@Pyrrho @mischievoustomato @mmmfeet @shedinja

> We "freed" Germany from Hitler only to hand half of it to the Soviets and the other half to the CIA.

South America. Look at South America. Look at South America from the sinking of the USS Maine to the asset forfeiture.

So I say "we" but that's "we" as in "the government and the boots on the ground directed by the government" and I don't trust our government to run *our* country, let alone trust them to run both this one and whatever countries they've most recently decided to free the shit out of. If the Ukrainians "deserve" freedom, certainly the Russians do too, right? Should we send arms and troops to Russia also? Should we invade China? Who *shouldn't* we invade? Who isn't free enough?

And that's even if we take as read the motivations of the people claiming to want to free all these people. That doesn't appear to have been the motivation at any point, but it has sure as hell been the cover story for how many wars?

Geopolitics is fascinating but once the rhetoric starts, it ceases being remotely interesting. That is, it's interesting to analyze, it's interesting to look at, it's interesting to say "Well, if this happens, this will happen", or "If they want this, this is a good move; since they're doing it, maybe they want this". The second "we should" or (god forbid) "we must" comes into play, it's just a sales call.