The real story here isn’t asshat Trump. It’s that the US can’t keep its hands to itself, and it’s been that way for decades. Trump is just the new boss. The next one will also attack various countries.
Ah 'both sides'. Yes. The quantity of countries per president doesn't matter.
Yes, it's bad that other presidents authorized attacks on other countries that they shouldn't have. But also yes, Trump is objectively the greater evil.
Not both side. One side. The US side. Versus the rest of us. I don’t give two fucks about your shit political parties. I give a fuck about how your country uses the rest of the world as its litter box.
Literally both sides. There's a reason the term "foreign policy consensus" exists. And if we're merely looking at quantity per president, Obama was a bigger warmonger than Bush.
Yeah, I don't see establishment democrats doing much different when it comes to foreign policy.
Any war Trump starts, they'll perpetuate and support. They MIGHT start less of them, but they'll continue any existing ones and start a few of their own with the right incentives.
If only. The rest of us out here in the outside world would have much preferred America to start the punching with its own face. I guess they kind of did, but it's getting everywhere now.
You're thinking of the War of 1812, but otherwise, yeah. There have been Wars on US soil since then, but no foreign invasions.
Even counting civil conflicts, The Mine Wars were an entire gun shooting, bomb dropping, war in West Virginia, and even that was 100 years ago, in the 1920s.
I remember (canadian here) in grad school and my class asked if it could be canceled because of the inauguration and I stood up and said, no, I am paying for this class. My peers sneered but I dont care. I had the right hunch. Obama was a neoliberal warmaker. To be fair, even Obama doesnt understand why he got the novel peace prize (he has admitted it multiple times). Ill give him that!
Weird wording, so I had to look this one up to confirm.
First we don't have "Minister of War" or "Minister of Economy." I'm guessing you meant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Commerce?
You're right about Sec Def. Obama nominated Robert Gates and said it was to fulfill a campaign promise he made to have a Republican in his cabinet. Seems fucking insane to choose that cabinet position out of all of them for it...
However I'm confused by who you're referring to with the second part.
For Commerce, according to wiki, he nominated Bill Richardson (D) who had to withdraw.
He then nominated Judd Gregg, who was a Republican apparently. However, since he was the current Senator in New Hampshire, his appointment would have given Dems a Senate Super Majority.
Gregg eventually withdrew.
Eventually, Democrat Gary Locke was chosen and served.
Yeah not american, i dont always remember your unique names for things. The defense secretary was engaging in war so minister of war is fine for me (im from a parliamentary context).
Yes I meant Robert Gates which was an insane choice. And my bad i remembered them nominating a republican commerce secretary and that was enough for me to write off Obama (and rightfully so).
Really puts the Yemen situation into high relief. We've been at war with them for over 20 years, but we keep pretending they attacked us out of the blue a few years ago.
The big attack on the US we were focused on in the Middle East for a bit was the attack on the USS Cole in October of 2000. We were ramping up for possible action in response to it over the next 11 months, but then 9/11 happened and everyone forgot Yemen existed again.
I, for one, want to thank our glorious USA overlords, for not nuking any new countries this decade.
And for not (again) financing terrorist in my country this decade (well, at least nothing got reported);
nor black sites (this decade), and only manipulating our elections and financing far right parties. And making sure the "tech" giants keep exploiting us.
What does it say about our current political environment that it isnt immediately clear to me if this graphic is being used to imply "both sides" or "trump bad"?
There would be no difference. A guy like Trump is not satisfied by anything. He will continue his work of destruction until he dies, regardless of any FIFA peace price or Nobel price he is awarded
No. I'm just curious about his knee-jerk response to something shiny. He's very conflicted. To be fair though, it seems to me most things everywhere nowadays are about trump's personality. Sorry, I just cannot bring myself to capitalize the trump proper noun.
I have mixed feelings here. I'm not happy with us attacking a lot of places, BUT....... not ALL of it has been for totally "oil" reasons. But at the same time, for a long time I've argued that if we go in to "help" some places, it's funny how we don't genereally "help" places in, for example, Africa when you have people killing each other - THOSe people are FINE killing each other.
Or, I suppose, supporting Israel over Palestine and standing by as thousands and thousands are murdered.
I'm just saying, I guess, that not all of the shit the US has done has been for the wrong reason, but a lot of it has. But at the same time, we've done some things that others wanted to get done, but we went in and did it.
I'm..... look........ this sounds like I'm trying to defend the US, and I guess I am a little, but not very much, okay?
What about just keeping your fucking hands off other countries? If the US really wanted to help, they would do 3 things:
abolish veto rights in the UN security council
acknowledge the ICC
give the UN troops for peace missions where needed
Edit: this doesn't even touch the issue of your corrupt piece of shit president using the USA as a vehicle to make "deals" that only enrich himself - in other words extortion.
Figuring out that your country is an evil murderous colonial rape and pillage factory is hard. But it does nobody any good trying to defend such a shit hole.
I'mma be honest, we shouldn't even be "helping" good causes right now, as much as other Americans hate hearing me say that because they want to save the world's "noble savages."
The rest of the world (and many of us too) has been tired of Team America: World Police since before that spoof movie (thus its very existence), and we have enough problems at home we need to fix without bombing schools halfway across the goddamn world. "Please put on your own mask before you assist your child" as it were, we can't be our boyfriend's therapist when we need one our damn selves.
My point that I also didn't articulate very well is basically: Yes, US has intervened badly, but we've also done some valuable things that others let us do because they didn't want to spend the money or political capital, so with the fascists winning, us helping keep some countries in check is weakened, which is one thing they're happy to accomplish. That's what I didn't say, and I didn't say it poorly. meh.
Does the good outweigh the bad? That's too big of a problem to decide. But there are some good things that we've done that we will be doing less of. People will die because of less humanitarian aid, less keeping bad actors in check. We didn't keep all bad actors in check, nor did we help everyone. But we did do some of both of those things, along with other things in our own economic interest that ALSO killed people, and some of those things will continue, so it's not like the situation is all better.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) springs to mind,
with it's jingoistic plan to accomplish global domination through hegemony,
with contingency plans of mass distraction via manufactured catastrophes to problem-reaction-solution up more unaccountability for the government / military industrial complex / PNAC to carry on unchallenged,
recognising the threat to their plans was not from competing countries and their militaries, but from the people.
Also, If you count conflicts that the US either started or keep inflamed as either proxy wars or just to serve capitalist imperialism, the list is much longer. Palestine, Sudan, India/Pakistan (Kashmir), Myanmar, Russia/Ukraine and Congo come to mind immediately.
Also, how about economic warfare? Have to put Cuba and North Korea and every other country the US sanctions on there. After all, US sanctions have killed 38 million people in the last 50 years.
You’re right, I did miss Venezuela/Pakistan on there. Everything else is correct and can be backed by evidence though.
These are all about imperialism and capitalism. It is the entire reason the US gets involved in any conflict. Here’s an example of how the US funds the Sudan genocide through arms sales to the UAE: https://www.commondreams.org/news/sudan-atrocities-us-support-uae
Why does it do this? Because Sudan used to have a strong communist movement and capitalism is threatened by communism. You can find similar threads leading back to the US for every other country I mentioned.
Did you even read your source? It does not claim any of that. And the rest is just your opinion, which is even less serious, given that even source info is wrong.
I'll repeat: there's plenty of good reasons to criticize the US, no need to make shit up. Read the source for a few good ones.
102 replies
I just don’t know what the FIFA Peace Prize means these days.
it means shakira will sing a song for you
It's the prize you get for ensuring the FIFA leadership peace of mind from pesky corruption investigations.
The real story here isn’t asshat Trump. It’s that the US can’t keep its hands to itself, and it’s been that way for decades. Trump is just the new boss. The next one will also attack various countries.
The US has always been ruled by corporate interests. Presidents come and go, but money and the love of it will always remain.
Ah 'both sides'. Yes. The quantity of countries per president doesn't matter.
Yes, it's bad that other presidents authorized attacks on other countries that they shouldn't have. But also yes, Trump is objectively the greater evil.
Not both side. One side. The US side. Versus the rest of us. I don’t give two fucks about your shit political parties. I give a fuck about how your country uses the rest of the world as its litter box.
Literally both sides. There's a reason the term "foreign policy consensus" exists. And if we're merely looking at quantity per president, Obama was a bigger warmonger than Bush.
Yeah, I don't see establishment democrats doing much different when it comes to foreign policy.
Any war Trump starts, they'll perpetuate and support. They MIGHT start less of them, but they'll continue any existing ones and start a few of their own with the right incentives.
It does show that Trump is the handsiest of them all though...
When has the US ever kept our hands to ourselves? We're clearly insane.
If anything, it probably highlights how weak he is in the machine.
Thank you for your comment, now that Selena Gomez song is stuck in my head.
🎵 I mean I could, but why would I want to? 🎵
At least the Europencils are safe
You mean the middle east and latin America always pay the price.
Probably gonna need to be updated soon.
America itself will soon be on the list.
Soon? The American people are under attack. Their constitution is under attack.
But they're not being literally bombed by their military. That's the "soon" part.
Well, they've got ICE thugs kidnapping people off the streets.
But it probably won't count as an invasion or war until civil war breaks out.
So...March?
Philly has joined the chat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
America First!
If only. The rest of us out here in the outside world would have much preferred America to start the punching with its own face. I guess they kind of did, but it's getting everywhere now.
Yeah, the one benefit of Trump is he doesn't spare the imperial.core from American horrors
Looks like Cuba is next.
One of them is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
One is a FIFA Peace Prize Winner
One of the highest distinctions one can achieve in the seediest underbellies of the world, I'm told.
That's just the ones directly. That's none attacked by
paid proxyterrorist forces.Or coerced/bullied/threatened into obedience.
The Yanks have always been war mongering pieces of shit.
And apart from the revolutionary war never had troops invaded them, so the general public has no idea what a war is actually like
You're thinking of the War of 1812, but otherwise, yeah. There have been Wars on US soil since then, but no foreign invasions.
Even counting civil conflicts, The Mine Wars were an entire gun shooting, bomb dropping, war in West Virginia, and even that was 100 years ago, in the 1920s.
Probably gonna add Canada, Mexico and Cuba to that list here soon. The old codger is getting desperate.
Well Mexico should already be on there. And arguably Cuba. I would say a blockade is an attack.
There's a Joe in the George column
The placement is by order, not position. However, I think position would be better.
UNACCEPTABLE!
Why is America not on this list? ICE are terrorists hell-bent on destroying America in trump’s name.
I wanna see that and which ones get a Netanyahu of Approval™️
nO nEw WaRs!
It’s kinda surreal that of this chart, every country that Trump and W bombed, Obama did too
Obama appointed bush's minister of war and economy before inauguration. He was a wolf in sheep's clothes.
I probably would have fallen for it, granted I was sixteen when he was elected for his second term
I remember (canadian here) in grad school and my class asked if it could be canceled because of the inauguration and I stood up and said, no, I am paying for this class. My peers sneered but I dont care. I had the right hunch. Obama was a neoliberal warmaker. To be fair, even Obama doesnt understand why he got the novel peace prize (he has admitted it multiple times). Ill give him that!
Because the Nobel committee are also neoliberals.
I’m sorry that you got pulled into that crap, I celebrate the distinct and vibrant culture of Canada 🇨🇦
Of course you could have been attending grad school in the states as a Canadian as well, I don’t know your story
Weird wording, so I had to look this one up to confirm.
First we don't have "Minister of War" or "Minister of Economy." I'm guessing you meant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Commerce?
You're right about Sec Def. Obama nominated Robert Gates and said it was to fulfill a campaign promise he made to have a Republican in his cabinet. Seems fucking insane to choose that cabinet position out of all of them for it...
However I'm confused by who you're referring to with the second part.
For Commerce, according to wiki, he nominated Bill Richardson (D) who had to withdraw.
He then nominated Judd Gregg, who was a Republican apparently. However, since he was the current Senator in New Hampshire, his appointment would have given Dems a Senate Super Majority.
Gregg eventually withdrew.
Eventually, Democrat Gary Locke was chosen and served.
Yeah not american, i dont always remember your unique names for things. The defense secretary was engaging in war so minister of war is fine for me (im from a parliamentary context).
Yes I meant Robert Gates which was an insane choice. And my bad i remembered them nominating a republican commerce secretary and that was enough for me to write off Obama (and rightfully so).
until understanding they're in the same club with the same interests.
This would be cooler if it had sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#2000s
Before anyone says "B-But wikipedia is no source!!" That's true but wikipedia has sources itself which you may check and verify
This is the internet, not high school.
I don't think you'll find many people here who would argue with Wikipedia as a source.
Wrong article. Great information of cause. But wrong source.
Really puts the Yemen situation into high relief. We've been at war with them for over 20 years, but we keep pretending they attacked us out of the blue a few years ago.
The big attack on the US we were focused on in the Middle East for a bit was the attack on the USS Cole in October of 2000. We were ramping up for possible action in response to it over the next 11 months, but then 9/11 happened and everyone forgot Yemen existed again.
By this guy?
The most peaceful president everyone
I, for one, want to thank our glorious USA overlords, for not nuking any new countries this decade. And for not (again) financing terrorist in my country this decade (well, at least nothing got reported); nor black sites (this decade), and only manipulating our elections and financing far right parties. And making sure the "tech" giants keep exploiting us.
I am so lucky. /s
Yankistanis big mad about seeing the presidents they idolize are war mongering criminals.
https://lemvotes.org/post/sopuli.xyz/post/52305004
https://lemvotes.org/post/sopuli.xyz/post/52202986
At least they finally learned. It'd be a shame if someone believed the propaganda all their life.
Fake news. The fifa peace prize award winner would never do anything like this.
No need for nuance
Why isn't the USA on the list?
Taken as a given. It's the 'free space' on the bingo card.
Didn't Bill Clinton authoritize any strikes during 2000, or is 2000 excluded from the 21st century?
2000 is still 20th century.
Clinton had a window of 19 days and about 12 hours in 2001.
*kinetically attacked
Trump bombed Pakistan? When?
https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-administration-drone-strikes-pakistan/3784089.html
Thats why they call him The Wedding Crasher II
I thought it would be bigger.
The peace president, who did not start any more wars... they said (and some still say ...???).
It was absurd in the first weeks when he'd tripled obama's drone bombing rate before ordering reporting on his drone bombing be censored.
He is their boy. He has always been their boy.
Obviously, we just need to vote blue no matter who harder!
Hows that Trump dick tasting?
I'm literally a communist you idiot
It obvious that no is not even an option as answer for the obvious, damn.
Btw, do the # of wars per quarter century increase?
What does it say about our current political environment that it isnt immediately clear to me if this graphic is being used to imply "both sides" or "trump bad"?
I wonder what our current path would be if the Nobel committee threw a peace trinket at trump a while back?
There would be no difference. A guy like Trump is not satisfied by anything. He will continue his work of destruction until he dies, regardless of any FIFA peace price or Nobel price he is awarded
You look at this graphic, and still think it's about Trump's personality?
No. I'm just curious about his knee-jerk response to something shiny. He's very conflicted. To be fair though, it seems to me most things everywhere nowadays are about trump's personality. Sorry, I just cannot bring myself to capitalize the trump proper noun.
and all those reasons for trump is, whenever anything related to the epstein files were going to be released that month.
I have mixed feelings here. I'm not happy with us attacking a lot of places, BUT....... not ALL of it has been for totally "oil" reasons. But at the same time, for a long time I've argued that if we go in to "help" some places, it's funny how we don't genereally "help" places in, for example, Africa when you have people killing each other - THOSe people are FINE killing each other.
Or, I suppose, supporting Israel over Palestine and standing by as thousands and thousands are murdered.
I'm just saying, I guess, that not all of the shit the US has done has been for the wrong reason, but a lot of it has. But at the same time, we've done some things that others wanted to get done, but we went in and did it.
I'm..... look........ this sounds like I'm trying to defend the US, and I guess I am a little, but not very much, okay?
There are three african countries in this list
Yeah, alright, I didn't articulate very well perhaps because I'm already verbose and people bitch at me "toooo loongggg didn't reeeadddd lolololol".
We intervened in the
Balticsedit: Balkans, d'oh/haha, but not in various places like Rwanda. That's more of what I was trying to get at.We "freed" Kuwait, but ignore many places under similar circumstances.
You mean the Balkans. And trust me, America did no good there.
When the USA helps someone militarily, it is:
What about just keeping your fucking hands off other countries? If the US really wanted to help, they would do 3 things:
Edit: this doesn't even touch the issue of your corrupt piece of shit president using the USA as a vehicle to make "deals" that only enrich himself - in other words extortion.
Main reason are: oil, Israel and drugs (having supply).
Figuring out that your country is an evil murderous colonial rape and pillage factory is hard. But it does nobody any good trying to defend such a shit hole.
I'mma be honest, we shouldn't even be "helping" good causes right now, as much as other Americans hate hearing me say that because they want to save the world's "noble savages."
The rest of the world (and many of us too) has been tired of Team America: World Police since before that spoof movie (thus its very existence), and we have enough problems at home we need to fix without bombing schools halfway across the goddamn world. "Please put on your own mask before you assist your child" as it were, we can't be our boyfriend's therapist when we need one our damn selves.
My point that I also didn't articulate very well is basically: Yes, US has intervened badly, but we've also done some valuable things that others let us do because they didn't want to spend the money or political capital, so with the fascists winning, us helping keep some countries in check is weakened, which is one thing they're happy to accomplish. That's what I didn't say, and I didn't say it poorly. meh.
Does the good outweigh the bad? That's too big of a problem to decide. But there are some good things that we've done that we will be doing less of. People will die because of less humanitarian aid, less keeping bad actors in check. We didn't keep all bad actors in check, nor did we help everyone. But we did do some of both of those things, along with other things in our own economic interest that ALSO killed people, and some of those things will continue, so it's not like the situation is all better.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) springs to mind,
We can still mend this.
Venezuela is missing.
Also, If you count conflicts that the US either started or keep inflamed as either proxy wars or just to serve capitalist imperialism, the list is much longer. Palestine, Sudan, India/Pakistan (Kashmir), Myanmar, Russia/Ukraine and Congo come to mind immediately.
Also, how about economic warfare? Have to put Cuba and North Korea and every other country the US sanctions on there. After all, US sanctions have killed 38 million people in the last 50 years.
What a spectacularly wrong comment. Literally everything is wrong.
Venezuela is on the list.
None of those examples are about capitalism or imperialism. And Pakistan is on list.
Sanctions numbers pulled out of ass.
The US does enough evil and/or dumb shit that we don't need to make up shit to criticize them.
You’re right, I did miss Venezuela/Pakistan on there. Everything else is correct and can be backed by evidence though.
These are all about imperialism and capitalism. It is the entire reason the US gets involved in any conflict. Here’s an example of how the US funds the Sudan genocide through arms sales to the UAE: https://www.commondreams.org/news/sudan-atrocities-us-support-uae Why does it do this? Because Sudan used to have a strong communist movement and capitalism is threatened by communism. You can find similar threads leading back to the US for every other country I mentioned.
My numbers for death by US sanctions were literally pulled from a study published by the Lancet, not my ass: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext
Unfortunately the US is way more evil than most people think.
Did you even read your source? It does not claim any of that. And the rest is just your opinion, which is even less serious, given that even source info is wrong.
I'll repeat: there's plenty of good reasons to criticize the US, no need to make shit up. Read the source for a few good ones.
I see it on the list.