sombear said:

---

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)

---

Were you alive in '89? If so, an adult?

.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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"

---

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)

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

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)

---

Were you alive in '89? If so, an adult?

.

---

Yes I was alive...not not an adult

The point being that the USA secured the Canal and installed a more compliant local government.

DC and Moscow act in similar ways in there sphere of influence when their vital geo-strategic interests are threated.

DC might be less brutal and less thuggish but results are the same....you mess with the big dog in the region and you will get bit.

---

Zelensky was not a leader in Russia's drug trade.

Zelensky was not indicted for the above or refuse extradition.

Ukraine did not declare war against Russia.

Ukraine military did not murder unarmed Russian soldiers.

Zelensky did not disregard a democratic election and prevent the democratically elected leaders from assuming office.

We did not "install" anyone. The democratically elected leaders stepped in for Noriega.

Panama maintained its complete sovereignty.

---

trey3216 said:

---

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)

---

Panama/Nicaragua also had a lot to do with trying to destroy the drug trade via their safe haven money stores.

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

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)

---

Were you alive in '89? If so, an adult?

.

---

Yes I was alive...not not an adult

The point being that the USA secured the Canal and installed a more compliant local government.

DC and Moscow act in similar ways in there sphere of influence when their vital geo-strategic interests are threated.

DC might be less brutal and less thuggish but results are the same....you mess with the big dog in the region and you will get bit.

---

Zelensky was not a leader in Russia's drug trade.

Zelensky was not indicted for the above or refuse extradition.

Ukraine did not declare war against Russia.

Ukraine military did not murder unarmed Russian soldiers.

Zelensky did not disregard a democratic election and prevent the democratically elected leaders from assuming office.

We did not "install" anyone. The democratically elected leaders stepped in for Noriega.

Panama maintained its complete sovereignty.

---

Setting aside the spin on those points (there is some strong evidence that at least some Ukrainian militia units have killed unarmed russian soldiers for instance)

You keep making excuses for how DC lead regime charge wars are morally justified...but not denying that they are regime change wars.

The point remains....and you can NOT contest it...that DC got rid of the government in Panama because it did not like it.

Moscow is trying to get rid of the government in Ukraine because it does not like it.

You are smart enough understand the similarities....you just want to justify the US doing what it wants in the Western Hemisphere

---

I've posted numerous times that, yes, our government has supported and tried to influence regime change throughout its history.

I've also made the point that we are not unique in that regard.
.

---

whiterock 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.

---

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.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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. ]

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

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.

---

Good grief, but you are verbose.

Was on Okinawa. The vast majority of the locals wanted the US........OUT.

Had dozens of associates in Japan. The vast majority of the locals wanted the US.....OUT.

LOL

Can just imagine if the US had over 30,000 Romanian army troops stationed along the West Coast for over 70 years with another 10,000 Peruvian marines station on the Big Island of Hawaii.

Oh yeah....we would just LOVE that situation.

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

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)

---

Were you alive in '89? If so, an adult?

.

---

Yes I was alive...not not an adult

The point being that the USA secured the Canal and installed a more compliant local government.

DC and Moscow act in similar ways in there sphere of influence when their vital geo-strategic interests are threated.

DC might be less brutal and less thuggish but results are the same....you mess with the big dog in the region and you will get bit.

---

Zelensky was not a leader in Russia's drug trade.

Zelensky was not indicted for the above or refuse extradition.

Ukraine did not declare war against Russia.

Ukraine military did not murder unarmed Russian soldiers.

Zelensky did not disregard a democratic election and prevent the democratically elected leaders from assuming office.

We did not "install" anyone. The democratically elected leaders stepped in for Noriega.

Panama maintained its complete sovereignty.

---

Setting aside the spin on those points (there is some strong evidence that at least some Ukrainian militia units have killed unarmed russian soldiers for instance)

You keep making excuses for how DC lead regime charge wars are morally justified...but not denying that they are regime change wars.

The point remains....and you can NOT contest it...that DC got rid of the government in Panama because it did not like it.

Moscow is trying to get rid of the government in Ukraine because it does not like it.

You are smart enough understand the similarities....you just want to justify the US doing what it wants in the Western Hemisphere

---

I've posted numerous times that, yes, our government has supported and tried to influence regime change throughout its history.

I've also made the point that we are not unique in that regard.
.

---

I never said we were unique

The point is we do it (for good or bad reasons…so does Russia)

Now back to the point…why should we fight Russia over a vassal state right on it borders and inside its sphere of influence?

What do we get out of i? And it even possible to be successful?

---

My opinion on this is different than the predominant opinion in DC, which is, if we let Russia have Ukraine, Poland is next. I don't think Putin would invade a NATO country. In fairness to the DC elite, there are few things I put past Putin, and I do think he will always try to undermine NATO countries short of invasion.

My reason is more principle. I'm a Reagan Republican. I believe we stand for freedom and democracy, and the world sees us that way and looks to us to lead. Ukraine, despite all of its faults, has worked hard to improve and to align with the west. They were invaded by a vicious, evil tyrant that stands against everything we are for and aligns with our worst enemies and the world's worst actors.

Again, it's a balancing act for me. Is it a strong enough interest for us to send Americans to die? No, I don't think it is. But sending money/equipment totaling less than Biden's student loan bailout and is .01 % of one year's budget, with our Euro friends giving even more? Yes, it's worth it.

Yes, it's possible to be successful, but I'd say it's well under 50%. It requires Putin changing his mind backing of certain demands, yet still being able to claim a win. To get Putin there, it is going to take some combination us continuing to fund, real Ukraine momentum, Russian economy tanking, Russians or Oligarchs turning against, or China ending support. We need at least two of those in my view.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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

---

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.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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

---

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.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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

---

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.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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

---

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.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

And LOL to the bold. What a forum this has become.

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

Reagan supported freedom, democracy, and anti-communism/socialism wherever that took him, including sometimes short of legal ….

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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

---

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.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

And LOL to the bold. What a forum this has become.

---

Ouch. So all you have to do is call your opponent a despotic goon, and you're justified. Putin must be wishing he'd thought of that.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL: Historical perspectives are inapplicable because the world is a "completely different place."

Also ATL: Some of you people have no historical perspective.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL: Historical perspectives are inapplicable because the world is a "completely different place."

Also ATL: Some of you people have no historical perspective.

---

I can't tell if you lack …comprehension skills.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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

---

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.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

---

What goons have I "shilled" for?

And DC has supported plenty of goons, dictators, autocrats, and strong men in its time.

Hell D.C. is still in bed with Saudi Freaking Arabia

---

Redbrickbear: Israel is illegally occupying and encroaching on the Palestinians. Breaking international law. They are equally guilty as Hamas. [insert wiki on Uganda proposal, Madagascar, Palestinian history]
.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry 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

---

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.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

---

What goons have I "shilled" for?

And DC has supported plenty of goons, dictators, autocrats, and strong men in its time.

Hell D.C. is still in bed with Saudi Freaking Arabia

---

Redbrickbear: Israel is illegally occupying and encroaching on the Palestinians. Breaking international law. They are equally guilty as Hamas. [insert wiki on Uganda proposal, Madagascar, Palestinian history]
.

---

Did I ever say Israel is equally as guilty as Hamas?

Do you always need to lie to try and shore up your weak arguments?

Hamas can be an evil terrorist organization and Israel can be a military occupation force all at the same time

God you are stupid…

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---