• tankiesmasher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    Wtf kind of Russian bot defends liberal democracy? The Russian bots all sound exactly like you, ahistoric anti-west trolls. You’re literally glazing Saddam Hussein just to be able to hate America more.

    “They benefitted briefly” look how far you’ve fallen. I thought it was all about the money and oil? All that rhetoric smashed against the rocks of reality. A worthless analysis abandoned at the slightest pushback.

    I guess that brief benefit was the reason they spent years and trillions of dollars in the region distributing aid, building civilian infrustrature, and propping up the Iraqi government, all so they’re adversaries in the region could benefit more than them. How selfless.

    I absolutely got my facts right, Clinton didn’t plan to invade the country but he sure as hell made it his policy to make Saddam an enemy and work towards regime change in Iraq.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Wtf kind of Russian bot defends liberal democracy?

      You tell me. Russian trolls are known to pretend all sides.

      The Russian bots all sound exactly like you, ahistoric anti-west trolls. You’re literally glazing Saddam Hussein just to be able to hate America more.

      Do you realise that surveys across the world have thought America is the biggest threat to the world, even Europeans? Have you asked the Filipinos, Vietnamese and Iraqis what they think about US after experiencing US militarism? Have you ask the victims of My Lai?

      If you are so intent with deposing autocratic regimes, why not promote doing it to Saudis, Israel and North Korea? I’m sure you’ll agree they are authoritarians, right?

      • tankiesmasher@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        That would depend on each individual circumstance because I don’t treat geopolitics like team sports. I’m not here to depose anybody, I’m here to expose lazy slopulist propaganda and disinformation from people like yourself, which I have done. Might I remind you this thread started because you called America the same as fucking ISIS, another claim you abandoned almost immediately because you have nothing but lies and ignorance.

        • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          You’re trolling to be this absolute daft but I’ll bite.

          Because your country and ISIS are terrorists. Two different cheeks from the same arse. Your corporate media brainwashed you to support neocolonialism because it’s your side. Imperialist terrorists never ask their victims, do they, if the “civilising mission” actually benefit them? Did you ask the Vietnamese exposed to Agent Orange if they love America?

          • tankiesmasher@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m. Not. American. You’re so clueless you don’t even realise where you are right now. Look at the instance you illiterate chud.

            You people have no clue what the words you use mean, you simply use them because your lizard brains recognises they are bad. You’re the Pavlovian dogs of the politics community.

              • tankiesmasher@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Terrorism is when not asking how the Vietnamese felt before using agent orange? Genius.

                Better questions if you aren’t 50iq:

                • Why was agent orange used?
                • What was the expected effect of agent orange when it was used?
                • Nath@aussie.zoneM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  8 hours ago

                  Using an example where the USA breached the Geneva convention against chemical warfare is not proving whatever your point is.

                  To answer your question, they justified it at the time as a herbicide to kill the jungle the Vietnamese were using for cover. This was only a cover story however. They clearly knew how dangerous a toxin it was, given the safety protocols they had around the chemical for it’s troops. At best, if it were merely a herbicide, it’s use would still constitute a war crime for destroying civilian and non-combatant food sources.

                  It’s actually a bit of an International scandal even today that the USA has not formally apologised for its use. They have at least provided limited compensation for their victims in Vietnam with long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange. Though I’m not certain those programs continue today under their present administration.

                  To be honest, the USA should apologise for being in Vietnam in the first place. It had no business being there, and nor did Australia.