• @xiao
    link
    -3911 months ago

    When you are a good friend of the best “democracies” in the world you can attack your neighbors without having continuous criticism from the media (=> people’s criticism).

    The dead become good dead ? 😃

    Any example to consolidate this assumption?

        • @[email protected]
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          1311 months ago

          I’m not sure what you think this is a source for, but it is definitely not “invading your neighbors and no one cares”

          • @xiao
            link
            -611 months ago

            “invading your neighbors and no one cares”

            At the onset of the 20th century, the United States shaped or installed governments in many countries around the world, including neighbors Hawai`i, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.

            who cared …

            • @[email protected]
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              8
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              You’ve got one US state and 5 foreign - and still sovereign - countries listed there, none of which are a US “neighbor” and none of whom were invaded by the US

              • @xiao
                link
                111 months ago

                Hawaii was a kingdom before annexation.

                I am not the author of the Wikipedia article but pretty sure (s)he was talking about some kind of maritime borders as “neighbor”, you are free to correct it if that is fake.

                As for the USA invasions which according to you did not take place, I no longer know what to answer you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      711 months ago

      Ok, there’s a lot of claims being made here, and not just by you. I did a little research because I was bored, and just want to share.

      The U.S. absolutely invaded Panama, The Dominican Republic, and President Taft sent troops to Nicaragua, which I guess is an invasion.

      As far as media coverage goes, I found articles citing negative media coverage of U.S. intervention in Haiti and Panama, I will post the journals at the end of the paragraph.

      I could not find any other media coverage save for local coverage by Hawaii, which I won’t count. That does not mean it doesn’t exist! Half of these things happened over 100 years ago now.

      I think you will find plenty of negative media coverage on Iraq and Afghanistan, which I think is a better comparison.

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/3229359?read-now=1&oauth_data=eyJlbWFpbCI6ImN3NzI3NzRAZ21haWwuY29tIiwiaW5zdGl0dXRpb25JZHMiOltdLCJwcm92aWRlciI6Imdvb2dsZSJ9&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/25612127

      • @xiao
        link
        011 months ago

        Thanks for the smartest comment here ✌

        You know for many cultures 100yo is not so old.

        I would probably disagree with you on the last point, except for Julian Assange’s work.

        Anyway posting my comment was interesting, I can feel the effect of propaganda (not on you I think). I thought that in the age of the internet people would develop their critical thinking more. But people are as conditioned as in the last world wars. A manichean vision of the world.

        Geopolitics is about complexity in my opinion.

    • Hank
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. Like are you saying Russia plays the role Japan played in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression in China?

      • @xiao
        link
        -611 months ago

        Was not talking about Russia. You missed the point.

        Geopolitically, those both situations are totally differents.

        But I have to admit that this shows some similarities with 2003 USA invasion of Iraq 😅.

        The U.S. invasion of Iraq was the most widely and closely reported war in military history. Television network coverage was largely pro-war and viewers were six times more likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war. The New York Times ran a number of articles describing Saddam Hussein’s attempts to build weapons of mass destruction. The 8 September 2002 article titled “U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts” would be discredited, leading The New York Times to issue a public statement admitting it was not as rigorous as it should have been.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

        • PugJesusOP
          link
          fedilink
          611 months ago

          The only similarity of substance is that they were both unjustified acts of aggression made under false pretenses.

          • @xiao
            link
            -411 months ago

            I totally agree. But my point is about the media coverage.

            Ukranians have my full support, as much as Yemenis and Congoleses.

            But we rarely hear about these last two.

    • @Apollo
      link
      111 months ago

      Free tibet from imprialist oppression!