ibm9000 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:03 am
Excuse me...
Why should we help Ukraine?, we didn't help Iraq, we didn't help Panama...
Is just a question of "likes"?
We were hoping Afghanistan to win against the USSR? and against USA too?
-I case of a "quick" interpretation... I am
not saying anything about hoping Russia to win-
Because Ukraine is, or at least was, a fledgling democracy. One that was subject to an unprovoked attack - a savage act of aggression.
Debatable about whether we did or did not "help" Iraq. I could take either side of that argument and not find myself entirely convinced by my arguments. On the whole, I suppose I would tentatively conclude that we did more harm than good. Still, I can see the argument that getting rid of Sadam Hussein as a leader was of benefit. He had ordered the launching of invasions against Iran and Kuwait. Hardly the actions of a "likable" person. He also was a dictator - one that gained power through something other than democratic means.
Noriega, also a dictator, was hardly a nice and likeable guy in Panama, although that did not necessarily justify an invasion there. Construction of a canal at least had the potential of bringing in revenues to the Panamanians, although arguably it was more an imperialistic endeavor. At any rate, it would be helpful if you could specify particular actions or time frames in your question, rather than leave us readers the task of guessing what the hell you are writing about.
When Russia invaded Afghanistan. I am not sure what "we were hoping." There were policies of containment being promulgated at the time of Russia's invasion, so I suppose you could deduce that we were therefore hoping for a "win" by Afghanistan.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, it chose sides in a civil war there. The invasion was justified by the need to strike back at Al Qaeda, an organization that had launched a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, etc. Now you may object to calling Al Qaeda a terrorist organization, but it is still clear that they were the instigators of the events of 9/11. Personally, I thought we should have confined our actions to striking at Al Qaeda, as opposed to also taking sides in the war against the Taliban, but as an individual, I do not control U.S. foreign policy.
Getting back to promoting democracy. One of the benefits is that once in place it provides a relatively peaceful framework for establishing and implementing political policies. One in which disputes can be aired in public and citizens can voice their opinions, ideally without fear of reprisal for doing so. When properly functioning, it can therefore lead to less death and destruction.
In the case of Ukraine, it is not just a matter of defending a fellow democracy. There is also the question of genocide. Under Stalin, the Ukrainians were arguably subject to genocidal policies. Given the types of justifications of aggressive policies being brough forth by Putin and his media mouthpieces, there is every reason to believe that Ukrainians have a legitimate fear of being the victims of yet another genocidal assault. So, we can also sympathize with their basic desire to defend themselves.
Now, if you believe that constitutes a "whitewashing" of Ukrainian actions, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
As for what I hope for, by now it should be clear that I am hoping for a negotiated settlement in which the legitimate interests of the need for national security and protections of minorities on both sides of the conflict are taken into account.