|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 28 2015 10:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 09:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2015 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind. Ah yeah. The good old days when USA swooped in and deposed Pol Pot, and stopped Hutus and Tutsis from killing each other. Or wait, none of that happened. Nor did Saddam get deposed when he was actually committing genocide. Nobody gives a shit about genocide unless it is geopolitically convenient to do so. had we not intervened in korea, you would not be on this website. had we kept promise to the south vietnamese, that country would be doing better now and the SEA region would not see that number of tragedies that went on there.
I am not tremendously well versed in history, but I think SK counts towards his statement of "geopolitically convenient to do so"...
|
Japanese feudalism closely mirrored european feudalism. Japan and Western Europe weren't that culturally different.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 28 2015 10:50 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 10:06 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 09:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2015 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind. Ah yeah. The good old days when USA swooped in and deposed Pol Pot, and stopped Hutus and Tutsis from killing each other. Or wait, none of that happened. Nor did Saddam get deposed when he was actually committing genocide. Nobody gives a shit about genocide unless it is geopolitically convenient to do so. had we not intervened in korea, you would not be on this website. had we kept promise to the south vietnamese, that country would be doing better now and the SEA region would not see that number of tragedies that went on there. I am not tremendously well versed in history, but I think SK counts towards his statement of "geopolitically convenient to do so"...
part of our geopolitical commitment was to the people of those regions.
|
my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here.
|
Georgia Republican Gov. Nathan Deal will sign legislation legalizing a nonsmoked form of medical marijuana for patients with seizure disorders and seven other medical conditions, the governor's spokesman said.
Deal plans to wait until after the legislative session ends next week before signing it, spokesman Brian Robinson said.
On Friday, however, Deal signed an executive order directing state agencies to begin preparing to enact the legislation, Robinson added.
The Georgia bill, which was finalized by lawmakers on Wednesday, would allow patients with diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis to use a nonintoxicating oil derived from the marijuana plant, often from a strain known as Charlotte's Web.
To legally use the oil, patients or their caregivers must obtain a registration card from the state Department of Public Health. Their physician also must certify that they are being treated for one of the medical conditions covered by the bill.
Similar legislation failed during last year's session.
Source
|
On March 28 2015 10:50 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 10:06 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 09:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2015 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind. Ah yeah. The good old days when USA swooped in and deposed Pol Pot, and stopped Hutus and Tutsis from killing each other. Or wait, none of that happened. Nor did Saddam get deposed when he was actually committing genocide. Nobody gives a shit about genocide unless it is geopolitically convenient to do so. had we not intervened in korea, you would not be on this website. had we kept promise to the south vietnamese, that country would be doing better now and the SEA region would not see that number of tragedies that went on there. I am not tremendously well versed in history, but I think SK counts towards his statement of "geopolitically convenient to do so"...
Actually, the intervention to stop NK's invasion of SK was not decided because of a perceived geostrategic importance of SK (it was deemed rather unimportant). It was decided because Truman and his advisers felt that Stalin was behind the invasion, and that if they did nothing against the invasion it would embolden the USSR to try to gain territory elsewhere, specifically in Europe. They also did not want to appear weak to their allies.
edit: let's not delve too much into this, though, because pretty soon xDaunt is going to be blaming Obama for North Korea's invasion of the South.
|
On March 28 2015 12:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 10:50 JinDesu wrote:On March 28 2015 10:06 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 09:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2015 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind. Ah yeah. The good old days when USA swooped in and deposed Pol Pot, and stopped Hutus and Tutsis from killing each other. Or wait, none of that happened. Nor did Saddam get deposed when he was actually committing genocide. Nobody gives a shit about genocide unless it is geopolitically convenient to do so. had we not intervened in korea, you would not be on this website. had we kept promise to the south vietnamese, that country would be doing better now and the SEA region would not see that number of tragedies that went on there. I am not tremendously well versed in history, but I think SK counts towards his statement of "geopolitically convenient to do so"... Actually, the intervention to stop NK's invasion of SK was not decided because of a perceived geostrategic importance of SK (it was deemed rather unimportant). It was decided because Truman and his advisers felt that Stalin was behind the invasion, and that if they did nothing against the invasion it would embolden the USSR to try to gain territory elsewhere, specifically in Europe. They also did not want to appear weak to their allies. edit: let's not delve too much into this, though, because pretty soon xDaunt is going to be blaming Obama for North Korea's invasion of the South.
I'm pretty sure that's the definition of geopolitically convenient.
|
On March 28 2015 13:36 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 12:38 kwizach wrote:On March 28 2015 10:50 JinDesu wrote:On March 28 2015 10:06 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 09:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2015 06:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
the problem with the "dont topple governments from the outside" is when you have the governments committing genocide. rwanda and cambodia come to mind. Ah yeah. The good old days when USA swooped in and deposed Pol Pot, and stopped Hutus and Tutsis from killing each other. Or wait, none of that happened. Nor did Saddam get deposed when he was actually committing genocide. Nobody gives a shit about genocide unless it is geopolitically convenient to do so. had we not intervened in korea, you would not be on this website. had we kept promise to the south vietnamese, that country would be doing better now and the SEA region would not see that number of tragedies that went on there. I am not tremendously well versed in history, but I think SK counts towards his statement of "geopolitically convenient to do so"... Actually, the intervention to stop NK's invasion of SK was not decided because of a perceived geostrategic importance of SK (it was deemed rather unimportant). It was decided because Truman and his advisers felt that Stalin was behind the invasion, and that if they did nothing against the invasion it would embolden the USSR to try to gain territory elsewhere, specifically in Europe. They also did not want to appear weak to their allies. edit: let's not delve too much into this, though, because pretty soon xDaunt is going to be blaming Obama for North Korea's invasion of the South. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of geopolitically convenient.
What part of my post do you disagree with?
edit: I guess I could have phrased my initial post better: the point I was making was that the U.S. did not intervene because of a perceived geostrategic importance of South Korea itself, but because of what US decisionmakers perceived the fall of SK to NK would mean with regards to how things would unfold elsewhere in the world in the context of the opposition between the US and the USSR. So yeah, they did intervene because of what they perceived as the probable geopolitical impact of not intervening. I'm not sure I'd call that "geopolitically convenient", it was more something they perceived as a geopolitical necessity.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sorry but jindesu's post was irrelevant. whether it was geopolitically convenient or not, the CONSEQUENCE of american intervention was what mattered and that was the point of my post.
the u.s. probably takes account of human interest more than other states in their fp but it's not a charity by any means. plenty of brutality, calculated errors or not, were carried out under u.s. watch but this doesn't mean american intervention should be seen as automatically cynical or, in the case of this argument, damaging.
i see very little value in the rights of collective entities. they should always have legitimate individual basis. this is to say totalitarian states are qualitatively different from democratic ones, and i don't see much difference between a 'state' formed by tyranny and a simple organized crime group.
|
I think ya'll are mostly arguing semantics here
Point is, the US intervenes when it advances their foreign policy.
|
On March 28 2015 11:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here.
Are you familiar with how Japanese history is taught in Japan? A lot of people laugh at how Japan teaches Japanese history. So I guess it's not surprising that she would feel like people are being inaccurate.
|
Well, I think the people saying Japan is culturally the same as Western Europe are quite dumb.
But Japan also didn't go from a politically unstable region into a Western democracy. It started as a politically stable industrialized Monarchy, with militaristic, imperialistic, nationalistic and traditional leanings pre-WW2, and during and after the US occupation basically lost the Monarchy, militarism and imperialism.
I mean, there's a lot you can talk about when it comes to the lasting effects of post-WW2 occupation in multiple countries. But you can't even begin to compare the occupation in Germany or Japan to any concept of "taming" the Middle East.
|
On March 28 2015 16:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 11:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here. Are you familiar with how Japanese history is taught in Japan? A lot of people laugh at how Japan teaches Japanese history. So I guess it's not surprising that she would feel like people are being inaccurate.
i studied japanese history in japan, so yes. i would think most people would make a casual retreat from the idiotic statement that japanese and western culture were similar pre-ww2, but you all just want to keep digging that hole oblivious to how ignorant and arrogant you sound.
i would argue that japanese culture isnt even that similar to western culture in 2015. but i am sure the americans here know much more about that than people who lived in japan.
|
On March 28 2015 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 16:33 Mohdoo wrote:On March 28 2015 11:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here. Are you familiar with how Japanese history is taught in Japan? A lot of people laugh at how Japan teaches Japanese history. So I guess it's not surprising that she would feel like people are being inaccurate. i studied japanese history in japan, so yes. i would think most people would make a casual retreat from the idiotic statement that japanese and western culture were similar pre-ww2, but you all just want to keep digging that hole oblivious to how ignorant and arrogant you sound. i would argue that japanese culture isnt even that similar to western culture in 2015. but i am sure the americans here know much more about that than people who lived in japan.
Whatever it takes, man. I respect your right to feel however you want to feel. Just trying to let you know some people may (and do) smirk at what you are saying. It's not uncommon for people to put Japanese culture on a pedestal. Seen that sorta thing a lot, where kids from the school anime club study abroad. Either way, I don't think there is going to be much constructive conversation on that topic. Probably best to just agree to disagree 
|
On March 28 2015 17:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 16:33 Mohdoo wrote:On March 28 2015 11:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here. Are you familiar with how Japanese history is taught in Japan? A lot of people laugh at how Japan teaches Japanese history. So I guess it's not surprising that she would feel like people are being inaccurate. i studied japanese history in japan, so yes. i would think most people would make a casual retreat from the idiotic statement that japanese and western culture were similar pre-ww2, but you all just want to keep digging that hole oblivious to how ignorant and arrogant you sound. i would argue that japanese culture isnt even that similar to western culture in 2015. but i am sure the americans here know much more about that than people who lived in japan. Whatever it takes, man. I respect your right to feel however you want to feel. Just trying to let you know some people may (and do) smirk at what you are saying. It's not uncommon for people to put Japanese culture on a pedestal. Seen that sorta thing a lot, where kids from the school anime club study abroad. Either way, I don't think there is going to be much constructive conversation on that topic. Probably best to just agree to disagree
lol. putting it on a pedestal? i didnt say its better or worse, i just said its not similar.
school anime club? is that some attempt to demean me and make my argument appear less truthful. thats the lamest thing i have read. even worse than an american coming in and saying that he knows more about japanese culture/history because he wasn't taught in a japanese school.
|
On March 28 2015 09:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 08:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 28 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On March 28 2015 07:18 oneofthem wrote:On March 28 2015 06:31 Simberto wrote:
The better plan is probably "Don't topple governments from the outside, even if they are really really shitty. Whatever you try to impose on the country is going to end up worse than what they had before. Especially don't do any of that in the middle east." disagree. intervention can be effective but it's fact dependent on the situation. can be a long process as well and change of plans may throw everything into disarray. generally it's still good to have stable, functioning states rather than totalitarian traps that only build up pent up frustration and leave behind ungovernable territory when they fall. The problem with intervention is when the intervening country has a totally different culture than the target country. US intervention in Nazi Germany went quite well. Germany was a western country, had enlightenment ideals, and was generally not that different than the US. Iraq had no history of democracy, no enlightenment history, and the borders were drawn arbitrarily, forcing groups who have hated each other for ~1000 years to try to coexist. There was no way a western nation was ever going to do anything but make things worse. it also worked pretty well in Japan so I don't really buy into your simplistic argument. Japan had westernized heavily by WW2. They didn't have samurai anymore. Many were Christian. Many of the wealthy, and the government officials had studied in western nations. They were also culturally homogeneous. You didn't have arbitrary borders forcing factions that have hated each other basically since the dawn of time to live together.
Virtually every sentence here is incorrect. People did still make a distinction between samurai and "ashigaru" (foot soldiers, i.e. regular people), although samurai were not entitled to privileges like carrying weapons or rentier land ownership any more. Japan has not had a significant Christian population since Tokugawa banned it in the early 1600s. Many Japanese industrialists and leaders have spent time in the West, which I guess you could call "studied", but did not go there for degrees. It is also a myth to say the Japanese are culturally homogeneous, although to be fair, the Japanese believe in and perpetuate the myth themselves, even as they enjoy marking distinctions between different regions domestically. And Japan is called a First World nation with Third World politics because of the way different areas and constituent groups fight for pork projects and fight to keep projects away from rivals.
But I actually agree with your broader point that Japan is more similar to Western nations than they're often given credit for and that the degree of difference within Iraq's sectarian groups is totally different from prior American occupations, and that Iraq's lack of industrialization and modernity are salient to why America's treatment of Germany and Japan (i.e. permanent trade agreements, defense alliance, perpetual military presence) as client states could not be transplanted into Iraq. Japan has all the features of modernity like the West and is seen both domestically and globally as closer in most cultural measures to the West than the rest of Asia.
|
On March 28 2015 14:01 oneofthem wrote:
sorry but jindesu's post was irrelevant. whether it was geopolitically convenient or not, the CONSEQUENCE of american intervention was what mattered and that was the point of my post.
the u.s. probably takes account of human interest more than other states in their fp but it's not a charity by any means. plenty of brutality, calculated errors or not, were carried out under u.s. watch but this doesn't mean american intervention should be seen as automatically cynical or, in the case of this argument, damaging.
i see very little value in the rights of collective entities. they should always have legitimate individual basis. this is to say totalitarian states are qualitatively different from democratic ones, and i don't see much difference between a 'state' formed by tyranny and a simple organized crime group.
Ehm, Iraq 2003, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, Nicaragua 1981...
The list of and effects of previous US interventions in the past have NOT been good for the countries they've been held in.
As for Vietnam, no, just...no. We should've stood with Ho Chi Minh (who through much of WWII and in the immediate post-WWII aftermath was ardently pro-American, back when everyone still assumed the US stood for anti-colonialism instead of propping up the imperial powers) instead of the French in the late 40s and 50s. Eisenhower fucked up there pretty goddamn badly, because we at the time clung to a dognmatically ideological view of Communism, and that clearly, Communists will all work together, when most communists in developing countries were, first and foremost, anti-colonial and/or nationalists (not internationalists).
Again, I am very much a foreign policy activist, but it's rather smallminded and quite ridiculous to argue that US interventions have been broadly positive when there have been many countries still reeling and recovering from the effects of US-lead interventions (or coups).
While it's arguable that the US takes human interests into consideration now (which it does, though I would argue less than the other pillars of US foreign policy objectives [economic, regional stability, and power]), it has certainly not been historically the case in Latin America, in Indochina, etc. The US history of foreign intervention in the Cold War era is very dirty.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sure, ho chi ming and even castro were anti-colonial and locally concerned by themselves, but the international scope of communism has more to do with what the big boys do than what the small guys want to do. stalin and mao were not sitting idly by in the korean and vietnam wars.
siding with ho chi ming was possible if he did not side with the communist big brothers, but it's not clear how this could have developed. the carnage of proxy wars in the cold war was the doing of both the u.s. and the communist interventionists.
the story of communist intervention in neighboring states in SE asia is pretty harrowing. the khmer rouge and the whole china v vietnam bit in particular.
american intervention in south america was largely shit yes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 28 2015 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 16:33 Mohdoo wrote:On March 28 2015 11:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
my japanese wife is laughing at the japanese history scholars here. Are you familiar with how Japanese history is taught in Japan? A lot of people laugh at how Japan teaches Japanese history. So I guess it's not surprising that she would feel like people are being inaccurate. i studied japanese history in japan, so yes. i would think most people would make a casual retreat from the idiotic statement that japanese and western culture were similar pre-ww2, but you all just want to keep digging that hole oblivious to how ignorant and arrogant you sound. i would argue that japanese culture isnt even that similar to western culture in 2015. but i am sure the americans here know much more about that than people who lived in japan.
when that guy said japan and western culture were similar pre-ww2 it was clear that not only was he confused about japan but also what it means for a culture to be similar. it's hilarious but also not worth the effort to debunk really.
|
On March 28 2015 22:56 oneofthem wrote:
sure, ho chi ming and even castro were anti-colonial and locally concerned by themselves, but the international scope of communism has more to do with what the big boys do than what the small guys want to do. stalin and mao were not sitting idly by in the korean and vietnam wars.
american intervention in south america was largely shit yes.
In Korea, it was mostly a case of the US/UN coalition overstepping the UN mandate and pushing for a full reunification of the peninsula instead of preserving the border. The PRC repeatedly warned the US/UN that an attempt to retake the North would force a Chinese intervention. The Soviets had supported the development of the North Korean military, but Chinese intervention was not assured at the slightest.
As for Vietnam: correct, but Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese were always extremely wary of China, and have largely worked to counteract Chinese influence in the region despite accepting Chinese arms/weapons to push out the US/annex South Vietnam, both in Cambodia (in overthrowing the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge) and eventually in the Sino-Vietnamese war. Now consider what Indochina would be like if the US had embraced Ho Chi Minh and the role as an anti-colonial power, and the influence the US would wield, instead of essentially being seen as propping up the rotting corpse of the British/French empires in the Third World..
Not just South America, in Africa, SEA, and the Middle East. We've had a poor track record of intervening where we weren't needed (Iran and Guatemala are examples of supremely short-sighted foreign policy) and failing to intervene where we were (Rwanda or Somalia).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
