I’m confused?

[Hindsight]

My understanding is US power is based on having it both ways and making both sides pay for it. Lefties call it something like Liberal Imperialism. Classicists probably call it a variation on being caught on the horns of a dilemma. We in the UK see our politics operating the same way on a domestic level ever since Blair and his spin doctors. The only exception was Dunblane.

It's how minorities get preferential treatment and consideration here in the West whilst never being tolerated in authoritarian/totalitarian regimes.

We in the West are moving to the right, away from liberal democracy so we'll have to get used to this.

China and Russia don't want to divide and rule. They don't want to accommodate both sides of an argument and profit from both. They want to consolidate what they have and expand to have more into one homogenous whole, into one big unifying state, centrally controlled and top down enforced. Our political masters in our liberal democracies don't understand how they can rule over us, given their core doctrine of diversity, equality and inclusion. In fact their DVI is what is causing the far right to get more populist.

Ask any successful productive farmer how he grows his business and he'll sound more like Russia and China then any spokesman from the US or the UK.

Well I will stick with the malevolent force I know and live under, LGBQT rights an all. You are very welcome to toddle off to the other lot Soapsud if you wish and take Brian with as he seems very much to prefer the other lot. The malelovent lot from Russia, China, Iran et all don't look that good to me even if you think productive farmers are similar - you coming all GB News crap my friend.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Perhaps you should read this & understand American foreign policy better.

• WORLD POLITICS

The history of US intervention in Afghanistan, from the Cold War to 9/11​

How American meddling shaped life in Afghanistan.

By Emily Stewart[email protected] Aug 21, 2021, 8:00am EDT

us-troops-afghanistan-cold-war-bush-bin-laden

I think it's you who should reading what you post. This article just backs up what I said.

 

[soapsud]

Well I will stick with the malevolent force I know and live under, LGBQT rights an all. You are very welcome to toddle off to the other lot Soapsud if you wish and take Brian with as he seems very much to prefer the other lot. The malelovent lot from Russia, China, Iran et all don't look that good to me even if you think productive farmers are similar - you coming all GB News crap my friend.

Brian's Ruski sympathies don't sound very patriotic to the likes of I. I'm an inward facing nationalist and an anti-globalist. Brian is a contrarian and obviously likes going against the flow.

All I was saying in the previous comment is the US is not the world's policeman anymore. It looks for its dollar return on its warfare. Wall Street has pumped millions into the Ukraine.

Civilians being killed is very troubling and we all want it to stop but us marching and protesting isn't going to do diddly. The global political stage has got a lot more going on behind the scenes than most of us understand. Including ignorant people like me. What I do know though is China wanting to annex Taiwan and Russia wanting to annex Ukraine are symptoms of more than is being reported that is all.

 

[BrianV]

Brian's Ruski sympathies don't sound very patriotic to the likes of I. I'm an inward facing nationalist and an anti-globalist. Brian is a contrarian and obviously likes going against the flow.

All I was saying in the previous comment is the US is not the world's policeman anymore. It looks for its dollar return on its warfare. Wall Street has pumped millions into the Ukraine.

Civilians being killed is very troubling and we all want it to stop but us marching and protesting isn't going to do diddly. The global political stage has got a lot more going on behind the scenes than most of us understand. Including ignorant people like me. What I do know though is China wanting to annex Taiwan and Russia wanting to annex Ukraine are symptoms of more than is being reported that is all.

It's nothing to do with sympathies, true I do think Russia had good reason to be up in arms over NATO expansion & plenty of Americans had warned US Presidents since 2008 that pushing NATO closer to Russia would inevitably result in what has happened, the US are the main drivers of this for their own power trip.
The US had plenty of opportunity to head off the invasion beforehand but deliberately chose not to do so knowing Russia would inevitably invade & get bogged down in an unwinable war which suited America perfectly at the time & has done since.
How Russia fight wars is not of my concern as every country has different standards of what is acceptable, once Russia invaded Ukraine were on a hiding to nothing as America in reality know that Russia cannot be defeated without nukes coming into the equation so they give just enough to stop Ukraine being overrun.
Their best hope is a negotiated settlement but no bugger has the balls to own up & tell the poor devils the truth!

 

[kiwi pom]

You make no sense, if an attack against Iraq on a false premise was wrong, it can't be argued that one against Ukraine isn't, nor that assisting the 'aggressor' is right.

I'm not saying one was right and one wrong, both were wrong and more should have been done to prevent both.
Now Russia has invaded Ukraine, America as the only real superpower can do more to help Ukraine, but even they are not getting directly involved as the threat of escalation is real (plus keeping Russia busy, wearing them down and supplying arms to Ukraine is beneficial to the US)
Once the US invaded Iraq, no one could do anything to help the Iraqis without fear of massive retaliation from America. Countries like China, India and Russia weren't about to try a Desert Storm style operation to kick the Americans out.

America is the big dog and does what they want, which is all the OP needs to know.

 

[FonterraFarmer]

My understanding is US power is based on having it both ways and making both sides pay for it. Lefties call it something like Liberal Imperialism. Classicists probably call it a variation on being caught on the horns of a dilemma. We in the UK see our politics operating the same way on a domestic level ever since Blair and his spin doctors. The only exception was Dunblane.

It's how minorities get preferential treatment and consideration here in the West whilst never being tolerated in authoritarian/totalitarian regimes.

We in the West are moving to the right, away from liberal democracy so we'll have to get used to this.

China and Russia don't want to divide and rule. They don't want to accommodate both sides of an argument and profit from both. They want to consolidate what they have and expand to have more into one homogenous whole, into one big unifying state, centrally controlled and top down enforced. Our political masters in our liberal democracies don't understand how they can rule over us, given their core doctrine of diversity, equality and inclusion. In fact their DVI is what is causing the far right to get more populist.

Ask any successful productive farmer how he grows his business and he'll sound more like Russia and China then any spokesman from the US or the UK.

Liberal and democracy should never be used in the same sentence, liberal used to mean "tolerant", but in 2024 the liberal are a toxic left leaning ,narrow minded ,bigoted and uncontructive element of society.

 

[ollie989898]

Didn't America arm the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians, they obviously thought they were jolly good fellows & a bit misunderstood, same applies to the others when it suited America!!

America armed the Mujahedeen- in response to the Soviets invading Afghanistan.

America is now arming the Ukrainians- in response to the Russians invading Ukraine.

Surely you can see the theme here?

 

[FonterraFarmer]

America armed the Mujahedeen- in response to the Soviets invading Afghanistan.

America is now arming the Ukrainians- in response to the Russians invading Ukraine.

Surely you can see the theme here?

Only real theme is history repeating, Russains going into Ukraine again , (Remember Stalin???)
And the US getting involved, the question that needs to be asked is who is in control of US foreign policy because it certainly doesn’t involve the current US president or vice president!!!

 

[czechmate]

Only real theme is history repeating, Russains going into Ukraine again , (Remember Stalin???)
And the US getting involved, the question that needs to be asked is who is in control of US foreign policy because it certainly doesn’t involve the current US president or vice president!!!

Trump seemed to be for a few months

 

[BrianV]

America armed the Mujahedeen- in response to the Soviets invading Afghanistan.

America is now arming the Ukrainians- in response to the Russians invading Ukraine.

Surely you can see the theme here?

Did the Russians arm the Iraqis or Afghans when America invaded those countries, surely you can see the theme here?

 

[Muck Spreader]

It's nothing to do with sympathies, true I do think Russia had good reason to be up in arms over NATO expansion & plenty of Americans had warned US Presidents since 2008 that pushing NATO closer to Russia would inevitably result in what has happened, the US are the main drivers of this for their own power trip.
The US had plenty of opportunity to head off the invasion beforehand but deliberately chose not to do so knowing Russia would inevitably invade & get bogged down in an unwinable war which suited America perfectly at the time & has done since.
How Russia fight wars is not of my concern as every country has different standards of what is acceptable, once Russia invaded Ukraine were on a hiding to nothing as America in reality know that Russia cannot be defeated without nukes coming into the equation so they give just enough to stop Ukraine being overrun.
Their best hope is a negotiated settlement but no bugger has the balls to own up & tell the poor devils the truth!

Like what?

 

[BrianV]

Like what?

Oh please, if the Americans had said that they totally understood the Russian concerns regarding NATO expansion into Ukraine & we’re prepared for Ukraine to remain totally neutral provided Ukraine could have some form of relationship with the EU market then Russia would have had no excuse for an invasion & could have claimed some type of win.
America/Biden had no intention of doing so as a Russian invasion was very much in the US planning.

 

[essex man]

I'm not saying one was right and one wrong, both were wrong and more should have been done to prevent both.
Now Russia has invaded Ukraine, America as the only real superpower can do more to help Ukraine, but even they are not getting directly involved as the threat of escalation is real (plus keeping Russia busy, wearing them down and supplying arms to Ukraine is beneficial to the US)
Once the US invaded Iraq, no one could do anything to help the Iraqis without fear of massive retaliation from America. Countries like China, India and Russia weren't about to try a Desert Storm style operation to kick the Americans out.

America is the big dog and does what they want, which is all the OP needs to know.

Countries that go to war, decide that what they are doing is "right" for them.
There is no "world court" to bring down judgement on those who define "right" differently to others.
If there was it might matter what the majority think of putin's actions.
Actually not sure a majority could be summoned against him anyway, given china, india, brazil etc not particularly bothered

 

[Vader]

they also left the countries you mention and didnt move the borders

Bit hard to move them borders to be part of the usa....
Also as they pulled out (in effect lost). Even if they were neighbours then no border would have moved as they did not control the land.

 

[Vader]

America armed the Mujahedeen- in response to the Soviets invading Afghanistan.

America is now arming the Ukrainians- in response to the Russians invading Ukraine.

Surely you can see the theme here?

Don't think usa armed the mujahedeen to be nice to them particularly. More it as a way to stop russia expansion at the time.
They were a useful tool at that point, but it's come back to bite the USA.

USA probably been better long term letting russia have Afghanistan...

 

[essex man]

Don't think usa armed the mujahedeen to be nice to them particularly. More it as a way to stop russia expansion at the time.
They were a useful tool at that point, but it's come back to bite the USA.

USA probably been better long term letting russia have Afghanistan...

Yes, clearly not some kind of moral crusade!
Just arm the mujis to weaken the russians.
Any time russia fight a war , arm the opposition.
Had a little break from this policy while they were poor and no threat, post communism, now back at it.

 

[Hindsight]

Don't think usa armed the mujahedeen to be nice to them particularly. More it as a way to stop russia expansion at the time.
They were a useful tool at that point, but it's come back to bite the USA.

USA probably been better long term letting russia have Afghanistan...

The politics of 1979 different to 2022 / 2024. Thought a man like you who talks military matters would give us a view of the geopolitical situation in 1979 and 2022 to put into context the conflicts. Look forward to you brief view.

 

[Hindsight]

Oh please, if the Americans had said that they totally understood the Russian concerns regarding NATO expansion into Ukraine & we’re prepared for Ukraine to remain totally neutral provided Ukraine could have some form of relationship with the EU market then Russia would have had no excuse for an invasion & could have claimed some type of win.
America/Biden had no intention of doing so as a Russian invasion was very much in the US planning.

What was said then during the various diplomatic visits to Moscow in 2021 by US Secretary of State and various sundry European leaders. Were they debating with Putin and the Kremlin about the choice of Wallflowers for the Kremlin flower beds and colour of Petunia for the Hanging baskets.

 

[soapsud]

It's nothing to do with sympathies, true I do think Russia had good reason to be up in arms over NATO expansion & plenty of Americans had warned US Presidents since 2008 that pushing NATO closer to Russia would inevitably result in what has happened, the US are the main drivers of this for their own power trip.
The US had plenty of opportunity to head off the invasion beforehand but deliberately chose not to do so knowing Russia would inevitably invade & get bogged down in an unwinable war which suited America perfectly at the time & has done since.
How Russia fight wars is not of my concern as every country has different standards of what is acceptable, once Russia invaded Ukraine were on a hiding to nothing as America in reality know that Russia cannot be defeated without nukes coming into the equation so they give just enough to stop Ukraine being overrun.
Their best hope is a negotiated settlement but no bugger has the balls to own up & tell the poor devils the truth!

Fair enoughski

 

[Vader]

The politics of 1979 different to 2022 / 2024. Thought a man like you who talks military matters would give us a view of the geopolitical situation in 1979 and 2022 to put into context the conflicts. Look forward to you brief view.

Essex man has summed it up in post above.