A surprisingly (and annoyingly) large proportion of Americans habitually use then rather than than though.
Will the world will be a better place without the US involvement in everything?
- Thread starter Sky1981
- Start date
I worry about American Fascism.
Out of curiosity while the U.S. is of course responsible for its own actions do others have to take responsibility for theirs?
Ie: The other powers that pushed for and agreed to workings of the UNSC. USSR actions that served at least as an equal start to the Cold War? In places such as Korea, was it not the north armed, trained and directly aided by the USSR and China who deserve the blame for that war? Places where the U.S. aided against communist rebels, who was arming the communist rebels and do they deserve some of the blame for the conflicts? Certainly NATO might never have been created if not for the actions of the Soviets including their continued large armed presence in Eastern Europe which dwarfed all the western armies in Europe at the time. You see it often takes 2 to tango.
Ie: The other powers that pushed for and agreed to workings of the UNSC. USSR actions that served at least as an equal start to the Cold War? In places such as Korea, was it not the north armed, trained and directly aided by the USSR and China who deserve the blame for that war? Places where the U.S. aided against communist rebels, who was arming the communist rebels and do they deserve some of the blame for the conflicts? Certainly NATO might never have been created if not for the actions of the Soviets including their continued large armed presence in Eastern Europe which dwarfed all the western armies in Europe at the time. You see it often takes 2 to tango.
I had a discussion with someone today; one of the very few people I've met that doesn't agree that the internet is the greatest invention in the history of the world. He's an idiot. Of course. Freedom and availability of information is the way forward without a doubt. Time loves a hero (kudos: Little Feat) and history will revere Tim Behrners-Lee and the folks at CERN. When people have freedom of information they will overthrow those that seek to limit their freedom.
The best way to do it?
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/emp-electromagnetic-pulse/2009/09/23/id/335160/
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/emp-electromagnetic-pulse/2009/09/23/id/335160/
The short answer is yes. It's like being a parent, you have to know when to intervene and when to let events take their course and allow others to make their own decisions. American politicians don't have the subtlety to differentiate, Dubya for example.
Best post in this thread. Ironically, the one most true to classic liberalism as well.
For me this is the crux of my questions, apart from a frontal war America has been involved indirectly in many countries' conflict and regime changes. Don't ask me for facts and prove, but one would be naive if they didn't somehow has their hands on most conflicts and has their share in installing or toppling a regime. Not to mention the butterfly effect of their involvement.
Off course we'll never find out the answer in our lifetime, other than a simple opinion on whether letting the world presume naturally without trying to modified the outcome of history is good or bad. Even then there's both good and bad results and the permutations are too high for mere mortals to even think about.
For all we know if there's no Vietnam war the USSR could have conquered the whole South East Asia with their proxy ideology, it could also be that the Vietnamesse prosper not from being a communist, but by having a unity and those 30 years building their economy instead of rebuilding the war torn nation. We will never know.
No, I'm arguing against forcing ideals and systems on people. And that includes both sides.Wait, are you arguing in favour of dictatorships?
So forcing democracy on Germany was not good???
It's a bit more complicated than that. The world is moving towards a system of shared rules and norms - mainly due to economics and shifting social attitudes. In such a construct, there is no room for authoritarian systems since the subjects within are exposed to norms in developed states due to the technological advances of the Information Age. This is why there will be increasing pressure on the likes of Russia, China, North Korea, and theocratic states in the Middle East to reform their systems in order to assimilate towards global Norms - which are based on democratic values.
I agree with not forcing things on people. But an authoritarian state is hardly a representation of what it's people want. That's why it's an authoritarian government that won't hold free elections, after all.
This post is a testament to the US and it's allies holding out for a better world, bankrupting primitive and retarding ideologies along the way.
There are proves everywhere, even in CIA's official site. During cold war CIA would not only help regimees but also groups of thinkers, radio stations, magazines, left politicians and artists that would help USA destroy left and communist movements.
http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Cold-War-World-Letters/dp/1565846648
As for USSR "conquering" it's called international solidarity. Search for Nelson Mandela's opinion on what Cuba, a tiny nation, offered to South Africa. Especially for Vietnam, I posted a video about today's results of a continouus war crime that USA committed. You can't compare war crimes to solidarity.
Democracy is good, but only when the nation is ready. Too democratic too soon is equally damaging.
The west idea of democracy only works when the value of its subject is up to a certain standard. Making a primitive tribe democratic isn't always a good solution.
Tyrants and authoritariant can still hide behind a wall of seemingly democratic. Soeharto is a democratically elected tyrant for 32 years, Mahatir is another example, at the end of the day the abuse of power is much less the same, just under a different casing.
The west idea of democracy only works when the value of its subject is up to a certain standard. Making a primitive tribe democratic isn't always a good solution.
Tyrants and authoritariant can still hide behind a wall of seemingly democratic. Soeharto is a democratically elected tyrant for 32 years, Mahatir is another example, at the end of the day the abuse of power is much less the same, just under a different casing.
Very true. It's funny hearing people attempt to justify authoritarian states when the people within them are deprived of the ability to make free choices.
There was nothing solidarity-like about what the USSR did in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan. It's involvement in Communism elsewhere was fairly limited. Even in neighboring China, for example, the help the USSR provided fell far short of what the Chinese Communists had expected from a fellow Comintern nation, which is partly why they were happy to broker a deal with the US instead in the Reagan era.
Of course democracies don't automatically translate to liberty for the citizens. A democracy is mostly just an expression of the majority will after all, and many majorities are happy to oppress the various minorities. That said, the human rights record of democracies is far better than the human rights record of authoritarian states, even if you want to leave out the more prosperous Western democracies.
The bolded just sounds like the excuse every dictator makes. 'We are working towards democracy, but [insert nation] isn't ready for it at this moment'. It usually never ends up being ready in their perspective until the people revolt and force it on them.
I was comparin "conquering" to solidarity. I also compared USA war crimes (chemical weapons sprayed in Vietnam) to USSR's solidarity to Vietnamese people. I think the right words to use are solidarity and internationalism. Sending 3000 volunteer soldiers to o a foreign country IS solidarity.
As for Afghanistan, there's a movie on this one. USA and Gust Avrakotos armed the same people who created 9-11. The movie is not Rambo III, but Charlie Wilson's war.
You re telling me that USSR fighting against USA proxy terrorists is a bad thing? Crazy.
Yes, the US armed the Taliban but that was in response to the USSR invasion. The Taliban were one of the resistance movements fighting the Soviets and the US took the attitude of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Neither of the superpowers comes out of that one with any credit.
How is the USSR sending troops to Vietnam solidarity but the US sending troops there is a war crime? You're kidding yourself if you think there weren't atrocities committed on both sides in that conflict.
Let's just stop it here, cause solidarity is helping and in the other hands spraying poor peasants with chemical weapons is a crime. Not an atrocity, but a crime. What USSR soldiers did was to help poor people (starving peasants who didn't know how to spell their name) take down the imperialist planes.
P.S.: It was the Mujahideen against their people and then USSR against Mujahideen. So, USSR clearly helped Afghan people against imperialist armed killers. It's like the Syrian "rebels".
Last edited:
Russian oppression under the guise of the Soviets, aka solidarity, is a wonderful thing now?Have you read The Gulag Archipelago?
The US should not have sent troops into Vietnam, history proves that. On the other hand things might have been different had both the North and the South approached peaceful reunification instead of letting themselves be puppets for their Cold War Masters in the US, USSR and China. Without Northern support (and thus USSR and Chinese support) for the rebels/freedom fighters in the South perhaps the whole Second Indochina War never happens.
Have you read The Gulag Archipelago?
It's common on the Caf to ignore completely or excuse away any Russian/Soviet/Chinese involvement in anything.
It may be that the high water mark of the democratic wave has already passed. The failure of the intervention in Iraq and the Arab Spring, for instance, suggest it's not an irresistible force.
Europe is less democratic than it was in the past- the EU has drained the continent of democratic accountability. Many decisions formally made by elected parliaments are now made by unelected officials. Angela Merkel has been described as Europe's Empress, and she behaves like one. Yet, of all of Europe's citizens, only the Germans have ever voted for her.
Historically the democratic idea has been validated by Western power. People gravitate towards what is successful. The decline of the West will make its values less compelling.
I'm no expert on the subject (not my area at all) and as much as I respect the academic credentials of the likes of Noam Chomsky (notably his credentials are for linguistics not geo-politics) who will blame the U.S. for literally everything, I can't see how it's like that in reality.
U.S. foreign policy has it's issues and for me, it's usually more about the methods they use, rather than the question of 'why'. But in the case of global terrorism it's probably somewhere between 10-30% of the reason behind it (rather than the main reason). I can't quite understand why so many on the left seem to ignore the interests of those in those middle east countries that have nothing to do with America's actions. The idea that they're attacking the west for what we've done to them is just nonsense and illogical. But of course it's very effective at gaining sympathy for those causes.
Coming from N.Ireland (and having a some learning on our own historical situation), I find it's very easy to see the positioning of the 'weaker' section of the conflict as 'innocent/less guilty' no matter what they do, rather than analysing the situation on an equal playing field. You see it with the Israel/Palestine situation too.
U.S. foreign policy has it's issues and for me, it's usually more about the methods they use, rather than the question of 'why'. But in the case of global terrorism it's probably somewhere between 10-30% of the reason behind it (rather than the main reason). I can't quite understand why so many on the left seem to ignore the interests of those in those middle east countries that have nothing to do with America's actions. The idea that they're attacking the west for what we've done to them is just nonsense and illogical. But of course it's very effective at gaining sympathy for those causes.
Coming from N.Ireland (and having a some learning on our own historical situation), I find it's very easy to see the positioning of the 'weaker' section of the conflict as 'innocent/less guilty' no matter what they do, rather than analysing the situation on an equal playing field. You see it with the Israel/Palestine situation too.
And yet, Trump was so successful despite his building walls, racist comments and his admiration to likes of Putin. He may not become the President, but his wins alone tell a different story at grass roots. Make America Great, Brexit etc are indications of shared rules becoming less popular in the west imo.
Brexit and Trump are for me, just short term reponses to longer term changes that are taking place in the world, which are being driven by technology, economics, and the pressures to cooperate. Trump and Brexit among other things, merely illustrate that progress doesn't occur in tidy, sequential periods of time but rather through the constant interplay of ideas, interests, and the new rules and norms that emerge out of previous ones.
Have you read The Gulag Archipelago?
No, it's new to me. Whay is this?
Come on! The guy was a Nobel prize winner. Nobel prize in Literature that is, something that people tend to forget.
Anyway, Solzhenytsin was the man who said that Franco's fascist dicatorship should not be abolished cause democracy is a step towards communism. We are talking about a super-christian orthodox, a man that would prefer the Tsar to a revolution. If you want sources for his statements I 'll be helpful.
Now, do you trust a fascist when he talks about democracy and communism? Cause I do not.
P.S.: I don't care about Orwell or Hannah Arendt. Read them already. We are talking about USA fecking peoples allouround the planet.
Oh look! Someone says USSR helped poor peasants fight against imperialists who attacked them by spraying allover the country with chemical weapons. Look, look!
LOL
Much fun, much fun!
LOL
Much fun, much fun!
As opposed to the Russians subjugating people in their sphere of influence in the name of what you call solidarity? Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, etc. I know who I'd rather have as the world police and it's not any communist dictatorship.
so the history of the Vietnam war is that the US started spraying people with Agent Orange and then the Russians showed up?
Good for you. Communists though, do not want a world police.
Are you trying to justify a war crime against poor peasants? Maybe even excuse USA for what they did against them?
The question here is "what about fecking mmuuuricaaaah" and their war crimes. They are still here. USSR, gone. OK?
Let's talk about USA and who funded ISIS, terorrorists and Syrian "rebels".
right. I've just given you two examples where the Soviets, under Russian direction, were operating as the Iron Curtain police, meddling in the affairs of other countries. China's role in the Korean war falls into the same category, Cuba had operatives throughout South and Central America. Given the opportunity any country under any system of government will exercise power outside of its own borders in the name of their own interests or those of a larger group it claims to represent. Except communists, of course, since there's never been a real communist country. It's such a fantastic system that no one ever gets past the dictatorship of the proletariat phase before the people wise up to the shitty existence that's been foist upon them and stop putting in effort.
Dude, and don´t forget the secret, illegal bombing of Cambodia, killing probably a million, and unleashing Pol Pot. But no war crimes, only entitlement.
Henry Kissinger is the toast of the town with young models on his arm.
Except communists, of course, since there's never been a real communist country. It's such a fantastic system that no one ever gets past the dictatorship of the proletariat phase before the people wise up to the shitty existence that's been foist upon them and stop putting in effort.
I won't teach you anything, or make history lectures for you. I have already disproven some of your arguements but you keep blaming "anyhting communist" instead of staying in one subject. I am not here to defend USSR against everything. It's obvious you have read only the mainstream western history books. That's your problem. Just stay on subject.
USSR, the so called dictators are gone. USA war crimes, terrorists and supported far-right parties (supported fascists like the Ukrainians) are still here. What about them?
See my earlier post below:
I get the impression you'd rather see us regress to the international system of 150 years ago where the big countries were free to operate within their own spheres of influence away from the prying eyes of truth and justice?
There is no good or bad. The US has its fair share of shady stuff and so do others. What would Europe be without the US? I don't know, maybe we'd all be speaking German now, maybe not. I do know that doesn't mean we can just tolerate everything the US does because 'they saved us from Hiter' when the main superpower in beating Hitler was probably the Soviet Union.
I don't want something like world police. I have fecking written a list full of wars (without including fascists that were supported or created by USA) and you keep talking about the necessity of a world police or supposed crimes USSR committed. Let's say yes, USSR committed crimes etc. You still want a world police.
I do not.. That's our difference. And that's why I don't believe that society's current situation is not the best for us. That's why I read Frances Stonor Saunders book about Cold War and CIA, and didn't stay in a fasist's book (Solzhenytsin) that we read as teenagers.