• ristoril_zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    What on earth are you talking about occupying Syria?

    Edit: they’re misconstruing the 32-country military coalition that’s been trying to degrade Da’esh since 2014 as the US military by itself occupying sovereign territory.

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

    Some may remember the breathless daily & weekly map updates on the news showing areas controlled by Da’esh changing. Might remember the coalition partnering with various groups of differing militancy & reliability. I think including us (the coalition) fucking over Iraqi Kurds…? I believe because Syria hated them? Or loved them?

    So, y’know, absolutely nothing like Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine because Putin was afraid of Ukraine getting too chummy with NATO countries, possibility even considering joining NATO.

      • ristoril_zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        So your contention is that Nation A considering joining an alliance that Nation B doesn’t like - not actually joining, just considering - is a provocation worthy of military invasion?

        Jesus what a world that would be.

        • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          […] is a provocation worthy of military invasion?

          See, that’s an entirely different statement. Threatening to join Russia’s geopolitical rival’s military alliance while bordering Russia, is provocation. The acts in Donbas since 2014 are provocation. Is it “worthy of military invasion”? I don’t believe so. The proto-fascist Russian government is clearly not acting entirely out of pure will and self defense, and I’ll be the last to defend it since I have loved ones directly suffering under that government. But it’s important to frame things correctly, and yes, threatening to join NATO while bordering Russia is a huge provocation.

          Particularly, NATO has no history of defensiveness (as far as I know it has never intervened for the defensive purposes it’s supposed to uphold), but it has a history of offensiveness. Yugoslavia and Libya can both attest to that, and extra-officially (technically not NATO interventions even if many NATO members participated one way or another), countries such as Iraq can also attest. The case of Iraq is a perfect example of what unprovoked invasion in modern times is, and we are still forced to see libs fall heads over heels for a fucking Dick Satan Cheney endorsement to Kamala “most lethal army in the world” Harris.

          So, yes, when a country bordering you chooses to join a historically aggressive military alliance that openly challenges you, that’s huge provocation. And it’s important to state so when we talk about the war in Ukraine.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The US is in Syria against the will of the legitimate government of Syria that’s recognized by the UN. This is an invasion and a violation of the sovereignty of Syria. Period.

      The fact that you rushed in to try and paint it as something other while bleating about Russia’s completely unprovoked, unilateral decision to invade Ukraine says everything we need to know about you.

      • ristoril_zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree as I see a fundamental difference between a multi national joint military operation targeting international terrorists and a unilateral military operation aimed at reconstituting the USSR.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          There is no fundamental difference. International law states that countries are sovereign and cannot be invaded by other countries. Just because a bunch of bandits, who are currently involved in a literal genocide I might add, get together to do it in no way legitimizes it. The fact that you think might makes right is legitimate in one case and not the other shows that your position is hypocritical, and can be safely ignored.