• TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            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?

            • tankiesmasher@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 minutes ago

              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.