What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[Birdjaguar]

No, I'm saying you should unseat yourselves and let Guaido take over America. Why not, it's the same logic. The US is a big bag of fail as well.

That only works if Guaido is a US citizen or was born in Kenya. Sorry.

 

[Patine]

That only works if Guaido is a US citizen or was born in Kenya. Sorry.

Well, the U.S. has flagrantly broken and ignored various countries' electoral and constitutional laws utterly when they've rigged elections or installed tyrants in Third World Nations for over 60 years. I don't see why American Constitutional law is inherently entitled to any special protections or considerations in light of that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, the U.S. has flagrantly broken and ignored various countries' electoral and constitutional laws utterly when they've rigged elections or installed tyrants in Third World Nations for over 60 years. I don't see why American Constitutional law is inherently entitled to any special protections or considerations in light of that.

Because as a government we are hypocritical and put our own interests above those of lesser nations who might veer from the path we want them on. In addition, we get self righteous and pissy when others treat us similarly. What's your point?

 

[Patine]

Because as a government we are hypocritical and put our own interests above those of lesser nations who might veer from the path we want them on. In addition, we get self righteous and pissy when others treat us similarly. What's your point?

Time to get over yourselves and face reality, not uneducated propaganda. American Exceptionalism is as much a myth as Ancient Hellenism (for which the word "Barbarian" was coined as a counter-term to).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the portion of people who think like that will never be swayed. Some opinions never change no matter how stupid or wrong.

 

[Patine]

I think the portion of people who think like that will never be swayed. Some opinions never change no matter how stupid or wrong.

By historical precedent, it probably will. But likely not until global civilization has collapsed into a new dark age. And then, a number of centuries later, some boneheads in the general geographical region of what is now the United States will dredge up a "revisionist toxic-nostalgic cultural heritage revival movement" of a culture, nation, and society they don't REALLY understand, but looks cool in the presentation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Time to get over yourselves and face reality, not uneducated propaganda. American Exceptionalism is as much a myth as Ancient Hellenism (for which the word "Barbarian" was coined as a counter-term to).

Time and circumstances puts every "great nation" in its place at some point. And regardless of the US political shortcomings at home and abroad, the global prosperity and economic success of the past 70 years has been fueled by the US and its policies. Canada has especially benefited from its arrogant and self-righteous neighbor. Not only could have the US done better over the past 70 years, it also could have done worse.

 

[Patine]

Time and circumstances puts every "great nation" in its place at some point. And regardless of the US political shortcomings at home and abroad, the global prosperity and economic success of the past 70 years has been fueled by the US and its policies. Canada has especially benefited from its arrogant and self-righteous neighbor. Not only could have the US done better over the past 70 years, it also could have done worse.

Prosperity, like with the Roman and British Empires, both of whom were immense influences to the early United States, on the backs and suffering of others, and thus generating a LOT of enemies, and usually - in all three cases - rightly and deservedly so.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Prosperity, like with the Roman and British Empires, both of whom were immense influences to the early United States, on the backs and suffering of others, and thus generating a LOT of enemies, and usually - in all three cases - rightly and deservedly so.

Interesting that you are equating the prosperity of the Roman Empire the British Empire and the global economy of the last 70 years.

OK. So how did the Roman Empire diminish prosperity among the people they conquered? IIRC much of the demise of the later empire was caused by migrations into the empire by outsiders who wanted take advantage of that prosperity. How was the US rise to power anything like the Roman one? Military conquerors always have enemies.

The British Empire had its own model for establishing Empire. If it could not take control by flooding area with British emigrants (Australia, Canada, NZ, and prior to 1776, the US), it took economic control through military power and then sold the captive nation manufactured goods while consuming imported resources (India, South Africa). (simplified of course) Local power was repressed to maintain British control. That was not unusual

The US rebuilt the world after WW2 and then financed global growth to built its export trade which empowered its manufacturing base. It used it political power to shape governments to be friendly in the face of the communist threats of the 50s 60s and 70s. So, which countries in the world saw less prosperity in the past 70 years that was caused by globalization?

Political enemies are collateral damage for every nation that has a global impact. Nobody likes an influential, bossy outsider that they can't just dismiss. Local power is perceived as diminished in the "glorious light" of economic overlords.

Can't you offer up anything but complaints? I wonder what Canada's economy would look like without the US? Would Canada be as prosperous? Or maybe Canada is not prosperous, I don't really know.

 

[rah]

Historians will look back at this as the era of Pax America.

 

[Patine]

Interesting that you are equating the prosperity of the Roman Empire the British Empire and the global economy of the last 70 years.

OK. So how did the Roman Empire diminish prosperity among the people they conquered? IIRC much of the demise of the later empire was caused by migrations into the empire by outsiders who wanted take advantage of that prosperity. How was the US rise to power anything like the Roman one? Military conquerors always have enemies.

The British Empire had its own model for establishing Empire. If it could not take control by flooding area with British emigrants (Australia, Canada, NZ, and prior to 1776, the US), it took economic control through military power and then sold the captive nation manufactured goods while consuming imported resources (India, South Africa). (simplified of course) Local power was repressed to maintain British control. That was not unusual

The US rebuilt the world after WW2 and then financed global growth to built its export trade which empowered its manufacturing base. It used it political power to shape governments to be friendly in the face of the communist threats of the 50s 60s and 70s. So, which countries in the world saw less prosperity in the past 70 years that was caused by globalization?

Political enemies are collateral damage for every nation that has a global impact. Nobody likes an influential, bossy outsider that they can't just dismiss. Local power is perceived as diminished in the "glorious light" of economic overlords.

Can't you offer up anything but complaints? I wonder what Canada's economy would look like without the US? Would Canada be as prosperous? Or maybe Canada is not prosperous, I don't really know.

Ah, yes, the governments "friendly in the face to Communism," such as some of the class acts I mentioned in a post earlier here?

But yet the al-Saud Family, Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mbutu Sese-Seko, Hosni Mubarak, the Pahlavi Shahs, Lon Nol, Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Van Thieu, Ferdinand Marcos, Effrain Rios Montt, Oscar Humberto Mejia Victores, Adolfo Arnaldo Majano Ramos, Jaime Abdul Gutierrez Avendano, the Samoza Family, Manuel Antonio Noriega (at least initially), Augustin Pinoche, Raul Trujillio, Fulgencio Batatista, and Francois "Papadoc" Duvalier - and even a post-WW2 Francisco Franco, all of which were about as horrid, bloody-handed, brutal, human-rights-abusing, criminal tyrants, were not only acceptable to keep in power by the West, but supported, funded, armed, and entrenched and protected from removal from power against their own people. Here is where ANY virtue or ethics breaks into utter self-serving hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy in this issue, and why I do not believe in the Western "mandate" to hold Third World tyrants accountable with any sincerity.

But I guess it doesn't really matter who they are, or what they do to their own people, or how much of a say their people have in them being their, or how legitimate their rule is, as long as their NOT Communist and are willing to oppose it, they can be just as Communists, even worse. That was the typical mentality. Also, I'm well aware Canada's prosperity started with the British Empire and floated, uninterrupted, to the United States, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize and accept the source of my prosperity is from an exploitative, oppressive, and impunitive military stratagem abroad and a web of propaganda and lies at home, and that I feel this engine that lacks all integrity, legitimacy, and ethics whatsoever should not be utterly reformed, disastrous and constant intervention in other sovereign nation's internal affairs ended utterly, vulture trade programs reformed to be more fair trade programs, arming tyrants and insurgent militias abroad ended entirely, all gangs of the vilest international criminal like the CIA and all analogous organizations dissolved, and all war criminals and criminals against humanity allowed to be tried at international tribunals with no political protections. Although I KNOW this is a pipe dream and will never happen, my ideals going are very different than yours.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ah, yes, the governments "friendly in the face to Communism," such as some of the class acts I mentioned in a post earlier here?

But I guess it doesn't really matter who they are, or what they do to their own people, or how much of a say their people have in them being their, or how legitimate their rule is, as long as their NOT Communist and are willing to oppose it, they can be just as Communists, even worse. That was the typical mentality. Also, I'm well aware Canada's prosperity started with the British Empire and floated, uninterrupted, to the United States, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize and accept the source of my prosperity is from an exploitative, oppressive, and impunitive military stratagem abroad and a web of propaganda and lies at home, and that I feel this engine that lacks all integrity, legitimacy, and ethics whatsoever should not be utterly reformed, disastrous and constant intervention in other sovereign nation's internal affairs ended utterly, vulture trade programs reformed to be more fair trade programs, arming tyrants and insurgent militias abroad ended entirely, all gangs of the vilest international criminal like the CIA and all analogous organizations dissolved, and all war criminals and criminals against humanity allowed to be tried at international tribunals with no political protections. Although I KNOW this is a pipe dream and will never happen, my ideals going are very different than yours.

Now tell us how you really feel about the US government!
Is all this hate a government hate or does it also apply to all the people who have been electing our leaders?
Global politics changes over time what was accepted in the past is no longer acceptable today. Drones have replaced bombing runs. Cyber war replaces agents etc. More changes are coming so get ready.

Oh, by the way, you have no idea what my ideals are and I don't recall you ever actually stating what yours are.

 

[red_elk]

But I guess it doesn't really matter who they are, or what they do to their own people, or how much of a say their people have in them being their, or how legitimate their rule is, as long as their NOT Communist and are willing to oppose it, they can be just as Communists, even worse.

Some of these regimes massacred millions of their own people. And they were endorsed and encouraged by US government as long as people who were massacred, were communists.

 

[Patine]

Now tell us how you really feel about the US government!
Is all this hate a government hate or does it also apply to all the people who have been electing our leaders?
Global politics changes over time what was accepted in the past is no longer acceptable today. Drones have replaced bombing runs. Cyber war replaces agents etc. More changes are coming so get ready.

Oh, by the way, you have no idea what my ideals are and I don't recall you ever actually stating what yours are.

I don't believe in turning demographics to solid, unified, hive-mind-like blocs. That's one of the foundations and pillars of fascistic thinking. So, no, I will not say "American people" as a whole are to blame or worthy of hate. And I have seen plenty of credible evidence (including meeting and otherwise interacting with many said individuals) that a LOT of individual Americans do NOT approve of the military adventurism, foreign meddling, or predatory economics that typifies the nation's foreign policy for almost the last 65 years.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Some of these regimes massacred millions of their own people. And they were endorsed and encouraged by US government as long as people who were massacred, were communists.

..... And the mass starvation and killings in Cambodia, China and Ukraine ? Stalin time bombs ?
I would mention Afghanistan but well Uncle Sam is an idiot and decided he was better then Ivan and now hes also screwed.

 

[Estebonrober]

Some of these regimes massacred millions of their own people. And they were endorsed and encouraged by US government as long as people who were massacred, were communists.

US complicity in the killings, which included providing extensive lists of communist party officials to Indonesian death squads,[29] has previously been established by historians and journalists.[22][17] A top-secret CIA report from 1968 stated that the massacres "rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century, along with the Soviet purges of the 1930s, the Nazi mass murders during the Second World War, and the Maoist bloodbath of the early 1950s."

Wow I didn't realize the scale or our involvement in this. . .

 

[uppi]

I don't believe in turning demographics to solid, unified, hive-mind-like blocs. That's one of the foundations and pillars of fascistic thinking. So, no, I will not say "American people" as a whole are to blame or worthy of hate. And I have seen plenty of credible evidence (including meeting and otherwise interacting with many said individuals) that a LOT of individual Americans do NOT approve of the military adventurism, foreign meddling, or predatory economics that typifies the nation's foreign policy for almost the last 65 years.

However, too many individual US citizens do approve of the actions of the US government or at least show enough ignorance to keep voting for those people. Thus, they share the responsibility for the murders done in their name.

 

[Patine]

However, too many individual US citizens do approve of the actions of the US government or at least show enough ignorance to keep voting for those people. Thus, they share the responsibility for the murders done in their name.

Perhaps many, but not all. Four young students - AMERICAN students - were political martyrs at Kent University in '69, over that. The Youth International Party - who were practically all AMERICAN - were jailed, fined, and suffered public indignities several times were mocking and ridiculing, publicly, the Vietnam War effort and the U.S. Government's prosecution of it on several occasions. Noam Chomsky, a big AMERICAN opponent and writer against American Imperialism from well-researched and rational points of view, claims the CIA has tried to assassinate him at least three times. Both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, running in 21st Century Party Primaries, for different of the two parties, called out the tradition of military Imperialism and unaccountable Government activities hidden from the taxpayers - or outright lying to them - of what was actually being done with their own money, and both basically promised an end to military adventurism, and both party primary machines marginalized them, but they did hold NOTABLE polling at various times before that. And there are many other examples, many not so publicly known (like many private citizens from the U.S. I've dealt with personally or online).

 

[AmazonQueen]

However, too many individual US citizens do approve of the actions of the US government or at least show enough ignorance to keep voting for those people. Thus, they share the responsibility for the murders done in their name.

Collective guilt is a dangerous road to go down.

 

[Socrates99]

I was going to bring up Noam Chomsky but Patine beat me to it. I saw an interview with him where he claimed every US president could be charged with war crimes under the current international law. The interviewer asked him how that could be true and he rattled off the last 8 presidents and their potential crimes with no hesitation.

Ron Paul has a pretty good show called the Liberty Report. I'm a lefty so theres a lot I dont agree with him on but his foreign policy analysis is solid. I like watching him for that because it's not chock full of the Trump bashing. Trump's a symptom, not the cause.

It's funny but I was asleep on this most of my life. I remember in Civ V some guy complained that America was depicted as too warmongery on one of the forums and was instantly panned by the bulk of posters, especially those from outside the US. Reading through that thread really woke me up.

Collective guilt is a dangerous road to go down.

True but in a supposed democracy collective responsibility is kind of in order.