[Pants-of-dog]

Only because they can't, not because they don't want to.

Regardless of the secret inner workings of the Latino mind that you seem privy to, it is realistic to say that it is normal for Latinos to not worry about international armed conflict with Middle easterners and vice-versa.

[quetzalcoatl]

Middle Easterners do not control their oil in any way. If they do anything that the US deems against its interests, they will be destroyed, and the recent wars there prove that this is a credible threat.

This is the same thing as saying that nobody controls it. We control ME, by your 'logic', in precisely the same way Saddam controlled the oilfields of Kuwait. Our only point of leverage is the ability to destroy oil infrastructure, and that is one weak poker hand. If we destroy the oil, we don't get to use it (at least not for a long time, and at an enormously increased cost). The other point of leverage is even weaker: our ability to effect regime change. Regime change is a credible threat only to the extent you are able to control resulting outcome. We have proven again and again and again in the ME that we are unable to control the outcome. This is not brain surgery, all the relevant players know this.

The credible threat is zero. We were able only to create chaos, not control the situation to our advantage. The world has learned we can be resisted, and they will gladly face privation and chaos rather than surrender to foreign dictates (as would you, if the situation were reversed).

I don't advise you to sit a poker table. Your grasp of relative strength is nonexistent. The world today is filled with third-rate Machiavelli's who fancy themselves hard-headed realists, but who are in fact are romantic dreamers. Saddam, for example, or Victoria Nuland.

Oh, and that little comment about people not living in the real world...
You might want to remove the beam from your own eye.

[Conspyre]

It's not about who will control oil and gas. Everyone knows that Ukraine came to power new Nazis. But the United States and Europe have called it the struggle for democracy! In Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian monarchy where there are no rights. But it loud silence. Russia held a referendum in the Crimea, there was not a single shot. Russia called the aggressor. and now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... operations

[Conspyre]

Do you agree? Or find an excuse? We all have to fight for the truth.

[One Degree]

It's not about who will control oil and gas. Everyone knows that Ukraine came to power new Nazis. But the United States and Europe have called it the struggle for democracy! In Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian monarchy where there are no rights. But it loud silence. Russia held a referendum in the Crimea, there was not a single shot. Russia called the aggressor. and now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... operations

Did the referendum in Crimea give them an option of being independent of both Ukraine and Russia? Giving someone a choice between two masters is not much of a choice. Russia has physically annexed territory. A practice most of the modern world has abandoned. The US imperialism is obviously ineffective, because the US does not annex territory. Russia did and this makes Russia a backward imperialist that can not be tolerated in the modern world.

[Conspyre]

1) item on the independence of the Crimea was on the ballot.
2) The referendum - not an annexation. This is called the right of nations to self-determination.
3) The aggression does not mean joining the territory. US bombing of the country, the city, killed civilians. Without any of the UN resolutions. And then it turns out that Iraq had no chemical weapons. The tube was just chalk!

[layman]

Russians are the biggest liars everywhere right now.

They must be one of the few country’s that actually pushes their own governments lies, despite knowing they are being lied to.

It is not only lies about the present (Russian soldiers in Ukraine for example) but lies about the past. Their denials about colonialism and the crimes of the soviet empire make any Japanese equivalent look quite insignificant.

[Conspyre]

Let's imagine a different situation. For example a revolution in Mexico, came to power allies of Russia or China. One northern state decided to secede and join the United States. What would the American government? They'd had occupied all of Mexico.

[Conspyre]

Russians are the biggest liars everywhere right now.

They must be one of the few country’s that actually pushes their own governments lies, despite knowing they are being lied to.

It is not only lies about the present (Russian soldiers in Ukraine for example) but lies about the past. Their denials about colonialism and the crimes of the soviet empire make any Japanese equivalent look quite insignificant.

Ooooh) Americans are honest) always tell the truth)

[Potemkin]

The US imperialism is obviously ineffective, because the US does not annex territory.

Really? What about all that land they took from Mexico in the 19th century (including Texas, I might add)? And what about Cuba, or Puerto Rico, or the Philippines? The US has done its fair share of annexing other people's territory in its time. What, you think your own shit doesn't stink?

[One Degree]

Really? What about all that land they took from Mexico in the 19th century (including Texas, I might add)? And what about Cuba, or Puerto Rico, or the Philippines? The US has done its fair share of annexing other people's territory in its time. What, you think your own shit doesn't stink?

You are talking about last century. I pointed out the rest of the modern world left this behind, but Russia has not. I do not deny past annexation. It simply is immaterial. Russia wants to continue something the rest of the world has decided is no longer appropriate. I would fully support stopping any nation from annexing territory.

[Pants-of-dog]

Also, the US does not need to annex the land, as long as it spreads its hegemonic form of capitalism and is able to control the country's corporations and resources.

Not to mention that the US is still currently occupying land they annexed from indigenous nations.

[One Degree]

Also, the US does not need to annex the land, as long as it spreads its hegemonic form of capitalism and is able to control the country's corporations and resources.

You are confusing international capitalism with the US. It may be hard to distinguish at times, but there is a difference. This is why the US does not annex land. International capitalism views national borders as insignificant.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are confusing international capitalism with the US. It may be hard to distinguish at times, but there is a difference. This is why the US does not annex land. International capitalism views national borders as insignificant.

No. I am not confusing the two. US neo-imperialism, such as its involvement in Latin America and the Middle East, is a subset of international capitalism. It has different characteristics than other forms of international capitalism.

[One Degree]

It has different characteristics than other forms of international capitalism.

What differences? Do you mean the US military is the enforcement arm of International Capitalism? That is simply due to the fact the US has a large and modern military. The capitalists will happily replace this with another nation if necessary. The US is no more part of the problem than any other country that has refused to place limits on how much a person or corporation may own and control.

[Pants-of-dog]

What differences?

USians tend to use the CIA to put in authoritarian dictators who then act as puppets for their US masters, while other countries make free trade deals and then use the courts to demolish the laws of the country being co-opted.

[One Degree]

USians tend to use the CIA to put in authoritarian dictators who then act as puppets for their US masters, while other countries make free trade deals and then use the courts to demolish the laws of the country being co-opted.

Probably. The result is the same. Neither gives them the control that annexation does, which is the point. The people are allowed to reject foreign corporations, but it is much more difficult to reject annexation.

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as we recognise that the US approach is effective for them.

[Potemkin]

You are talking about last century. I pointed out the rest of the modern world left this behind, but Russia has not. I do not deny past annexation. It simply is immaterial. Russia wants to continue something the rest of the world has decided is no longer appropriate. I would fully support stopping any nation from annexing territory.

So when are you going to hand back Texas to Mexico or Puerto Rico to the Spanish? Or, for that matter, hand back the entire continental United States to the Native Americans?

[Rich]

You are talking about last century. I pointed out the rest of the modern world left this behind, but Russia has not. I do not deny past annexation. It simply is immaterial. Russia wants to continue something the rest of the world has decided is no longer appropriate. I would fully support stopping any nation from annexing territory.

Yes parts of the Ukraine have been part of Russia since there has been a Russia. Russia was under effective foreign occupation under Communism. Some parts of Russia remained under occupation after 1991. It is the Galacians who are the imperialist annexationist occupiers in this dispute. Hawaii was annexed in 1898 long after Crimea was liberated from the Muslim terrorist occupiers. the Northern Mariani islands were only annexed in 1978.

Treaties made under threat of aggression are not valid. Hence legally Alaska remains part of Russia. As Koenigsberg, South Tyrolia and Danzig remain part of Germany. It was America that decided to rip up the established order when they recognised Kosovo, its no good the c**ts whining now.