Use this one weird trick to have correct opinions on the USA

Does the satellite imagery provide any evidence of genocide?

lmao yes you dumb fuck, this isn't 2019 motherfucker keep up with the news

let's say these claims are true. let's "steel man" your argument and just ignore all our reservations and concerns. Let's begin by ignoring all evidence pointing towards exaggeration/malfeasance by western "news" sources citing state department propaganda about a clear US enemy during a time of increasing tension, and let's just say yes, ok, you're right, China is genociding Uyghur Muslims. What are you advocating be done in response to that? An invasion by NATO of a nuclear armed power that nearly all NATO countries rely on economically in order to stop the genocide? That would mean WW3, at the very least.

How about America, before it can claim any moral high ground over China, before shedding crocodile tears about what its geopolitical rivals are supposedly doing, to justify some kind of intervention supposedly on behalf of Uyghurs, close down its fucking ICE camps and guantanamo bay and the CIA black sites and get its CIA agents out of the middle east and stop buying the products of this alleged genocidal slave labor from China which is used to manufacture cheap goods for US consumers? All of this is so clearly in order to manufacture consent for some kind of military action, whether true or not. Also let's be real, none of this concern trolling about Uyghur Muslims strikes me as genuine, at all. The US just got done bombing and occupying 8 different muslim majority countries from 20 years with its "war on terror." And before/during that so-called "war on terror" the US was arming/training far right religious extremists (Mujahideen, precursors of the Taliban) as a proxy force against the USSR in Afghanistan, and far right religious extremists and separatists (ETIM) as a proxy against PRC. The US government has never cared about Muslims. They're just pretending to as a way to pivot from fucking with the middle east towards fucking with BRICS.

Permanently Deleted

Why do you get to define socialism to exclude liberalism?

Socialism seeks to abolish property relations, and thus the bourgeoisie with it. Liberalism upholds them.

They are ideologies that are in complete and total contradiction to one another. You either want private property in which some people can enslave others to exploit their labour or you want to get rid of that.

It's been defined that way since long before Americans adopted their lexicon of liberal = Democrat-adjascent. And it's used internationally the way we use it here.

On the one hand we have the academically accepted definition. On the other we have yours. Why do YOU get to define it?

Socialism was developed as an intellectual tradition in opposition to liberalism. I didn't define it

The people who invented liberalism defined it. Take that up with Rousseau and Locke, et al.

You literally know nothing, and are such a smug bastard about it. Read a fucking book.

It's literally the definition of liberalism outside of the US, lol.

The right wing party in Australia is called the Liberal Party. The center left is Labor, the left wing is the Socialist party.

In many European countries, Liberals (or Liberal Democrats) are right wing.

Liberals are only equated to the left in the US, which is yet another reason that USA BAD.

Your analogy makes no sense, imagine if Texas was taken over by nazis and it triggered a civil war and the Texans resisting the nazis (majority of whom are spanish speakers of Mexican heritage) implored Mexico to intervene, that would be more accurate

If Texas "elected" (America has no democracy) Democrats and then the Democrats were ousted by Nazi militias before the next election and replaced with Republicans then the Nazi militias started to strike southern majority Mexican neighborhoods with artillery and banned the Spanish language and the state and federal government allowed it, would you pick up a rifle to stop the Mexican army from coming across the border to protect the American minorities begging Mexico for help?

To kill the Nazis?

God willing.

The primary reason for the invasion was NATO encroachmemt and threats of Ukraine joining NATO. This prompted an invasion because the Russian Federadtion has border disputes with Ukraine, which it would have no recourse to address if Ukraine joined NATO as then conflict would or at least very seriously could lead to nuclear conflict. Essentially, they're settling long standing border disputes that have been ongoing, and which the US/NATO have been heavily involved in creating conflict.

The US has been setting up Ukraine a proxy battlefield in its larger conflict against the Russian Federation. The US does not have access to extract value from Russuan territory like it did before Putin and a coalition of national bourgeois allies kicked out the US collaborating bourgois of the Yelstin coalition. This is the source of conflict between the US and the Russian Federation. The US as the global imperial hegemon presides over a system of extraction and exploitation of the imperial periphery. US state enemies are all nations that have refused to submit to this system.

I'm not claiming any moral justification, I'm not claiming support of the action. But that's the rationale that led the Russian Federation to invade.

I am a communist. I do not support the capitalist and socially reactionary government of the Russian Federation. But i do have a degree of critical support for the Russian Federations struggle against US hegemony. This statement applies to other nations that have non socislist governments but struggle against US hegemony and therefore often trade or support socialist states, such as Iran.

I don't support the governments of the US any NATO country, Ukraine, or the Russian Federation. I support the international working class of all these countries which did not start nor deserve this war, or any other perpetrated by the ruling classes. I want this war to end, and people to stop dying.

The main reason that this war continues is the insistence of the US whose "aid" is prolonging the war and killing more Ukrainians who do not need to be dying. The US has been playing out its battle with Russia, and has been discplining its NATO "allies" who were becoming energy independent from the US by trading with Russia.

I oppose the US and its aims primarily because it is the global imperialist hegemon. As a communist i oppose this global system of capital and any defeats to this system are of benefit to humanity

The people who lived in Ukraine have had a variety of opinions about that question actually, it's part of the context of the conflict as I'm sure you know. Obviously they would have rather the USSR continued to exist as they made overwhelmingly clear when the question was put to them in a referendum, but that was not to be. But public opinion varies from place to place and over time in Ukraine. The entire reason the eastern section of Ukraine is the subject of conflict now is that Russia could plausibly say that there were Russian speakers and sympathizers who made up a significant portion of the population there, and the separatist regions separated over the question of aligning with the west and against Russia. So it's not a simple 'they did' or 'they didn't' want to align with one side or another, they were caught in the middle and weren't sure what they wanted for a significant part of this.

But to answer your question directly, yes, if US foreign policy cared about the lives of people in Ukraine they should have made it clear they would not admit Ukraine into NATO. A sane foreign policy analyst would have been able to see that was a provocation and reasoned that doing so put the lives of Ukrainians at risk, because it would risk escalation.

But you missed something I said before, I think: If the US was interested in peace and in deescalation they could have admitted Russia into NATO when they asked to join after the USSR folded. It wasn't even just Putin, Gorbachev and Yeltsin both made it clear that they were interested, hell even Molotov asked in the 50s. Then they could have had their cake and eaten it too, Russia's security concerns could have been totally assuaged if it was made clear to them that the alliance didn't still exist specifically to posture against them.

Ukraine has wanted to move more westward.

I like how you speak for Ukrainians on this matter. Ukraine as a whole did not want to "move more westward." There were strong separatists movements in the Russian-speaking parts of the country for many reasons (some obvious, some not). In fact, it was these separatist regions that voted heavily for Zelensky, and saw him as a peaceful alternative to Poroshenko (the US-backed right wing leader who took power after Euromaidan oversaw the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine). Which regions want to move westward? The westmost regions. Mostly Lviv. The part of Ukraine that was historically part of Poland, and has a lot of neo nazis and monuments to ultranationalists and WW2 nazi collaborators like Yaroslav Stetsko and Stepan Bandera. That's the most conservative and fascist leaning part of the country, and it's the part of the country that historically has received the most political support from US/NATO/EU, and of course, before that, Nazi Germany. The fascist territorial defense units like Azov come from there. The fascist gangs like C14 come from there. The anti-LGBT, antisemitic and anti-Muslim and anti-Roma sentiment largely (but not entirely) come from there. The discrimination against Russian-speaking Ukrainians come from there. This is the part of the country that most strongly resisted Zelensky's attempts at de-escalation, and they're also the part of the country most allied with the west. And they're the most destabilized and reactionary and capitalist and fascistic part of the country, that has been egging on NATO membership. They even contributed troops and mercenaries to the US-led NATO coalition that invaded Iraq.