What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it’s reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we’re now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.
It’s y’all who can’t get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That’s the whole reason that you label us as “tankies.” Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we’re in this mess.
The reason people get called “tankies” has nothing to do with the US and all to do with the kind of horrible dictatorships they support. It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like “tankie” acknowledges that in practice.
When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I’m immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don’t want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of “defending North Korea,” labelled as a “tankie” and then subject to the whole rumor mill about “what tankies believe” that’s completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I’m being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it’s assumed that I’m just concealing my “real” views.
It’s the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn’t respond to 9/11 by “turning the other cheek” like I’d been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of “terrorist sympathizer” because “you’re either with us or against us.” Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of “supporting” or “defending” the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.
There’s no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I’m trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I’d rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us “tankies” actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a “tankie” because if you don’t want to build and deploy tanks then you’re assumed to “support” whatever enemy-of-the-week they’re to be used against, who is no doubt “authoritarian.” Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a “campist” for “supporting” the target of that militarism. When you’re being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between “supporting” or “opposing action against,” and even if you insist on it they’ll just say you’re lying and that you actually do support the “bad guy.”
I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷
it is not possible to mistake the one for the other
You say, immediately before accusing me of lying about my positions, and assuming that whoever accused me of being a tankie must have been both correct and acting in good faith.
To be clear, I am not a strict pacifist, although I was at one time. The shift from pacifist to “tankie” is very small, basically just one exception. Before, I believed in “no war” and now I believe in “no war but class war.” The vast majority of war and violence is not class war, it’s just parts of the ruling class fighting each other over resources. There are only a handful of states that even call themselves socialist and none of them are at war, so that one exception isn’t very relevant.
If I actually did “support” Assad, then how would that look different materially from opposing intervention? I’m an American, I have no control over Syrian domestic policy except through my state intervening. Unless I’m going to fly over there myself and pick up a gun on his behalf, or unless I’m going to somehow convince the US government to do a complete 180 and prop him up, then the distinction is merely rhetorical. And a rhetorical distinction, far from being “impossible” to ignore, is in fact very easy to ignore. If I were secretly an Assadist, then wouldn’t I be advocating for the US to adopt the exact same policies that I would if I were a pacifist or isolationist? Then, if I advocate for those policies, it is trivially easy to accuse me of secretly “supporting” Assad, which is why people did so, and why they do the same in every other conflict.
This isn’t rocket science, it’s not some new thing. Accusing anyone who opposes war of supporting the enemy is a tactic as old as history. As Goering said, “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” If you ever have the occasion to oppose a popular war, I can promise that you’ll encounter the same accusations.
It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷
But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a “if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.
I did. I did when I was 10 years old and knew nothing but the stories about Jesus my parents told me, well into my 20’s, reading Tolstoy, and the rhetoric and accusations were always the same.
Are you an American? Do you understand what the mood was like, trying to oppose war while growing up in a “post-9/11 world?” “It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take,” what an utterly ridiculous thing to say. As if all the people whose blood was boiling with bloodlust, thirsting for revenge, fantasizing about torture and mass murder, talking about “turning the sand to glass,” will suddenly be cool if you just say, “Um, actually, I’m only against you because I’m a pacifist.” Only someone who’s never experienced it could think that way. Nobody gives a single shit about your reasons, you will always be the villain and you will always be assigned the most damning motives possible.
You are childishly naive, and I wish that I could live in the world you think we live in.
I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist
You don’t have to assume, I just told you that I’m not a pacifist.
“if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.
Do you seriously believe that I tried to frame Syria as a class war with Assad as some kind of socialist hero, and I’m now lying about it? And you think that’s more plausible than that people simply tried to discredit my opposition to US intervention?
This is an utterly ridiculous conversation. You’re claiming “this would never happen” while simultaneously doing the exact thing you claim wouldn’t happen! You are ignoring my actual positions and assigning me the most damning positions you can, while simultaneously trying to deny that anyone would ever do such a thing.
I am not American, but old enough to remember the situation around 9/11 well, and sure there was some of what you describe, but the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism and not accusing someone of actually supporting a dictatorship. No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.
But if you go “uhm actually I am not a pacifist” and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can’t really complain about people pointing out the hypocricy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).
the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism
No it wouldn’t. Because they would simply accuse me of not actually being a pacifist, and instead being a “terrorist sympathizer.” Just like how you are, currently, accusing me of not actually holding the positions I claim to. How is this difficult to understand when you’re literally doing it right now?
No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.
No one? Did President Bush not say, “You’re either with us or with the terrorists?”
But if you go “uhm actually I am not a pacifist” and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can’t really complain about people pointing out the hypocracy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).
“Highly selective” and “pretty obviously based on a campist mindset.” Or, I’m talking about the US because I live in the US and it’s the only country that I have some nominal ability to influence. Why would I focus on condemning Assad, do you think he’d read it and have a change of heart? And it’s also literally in a thread about the US.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You expect me to constantly shift the focus to criticizing other countries, and anything short of that means that I’m secretly loyal to them. It’s ridiculous. No different than accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I condemned the war in Afghanistan, because, “Why are you talking about that, why aren’t you talking about Al Qaida’s crimes?”
At the very least you can’t have it both ways, you can accuse me of whatever motives you want (believe me, I’m used to it) but you don’t get to keep accusing me of having such secret motives while simultaneously trying to claim that no one would ever accuse me of having such secret motives.
I actually agree with your definition of tankie, tankies are generally those who support socialist states and critically support nationalist states that are under imperialist siege. I disagree that all of these are “horrible dictatorships,” or at least for the socialist countries, and see the nationalist dictatorships of capital as generally more progressive in the international context than the imperialist dictatorships of capital, but the through line here is that tankies are defined by the countries we support/critically support above all else.
As for opposing US/Israeli influence in Syria while opposing Assad, who do you support there? I think it’s pretty easy to say “the people of Syria,” but are they any better off now under the Israeli-backed HTS regime than they were under Assad? What groups actually stand to challenge the existing status quo and implement a more progressive system?
No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.
Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK “reunification”, and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe “denazification”, and you’d probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn’t han Chinese “cultural defense”. But in reality what you’re supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.
I don’t support any of that. I just don’t believe in the US using military force to stop it.
Guess that means I’m not a tankie?
if they are allowed to
Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am “allowing” them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I’m opposed to using tanks. There you have it.
The US hasn’t had to use military force for any of that. The threat was adequate deterrent. Now that the deterrent is breaking down, well…it’s time to use military force.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK. It would looks more like SK. But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Utterly idiotic. The US is weakening and you want to continue expending it’s remaining resources on avoidable conflicts halfway around the world instead of actually addressing the reasons it is in a state of decline and confronting the domestic threat of fascism. You are an accelerationist, whether you realize it or not.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK.
Lmao. What has Kim Jong Un ever done to “bully” the US? It’s the US that performs the largest military exercise in the world, every year, right on his doorstep, where they practice invading his country and bombing everything to smithereens the way they did before.
But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Sounds familiar. Except instead of one country, it’s the world. You don’t want a single place on earth to be free of the US and you’re willing to let the US destroy itself with these conflicts than to show an ounce of caution or restraint. You are the one who would rather rule over ashes.
It would be nice to spend less time using military force where it is not necessary. Like the Middle East.
Unfortunately, Russia has shown us that having a military force in Europe is necessary. NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.
China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.
NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.
And yet you can’t answer when I ask for an example of how the tiny, impoverished state of NK has “bullied” the US. In reality, it’s not about responding to bullying, it’s just about extending the scope and authority of your empire.
China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.
Aww, peaceful smol bean America just wants to live in peace and harmony with everyone, but everyone else is just so aggressive.
Meanwhile, back in this reality:
Again, it’s just empire building. You think you’re somehow different from every other empire because you have all these justifications, but every empire has had similar justifications:
There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome’s duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman people.
Historian Joseph Schumpeter
Likewise, the British empire was said to have been built in “a fit of absentmindedness,” as if it kept acquiring territory accidentally through “keeping the peace” around the world.
You are no different, and history will remember your empire no differently than those of the past.
They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it. Technically the war still hasn’t ended. For some reason, people don’t seem to forget when you try to conquer them.
And that’s why the US has allies, because they helped prevent the conquest of SK. That’s why the US military is still there, to prevent the conquest of SK again.
They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it.
Yeah, real imminent threat right there. I mean, what if the Soviets give them aid again? Will President Eisenhower be able to handle it?
Did you just wake up from a 70 year coma? That’s the most relevant example you can come up with for the claim that Kim Jong Un, who hadn’t even been born, is a “bully” who “can’t be reasoned with” and “keeps starting wars?”
For some reason, people don’t seem to forget when you try to conquer them.
Yeah, and they don’t forget when you drop chemical weapons and murder 5 million people, primarily civilians, either. You sure that’s a talking point you want to use?
What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it’s reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we’re now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.
It’s y’all who can’t get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That’s the whole reason that you label us as “tankies.” Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we’re in this mess.
That’s such a harebrained campist take 🙄
The reason people get called “tankies” has nothing to do with the US and all to do with the kind of horrible dictatorships they support. It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like “tankie” acknowledges that in practice.
When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I’m immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don’t want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of “defending North Korea,” labelled as a “tankie” and then subject to the whole rumor mill about “what tankies believe” that’s completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I’m being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it’s assumed that I’m just concealing my “real” views.
It’s the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn’t respond to 9/11 by “turning the other cheek” like I’d been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of “terrorist sympathizer” because “you’re either with us or against us.” Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of “supporting” or “defending” the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.
There’s no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I’m trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I’d rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us “tankies” actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a “tankie” because if you don’t want to build and deploy tanks then you’re assumed to “support” whatever enemy-of-the-week they’re to be used against, who is no doubt “authoritarian.” Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a “campist” for “supporting” the target of that militarism. When you’re being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between “supporting” or “opposing action against,” and even if you insist on it they’ll just say you’re lying and that you actually do support the “bad guy.”
I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷
You say, immediately before accusing me of lying about my positions, and assuming that whoever accused me of being a tankie must have been both correct and acting in good faith.
To be clear, I am not a strict pacifist, although I was at one time. The shift from pacifist to “tankie” is very small, basically just one exception. Before, I believed in “no war” and now I believe in “no war but class war.” The vast majority of war and violence is not class war, it’s just parts of the ruling class fighting each other over resources. There are only a handful of states that even call themselves socialist and none of them are at war, so that one exception isn’t very relevant.
If I actually did “support” Assad, then how would that look different materially from opposing intervention? I’m an American, I have no control over Syrian domestic policy except through my state intervening. Unless I’m going to fly over there myself and pick up a gun on his behalf, or unless I’m going to somehow convince the US government to do a complete 180 and prop him up, then the distinction is merely rhetorical. And a rhetorical distinction, far from being “impossible” to ignore, is in fact very easy to ignore. If I were secretly an Assadist, then wouldn’t I be advocating for the US to adopt the exact same policies that I would if I were a pacifist or isolationist? Then, if I advocate for those policies, it is trivially easy to accuse me of secretly “supporting” Assad, which is why people did so, and why they do the same in every other conflict.
This isn’t rocket science, it’s not some new thing. Accusing anyone who opposes war of supporting the enemy is a tactic as old as history. As Goering said, “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” If you ever have the occasion to oppose a popular war, I can promise that you’ll encounter the same accusations.
It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷
But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a “if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.
I did. I did when I was 10 years old and knew nothing but the stories about Jesus my parents told me, well into my 20’s, reading Tolstoy, and the rhetoric and accusations were always the same.
Are you an American? Do you understand what the mood was like, trying to oppose war while growing up in a “post-9/11 world?” “It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take,” what an utterly ridiculous thing to say. As if all the people whose blood was boiling with bloodlust, thirsting for revenge, fantasizing about torture and mass murder, talking about “turning the sand to glass,” will suddenly be cool if you just say, “Um, actually, I’m only against you because I’m a pacifist.” Only someone who’s never experienced it could think that way. Nobody gives a single shit about your reasons, you will always be the villain and you will always be assigned the most damning motives possible.
You are childishly naive, and I wish that I could live in the world you think we live in.
You don’t have to assume, I just told you that I’m not a pacifist.
Do you seriously believe that I tried to frame Syria as a class war with Assad as some kind of socialist hero, and I’m now lying about it? And you think that’s more plausible than that people simply tried to discredit my opposition to US intervention?
This is an utterly ridiculous conversation. You’re claiming “this would never happen” while simultaneously doing the exact thing you claim wouldn’t happen! You are ignoring my actual positions and assigning me the most damning positions you can, while simultaneously trying to deny that anyone would ever do such a thing.
I am not American, but old enough to remember the situation around 9/11 well, and sure there was some of what you describe, but the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism and not accusing someone of actually supporting a dictatorship. No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.
But if you go “uhm actually I am not a pacifist” and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can’t really complain about people pointing out the hypocricy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).
No it wouldn’t. Because they would simply accuse me of not actually being a pacifist, and instead being a “terrorist sympathizer.” Just like how you are, currently, accusing me of not actually holding the positions I claim to. How is this difficult to understand when you’re literally doing it right now?
No one? Did President Bush not say, “You’re either with us or with the terrorists?”
“Highly selective” and “pretty obviously based on a campist mindset.” Or, I’m talking about the US because I live in the US and it’s the only country that I have some nominal ability to influence. Why would I focus on condemning Assad, do you think he’d read it and have a change of heart? And it’s also literally in a thread about the US.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You expect me to constantly shift the focus to criticizing other countries, and anything short of that means that I’m secretly loyal to them. It’s ridiculous. No different than accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I condemned the war in Afghanistan, because, “Why are you talking about that, why aren’t you talking about Al Qaida’s crimes?”
At the very least you can’t have it both ways, you can accuse me of whatever motives you want (believe me, I’m used to it) but you don’t get to keep accusing me of having such secret motives while simultaneously trying to claim that no one would ever accuse me of having such secret motives.
Which they did, at which point you just accuse them of lying
They explicitly did not, and that is exactly why people think it is a hypocritical position. Come on, at least try to read before replying 🤦
See? What’s the point in trying to appease you “anti-tankie” lunatics if you’re just going to lie?
I do not know how you were able to type out this whole post without realizing.
I actually agree with your definition of tankie, tankies are generally those who support socialist states and critically support nationalist states that are under imperialist siege. I disagree that all of these are “horrible dictatorships,” or at least for the socialist countries, and see the nationalist dictatorships of capital as generally more progressive in the international context than the imperialist dictatorships of capital, but the through line here is that tankies are defined by the countries we support/critically support above all else.
As for opposing US/Israeli influence in Syria while opposing Assad, who do you support there? I think it’s pretty easy to say “the people of Syria,” but are they any better off now under the Israeli-backed HTS regime than they were under Assad? What groups actually stand to challenge the existing status quo and implement a more progressive system?
No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.
Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK “reunification”, and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe “denazification”, and you’d probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn’t han Chinese “cultural defense”. But in reality what you’re supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.
I don’t support any of that. I just don’t believe in the US using military force to stop it.
Guess that means I’m not a tankie?
Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am “allowing” them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I’m opposed to using tanks. There you have it.
The US hasn’t had to use military force for any of that. The threat was adequate deterrent. Now that the deterrent is breaking down, well…it’s time to use military force.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK. It would looks more like SK. But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Utterly idiotic. The US is weakening and you want to continue expending it’s remaining resources on avoidable conflicts halfway around the world instead of actually addressing the reasons it is in a state of decline and confronting the domestic threat of fascism. You are an accelerationist, whether you realize it or not.
Lmao. What has Kim Jong Un ever done to “bully” the US? It’s the US that performs the largest military exercise in the world, every year, right on his doorstep, where they practice invading his country and bombing everything to smithereens the way they did before.
Sounds familiar. Except instead of one country, it’s the world. You don’t want a single place on earth to be free of the US and you’re willing to let the US destroy itself with these conflicts than to show an ounce of caution or restraint. You are the one who would rather rule over ashes.
It would be nice to spend less time using military force where it is not necessary. Like the Middle East.
Unfortunately, Russia has shown us that having a military force in Europe is necessary. NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.
China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.
And yet you can’t answer when I ask for an example of how the tiny, impoverished state of NK has “bullied” the US. In reality, it’s not about responding to bullying, it’s just about extending the scope and authority of your empire.
Aww, peaceful smol bean America just wants to live in peace and harmony with everyone, but everyone else is just so aggressive.
Meanwhile, back in this reality:
Again, it’s just empire building. You think you’re somehow different from every other empire because you have all these justifications, but every empire has had similar justifications:
Likewise, the British empire was said to have been built in “a fit of absentmindedness,” as if it kept acquiring territory accidentally through “keeping the peace” around the world.
You are no different, and history will remember your empire no differently than those of the past.
They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it. Technically the war still hasn’t ended. For some reason, people don’t seem to forget when you try to conquer them.
And that’s why the US has allies, because they helped prevent the conquest of SK. That’s why the US military is still there, to prevent the conquest of SK again.
Yeah, real imminent threat right there. I mean, what if the Soviets give them aid again? Will President Eisenhower be able to handle it?
Did you just wake up from a 70 year coma? That’s the most relevant example you can come up with for the claim that Kim Jong Un, who hadn’t even been born, is a “bully” who “can’t be reasoned with” and “keeps starting wars?”
Yeah, and they don’t forget when you drop chemical weapons and murder 5 million people, primarily civilians, either. You sure that’s a talking point you want to use?