U.S. has had 251 military interventions since 1991!?!..

    • comfy
      link
      171 year ago

      It’s a bit disappointing to ask “where did they get the percentage?” before immediately giving some uncited ones of your own: “individual nations, majority of them supports Ukraine (and US/EU etc)” and using an article from a conservative ‘think tank’ (wiki link) when complaining about propaganda.

    • §ɦṛɛɗɗịɛ ßịⱺ𝔩ⱺɠịᵴŧOP
      link
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Its similar to The Daily Show, just unredacted, so of course its entertainment. Yet the data is sourced from The Wall Street Journal, The US Congress and The U.N., not to mention the U.S. fell 25% below its recruitment goal this year, which is more than 18%.

      Nonetheless, all the title is simply referencing is the fact of all the developed countries, 90% are not willing to help whatsoever in Ukraine. Did you watch the 6 min video? US is also now ranked between Cuba and Buliva by the UN, both of which are widely known as developing countries.

      I get Russia over stepped bounds but there’s a logical way to approach disputes and for us to handle it similar to the other 250 military actions since 1991, I’d have hoped we’d at least learned something. At least spending the money on helping at home would provide benefits we can see vs messing up the planet and innocent folk world wide over the last 30 years.

        • lemmygrabber
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          Condemning the invasion is not the same as supporting Ukraine. Even more so if the criteria for support becomes material help, whether through aid to Ukraine or sanctions on Russia.

        • Muad'Dibber
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          You are free to list all the developed countries

          This is incredibly racist, to only care about what rich “developed” (IE euro-supremacist) countries have to say.

    • @TheAnonymouseJoker
      link
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your account should be labelled as NATO propaganda and banned. It is against the rule 2 of being nice and respectful.

      You also use think tank articles as evidence, so that is even more propaganda. Violates rule 3 of this community.

      I know very well what people like you are trying to do on Lemmy. Your reactionary behaviour will not change anything here. Maybe it is effective on reddit.

    • Muad'Dibber
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lets play this game. You posted a link from the magazine, national interest. Here’s what they say about themselves:

      For over almost three decades, The National Interest, founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol and Owen Harries, has displayed a remarkable consistency in its approach to foreign policy. It is not, as the inaugural statement declared, about world affairs. It is about American interests. It is guided by the belief that nothing will enhance those interests as effectively as the approach to foreign affairs commonly known as realism—a school of thought traditionally associated with such thinkers and statesmen as Disraeli, Bismarck, and Henry Kissinger. Though the shape of international politics has changed considerably in the past few decades, the magazine’s fundamental tenets have not.

      Lol omg look at this magazine:

    • @frippa
      link
      91 year ago

      I hope you are paid

    • krolden
      link
      71 year ago

      Did this guy really getbanned for arguing? Grow a fucking spine and cope. Banning for something like this is extremely childish. Apparently arguing a point means you’re ‘fighting’ with other users. Really disappointing mod action.

      • comfy
        link
        41 year ago

        User got 3 days for “getting into fights with many users” global modlog/community modlog

        They did have a couple of deleted comments that were correctly hit for rule 2 (although it’s still inconsistent moderation, seeing how worthless insults like this stay up) but being banned for arguing with many people? That’s beyond reasonable. This is a political thread, a bunch of users disagreed with a poorly-made but legitimate critique, and the person gets banned for replying to many of them?

        Might as well say ‘this is an echo-chamber, controversial opinions are banned’. I agree, very disappointing, and not based in the site or community rules.