Yes you're right, the standard we should hold for the US is being able to see into the future, but for ISIS the standard is not killing some women they can sex traffic because you think they are savages with no moral agency. Very woke of you.

the material destruction and collateral casualties are left to others to clean it all up.

You're lies aren't even convincing, like why do you think America spent so much time there after Saddam was deposed? They were pumping billions into the country trying to stabilise it. Iraqi leaders had every opportunity to capitalise on that but chose to pursue sectarianism and corruption instead.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Again, your country and your tacit support of an illegal invasion is what made ISIS in the first place. There are warnings already of what could happen if Saddam was toppled but the clanging sounds of coins and the alluring green dollar notes to grab Iraqi oil, drowned and blinded all the warnings.

the material destruction and collateral casualties are left to others to clean it all up.

You're lies aren't even convincing, like why do you think America spent so much time there after Saddam was deposed? They were pumping billions into the country trying to stabilise it.

And all the cost with nothing to show for except for few oil companies to profit? The trillions of dollars that could have gone to healthcare and housing? A wasteful and illegal war that became the sticking point to populism, which led to Donald Trump because you support imperialism? Fascism is always the next logical step of economic liberalism. The liberals love of money always leads to imperialism with the end result being the undoing of democracy.

You reap what you sow. The world may get collateral damage, but the imperial boomerang you threw always comes back to hit your head, and that bump on your head is fascism in the form of Donald Trump.

[–] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're talking points are so dated. Oil? Really? Iraqi oil remained the property of the Iraqi government, and nothing close to the trillions the US spent in the conflict was recouped by US oil companies. Iraq sold their oil on the open market without preferencing the US, China benefitted more from the market then America did.

Clinton made regime change in Iraq official policy because Saddam kept invading his neighbours, but I guess that doesn't enter into your calculus about instability in the middle east because you're a campist hack. Keep acting like money was the reason, all evidence to the contrary.

As for the rest of your rambling talking points that leap from one schizophrenic slogan to the next, all I can say is your handlers need to teach you better. Maybe you can learn the the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending, some history lessons from WWII, and a bit of polysci to help you understand the slopulist here is you.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Did Clinton want to invade Iraq? It was the Bush family that got involved with Iraq. Bush Jr's vice president, Dick Cheney, is connected to oil companies. They benefitted from it briefly until much of the influence went to Iran. Which is the theocratic mortal enemy that you so much rail against. US loves to larp as superhero and being bad at it and did not even benefit from it.

If you are not liberal imperialists, you may be the remaining 64% Russian bots on the net sowing discord. You love to accuse someone as bot for a barely old account that only posted two months ago. You did not even get your facts right on whose policy was it to make enemies with Iraq.

[–] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Did you ask what the Vietnamese felt when your country sprayed Agent Orange?

[–] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.zone 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There has never been a ruling by the UN, ICC, ICJ or whatever about the use of agent orange breaching the Geneva conventions or being a war crime. All legal analysis is post hoc. Today it might be, but it's irrelevant to this foreign agitators ridiculous claims.

You assert they knew based on nothing but a hope and a dream. Chemical warnings are designed to prevent misuse, and I would love to hear you claim the warnings on the box were "will cause generational harm". In fact it's the exact opposite because soldiers were incredibly ignorant of the toxicity of the chemical, a fact veteran advocacy groups have spoken of at length.

They also stopped using agent orange shortly after more information came out about those kinds of harmful effects in 1969, which goes against your claim.

If you think any of this is convincing of the claim "America and ISIS are the same" you've got your head in the sand.

This was only a cover story however.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dude, this happened in living memory. Americans are completely open about it.

Operation Ranch Hand had two primary objectives: (1) defoliation of trees and plants to improve visibility for military operations, and (2) destruction of essential enemy food supplies. Source

Attacking civilian food sources is a war crime. Source

It's all a bit moot, since the USA gives zero shits about the UN, ICC and when they can hide it, the Geneva Convention. Hell, the ICC list of War Crimes is like a runsheet of what the Americans got up to in Vietnam. And we haven't even discussed Napalm.

Have they improved? Yeah, probably. But then you watch the Collateral Murder video, and question that.

I haven't equated the Americans with ISIS. But I can understand why an Iraqi would and would give their position serious consideration.

[–] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 1 points 15 hours ago

improve visibility for military operations

destruction of essential enemy food supplies.

Attacking civilian food sources is a war crime.

See the problem? And even if I concede all of this, it doesn't get someone closer to the original claims being made, it's just a whataboutism based on a lazy bastardization of the word terrorism.

I don't recall him saying he was an Iraqi, I just know he's a lying campist shill dirtying up the discourse with slopulist slogans and conspiratorial brainrot like they all do. Whether American interventionism is good or not isn't at issue here, it's about whether it's terrorism.

Whatever circumstance of his upbringing have led him to these asinine positions aren't important, I just know that these talking points are destructive nonsense and inevitably function to sweep for actual terrorists who target civilians openly and explicitly like ISIS.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You must be a troll. Terrorist imperialists really don't care about their victims.

[–] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

You clearly don't care at all about how much they care about civilians, because you are conflating two forces where the difference in the amount they care is massive. Zero care from ISIS, more than zero by the US, both terrorists in your delusional world view.