> This is what you (and Chomsky) do.

No, I criticize the worst actors more and less bad actors less. Russia China and USA are all rather bad and create a lot of misery outside their empire, and they sometimes do it to jostle for control.

However, I agree Chomsky appears to do it and I criticize him for it. I believe that we should criticize the WORST ACTORS FIRST, and solve the worst problems first, and then move on down the line. Chomsky believes one should criticize one's OWN country first, because that is where one has the biggest influence. I disagree, and asked him, how much did all his criticizing change USA? It invaded Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and destroyed many people's lives, just in the last 20 years.

I mean, you don't have to guess, I am on video (I linked you!) arguing with Chomsky about this very point!

Once again, to be clear: I criticize families regardless of whether they are mine or theirs. If anything, I feel MORE loyalty to my family, and my criticism is out of love. You know, with kid gloves. I think it would be absolutely fair for USA to face sanctions from the world community to stop its invasion of Iraq, just as Russia faces to stop its invasion of Ukraine. But, you and I obviously give more of a pass to USA than to Russia. What's funny and ironic, is that even with this pass, you somehow think I am biased towards Russia and hate USA.

Listen, Russia talks for years about its red lines next door, tries diplomacy, and then invades. Yes that's bad. USA would invade for far less, e.g. Bay of Pigs invasion. Meanwhile, USA employed chemical weapons and carpet bombed south Asian countries that never presented any threat to it, bombed more than any country in history ever. The USA's justification for doing so is just as messed up as the Russians: it is to "fight Communists over there". Laos presented a threat to USA? Please. It goes halfway around the world 3000 miles to bomb shit in Wild Weasel operations before their soldiers ever come in. It did so in Iraq, in Libya. And you don't even question it. I repeat: the LARGEST humanitarian crises in the world are in Yemen and Ethiopia, RIGHT NOW. And if I bring it up, all you can think is "whatboutism".

I mean, seriously, I told you Russia did FAR WORSE in Chechnya, and recently in Syria. Compare footage of Homs and Aleppo. They are truly wiped off the map. Destroyed. The cities are not standing. In Ukraine, every city is standing. The citizens are back. You can see footage of them today. Every city. Russia's army is capable of a lot more destruction than it does, and so is Ukraine's army. Do you understand, the UN official figures of civilians dead is 4000? This is the only warn in recent history where a country killed less civilians than its own troops got killed. Show me a single other army where this happened. Obviously both armies are holding back... BUT THE SHRAPNEL FROM CROSSFIRE IS WHAT KILLS CIVILIANS. And far more people can die from famines, if we don't stop this.

My concerns are people's lives, civilians, famines. Yours are what flag will fly over a city, and you treat "Ukraine" as a person. You talk like this: "Russia has no right. Ukraine feels this way or that way." The reason I say I'm a libertarian is because I think about individual people and families first. I don't think of "the interests of Ukraine" as much as the people, who have diverse lives and opinions.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Israel? I have discussed with rabid anti-Zionist people who focus on Israel in every issue first, despite it being 22nd in terms of actual bad actors. And they call any sort of argument "whataboutism" also. When you pick the bad actor country first and navel gaze at it for all bad issues while ignoring the problem everywhere else, you're biased against it.