A) No, the quote metnioned practiced invasions.

B) I'd agree with cuting the ongoing wars and protecting half the countries we'd protect sure.  Though I don't think america's ambitions stem from imperilism.  As if given the chance I don't think the US Would want direct legislative control or ownership claims.

Unlike say.... Russia, who keeps causing uprisings in adjacent countries and creating autonomous zones with pro russian governments who essentially wish to merge with Russia.

Lol, US invasion to anything even 10x smaller in scale than China military strength is failed reality check and potential fuck up of the immense size, a-la Vietnam 2. Even in cae of Yugoslavia it never came to onland operation (outside some troops in Croatia). Though sooner or later it's bound to happen, I mean failed reality check. It always happens to imperialist warmongers, especially when they're desperate :D

So you've learned smth from me after all? Do not defend - attack! This's the way of true forum dweller :D

Ok, let's take it from here. Even if we ignore the fact of how many bitches allies you have in the Americas and around the world, who aren't accountable to anyone but to the guy appointed from DoS (yeah, real sovereignty is rare beast today), or why do we want to merge with anyone in the first place (as if we do not have enough territories already, lol?), what are those zones to be specific? Just name them, and I'd kindly explain you everything you want to know.

Belarus and South Ossetia for starters. Then you have that whole Chechnya issue that has been dragging on for 20 years.

You also have a lot of interference and issues with the Ukraine as well. Those are just the ones I know of off the top of my head - I haven't even looked into Russia's former eastern holdings to see what's been going on with them lately.

i dont even know why you guys engage mai. its always the same crazy conspiracy evil american empire victimizing the poor innocent peoples of the world crap.

Probably to stand up to his BS.

The Russians are one of the worst offenders in meddling in other nations' politics. They're on the level of the US and China, if not worse.

How is that different from America or the UK? 

America in particular is extremely paranoid of "the chinese invasion". Everytime China goes into Africa i see forums where Americans are like "OMG THEIR GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD" 

Admittedly this is Fox - but recently i saw a bulletin where the number two issue in this election was "MUSLIMS" 

Literally. That Obama's administration isn't doing enough hard action against the muslim threat. That their soft approach means muslims hate america without fear. 

If that isn't crazy conspiracy then I dont know what is. 

Belarus is an interesting mixed case. It used to be that Alexander Lukashenka couldn't get enough of Russia, but later last decade he started backing off, and while Belarus is more in Russia's orbit than any other country, he's playing an interesting game of trying to keep from getting sucked too far in.

In Abkhazia and South Ossetia's case, their claim on independence is at least as legitimate as, say, Kosovo's. Chechnya would have had that right, had they not wedded themselves so completely to radical islam. After Beslan and the Moscow theatre thing, at any rate. If there was someone left to negotiate with in Chechnya that wasn't tied to the Caucasus Emirate (like, for instance, non-terrorist-aligned groups in Palestine that make them a viable negotiating partner), it would be a different matter.

Also Transdniestria in Moldova, which is in the same boat as Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

As for former Soviet Central Asia, they're all in the Russian orbit, but the degree of "interference" varies, most i can think of is that Russia prevents Turkmenistan from direct-selling it's natural gas to any outside markets (one of the theories floated out about why Bush was fixated on Afghanistan was to be able to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, and so get a tap in that market outside of Russian control), and that Russia still takes a large hand in guarding Tajikistan's borders from drugs and terrorism.

Err, come again? What about Belarus? What about South Ossetia? Let alone Chechnya which is a part of Russia for almost 200 years? Ukraine?

Elaborate. I cannot comment on smth as laconic.

Like the BS when I've raised a perfectly logical concern when the assault on Tripoli was supporteed by French and Brits and god know whom else? And what did you say back then? Outstanding accusations need outstanding proof. I remember I gave couple of links to the media at the time. Since the time a shitload of info came up about Tripoli assault, including f**king photos of foreign troops in there :D

Still not thinking that involvement into Lybian affairs are far exceeded the UN mandate? Like onland operation? Like killing thousands of civilians as a collateral damage? And when been cornered with question - who is responsible for this shit - dodging it and lying?

Ok, now this's your turn. GET OVER HERE! Mwa-ha-ha.

Mind I remind you that you were accusing me of spitting BS when simply explained you why you do not get a cognitive dissonance from watching Al-Jazeera. That's because on the North-African and Middle East affairs they're perfectly in tune with American MSM, unlike, say, RT which cause you a lot of butthurt :D

Since that time a lot of time has passed, and by Lybian war, current war in Syria and all this Arab Spring and all that hate Al-Jazeera is getting from locals, it perfectly clear that these so called 6 gulf monarchies, to one of them Al-Jazzeera is accountable (Qatar, check god damn finance part of their operations, check the biography of key people), are in the meantime allied with US, Brits and French position on the state of the business in the region. Natuarally, Al-Jazeera is presenting the official viewpoint of the 6 monarchies, which is close to the mindset within the limits created by the US media and not because Qatar is yours "puppet state" like you've suggested. For me it was perfectly clear back then, actually I'd have been perfectly clear to anyone if you'd know the history of the region since the fall of Ottoman Empire at the very least.

But, of course, history, politology, global economy is a product of a conspirology culture for you :D I always said that conspirologists and anticonspirologists are two breeds of the same kind. Both cannot exlplain the world around them without conspiracy, one just believes in it, while the others don't.

So anyone want more or should we stick to the topic?