this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
452 points (97.3% liked)
Political Memes
11499 readers
3237 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, as we all know, the ongoing civil war in Afghanistan that Pakistan was deeply involved with was entirely peaceful before US intervention, Somalia and Syria (I note you use the anti-Assadist flag, lmao) likewise, we are definitely not present in Nigeria at request of the fucking Nigerian government, and our involvement post-2012 with Iraq was DEFINITELY not at request of the Iraqi government in dealing with fucking ISIS. Of course, I'm sure any number of people here would parrot critical support for ISIS under anti-imperialist grounds.
I also note that excluded in the graph is the assassination of Soleimani during Trump's first term, presumably counted instead as an Iraqi strike since it was on Iraqi soil, even though it was an attack on a high-ranking Iranian military officer. I guess that would make Trump's warmongering too apparent.
But that might contradict the "BOTHSIDES" narrative, so we can't have any of those inconvenient facts.
Also, a FUCKTON of countries are left out of both Republican presidents' laundry lists of bombed countries.
How curious and totally unexpected. /s
Go ahead. Tell me that supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was 'destabilizing' a country already in civil war. Tell me that strikes in Somalia were 'destabilizing' a country already in civil war. Tell me strikes in Syria were 'destabilizing' a country already in civil war. Hell, tell me post-2014 strikes in Yemen were 'destabilizing' a country in civil war. Tell me strikes in post-2012 Iraq were destabilizing a country struggling with an external invasion.
I would love to hear your justifications.
Whether you think they're justified or not - and I would hazard 'not' in most cases, personally - the idea that they were 'destabilization' of the world is fucking nonsense, and Very Serious Leftists like you are just loathe to admit that you're useful idiots for literal Nazis. But hey, if you useful idiots didn't support maximizing Zionist aims, who would?
Brother I like some of your posts but looking at this graph and being like “don’t give me your bOtHsIdEs, we HAD to!” is WILD.
We had to what, go in and fix all the destabilization, all the power-vacuum issues that WE caused with our meddling since WWII?
How can you look at what we have “had” to do and not think “wow, we’re the fucking bad guys”?
We are in an abusive relationship with the rest of the world. They gave us the benefit of the doubt, especially after “the Muslims” hit us that one time, but they can see our pattern for what it really is now. It’s time to come to terms with it, before we get any deeper in the shit.
Man, I am not saying we "Had to" do any of it, as I said, whether they're justified, I would say not in most cases. We did not have to do any of it, but I also won't pretend that running sorties on fucking ISIS to defend Iraq is the same as invading Iran - or pulling a drone strike on Iraqi soil without Iraqi permission, for that matter.
My point is that these largely aren't destabilization as the title suggests, and trying to pretend that they are is disingenuous at best and, considering how heavily it ignores the actual difference with Republican administrations, intentionally misleading at worst.
I wonder if US/Western interference in the region could have caused or worsened any of these civil wars...
You're absolutely right, I can't believe that the US forced Pakistan to found the Taliban half a decade after the end of the Afghanistan War. I can't believe we forced Gaddafi to be a horrific dictator and serial rapist. I can't believe we forced Somalia to go through the past what, 55 years of chaos? I can't believe we forced Assad to inherit the 'socialist' state of his father, and like a good little monarchist stooge, continue his father's repressive policies. God, it's so terrible how the West is behind everything, working the world like a puppetmaster, except when anything improves, at which point we are curiously absent.
Or perhaps we should be blamed for arming the mujahideen - after all, it would have been much more moral if the Afghans just rolled over and let the Soviets massacre them, just like the Soviet-aligned forces massacred literal hundreds-of-thousands of unarmed civilians in the course of their occupation.
Interventionism is typically a fool's game without winners; that doesn't equate to any of the fucking conclusions being proposed here, except that we should be intervening a lot fucking less.
What do you mean "we"? Are you part of the US governement?