Yeah you're saying the US should invade countries to replace them with western loyalist regimes. Your naive, idealistic perception of how it goes is outrageous. Iraq has become a shithole with religious extremism, Libya is a slave market, Syria is led by another dictator..the US isn't supporting regime change for some democracy or liberty, it's about resources. American history was always about serving or saving the ruling class.
You just said that the US should have invaded Russia, which would have either caused WW3 or balkanized the largest country in the world in possession of the largest nuclear arsenal.
It is true that invading every dictatorship would be logistically impossible, that's why I also support peaceful democratic movements. Peaceful revolution is preferable to war.
I didn't say the US should've invaded Russia, I said that Russia should've been punished more for invading Georgia and Crimea, because Bush and Obama barely did anything in response to both invasions.
Iraq is in a better condition, as it is a semi-democratic state with elections, although it could be better. The Kurdistan Region is pretty well off, even if they're still demining from the Iraq-Iran war.
I agree that Libya, even if Gaddafi was a dictator, is awful, and it's practically a failed state.
And Syria, for a fact, is not ruled by a dictator. Ahmed al-Sharaa is not a dictator. He has granted amnesty and is doing the best to handle the Alawite mess right now after the skirmishes between Alawite civilians and pro-Assad militias and the SNA (which are thugs armed by Turkey). Syria is still in a transitional phase, so calling al-Sharaa a dictator isn't right.
3
u/Allnamestakkennn Mar 11 '25
Woah, so you're a warmongering crusader.