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Korea and Yugoslavia US states and their population US citizens.