Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
a valid military target in a war of independence in which the borders of the entire British presence in the Americas were an open question.
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
again, a valid military target in a war we did not start.
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
note the words "American rebels" are not synonymous with "US Government."
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]
War planning is an act of war?
Are you not aware of how robustly we war plan every conceivable scenario 20+ years out into the future? We actually use war planning to guide weapons development and budgeting needs decades out into the future. "War planning" is not actually a plan to launch a war. It's how to assess your force structure, your weapons capabilities....to find your own weaknesses in given scenarios. And "war planning" is not just limited to strictly military issues. Implicit in the exercise is running the scenarios about you opponents, to assess what they are likely to do, how their thinking will affect their planning, given geopolitical realities. We spend a LOT of money war planning and are very, very good at it. We started retooling for contests in Eastern Europe (against Russia) and East Asia (against China) over a decade ago, because open source assessments, intel, historical analogies, and war gaming indicated high likelihood that's where the coming challenges would be. (Daughter did a stint in that office. Hated it....)

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]
you are using the word "invaded" very loosely. America has never invaded to include it in its entirety into the USA (as Russia has done frequently in its history, most recently in Ukraine 2022).

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]
LOL so why is Cuba not a state already? We actually gained it as territory when we won the Spanish/American war, yet gave them their independence without being forced to do so.

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

He is prone to cite examples that weaken and occasionally undermine his position.

---

The USA invading its neighbors on multiple occasions over its history is of course fact.

How does that undermine my position?

If anything it undermines your position that the US leadership is upholding some kind of "international norm" in Ukraine.

DC repeatedly violates international norms when it feels like it.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-countries-has-the-us-invaded

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

---

Only if invasion means supporting a side. None of these examples is anything even approaching what Russia did to Ukraine.

---

Leaving the old wars and invasions we did aside for now....

In Iraq our war did billions (possibly trillions) in damage to the country.

Its killed at least 300,000 Iraqis (including women and children) and possibly as high as 1 million dead

Lets never down play what a disaster that war of choice by DC was....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20costs%20of%20the%20Iraq,totaled%20just%20over%20%241.1%20trillion.

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

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Actually, Iraq was built around WMD and a new "preemptive" doctrine toward terrorism. And it was on the heels of an attack and the existence of actual known threats. The WMD claim proved to be incredibly overstated, and a preemptive approach is a practical and political impossibility because prevention is difficult to quantify to a suspect public.

Russia hadn't even gotten to the quantifiable threat part.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Actually, Iraq was built around WMD and a new "preemptive" doctrine toward terrorism.

---

And look how that worked out....

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

These are inapplicable and incomparable to the situation with Russia and Ukraine. The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred. If anything you could stick with Cuba or Nicaragua or El Salvador, but those were primarily proxy conflicts vs direct war.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

These are inapplicable and incomparable to the situation with Russia and Ukraine. The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred. If anything you could stick with Cuba or Nicaragua or El Salvador, but those were primarily proxy conflicts vs direct war.

---

and then there is the obvious. Invading to annex is the Russian business model; we did not invade to annex anyone.

Russian history is an unending cycle of expansion - overreach - implosion - retooling - expansion - overreach - implosion - etc.....

They will keep expanding until they overreach, again. Which in this case would appear to be a few miles short of Kharkiv and Kherson. Rarely has an expansionist Russia been so weak.

Some would say, "why, they're so weak we need not worry about them." The wise will say," if they're so weak, why don't we send them home in defeat?"

They are going to have to be defeated somewhere. Why not in the Donbas?

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

Exactly

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

These are inapplicable and incomparable to the situation with Russia and Ukraine. The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred. If anything you could stick with Cuba or Nicaragua or El Salvador, but those were primarily proxy conflicts vs direct war.

---

We still have over 30,000 troops in South Korea.

Dozens of warships ( some carrying nuclear weapons ) with hundreds of sailors still stationed in Japan.

Okinawa STILL has thousands of marines dominating the island.

And World War 2 ended almost EIGHTY years ago.




Just imagine the outrage if there were such numbers of foreign troops living on the West Coast.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

Not excusing our bellicose rhetoric about Ukraine joining NATO, but we all know that wasn't close to becoming a reality when Putin invaded. We also know he had empirical ambitions. A lot of the proffered excuses for the invasion were mere pretext.

---

Some of y'all should have an empirical ambition now and then. It might not improve your understanding, but it couldn't hurt.

---

For sure, you won't be giving any lessons in that regard.

BTW, where are those warmongers itching to invade India?

whiterock said:

---

and yet, there is no outrage, because the Japanese and the Koreans know they need benign US power to forestall Chinese imperial ambitions

---

Will be interesting if things change by end of century as. China collapses as a Nation and State due to demographic problems from there insane 1-child policy






(Unfortunately S. korea and Japan have problems like that as well…just not yet as bad)

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Sure, it's subjective. But the difference is, I do think Bush thought he was preventing terrorism on American soil, in the aftermath of 9/11. I think his intentions were good, even if severely misguided.

We all know Putin is lying. And therein lies the difference.

Again, the old adage is true - the road to destruction is paved with good intentions. Iraq was a terrible mistake. But the idea that what we did in Iraq is morally equivalent to Russia's actions in Ukraine is absurd by any objective measure.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

Again, when your best comparison happened more than 100 years ago, it's not a good comparison, IMO. You have to consider a country's actions in context to the times.

Nowdays, outside of Russia, we don't have many examples of countries invading other countries to acquire more real estate. So saying, yeah, but the US took Mexican territory back in the mid-1800s as some sort of moral equivalency argument to what is occurring in Ukraine in 2023 just simply isn't a good argument. Times are MUCH different today.

Are you like Kai in the opinion that whenever another country engages in bad acts or aggression toward other countries, because of our past, the US should simply shut up and remain silent?

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Sure, it's subjective. But the difference is, I do think Bush thought he was preventing terrorism on American soil, in the aftermath of 9/11. I think his intentions were good, even if severely misguided.

We all know Putin is lying. And therein lies the difference.

Again, the old adage is true - the road to destruction is paved with good intentions. Iraq was a terrible mistake. But the idea that what we did in Iraq is morally equivalent to Russia's actions in Ukraine is absurd by any objective measure.

---

Morally they may not be equivalent.

Geo-strategically they of course are equivalent.

They are both regime change wars initiated by a larger power who did not like the government in a small county and invaded to change that.

"War is thus an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will." Carl von Clausewitz

DC thought it was justified in Iraq

Moscow thinks it's justified in Ukraine

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

Again, when your best comparison happened more than 100 years ago, it's not a good comparison,

---

We invaded Panama in 1989-1990

Installed a new government more to the liking of DC

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama


(And we had every right to do it…the Panama Canal is vital to the commercial and military security of the USA)

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Sure, it's subjective. But the difference is, I do think Bush thought he was preventing terrorism on American soil, in the aftermath of 9/11. I think his intentions were good, even if severely misguided.

We all know Putin is lying. And therein lies the difference.

Again, the old adage is true - the road to destruction is paved with good intentions. Iraq was a terrible mistake. But the idea that what we did in Iraq is morally equivalent to Russia's actions in Ukraine is absurd by any objective measure.

---

Morally they may not be equivalent.

Geo-strategically they of course are equivalent.

They are both regime change wars initiated by a larger power who did not like the government in a small county and invaded to change that.

"War is thus an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will." Carl von Clausewitz

DC thought it was justified in Iraq

Moscow thinks it's justified in Ukraine

---

I can find similarities between a bowling ball and a grape. Both are spherical, and will roll across the floor. Doesn't make them remotely the same, however.

Again, you will get no argument from me that our interventionist foreign policy has been exceedingly destructive, and our objectives not always noble.

What Russia is doing is still morally wrong and dangerous, by any objective measure. I can recognize that US interventionist policies in the past were wrong, and at the same time, make a judgment call on Putin and Russia's actions.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

Again, when your best comparison happened more than 100 years ago, it's not a good comparison,

---

We invaded Panama in 1989-1990

Installed a new government more to the liking of DC

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama


(And we had every right to do it…the Panama Canal is vital to the commercial and military security of the USA)

---

So, what is your point? What message are you attempting to convey? That Russia is justified in its actions?

whiterock said:

---

and yet, there is no outrage, because the Japanese and the Koreans know they need benign US power to forestall Chinese imperial ambitions

---

Bull****

Ask ANY sailor who was stationed in Japan with his family what the attitude was from the Japanese.

Ask almost any marine on Okinawa how the average local feels about their island being under the thumb of the US for approaching a CENTURY.


Some of you guys are so clueless it hurts.



Again, really think we would be ok with tens of thousands of military servicemen dominated various locations in the US for decades at a time ?


You know the anwer.

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.

---

He could be the most evil guy in the world and it wouldn't change what he's trying to do. Russia's main goal is to avoid war with NATO.

---

By invading a NATO/EU-friendly country, committing numerous war crimes, and escalating to the point that NATO members have actually discussed sending troops?

That sure is an interesting strategy to avoid NATO confrontation . . . . Then again, Putin is so evil and twisted that he may think that's a wise strategy . . . .

---

It's an incredible strategy, apparently, with NATO countries now pushing for committing NATO ground forces to Ukraine.

https://www.newsweek.com/momentum-clearly-building-nato-troops-ukraine-haddad-russia-france-1903092

---

Predictable rhetoric from the chihuahua states. It would be more newsworthy if they ever stopped yapping.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred.

---

This is a completely meaningless statement, which is why it's such a favorite of war propagandists. You can say it about anything, anywhere, any time.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Putin is such a reasonable, good guy. Yes, let's follow his lead.

BTW, you still haven't gotten around to pointing out which US politicians want to attack India. Just FYI.

---

He could be the most evil guy in the world and it wouldn't change what he's trying to do. Russia's main goal is to avoid war with NATO.

---

By invading a NATO/EU-friendly country, committing numerous war crimes, and escalating to the point that NATO members have actually discussed sending troops?

That sure is an interesting strategy to avoid NATO confrontation . . . . Then again, Putin is so evil and twisted that he may think that's a wise strategy . . . .

---

It's an incredible strategy, apparently, with NATO countries now pushing for committing NATO ground forces to Ukraine.

https://www.newsweek.com/momentum-clearly-building-nato-troops-ukraine-haddad-russia-france-1903092

---

Predictable rhetoric from the chihuahua states. It would be more newsworthy if they weren't yapping.

---

Yes, just a bunch of rhetoric and nothing more. We can all be thankful that by invading Ukraine, your hero Putin is making the world safe again from those pesky Nazis, and preventing a NATO confrontation. I mean, really, what could go wrong?

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

and yet, there is no outrage, because the Japanese and the Koreans know they need benign US power to forestall Chinese imperial ambitions

---

Bull****

Ask ANY sailor who was stationed in Japan with his family what the attitude was from the Japanese.

Ask almost any marine on Okinawa how the average local feels about their island being under the thumb of the US for approaching a CENTURY.


Some of you guys are so clueless it hurts.



Again, really think we would be ok with tens of thousands of military servicemen dominated various locations in the US for decades at a time ?


You know the anwer.

---

You are correct that I know the answer. You would be well advised to open your mind a little bit, because you do not. First, you have to put the facts you cited in proper perspective, which is this - Japanese governments of all stripes for decades have continued to support the presence of US bases/troops on Japanese soil, because the Japanese public at large understands that the US is a positive and benign factor in Japanese politics, largely restricted to working on an area of mutual interest = countering hostile powers in East Asia which pose a direct threat to the Japanese homeland.

Most Asian cultures are quite a bit more xenophobic than Western societies. But nearly every power in history has been able to rise above such things to form improbable alliances, as the mightiest capitalist nation in history did with the two largest communist nations in history during the 20th century to defeat (in succession) Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. So, in context, the US-Japan alliance is not terribly odd at all. Numerous levels of synergy going on. Makes total sense that alliance will continue as long as China continues to be a cohesive state intent on projecting power beyond the South China Sea. The Okinawans can ***** about it all they want, but their valid opinions are not going to make the needle quiver very much, because larger issues are at stake.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

and yet, there is no outrage, because the Japanese and the Koreans know they need benign US power to forestall Chinese imperial ambitions

---

Bull****

Ask ANY sailor who was stationed in Japan with his family what the attitude was from the Japanese.

Ask almost any marine on Okinawa how the average local feels about their island being under the thumb of the US for approaching a CENTURY.


Some of you guys are so clueless it hurts.



Again, really think we would be ok with tens of thousands of military servicemen dominated various locations in the US for decades at a time ?


You know the anwer.

---

Ironically, the Japanese were quite happy with their US occupiers in the years following WWII. MacArthur was one of the most popular guys in the country, having freed the Japanese from the tyrannical rule of the Emperor. And most Japanese and Koreans have a very high opinion of Americans in general - especially when compared to their European counterparts.

---

True, most Japanese did end of liking MacArthur...but he ruled just like the "tyrannical" Emperor you think they disliked.

Some call him the most power Proconsul/Satrap the USA every sent out overseas...the "Last Shogun" some called him in fact.

"As the Supreme Commander, MacArthur had absolute authority over all Japanese, even the government and the Emperor. He effectively used his power..."

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-last-shogun-general-douglas-macarthur-and-the-institution-of-the-dictator-in-the-transi

Just a funny part of history...the Japanese of course still revered (and even continued to worship the Emperor-or at least the divine Kami within him). And MacArthur realized that and kept the Imperial family in place. They are still there today as the Monarchy of Japan.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

and yet, there is no outrage, because the Japanese and the Koreans know they need benign US power to forestall Chinese imperial ambitions

---

Bull****

Ask ANY sailor who was stationed in Japan with his family what the attitude was from the Japanese.

Ask almost any marine on Okinawa how the average local feels about their island being under the thumb of the US for approaching a CENTURY.


Some of you guys are so clueless it hurts.



Again, really think we would be ok with tens of thousands of military servicemen dominated various locations in the US for decades at a time ?


You know the anwer.

---

Ironically, the Japanese were quite happy with their US occupiers in the years following WWII. MacArthur was one of the most popular guys in the country, having freed the Japanese from the tyrannical rule of the Emperor. And most Japanese and Koreans have a very high opinion of Americans in general - especially when compared to their European counterparts.

---

True, most Japanese did end of liking MacArthur...but he ruled just like the "tyrannical" Emperor you think they disliked.

Some call him the most power Proconsul/Satrap the USA every sent out overseas...the "Last Shogun" some called him in fact.

"As the Supreme Commander, MacArthur had absolute authority over all Japanese, even the government and the Emperor. He effectively used his power..."

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-last-shogun-general-douglas-macarthur-and-the-institution-of-the-dictator-in-the-transi

Just a funny part of history...the Japanese of course still revered (and even continued to worship the Emperor-or at least the divine Kami within him). And MacArthur realized that and kept the Imperial family in place. They are still there today as the Monarchy of Japan.

---

That's an interesting perspective. While true MacArthur had complete authority, the Japanese also loved him and credit the humanitarian activities of the American occupation troops and MacArthur's democratization programs as saving millions of Japanese lives. His programs helped lay the foundation for rebuilding Japan into a world power. They credit him for reforming the economic structure to encourage the Japanese economy to be self-sufficient, for giving food aid for the Japanese suffering from hunger (starvation was rampant prior to the end of the war), and liberated them from their slavery status in their feudalistic social system. He also instituted the Japanese democratic political system.

Again, there is a reason the Japanese loved him. It did go to his head, certainly, but he was far from the tyrannical emperor.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

These are inapplicable and incomparable to the situation with Russia and Ukraine. The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred. If anything you could stick with Cuba or Nicaragua or El Salvador, but those were primarily proxy conflicts vs direct war.

---

We still have over 30,000 troops in South Korea.

Dozens of warships ( some carrying nuclear weapons ) with hundreds of sailors still stationed in Japan.

Okinawa STILL has thousands of marines dominating the island.

And World War 2 ended almost EIGHTY years ago.




Just imagine the outrage if there were such numbers of foreign troops living on the West Coast.

---

Outrage? They've been able to become a couple of the most economically powerful countries in the world under the blanket of protection and strategic relationship we've enabled. They hit the geopolitical lottery.

---

I'm sure the Japanese would have liked it better to have won World War II and been the masters of Asia.

But they are a remarkable people...and once defeated by a superior military power they transferred their ambitions from military conquest to Business/Financial conquest.

Lee Kauan Yu (who even suffered under the Japanese occupation) had nothing put respect for them.

[There is no need to recount Lee's first encounter with the Japanese during the war. Those years are described in detail in the first volume of his memoirs, published in 1998. In his words, the Japanese occupation years were "the most important" of his life. It was in those years that he imbibed "vivid insights into the behavior of human beings and human societies, their motivations and impulses."

Although Lee never forgot his experiences during the war years, he was pragmatic. He recognized that Japan was Asia's "most industrialized and technologically sophisticated society" and that it made economic sense for Singapore to look forward rather than back. "The past is the past, and it is the future that we are interested in," he said.]

[Later in life, Lee would reflect poignantly on the atrocities suffered by Singapore during the occupation. In his earlier days, Lee stated that he knew the Japanese as "a clean, neat, disciplined and self-contained community" so he was shocked when he faced the realities of the oppressive occupation. He found the Japanese occupiers to be "unbelievably cruel… systematic brutalization by their military government made them a callous lot. ]

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

and yet, there is no outrage, because the Japanese and the Koreans know they need benign US power to forestall Chinese imperial ambitions

---

Bull****

Ask ANY sailor who was stationed in Japan with his family what the attitude was from the Japanese.

Ask almost any marine on Okinawa how the average local feels about their island being under the thumb of the US for approaching a CENTURY.


Some of you guys are so clueless it hurts.



Again, really think we would be ok with tens of thousands of military servicemen dominated various locations in the US for decades at a time ?


You know the anwer.

---

Ironically, the Japanese were quite happy with their US occupiers in the years following WWII. MacArthur was one of the most popular guys in the country, having freed the Japanese from the tyrannical rule of the Emperor. And most Japanese and Koreans have a very high opinion of Americans in general - especially when compared to their European counterparts.

---

True, most Japanese did end of liking MacArthur...but he ruled just like the "tyrannical" Emperor you think they disliked.

Some call him the most power Proconsul/Satrap the USA every sent out overseas...the "Last Shogun" some called him in fact.

"As the Supreme Commander, MacArthur had absolute authority over all Japanese, even the government and the Emperor. He effectively used his power..."

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-last-shogun-general-douglas-macarthur-and-the-institution-of-the-dictator-in-the-transi

Just a funny part of history...the Japanese of course still revered (and even continued to worship the Emperor-or at least the divine Kami within him). And MacArthur realized that and kept the Imperial family in place. They are still there today as the Monarchy of Japan.

---

That's an interesting perspective. While true MacArthur had complete authority, the Japanese also loved him and credit the humanitarian activities of the American occupation troops and MacArthur's democratization programs as saving millions of Japanese lives. His programs helped lay the foundation for rebuilding Japan into a world power. They credit him for reforming the economic structure to encourage the Japanese economy to be self-sufficient, for giving food aid for the Japanese suffering from hunger (starvation was rampant prior to the end of the war), and liberated them from their slavery status in their feudalistic social system. He also instituted the Japanese democratic political system.

Again, there is a reason the Japanese loved him. It did go to his head, certainly, but he was far from the tyrannical emperor.

---

And the Emperor himself was far from a "tyrannical Emperor"

Emperors in the Japanese system were more like spiritual or figure head leaders. For a large part of their history then did not even hold ANY political power at all...The Shoguns did.

Even after modern Japan came into existence their power was greatly constrained by the military generals, rich business magnates, and powerful politicians within the system.

[The Emperor of Japan has been a ceremonial and spiritual leader throughout most of Japan's history, and has rarely had actual power. Although the emperor is traditionally the ruler of Japan, other leaders, such as shoguns, have always ruled in the emperor's name. The emperor's political power was briefly absolute after the Meiji Restoration (1868-1889), but was soon diminished by powerful clans and military men]

[Under the new Meiji constitution, the Emperor held sovereign power, and his political and military power was theoretically close to absolute. In practice, however, the real power first laid with small, inner group of imperial advisors, and later with the generals and admirals]

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/179180/summary

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

These are inapplicable and incomparable to the situation with Russia and Ukraine. The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred. If anything you could stick with Cuba or Nicaragua or El Salvador, but those were primarily proxy conflicts vs direct war.

---

We still have over 30,000 troops in South Korea.

Dozens of warships ( some carrying nuclear weapons ) with hundreds of sailors still stationed in Japan.

Okinawa STILL has thousands of marines dominating the island.

And World War 2 ended almost EIGHTY years ago.




Just imagine the outrage if there were such numbers of foreign troops living on the West Coast.

---

Outrage? They've been able to become a couple of the most economically powerful countries in the world under the blanket of protection and strategic relationship we've enabled. They hit the geopolitical lottery.

---

They have done well as the Junior partners to the American Imperium...but I suspect they would have liked to have been masters of Asia.