>>3441959>And the problem is that HER preferences are never respected.See, you can never know her preferences, because they're masked under fear of consequences in a very backasswards society.
My point is that guy's argument is absolutely retarded, because one time she did something culturally inappropriate (ignore father) and the next something culturally appropriate (obey husband).
You can't cry cultural insensitivity to both cases, you can only have either one or the other be "wrong" not both.
He should have focused more on the exploitational aspect of the whole thing, along with the exaggerated caption/story.
>They're both bad.Not even close though. Murdering and stealing are both "bad" but not comparable.
There's nothing weird in exercising influence on a country you share borders with. But trying to puppet govern countries literally continents apart and on your "enemy's" doorstep is beyond provocative and inexcusable.
Historically, the Soviet's policy has been defensive. Their military doctrine, fortifications, foreign policy etc. was about defence and establishing buffer zones around their country so they won't suffer a sudden and bloody invasive war on their soil again. You can't blame them for that after Hitler.
US's policy (and the British Empire's before that) has been offensive. Puppet regimes and missile silos across the globe, military interventions across the globe, coup orginisation and participation, etc. . Which is not really justified because they're protected by the Pacific and never actually had to fight a defensive war in their history.
>most of Eastern Europe looked up at the sky hoping for American planes Ah the good old eastern europe argument. They're doing so much worse than Ghana, Congo, India, Iraq, Liberia, Libya, Guatemala, Nicaragua.
You don't realise that Eastern Europe and Russia suffered a completely catastrophic war, whole towns of widows, infrastructure razed to the ground, *and* embargoed afterwards to top it off.
