|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course.
The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else?
|
On October 07 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course. The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists. + Show Spoiler + because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else? I would agree with this and say "must" over "should".
|
On October 07 2020 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course. The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists. + Show Spoiler + because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else? I would agree with this and say "must" over "should".
Let me be clear that in the current global conflict of US/CN/RU/EU, I am team-EU based on their culture and political structure. If I knew these exploited countries would end up under the EU, I would agree that we "must" free these countries, since it would essentially be the US funneling global power and influence into the EU. I see that as a win for humanity.
I don't think that would happen. I think they would go to RU/CN. Who do you think would end up dominating these countries? Do you think it would be an improvement? If so, why?
|
|
|
On October 07 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course. The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists. + Show Spoiler + because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else? I would agree with this and say "must" over "should". Let me be clear that in the current global conflict of US/CN/RU/EU, I am team-EU based on their culture and political structure. If I knew these exploited countries would end up under the EU, I would agree that we "must" free these countries, since it would essentially be the US funneling global power and influence into the EU. I see that as a win for humanity. I don't think that would happen. I think they would go to RU/CN. Who do you think would end up dominating these countries? Do you think it would be an improvement? If so, why?
The US ending it's imperialist agenda could happen under a variety of circumstances that could have dramatically different impacts on your question. I'm saying prognosticating them without any parameters is aimless. I agree that how to facilitate that transition away from the US's bipartisan imperialist agenda on the ground so as to best avoid inducing US domination being replaced with something considered worse (by those oppressed under US imperialism, not what western corporations/politicians consider worse) is a worthy consideration.
It doesn't justify maintaining US imperialism though imo.
|
So, COVID has now spread to the staff of Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are now all in quarantine aside from 1. Those are the heads of the US military, and important strategically in a way that Trump is not.
So, this may possibly be the weakest the US military has been in the past 157 years?
(Trump's only value militarily over Pence is as a figurehead to the non-officers loyal to him - he has 0 experience or expertise on diplomacy or war and is immensely unpopular among the officers).
Per reporters :
|
On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. www.thenation.com
And I still prefer those bases to be American over soviet Russian, Castro an or nazi German. The world, or at least parts of the world, have profited greatly from those bases for decades. Nato countries more then Yemen, but still. Just saying, foreign military bases bad, is not an argument. Especially relating to a comparison of Cuban governments and why your standards for democratic presidential candidates are higher then those for Fidel Castro.
|
On October 07 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course. The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists. + Show Spoiler + because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else? I would agree with this and say "must" over "should". Let me be clear that in the current global conflict of US/CN/RU/EU, I am team-EU based on their culture and political structure. If I knew these exploited countries would end up under the EU, I would agree that we "must" free these countries, since it would essentially be the US funneling global power and influence into the EU. I see that as a win for humanity. I don't think that would happen. I think they would go to RU/CN. Who do you think would end up dominating these countries? Do you think it would be an improvement? If so, why?
Yeah, I can see that going over very well. The EU has no legs to stand on here given their vast history of colonization which if y'all still say slavery and jim crow and segregation is the cause of the economic status of 2020 blacks definitely means that EU imperialism is worst or as bad as that (given that some EU countries still maintain "colonies" (French) and many EU countries still had colonies up until the 70s-80s) for the rest of the world especially Latin/South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc.
Cracks me up you'd say something like that given the EU's history with imperialism. Let me get Congo, Vietnam, North Africa, Suriname, etc. on the line.
|
On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. www.thenation.com
Yeah, great discovery, the US is by far the most powerful country in the world.
Second great discovery, countries do what profit them even if that's bad for other countries.
Does that tell us anything about the merit of the US system of government? Nop.
Is that likely to get better after your leninist revolution? Nop, actually powerful communist countries have been rather much worse.
Is there nothing you can do about it then? Congratulation, you live in a democracy. That means that you can have an influence on the politics of your country. Get involved, vote, convince and shit are gonna change.
|
On October 07 2020 03:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course. The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists. + Show Spoiler + because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else? I would agree with this and say "must" over "should". Let me be clear that in the current global conflict of US/CN/RU/EU, I am team-EU based on their culture and political structure. If I knew these exploited countries would end up under the EU, I would agree that we "must" free these countries, since it would essentially be the US funneling global power and influence into the EU. I see that as a win for humanity. I don't think that would happen. I think they would go to RU/CN. Who do you think would end up dominating these countries? Do you think it would be an improvement? If so, why? Yeah, I can see that going over very well. The EU has no legs to stand on here given their vast history of colonization which if y'all still say slavery and jim crow and segregation is the cause of the economic status of 2020 blacks definitely means that EU imperialism is worst or as bad as that (given that some EU countries still maintain "colonies" (French) and many EU countries still had colonies up until the 70s-80s) for the rest of the world especially Latin/South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. Cracks me up you'd say something like that given the EU's history with imperialism.
The US started as just straight up genocide. China killed millions for the sake of order. Germans were Nazis, Mongolians were savages who raped and pillaged the world. History only tells us so much, unless we want to label the US purely genocide. As it turns out, once we got the genocide out of our system, we tried to be decent people and now we do stuff like help Haiti after earthquakes.
The EU's current condition as it pertains to political systems (which are super important to maintain accountability) and human rights is a lot better than US/CN/RU.
When the US went to Haiti, we didn't fill a boat with slaves and put them on a farm. We helped them. We used to be slave traders, now we aren't. "but what bout 200 years ago" is not productive for discussions pertaining to ANY modern democracy.
|
On October 07 2020 03:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course. The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists. + Show Spoiler + because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else? I would agree with this and say "must" over "should". Let me be clear that in the current global conflict of US/CN/RU/EU, I am team-EU based on their culture and political structure. If I knew these exploited countries would end up under the EU, I would agree that we "must" free these countries, since it would essentially be the US funneling global power and influence into the EU. I see that as a win for humanity. I don't think that would happen. I think they would go to RU/CN. Who do you think would end up dominating these countries? Do you think it would be an improvement? If so, why? Yeah, I can see that going over very well. The EU has no legs to stand on here given their vast history of colonization which if y'all still say slavery and jim crow and segregation is the cause of the economic status of 2020 blacks definitely means that EU imperialism is worst or as bad as that (given that some EU countries still maintain "colonies" (French) and many EU countries still had colonies up until the 70s-80s) for the rest of the world especially Latin/South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. Cracks me up you'd say something like that given the EU's history with imperialism. Let me get Congo, Vietnam, North Africa, Suriname, etc. on the line.
I agree the past is not rosy at all for the EU.
Just to point out that French "colonies" remaining have all had multiple referendums for independance (the latest last weekend for New Caledonia), and all who voted for independence had it.
There were also referendums for a larger autonomy, most of which resulted in a "no thanks".
They ranged from a 99,42% choice to stay in France versus joining Comoria for Mayotte in 1976, to last weekend's 53% against independance for New Caledonia.
|
Norway28908 Posts
On October 07 2020 02:58 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com And I still prefer those bases to be American over soviet Russian, Castro an or nazi German. The world, or at least parts of the world, have profited greatly from those bases for decades. Nato countries more then Yemen, but still. Just saying, foreign military bases bad, is not an argument. Especially relating to a comparison of Cuban governments and why your standards for democratic presidential candidates are higher then those for Fidel Castro.
For all of Castro's domestic faults (and I am not excusing these in the least), I dunno if there are really any countries that can criticize Cuba's foreign policy, as it has largely consisted of 'send doctors and medical staff to help out in areas where they are needed'. (Interesting read for those not familiar with it. )
I mean if you wanna argue that 'it's part of their propaganda' that'd be equally valid criticism of the Marshall plan too, if you wanna criticize it because the doctors don't have much of a choice then that's valid but it doesn't contradict that their foreign policy has been as benevolent as it gets.
|
On October 07 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 02:58 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com And I still prefer those bases to be American over soviet Russian, Castro an or nazi German. The world, or at least parts of the world, have profited greatly from those bases for decades. Nato countries more then Yemen, but still. Just saying, foreign military bases bad, is not an argument. Especially relating to a comparison of Cuban governments and why your standards for democratic presidential candidates are higher then those for Fidel Castro. For all of Castro's domestic faults (and I am not excusing these in the least), I dunno if there are really any countries that can criticize Cuba's foreign policy, as it has largely consisted of 'send doctors and medical staff to help out in areas where they are needed'. ( Interesting read for those not familiar with it. ) I mean if you wanna argue that 'it's part of their propaganda' that'd be equally valid criticism of the Marshall plan too, if you wanna criticize it because the doctors don't have much of a choice then that's valid but it doesn't contradict that their foreign policy has been as benevolent as it gets.
Maybe because Cuba was always insignificant geopolitically, never had the means to project strength or to bully anyone. The country it was vassalized to, the USSR was the one most oppressing neighbour you could have in the XXth century.
I mean, seriously. And if you are interested, get into the details of the missile crisis, how Castro was ready to get the island nuked for the cause (he wrote so) and got furious when the Soviet blinked.
If trying to start a nuclear war and get your country nuked to oblivion for ideological reasons is not bad FP, I don't know what is.
Congratulation on Castro though to never have had an army with which he could be too much of a douchebad to his neighbours.
|
On October 07 2020 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com + Show Spoiler +Yeah, great discovery, the US is by far the most powerful country in the world.
Second great discovery, countries do what profit them even if that's bad for other countries.
Does that tell us anything about the merit of the US system of government? Nop.
Is that likely to get better after your leninist revolution? Nop, actually powerful communist countries have been rather much worse.
Is there nothing you can do about it then? Congratulation, you live in a democracy. That means that you can have an influence on the politics of your country. Get involved, vote, convince and shit are gonna change.
You say that like I personally didn't do that for more than a decade here. As if you have or despite not doing anything you're advising me to do (and me having done them for years) that you somehow have a better grasp of its practicality from your perch thousands of miles away.
|
On October 07 2020 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 03:01 Wegandi wrote:On October 07 2020 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com Let's say the US gets rid of these bases, are you saying you think Russia/China/EU would just kind of let them exist in complete independence? Or do you think they would try to have a similar deal as the US currently has? Imperialism is not ethical, but it is important to keep in mind that these weak countries may not have any other options. Just a different flag in the soil. The US ending it's imperialist agenda would have incalculable consequences for the world. Whether it's because we have some sort of political awakening or we collapse in on ourselves would definitely color how that played out. If you're asking if I think powers like Russia, China, and the EU would still exploit their advantages for global influence? Of course. The way I see what you're saying is: imperialism is unethical. It leads to exploitation. The US should stop being imperialists. + Show Spoiler + because it would remove this exploitation.
Now, I fully understand you don't like lesser evil arguments. But military situations, it is guaranteed. So my question is, in what situation do these exploited countries not end up exploited by someone else? I would agree with this and say "must" over "should". Let me be clear that in the current global conflict of US/CN/RU/EU, I am team-EU based on their culture and political structure. If I knew these exploited countries would end up under the EU, I would agree that we "must" free these countries, since it would essentially be the US funneling global power and influence into the EU. I see that as a win for humanity. I don't think that would happen. I think they would go to RU/CN. Who do you think would end up dominating these countries? Do you think it would be an improvement? If so, why? Yeah, I can see that going over very well. The EU has no legs to stand on here given their vast history of colonization which if y'all still say slavery and jim crow and segregation is the cause of the economic status of 2020 blacks definitely means that EU imperialism is worst or as bad as that (given that some EU countries still maintain "colonies" (French) and many EU countries still had colonies up until the 70s-80s) for the rest of the world especially Latin/South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, etc. Cracks me up you'd say something like that given the EU's history with imperialism. The US started as just straight up genocide. China killed millions for the sake of order. Germans were Nazis, Mongolians were savages who raped and pillaged the world. History only tells us so much, unless we want to label the US purely genocide. As it turns out, once we got the genocide out of our system, we tried to be decent people and now we do stuff like help Haiti after earthquakes. The EU's current condition as it pertains to political systems (which are super important to maintain accountability) and human rights is a lot better than US/CN/RU. When the US went to Haiti, we didn't fill a boat with slaves and put them on a farm. We helped them. We used to be slave traders, now we aren't. "but what bout 200 years ago" is not productive for discussions pertaining to ANY modern democracy.
Actually (in my best meme impression) Native American genocide wasn't a thing (as in official or unofficial policy) until the early 19th Century which exacerbated by Republicans after the civil war (Manifest Destiny really put it into overdrive). You should really read history and official records from the 1500s to 1800 in America. Now, the Spanish (and a bit of Portuguese) - they were the official genociders. Ya, a EU country which decimated all of South America, Latin America, and Southern/West Coast of N. America. If we're going to compare things, the Spanish were far far far worse than the British colonists.
For the record though, almost every country on the planet was the result of some violent conflict. Go back in time and its bands of nomads fighting each other or raiders coming in and conquering folks, and vice versa. There really is no morally "clean" state, but if we want to talk RECENT history and imperialism you advocating for EU rule is hilariously tone-deaf, ahistorical, and hugely ignorant. It's the typical response of the US "left" to put the EU on a pedestal. It's funny really.
|
On October 07 2020 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 03:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com + Show Spoiler +Yeah, great discovery, the US is by far the most powerful country in the world.
Second great discovery, countries do what profit them even if that's bad for other countries.
Does that tell us anything about the merit of the US system of government? Nop.
Is that likely to get better after your leninist revolution? Nop, actually powerful communist countries have been rather much worse.
Is there nothing you can do about it then? Congratulation, you live in a democracy. That means that you can have an influence on the politics of your country. Get involved, vote, convince and shit are gonna change. You say that like I personally didn't do that for more than a decade here. As if you have or despite not doing anything you're advising me to do (and me having done them for years) that you somehow have a better grasp of its practicality from your perch thousands of miles away.
My god! You spent a decade involved in politics and didn't change the whole country. Man, I understand your disappointment with democracy.
Well, bad news there are 250 million other folks to convince. It's gonna take a bit more than a decade of your time despite your outstanding convincing skills.
|
Norway28908 Posts
On October 07 2020 03:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 07 2020 02:58 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com And I still prefer those bases to be American over soviet Russian, Castro an or nazi German. The world, or at least parts of the world, have profited greatly from those bases for decades. Nato countries more then Yemen, but still. Just saying, foreign military bases bad, is not an argument. Especially relating to a comparison of Cuban governments and why your standards for democratic presidential candidates are higher then those for Fidel Castro. For all of Castro's domestic faults (and I am not excusing these in the least), I dunno if there are really any countries that can criticize Cuba's foreign policy, as it has largely consisted of 'send doctors and medical staff to help out in areas where they are needed'. ( Interesting read for those not familiar with it. ) I mean if you wanna argue that 'it's part of their propaganda' that'd be equally valid criticism of the Marshall plan too, if you wanna criticize it because the doctors don't have much of a choice then that's valid but it doesn't contradict that their foreign policy has been as benevolent as it gets. Maybe because Cuba was always insignificant geopolitically, never had the means to project strength or to bully anyone. The country it was vassalized to, the USSR was the one most oppressing neighbour you could have in the XXth century. I mean, seriously. And if you are interested, get into the details of the missile crisis, how Castro was ready to get the island nuked for the cause (he wrote so) and got furious when the Soviet blinked. If trying to start a nuclear war and get your country nuked to oblivion for ideological reasons is not bad FP, I don't know what is. Congratulation on Castro though to never have had an army with which he could be too much of a douchebad to his neighbours.
Man, there's a big difference between 'do nothing' (the consequence of being powerless) and 'send doctors to all conflict areas'. Did you read the link? Cuba is, by your own admission, an insignificant and powerless country, yet they're able to send more doctors to conflict areas than every G8 country combined. How about just give some credit when credit is due? Just because you say 'hey, it's really sweet that Cuba sends doctors to different regions of the world' doesn't mean you also go 'and I really like the way the castro regime tortures political dissidents'.
|
On October 07 2020 02:56 Nevuk wrote:So, COVID has now spread to the staff of Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are now all in quarantine aside from 1. Those are the heads of the US military, and important strategically in a way that Trump is not. So, this may possibly be the weakest the US military has been in the past 157 years? (Trump's only value militarily over Pence is as a figurehead to the non-officers loyal to him - he has 0 experience or expertise on diplomacy or war and is immensely unpopular among the officers). Per reporters : https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1313526338389716993https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1313526334577152000
They're all just military advisors to the President. Trump has Pence as a replacement should he die or become incapacitated, and they too have deputies in their chain of command. Don't give me any of this "only value militarily over Pence." He's the elected President. A big value in that chain is treating civilian elected leadership the same regardless of personal popularity.
It's like you're trying to hunt for some angle of attack for the Joint Chiefs quarantining after someone higher up in the Coast Guard tested positive. Give me some honest information that everyone below them are incompetent boobs or abandon the stupid "weakest the US military has been in the past 157 years." Did all the right-wingers trying this fearful bullshit under Obama just switch sides or something?
|
On October 07 2020 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2020 03:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 07 2020 02:58 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 07 2020 01:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 07 2020 01:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 07 2020 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:If we are gonna take one liberal democracy's foreign policy to invalidate liberal democracy, why not take the foreign policy of one marxist leninist regime and see how it compares? + Show Spoiler +Oh... oh wait... You know what? Let's not do that, it's too obviously stupid. Invalidating liberal democracy in total is a bit of a task, I'm just dealing with the one in the US. Yeah because big countries bullying small countries in their sphere of influence is totally unheard of. Except for, you know, every big country in history. At least you got a chance to vote for people who don't pursue a shit foreign policy. No one ever got that chance in the system you advocate. The US bullies (or tries) small and big countries all around the world. We have several hundred military bases in dozens of countries. There's literally no other country in the world that even comes close. You can combine several of the next biggest militaries in the world and still not be close. the United States has approximately 95% of the world’s foreign bases. www.thenation.com And I still prefer those bases to be American over soviet Russian, Castro an or nazi German. The world, or at least parts of the world, have profited greatly from those bases for decades. Nato countries more then Yemen, but still. Just saying, foreign military bases bad, is not an argument. Especially relating to a comparison of Cuban governments and why your standards for democratic presidential candidates are higher then those for Fidel Castro. For all of Castro's domestic faults (and I am not excusing these in the least), I dunno if there are really any countries that can criticize Cuba's foreign policy, as it has largely consisted of 'send doctors and medical staff to help out in areas where they are needed'. ( Interesting read for those not familiar with it. ) I mean if you wanna argue that 'it's part of their propaganda' that'd be equally valid criticism of the Marshall plan too, if you wanna criticize it because the doctors don't have much of a choice then that's valid but it doesn't contradict that their foreign policy has been as benevolent as it gets. Maybe because Cuba was always insignificant geopolitically, never had the means to project strength or to bully anyone. The country it was vassalized to, the USSR was the one most oppressing neighbour you could have in the XXth century. I mean, seriously. And if you are interested, get into the details of the missile crisis, how Castro was ready to get the island nuked for the cause (he wrote so) and got furious when the Soviet blinked. If trying to start a nuclear war and get your country nuked to oblivion for ideological reasons is not bad FP, I don't know what is. Congratulation on Castro though to never have had an army with which he could be too much of a douchebad to his neighbours. Man, there's a big difference between 'do nothing' (the consequence of being powerless) and 'send doctors to all conflict areas'. Did you read the link? Cuba is, by your own admission, an insignificant and powerless country, yet they're able to send more doctors to conflict areas than every G8 country combined. How about just give some credit when credit is due? Just because you say 'hey, it's really sweet that Cuba sends doctors to different regions of the world' doesn't mean you also go 'and I really like the way the castro regime tortures political dissidents'.
That's great. They do have good doctors in Cuba. And ye, sure, very happy that Cuba sends doctors. Sincerely.
Now almost every country does great things abroad. Including very much the US. European countries spend billions and billions in foreign aide.
It's just, the ones that also are noticeably doing bad things are the ones who can. Cuba can't. And that tell us nothing about its regime being frankly quite horrifying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Kossuth_Lajos_utca_-_K%C3%A1roly_%28Tan%C3%A1cs%29_k%C3%B6r%C3%BAt_sarok._Fortepan_23591.jpg/220px-Kossuth_Lajos_utca_-_K%C3%A1roly_%28Tan%C3%A1cs%29_k%C3%B6r%C3%BAt_sarok._Fortepan_23591.jpg)
