[libertine]

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.

[embedding-shape]

> 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.

[libertine]

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.

[embedding-shape]

If you say "The US never ..." then the timeframe is the short duration the US has existed as "The USA".

[libertine]

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.

[embedding-shape]

Yeah, when you draw arbitrary limits (30 years for you it seems), it's easy to paint one side as the better one. Once you start to think a bit bigger, you start to realize most big nations act as the others, and it's just different flavors of "bad", yet they're all as bad as the others.

What about segregation then, is that recent enough for you? Or that wasn't about culture/language, so that too isn't applicable? I'm afraid that with rose-tinted glasses, everything has an explanation why your favorite is different than their favorite.

[libertine]

Why is the founding of the UN, at the end of WW2, and the signature of the UN Charter, considered an arbitrary event in modern History for you?

It's the biggest geopolitical event in modern History to prevent the death of millions, by attempting to stop the expansion of borders through military force and making countries recognize the borders of each of its members.

> What about segregation then, is that recent enough for you?

What about segregation? Where? In different European countries? USA? South Africa? India?

Was there a global consensus to end segregation? Or were different events at different points in time, achieved in different manners? Is there still segregation happening in some societies?

[AIorNot]

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

[libertine]

Saddam's Iraq has no History?

[lbrito]

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.

[libertine]

"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.

[nullifidian]

>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.

[anthk]

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.