The Monroe Doctrine from 1823?
4,694 karma · joined September 15, 2010
The US was invited into South Vietnam to help defend them against an invasion from North Vietnam. We can debate the morality of the resulting war, which was questionable, but it was not a US invasion.
The US invasion of Nicaragua was in 1912, long before the modern post-WWII era of stronger international law.
Chile was not invaded by the US.
If these are the examples you have, you don’t have a strong argument.
The issue with Cuba was the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba, not merely its membership of a pact with the USSR.
The US didn’t invade Cuba, it assisted Cuban exiles to do so in the embarrassing Bay of Pigs disaster which took place before the naval blockade as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Naturally, Bay of Pigs should never have happened, and it’s one of the things that led to the CIA’s powers and freedom from oversight being drastically curtailed the following decade.
Furthermore, the world and international law has moved on since the 1960s. That sort of brinkmanship has been much reduced.
There was no such open invitation to Georgia and Ukraine, only vague promises. MAPs were still required.
The US would have no right to invade either Canada or Mexico if they were discussing joining a mutual defence pact with Russia, yes.
There is no right in international law that allows its neighbours to invade if it picks one they don’t like.
Add to that that it’s a mutual defence pact and the argument becomes more absurd.
Nor was Ukraine anywhere close to joining NATO. It’s application had effectively been frozen in 2008, and it was not even being offered a MAP which is about step 1 on a 20 step ladder of actions to take before joining.
It’s a red herring being used to justify Russia’s territorial and imperial ambitions.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...
It is also widely believed to have had a hand in the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin in 2004, in order to give an edge to his pro-Russian opponent, Viktor Yanukovych.
But even if that’s not true there’s ample evidence of overt Russian influence campaigns to support Yanukovych in that election, which was just 10 years after the Budapest Memorandum.
For something as serious as giving up a nuclear arsenal it’s reasonable to expect to get more than 20 years of peace and for the co-signers to actual fulfil their parts of the agreement, whether legally binding or not.
The end result is that no country will soon trust a Russian non-aggression promise and none will trust an American promise of support.
Ukraine at one point wanted to formally claim ownership over the weapons, as after all breaking the permissive action locks wasn’t that difficult. The US talked them out of it, as a lead up to the Budapest Memorandum.
We all know how much the security guarantees of that agreement were worth.
Ukraine does the same too, obviously, but missile/drone defence is harder than attack, and there’s a numbers disparity in terms of interceptors and being able to place them in the right places.
Iran got just a couple of goes at Israel and didn’t get a similar chance to learn from and adapt to what it learned in the process.
There is an extremely toxic component to Bluesky’s user base, unfortunately, with the many attacks on the CEO for not banning Jesse Singal being testament to that. But for what it’s worth in the circles I’ve cultivated there I now see very little of those toxic people, and I don’t see any support for their behaviour. So I hope in time a more open culture will win out.
There are far more neutral and credible experts to read and listen to on issues like this.
[0] https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/israel-conspira...
The main reason for getting 12 F-35As is for the nuclear strike role and for cheaper operational conversion training for F-35B aircrew. They're not going to do much else, so the inability to refuel from RAF tankers isn't a huge dealbreaker.
So the applications in between, that would be accessible in an attack like this, can't view the PIN.
It’s not like he revealed details from private DOGE strategy meetings or discussions.
Regardless of motivation, electoral choices have consequences that voters collectively own.
Again, it’s not like we haven’t seen this before in other countries that have voted in populists. It’s always the same cycle: Widespread dissatisfaction promotes populists who correctly identify legitimate problems but offer implausibly simple solutions to solve them. Voters choose the populists out of anger & frustration, only to find that they can’t solve the problems but create the kind of institutional damage that reduces the ability of any successors to solve those problems.
Trump is a populist and we’re already seeing that institutional damage merely 100 days in. There’s no indication that the outcome will be any better than all the other historical parallels.
I could maybe understand why people voted for the anti-establishment candidate the first time around. Legitimate frustrations exist with a system many felt wasn't working for them. But the second time around, with clear evidence of the consequences, is not defensible and shouldn't be excused.
This is a form of reactionary populism and it's deeply dangerous for the US's power, prosperity, and political freedoms. Ask Argentinians what Peronism, as another form of anti-establishment populism, did for them. There are countless other examples to learn from too.
I'm not saying that out of anger, that's just the nature of democracy and that the corollary of a voting public being able to choose their leaders means they're responsible when they make bad choices. That, in turn should trigger national debates, reflection, and reform hopefully, else the US will continue to head down an ever-increasingly authoritarian and populist path.
I certainly don't want the US to go down that path, nor do I enjoy seeing the damage being done now. I just believe that if we coddle voters who made terrible political choices they're just going to keep making those bad choices election after election.
Yes, when you have to vote between the lesser of two evils, but one of them is blatantly more evil and incompetent than the other, you're responsible for choosing the more evil and incompetent option and the damage that results.
No system is perfect, and few countries provide morally and politically pure options to vote for in national elections. So an informed and engaged population often needs to vote tactically, understanding that establishments change slowly, and work to elect more effective candidates at local & state level who can work their way up to the national stage.
Voting in the anti-establishment choice just because voters are upset that progress is slow and politics is hard is the stuff of tantrums, and voting adults are supposed to be beyond that.
The changes being made now will deprofessionalise and politicise large parts of the US civil service. The US will be poorer for it.
The OP is correct, Americans collectively own this just as other countries' nationals have owned responsibility for the bad governments they've put into power. If the general response is one of absolving themselves of responsibility there won't be the necessary level of reflection and reform to prevent it from happening again.
As it is the damage done to US power and credibility will take decades to fix, and it's only 100 days in.
Secretary of Defence Hegseth sent Secret or Top Secret information over a channel (Signal/TM Signal and a regular mobile phone) that was never cleared for classified communications. The person I was replying to was trying to equate Obama's actions to those of Hegseth (and Waltz and others), I was providing context showing that to be a false equivalence.
What Hegseth did was indefensible.
Whatever the reason, I have made my case. Feel free to make yours with a similar level of evidence.