Can we actually not have them as the world police? They’ve been pretty shite at it and actually very corrupt. Kinda like their own police are.

And before that the DNC encouraged Trump because they thought he’d be easy for Hillary to win against.

https://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/

Sorry, gonna need a ticket to escalate that

Now that Spain’s Socialist President, Pedro Sánchez, has adopted the rhetoric of decolonization, Mohammed VI should revive the spirit of the Green March to carry out the definitive expulsion of Spanish settlers from Moroccan territory […] Sánchez should do the right thing: live up to his anti-colonial rhetoric and put an end to the Spanish occupation in Africa,” wrote the author, Michael Rubin.

Spain’s “decolonization” rhetoric was actually anti imperialism while acknowledging Spain’s colonial past and at the same time taking aim at the US and Israel. So does Mikey agree that Israel is colonizing? These think tanks do anything but think.

Didn’t the DNC send Bill Clinton to Michigan and when confronted about the lackluster response of the DNC against the genocide, he started telling the attendees that it’s Israel’s right to the whole thing and they were there first? To a room full of Arab Americans?

https://truthout.org/articles/bill-clinton-sparks-outrage-for-racist-comments-on-gaza-at-harris-rally/

Again, it’s not about me disproving OPs claim because 1) people making the claim need to back it up, and 2) it’s still factually incorrect on both accounts (repeatedly or always).

There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can’t rely on populism to get in power.

If we’re being that specific and the audience assuming context (invading + elections), then historically there is no record for OP to make the generalized statement of it being repeatedly bad. So it’s either a general statement or very specific to this context (which others claim but only OP can tell us) and neither of those work even.

I get that people want to defend Ukraine, I’m not disputing that. I’m literally saying that someone is referencing history incorrectly.

Sale of land is more of a founding myth to legitimize it as something transactional or legal. It was under British mandate so effectively a colonial administration and therefore rubber-stamped by Britain.

Evidence also exists that Britain forged land deeds and sold off the land that wasn’t held by anyone locally or communally held. Also it wasn’t to private individuals but to the Jewish National Fund (publicly backed by the Rothschild family) which is similar to the East India Company.

Early Zionist institutions consciously modeled themselves on chartered colonial companies like the British South Africa Company or Hudson Bay company.

Most of the land was “acquired” when the Palestinians were expelled during the Nakba and the newly Israel made a convenient “absentee” law for land ownership.

And Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Czechia, UAE… It’s a long list of assholes.

Some Zionist groups in Palestine requested help from Hitler himself to help in establishing Israel. Those Zionist group leaders became high ranking members of government and military (even PMs).

Sorry, but this is becoming a history discussion now.

Chamberlain getting removed was after Britain’s failed attempt to stop the Nazi invasion of Norway. Boots on the ground and everything. They were very much into the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_campaign

Either way, OP made the claim about what history can show, it’s their responsibility to back it up. We’re the ones attaching recent context to Ukraine because of the post, but OPs claim said historically.

And there are many examples when changing of leadership actually helped during war (again, not referencing recent context).

Desperate or a lot bolder with his final solution?

Wasn’t there a change in leadership from Chamberlain to Churchill during WW2 which allowed the British to better counter Naziism?

Edit: y’all are reading too much into this. OP said: “History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.” Which is factually inaccurate as a statement.

It was happening before that, but it’s definitely much faster now.

Epstein class*

We need to do like Europe and get our government administration off of US tech companies

I think my response to all this would be my initial response again.

Nobody justifying a despotic leader but explaining why a nation of people are on edge (and probably why they allowed a despotic leader) and yet you say how the US doing something wrong was understandable. I don’t know if you’re noticing the juxtaposition by saying it twice.

I don’t think the person is justifying a dictatorship regime, but giving background into the nations mindset.

A lot can be said if the people latched onto a “popular hero” to the point of near idolatry during decades of fear and isolation (and keep in mind, Koreans north and south are very superstitious and extra). Hell, the same can be said about Trump supporters.

It also seems like you’re normalizing the US’s expansionism by saying “yeah, it’s wrong, but what did we realistically expect?!”. So while you’re giving the benefit of the doubt there, you’re also not doing it for a population that’s actually been oppressed (internally and externally) for decades.

Terrible omission. Instead they try to drive the point home further with this:

Neither the US nor Israel are member states of the ICC or recognise its jurisdiction.

Problem is (or not really a problem) that acknowledgement of fault would lead to a case with international courts for reparations

Unnecessary escalation of what?! From when? It’s not an escalation but an outright illegal attack for absolutely no reason and the US is gonna be Israel’s bitch again