jayakris wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 1:17 am
prasen9 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:14 pm
In Iraq and Afghanistan, they have almost always put in puppet governments that have been oppressive.
This is where we disagree. You mean the governments that US left Iraq and Afghanistan were more oppressive than the Saddam and Taliban governments?
No, I did not say that. I said that they were not truly democratically elected. They were puppet governments and they were oppressive. They were certainly less oppressive than the Taliban. But, my issue is not how oppressive the government was but on whether they were U.S. stooges. And, both were.
If you buy that argument that anti-USA people say, then we cannot argue. Because that is the key difference in my mind. Mostly similar in the S.America cases too.
I am saying that Russia is following the U.S. blueprint. Topple a government in a foreign country that you do not like. That is all I am saying. And, that is not the U.S. blueprint. That is a function of the jungle-raj we have had in international affairs. There is no law. Nothing. Might is right. All colonial powers have done that. Russia is doing it.
The only difference I see is that you are claiming that Russia will just gobble up Ukraine. I think they possibly will not because the costs of maintaining control of a land with hostile people is large. They will do what the U.S. has regularly done. Put up puppet governments.
I do not know what you are claiming about South America. The U.S. put up brutal dictators like Augusto Pinochet and brought down the democratically elected government. My point is narrow. The U.S. cares diddly squat about democracy. It cares about power and more specifically money. Wherever conditions the U.S. thinks their businesses can make money, they support that regime, however brutal and however dictatorial they may be. I am assuming you know and read about the details in Chile. Even after that if you say that the U.S. cares for democracy and topples dictators and not the other way around, I do not have much to say.
Please read the long history of the banana wars. It is always about U.S. power. By hook or by crook. Sovereignty of our neighbors be damned.
People were there in invaded countries who didn't want US there though; on that there is no disagreement.
Not just people. The majority of the Iraqis wanted the U.S. to be out much before the U.S. was out. And, the Iraqis never welcomed the U.S. army with open arms. However much Bush wanted us to believe.
Anyway, you are a US citizen. I am not. So I guess I will should buy what you say.
No, you should not. I want you to argue as I want everyone with opposing viewpoints do. I want to flesh out the details. And only two parties arguing can bring that out.
As for me, I do not want India to hitch its wagon to a failed and again-failing country of hardly much economic might, at the expense of good relations with USA.
Fully agree here. I do not want India to hitch itself with Russia either. I am no fan of Russia and I think this war is diabolical. The difference is that I think almost all wars except defensive wars are diabolical. I think that way as an Indian ... okay, Indian American, I am proud. We never went around colonialising other people's lands as all the colonial powers starting from the Muslims in Central Asia to the British to the Americans to the Russians now have done.
There isn't any country out there that has really benefited from being with Russian,
Separate argument. I am fully with you on whom we should side with. All I am saying is that I do not see very much of a difference between the U.S. colonialism and the Russian one. Both are deplorable in my eyes.
Please argue your point or points where we disagree, btw.
