More significantly, "we're" all cool with US soldiers and anything they do to other countries. I don't understand the disconnect in "soldier good, army bad".
In theory, soldiers of the US army will going to stop that thievery by any means up to and including giving away their lives for their country. This is a critically important role, and as a society you can't really afford to send mixed messages about how important soldiers are. This is doubly true because of the potential risks they face, they need to feel appreciated. They are filling a valuable role.
What the leadership does with those soldiers in times of relative peace, however, is highly questionable and open to the usual rough and tumble of political debate.
(I'm assuming, of course, that the GP is largely talking about "wars I disagree with" when referring to "actively and openly stealing other countries' resources," because the number of recent conflicts that are openly about resource control is very small and the US is involved with none of them. The Iraq War is often claimed to be about oil grab, but that doesn't really make any sense when you dig into the history of the buildup to the war, and in any case, it certainly wasn't "openly" about it.)
A _tiny_ difference between those and United States of America is that USA crosses entire oceans to steal resources, where other invasions you mentioned are bordering countries; exception to that is obviously the Malvinas Island occupation by the British Empire - talking of which:
> Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Do you also consider Angola to be rightful Portuguese soil?
There was a British colony on the Falklands before Argentina even existed as a country. It was unnamed and unoccupied by anyone.
As far as I can read Las Malvinas were occupied by spanish and british forces, then the brits volountarily abandoned the place[0]
[0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#cite_note-FOO...)
The only US wars that are strongly arguably stealing resources would be the various banana wars (but the Gulf of Mexico isn't exactly an ocean), the Spanish-American War (ditto; note that the US never set out on the war to conquer the Philippines, the US Navy just happened to be in the area at the time), and the Indian Wars.
I guess they just happened to be there because of the nice weather.
People get recruited for the front lines because the system we’ve built around them pushes them in that direction. Our public schools are increasingly defunded, and people from communities that suffered under redlining still find it difficult to secure credit for to this day. (1)
Soldiers suffer for our national wealth and more often then not have been excluded from spaces where that wealth is generated.
1. https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks...
Like the US did rape and pillage all over the world? Toppling regimes, bribing politicians, committing massacres, for the sake of the rich and powerful in the US?
It's so funny to see people ignore all the tremendous amount of good that US soldiers and the military have done in the modern era for different peoples and nations and obsessively focus on the relatively few individual bad actors and examples of clear military wrongdoing. It's naive.
Every Kurd from the north that I know prefers their current situation to when sadaam was gassing them
Blah.