1. You can't say that the US didn't benefit from a treaty that was the framework for international debt collection. Either way, this is an odd tangent born only of a deflecting cheap shot. Whatever. 2. Does saying canada benefits from war crimes sound like an attempt at taking the moral high road? We rarely make any foreign policy decisions that will break favour with the US - just like virtually every other nation that participates in an economic system that revolves around US interests. I figured maybe conceding this would get you to stop trying to drag satellite nations into this, but now you're calling us pussies Canada has 40 million people and more land than the US. What chance do we have of standing up to THE superpower next door, when Ukraine, a smaller but more populous country, can't defend itself from a neighbouring lesser power, even with the help of THE superpower? How pussified does that make Ukrainians? This is schoolyard dad-toughness stuff.... 3. No, I don't. I think Russia's alliances and actions in your examples are self defence and reactionary measures against NATO aggression in their own backyard. I know you will have a shit fit over Crimea now, but that's ok. The US's goals are expansionary - pretty different. Let's not pretend the US is not doing all it can to further break Russia and bring them (along with each and every country that is not already) under the US economic bubble. That is not just protecting interests - it's expanding them. Is Russia doing the same? 4. I don't really care much for a contest of whose history of war crimes is worse. Was never really the point of my posts here. I do care about perspective on US imperialism. Even using caveats like 'direct, intentional' (as if the US not doing their own dirty work somehow makes their atrocities any better) doesn't change the fact that the US continues to aggressively expand its sphere of influence to include the entire world. Russia's actions may not be morally superior (tho I would argue that they are largely reactions to US/NATO aggression), but they are not morally inferior, either. Sorry, but your hatred of Russia and defence of US actions make it hard to believe that you don't buy into the 'R2P/benevolence/if not us, then Russia and they're way worse' mindset.
1. Okay...war reparations are suddenly international debt collection. That's a bizarre analogy. I don't care to argue but again, these statements are arguments against Polaris saying the US is responsible for Wahhabism and Muslim extremism. The point I made all along is that the nation states created by Versailles as part of the breakup of the Turkish empire is the root of 20/21st century war within the middle east. The nations were created to benefit the western European victors without regard to the tribalism. The US signed it. Canada signed it.
2. It was a joke. Lighten up. And no, of course the Ukes cannot stand up to the Russians militarily. But the Canadians would never stand up to America because our interests are 98% aligned. And you are living under that same blanket of freedom and prosperity as me.
3. Russia took Crimea in self defense? That's a new argument. Did Germany take the Rhineland in self defense too?
4. Again...my post that started this argument was the statement that the US has committed far worse atrocities than Russia. That is historically inaccurate. So regardless of whether you care for the contest or not, it was stated.
Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
1. War reparations are a form of debt...the treaty and league allowed creditor nations a system of international collection....which has been the basis of most wars since. Obtuse but true. the US didn't ratify Versailles, instead negotiating their own (more mutually beneficial) treaty with Germany. my point was that the establishment of an international economy most definitely benefitted the US, and has continued to as that system has evolved and consolidated. 2 & 3: im light as a guy who loves to punish his body can be after the holdays while talking genocide I've even used a couple emojis lol. here's the thing: canadas interests lie with the US because of geography. Cultural similarities, similar belief systems etc - very small factors in trade. But it makes no sense for us to have stronger trade relations with Russia or India or Saudi Arabia, than the US. Even if it did, canada would be Cuba north if we tried it...with a little more territory to defend. I've acknowledged that we live under the same umbrella twice. So can we draw parallels to Crimea? It's different because of the history, yes. But how much local resistance was there to Russia invading Crimea? As a matter of principal, I don't support any foreign invasion of sovereign territory, I have to wonder what the local population feels, regardless of borders. Answer honestly, because I don't pretend to know more than what I read: which side do the people of the Crimean peninsula prefer? If the people of Crimea feel more aligned with Russia than the west (nationally - western Ukraine, and internationally - NATO), at what point do we say that the people's right to self determination supercedes a nation's borders? I know you support a nationalist position (which has scary connotations in regards to the current Ukraine government), but is that being forced on the people in Crimea, or is there more support for the nationalist position in eastern Ukraine than im led to believe? I don't think the people at ground zero of a tug of war between two powers should have their voices minimalized only for the sake of maintaining borders. Is that happening? Please be objective; I do value your opinions on this.
4. I disagree, but no...not interested. Enough going on in this thread already
Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.
I've been thinking about this since I posted it earlier - not surprised to see you digging deeper on it if we assume that opportunism is an inescapable reality, then I guess we have to look at what opportunities are provided the the places powers see their own opportunity. The problem is the threat of force and sanctions skews the basis of the discussion - Russia does not have the same range of options in asserting its will.
Forgetting that...Is there really fair trade, and who is benefitting most if its not fair? I would be curious to see direct, laymen comparisons for trade deals (including effects on currency) offered by the western powers and the rival BRIC powers...comparisons of royalties and revenue sharing for the pipeline routes that are a major catalyst in all of the wars we're discussing. And comparisons of deregulation and foreign investment in nations choosing which trade alignments to make. Answering your question is a bit above my pay grade without making some big leaps. Hard to say who's thumb a nation is better off under...or rather, whether resisting alignment with the west is worth it in the long term. sad that the system we live under necessitates the conversation.
1. War reparations are a form of debt...the treaty and league allowed creditor nations a system of international collection....which has been the basis of most wars since. Obtuse but true. the US didn't ratify Versailles, instead negotiating their own (more mutually beneficial) treaty with Germany. my point was that the establishment of an international economy most definitely benefitted the US, and has continued to as that system has evolved and consolidated. 2 & 3: im light as a guy who loves to punish his body can be after the holdays while talking genocide I've even used a couple emojis lol. here's the thing: canadas interests lie with the US because of geography. Cultural similarities, similar belief systems etc - very small factors in trade. But it makes no sense for us to have stronger trade relations with Russia or India or Saudi Arabia, than the US. Even if it did, canada would be Cuba north if we tried it...with a little more territory to defend. I've acknowledged that we live under the same umbrella twice. So can we draw parallels to Crimea? It's different because of the history, yes. But how much local resistance was there to Russia invading Crimea? As a matter of principal, I don't support any foreign invasion of sovereign territory, I have to wonder what the local population feels, regardless of borders. Answer honestly, because I don't pretend to know more than what I read: which side do the people of the Crimean peninsula prefer? If the people of Crimea feel more aligned with Russia than the west (nationally - western Ukraine, and internationally - NATO), at what point do we say that the people's right to self determination supercedes a nation's borders? I know you support a nationalist position (which has scary connotations in regards to the current Ukraine government), but is that being forced on the people in Crimea, or is there more support for the nationalist position in eastern Ukraine than im led to believe? I don't think the people at ground zero of a tug of war between two powers should have their voices minimalized only for the sake of maintaining borders. Is that happening? Please be objective; I do value your opinions on this.
4. I disagree, but no...not interested. Enough going on in this thread already
If there was a vote to determine if it should be Russian or Ukrainian territory in Crimea, a pro-East vote would likely prevail. The reason is that the Ukraine has been liberal with its immigration and naturalization policies with Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. The result is that there is a heavy concentration of Russian speakers in the region.
But I don't think self-determination is a fair answer. What if the city of Miami (or Dade County) voted to leave the US and join a free Cuba? Would the US be obligated to release South Florida? I seriously doubt that would happen. But you are essentially arguing or asking the same question. You're asking the country to give up a huge chunk of land and Black Sea ports, along with the strategic position within the Sea of Azov. Which is exactly why Russia wants it.
Why do you say 'if there was a vote'? There was one...you obviously don't think it's valid, but ignoring it seems weird. And is it really just immigration over the last couple decades or is that an overreach? Again, not what I've been led to believe, but I could be wrong.
Using the US in your analogy isn't really fair. How about: Canada develops a trade beef with the US and decides to pivot to better Russian offers. Alberta resists and decides it wants to stay aligned with the US. The US sends troops to protect its interests, and those of the people of Alberta. Do Canada's borders matter in this scenario, or should the opinion of albertans matter?
This isn't to advocate for foreign intervention, like I said....I wouldn't want your military in my province at all....but stuck in the middle of two powers, why should I have my outcome dictated to me by another region of my country? we can't make these decisions on nationalist positions alone; you said it yourself that tribalism makes this an impossible path to peace.
Why do you say 'if there was a vote'? There was one...you obviously don't think it's valid, but ignoring it seems weird. And is it really just immigration over the last couple decades or is that an overreach? Again, not what I've been led to believe, but I could be wrong.
Using the US in your analogy isn't really fair. How about: Canada develops a trade beef with the US and decides to pivot to better Russian offers. Alberta resists and decides it wants to stay aligned with the US. The US sends troops to protect its interests, and those of the people of Alberta. Do Canada's borders matter in this scenario, or should the opinion of albertans matter?
This isn't to advocate for foreign intervention, like I said....I wouldn't want your military in my province at all....but stuck in the middle of two powers, why should I have my outcome dictated to me by another region of my country? we can't make these decisions on nationalist positions alone; you said it yourself that tribalism makes this an impossible path to peace.
I would argue that no.. the Albertans would have had their own representation in the national legislature and they lost the vote, presumably. And I think my scenario is precisely the same.. you just added more context and reason. At the end of the day, a smaller section of a country is trying to splinter off. Some states once tried that here too.
Canada has its own long term issue with this obviously.. and if my limited knowledge of your politics serves me correctly, a vote to leave by Quebec would not allow them to leave. It would trigger some negotiations but it is not binding.
And for the record, I don't necessarily consider that vote as relevant since it wasn't monitored by the recognized international groups...at least not the two main ones. The UN did not consider the vote to be legal, presumably because there is no provision in the Constitution to exit.. Regardless, I would not expect a pro-West vote to prevail either way. I still don't think that gives them the right to leave.
Ok so adding more context to the same scenario....Canada's in a state up upheaval, bordering on civil war, with proof of Russia funding said strife. What is the US position on this? They have a bordering country aligning with a rival power, with an important region willing to stay aligned with them...little to no consequence nor resistance involved with moving troops in. Does the US make this move? Zero chance they dont. Again, doesn't make it right, but kind of adds perspective to this talking point of Russian aggression...especially considering Crimea is arguably the most egregious example of Russian aggression since the fall of the USSR...and that aggression was at least partially reaction to US involvement in Ukraine. When compared to US aggression over the same time period, and considering the prevailing narrative in the west regarding Russian policy...I think we have found an example of US hypocrisy and dishonesty.
And yes - Canada does have this issue, and I was going to use Quebec in my analogy but I can't see them wanting to align with the US in any of these scenarios lol. Honestly, I'm not sure what would have happened if the referendum had ended with a separation vote....I should probably know that. You're right, probably negotiations...and a new sovereign state - not an American one...so the analogy didn't make much sense compared to the current situation (essentially a proxy war) in Ukraine.
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data
Hmmmm....not really sure how this relates to JC's post. You're admitting to a red herring fallacy, or accusing him of one?
I went back and read thru this entire thread...I am trying to find time to address some of your posts on page 6 and the start of page 7....there are some things people are really misinformed about regarding Syria...in the mean time, you might want to google Mahdi al-Harati and read about his history. The majority of senior Syrian 'rebels' are foreign mercenaries...many of them came straight from Libya to Syria. Many others were trained by US forces in Jordan, and entered Syria via Turkey.
Al-Harati's story is a pretty good indication of the way US / western intelligence has orchestrated the strife in Syria...and shows direct connections to Isis and al Qaeda. This little info graphic also shows either complicity or complete ineptitude in western media:
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data
Hmmmm....not really sure how this relates to JC's post. You're admitting to a red herring fallacy, or accusing him of one?
I went back and read thru this entire thread...I am trying to find time to address some of your posts on page 6 and the start of page 7....there are some things people are really misinformed about regarding Syria...in the mean time, you might want to google Mahdi al-Harati and read about his history. The majority of senior Syrian 'rebels' are foreign mercenaries...many of them came straight from Libya to Syria. Many others were trained by US forces in Jordan, and entered Syria via Turkey.
Al-Harati's story is a pretty good indication of the way US / western intelligence has orchestrated the strife in Syria...and shows direct connections to Isis and al Qaeda. This little info graphic also shows either complicity or complete ineptitude in western media:
I'm certainly in no position to argue that some member(s) of ISIS were in Syria. It's pretty well documented that they were. But I don't understand how this is evidence of some of your direct allegations and implicit ones:
1. How does this prove that the US Intelligence community orchestrated the civil war? Are you arguing that this ISIS leader was a CIA asset? The graphic certainly doesn't allege that, let alone prove it (no graphic/meme proves anything, btw).
2. Are you arguing that this person not only was there (I have no reason to believe otherwise) but he somehow stirred up the war and was some sort of messiah to some portion of the Syrians to get them to rebel?
3. And if #2 is true...well then so what? Why does it matter whether a foreigner was the intellectual leader of Free movement or if it was organic? At the end of the day, it's hard to argue that it was ONLY foreigners involved in the fighting and there was no opposition to Al-Assad.
And that was the core of my argument on page 6/7. To declare that a country that is 75% Sunni population supports a Shia "president" like Al-Assad with 90% of the vote is just a ridiculous statement. And that was the statement Polaris X was making/supporting. You would have to be completely ignorant of that religious split or completely ignorant of religious makeup of the country to think that was true.
If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.
So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data
Hmmmm....not really sure how this relates to JC's post. You're admitting to a red herring fallacy, or accusing him of one?
I went back and read thru this entire thread...I am trying to find time to address some of your posts on page 6 and the start of page 7....there are some things people are really misinformed about regarding Syria...in the mean time, you might want to google Mahdi al-Harati and read about his history. The majority of senior Syrian 'rebels' are foreign mercenaries...many of them came straight from Libya to Syria. Many others were trained by US forces in Jordan, and entered Syria via Turkey.
Al-Harati's story is a pretty good indication of the way US / western intelligence has orchestrated the strife in Syria...and shows direct connections to Isis and al Qaeda. This little info graphic also shows either complicity or complete ineptitude in western media:
I'm certainly in no position to argue that some member(s) of ISIS were in Syria. It's pretty well documented that they were. But I don't understand how this is evidence of some of your direct allegations and implicit ones:
1. How does this prove that the US Intelligence community orchestrated the civil war? Are you arguing that this ISIS leader was a CIA asset? The graphic certainly doesn't allege that, let alone prove it (no graphic/meme proves anything, btw).
2. Are you arguing that this person not only was there (I have no reason to believe otherwise) but he somehow stirred up the war and was some sort of messiah to some portion of the Syrians to get them to rebel?
3. And if #2 is true...well then so what? Why does it matter whether a foreigner was the intellectual leader of Free movement or if it was organic? At the end of the day, it's hard to argue that it was ONLY foreigners involved in the fighting and there was no opposition to Al-Assad.
And that was the core of my argument on page 6/7. To declare that a country that is 75% Sunni population supports a Shia "president" like Al-Assad with 90% of the vote is just a ridiculous statement. And that was the statement Polaris X was making/supporting. You would have to be completely ignorant of that religious split or completely ignorant of religious makeup of the country to think that was true.
1. Of course it doesn't 'prove' anything. The graphic wasn't intended as a smoking gun, only a starting point for a little research. Al Harati was a CIA asset in Libya. He was a member of the LIFG, an Al Qaeda affiliated, state department listed terror group (which I believe was subsequently de-listed after John McCain requested funding for them to help overthrow Ghaddafi). After the regime change in Libya was complete, he was named leader of the Tripoli Brigade, then promoted to second in command of the Tripoli Military Council, under a guy named Abdelhakim Belhadj. Belhadj was a former Gitmo detainee who was released and reported to have become the leader of ISIS in Libya...the guy John McCain and Lindsey Graham met with in Libya - lots of photos of the meeting online (don't forget about the photos of the meeting between McCain and ISIS chief Al Baghdadi that are out there as well)..... Belhadj is the guy the late ambassador Chris Stevens was (alleged?) to be coordinating arms shipments with...Belhadj is reported to have had an office in a NATO base in Turkey. Al Harati has reported ties to MI6 and French intelligence as well. There is reason to believe he was a CIA asset as far back as 2009, possibly longer. He was on the Gaza freedom flotilla, is wanted in Spain in connection with the bombings there, and was the leader of the mercenary squad that attacked the hotel in Tripoli. The guy is the Forrest Gump of terrorism. He holds duel Libyan and Irish citizenship....when he was away doing terrorist stuff in Libya, his apartment in Ireland was robbed and a quarter million pounds stolen...he openly told journalists reporting the story that he got the cash from the CIA to fund his actions in Libya. Bullshit? maybe. But his history of links to US-backed mercenaries certainly suggests this is possible, even likely. Al Harati became the early 'face' of the rebel groups after setting up a village in Syria in 2011 as a propaganda centre in the early stages of the 'revolution'. The last news I can find for Al Harati are reports from when he became the mayor of Tripoli (he is no longer...) As for the US intelligence community orchestrating the civil war....wikileaks cables indicate that the US and Israel began orchestrating regime change in Syria as early as 2006. The cables also detail funding for anti-Assad, pro rebel propaganda via TV a London based TV station. General Wesley Clark had Syria on his list of 7 nations targeted for regime change. Eventually all of this stopped being done covertly....this was when the talk of 'moderate' rebels began. Belhadj is one of McCain's moderates....
I mean....you'd have to be a fool to know US history of regime change (including statements from insiders like Gen.Clark), to follow the flow of fighters from Libya and Iraq, the money from Qatar and Saudi, the training from Jordan, the access points and logistics from Turkey etc etc.....and still not be able to decide that the CIA has been involved from the start. What aren't they involved in?
2. yes, shit-stirrer extraordinaire. No, not a messiah...a pariah....as in outsider.
3. What does it matter?? It's the only thing that matters. If it is foreign-led regime change via proxy forces, the whole 'revolution' is an illegal act of war. If it is solely a grass roots uprising meant to overthrow the government (as sold by the US and their media mouthpieces), it is something that can be encouraged, but still not legally supported by the US under international law. Ok, maybe it doesn't matter. Either way, the US/NATO is in the wrong.
As for ignorance regarding the religious split in Syria....you realize that Assad is Allawite - a sect that has only relatively recently become associated with Shia islam? His party is Baathist; secular nationalists by political ideology. He has many Sunni supporters, and the majority of Sunnis do not support the extremist Wahhabi Salafist (sunni) rebel groups. Yes, there are Syrians who reject secular government, but this is part of the tightrope of governance in the middle east. From what I have read, the situation is nearly identical to Iraq under their Baathist leader (Saddam). He used a heavy hand against extreme religious movements that were a threat to him and to his country's unity. I agree with skepticism of any 90%+ vote...but it's important that people realize that the 75% sunni population does not equate to 75% opposition to Assad, nor majority support for the rebels. Not even close.
I've covered too much ground to back this all up with links....hopefully anyone interested can do their own searches based on this info.
Senator Thom Tillis: There have been 81 US interventions in other countries' elections, not counting coups and military interventions
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s Albania 1949-53 East Germany 1950s Iran 1953 * Guatemala 1954 * Costa Rica mid-1950s Syria 1956-7 Egypt 1957 Indonesia 1957-8 British Guiana 1953-64 * Iraq 1963 * North Vietnam 1945-73 Cambodia 1955-70 * Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 * Ecuador 1960-63 * Congo 1960 * France 1965 Brazil 1962-64 * Dominican Republic 1963 * Cuba 1959 to present Bolivia 1964 * Indonesia 1965 * Ghana 1966 * Chile 1964-73 * Greece 1967 * Costa Rica 1970-71 Bolivia 1971 * Australia 1973-75 * Angola 1975, 1980s Zaire 1975 Portugal 1974-76 * Jamaica 1976-80 * Seychelles 1979-81 Chad 1981-82 * Grenada 1983 * South Yemen 1982-84 Suriname 1982-84 Fiji 1987 * Libya 1980s Nicaragua 1981-90 * Panama 1989 * Bulgaria 1990 * Albania 1991 * Iraq 1991 Afghanistan 1980s * Somalia 1993 Yugoslavia 1999-2000 * Ecuador 2000 * Afghanistan 2001 * Venezuela 2002 * Iraq 2003 * Haiti 2004 * Somalia 2007 to present Honduras 2009 Libya 2011 * Syria 2012 Ukraine 2014 *
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington? A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.
i know you didn't ask me ... but my two cents ...
the notion that if the US didn't intervene someone (Russia) will is absurd ...
* what is the motivation for intervention? * which country is most likely to have interests associated with those motivations? * which country has the capacity to intervene? * remember the USSR collapsed in 1992 which is fairly recent considering the US has been intervening abroad since the early 1900's
The American military has failed to publicly disclose potentially thousands of lethal airstrikes conducted over several years in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, a Military Times investigation has revealed. The enormous data gap raises serious doubts about transparency in reported progress against the Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban, and calls into question the accuracy of other Defense Department disclosures documenting everything from costs to casualty counts.
In 2016 alone, U.S. combat aircraft conducted at least 456 airstrikes in Afghanistan that were not recorded as part of an open-source database maintained by the U.S. Air Force, information relied on by Congress, American allies, military analysts, academic researchers, the media and independent watchdog groups to assess each war's expense, manpower requirements and human toll. Those airstrikes were carried out by attack helicopters and armed drones operated by the U.S. Army, metrics quietly excluded from otherwise comprehensive monthly summaries, published online for years, detailing American military activity in all three theaters.
Most alarming is the prospect this data has been incomplete since the war on terrorism began in October 2001.
Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.
i know you didn't ask me ... but my two cents ...
the notion that if the US didn't intervene someone (Russia) will is absurd ...
* what is the motivation for intervention? * which country is most likely to have interests associated with those motivations? * which country has the capacity to intervene? * remember the USSR collapsed in 1992 which is fairly recent considering the US has been intervening abroad since the early 1900's
Thanks Polaris, and I apologize if these following comments or opinions are daft - I know there's a lot that I don't know. I hope you don't mind my asking questions in response to your questions for some of these, and please let me know if you think I'm off-base on any of these (which I know you will )
What is the motivation for intervention: Where possible, ensure that foreign politicians and their actions will contribute to your domestic gain.
Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations: Wouldn't that be all countries? Each and every country aspires to negotiate foreign policies in ways which benefit their people and their politicians before the foreign players. I'd think this would be intrinsically linked to how much power each country has though, as everyone is negotiating not for the global collective, but for their own nation. If I have something that you want, and we sit down to negotiate a trade deal, power is leverage and skews the ability to negotiate in my favour. What is it that Russia possesses that skews negotiations disproportionately in their favour compared to other nations? What immediately jumps to mind is the expansion of an empire with the intent of seizing power with the threat of war (nuclear or otherwise).
Which country has the capacity to intervene: That would depend on how cunning the two players are (if intelligence and deception are the method of intervention), how aligned the two players' goals are (if the pursuit of mutually beneficial initiatives is the method of intervention), or which country is more powerful (if display/exertion of strength is the method of intervention).
As for the USSR - can you clarify why you brought that up? My assumption is that you're trying to show that the earlier Soviet attempt of growing an empire resulted in the dissolution of that union and that their expansionism shouldn't be feared, but I'd like to make sure I'm not misinterpreting your comment.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.
i know you didn't ask me ... but my two cents ...
the notion that if the US didn't intervene someone (Russia) will is absurd ...
* what is the motivation for intervention? * which country is most likely to have interests associated with those motivations? * which country has the capacity to intervene? * remember the USSR collapsed in 1992 which is fairly recent considering the US has been intervening abroad since the early 1900's
Thanks Polaris, and I apologize if these following comments or opinions are daft - I know there's a lot that I don't know. I hope you don't mind my asking questions in response to your questions for some of these, and please let me know if you think I'm off-base on any of these (which I know you will )
What is the motivation for intervention: Where possible, ensure that foreign politicians and their actions will contribute to your domestic gain.
Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations: Wouldn't that be all countries? Each and every country aspires to negotiate foreign policies in ways which benefit their people and their politicians before the foreign players. I'd think this would be intrinsically linked to how much power each country has though, as everyone is negotiating not for the global collective, but for their own nation. If I have something that you want, and we sit down to negotiate a trade deal, power is leverage and skews the ability to negotiate in my favour. What is it that Russia possesses that skews negotiations disproportionately in their favour compared to other nations? What immediately jumps to mind is the expansion of an empire with the intent of seizing power with the threat of war (nuclear or otherwise).
Which country has the capacity to intervene: That would depend on how cunning the two players are (if intelligence and deception are the method of intervention), how aligned the two players' goals are (if the pursuit of mutually beneficial initiatives is the method of intervention), or which country is more powerful (if display/exertion of strength is the method of intervention).
As for the USSR - can you clarify why you brought that up? My assumption is that you're trying to show that the earlier Soviet attempt of growing an empire resulted in the dissolution of that union and that their expansionism shouldn't be feared, but I'd like to make sure I'm not misinterpreting your comment.
hey ... there are no daft comments or questions if you've taken the time to think about each critically ... i am, by no means, a guru or bastion of knowledge on this stuff ... all I ever ask anyone is to think everything through and do some research before coming to their own conclusions ...
Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations not all countries because not all countries economies are vested in all other countries resources ... also, unless you are a completely communist state where all industries are nationalized - when we talk economic gain, we are really talking about corporations ... so, you would have to look at corporations that not only would have an interest in foreign outcomes, you have to look at corporations that have the influence to achieve that affect ... you're really talking larger multi-nationals ... not all of them are american of course but many are ... i'm not quite sure i completely understand your question on what gives russia leverage ... Russia is an oil state with oil companies so they clearly are gonna have interests in the middle east especially when you consider access to pipelines and what not ... as far as empire building ... i'm not so sure I believe in empire building as much as I believe in strategic geography ... no nation really wants to take on more population that you have to go administer ...
Which country has the capacity to intervene not sure who you mean by two players? ... for sure, interventions now are not solely single state ... they do usually involve other states but in general ... regime change interventions are typically done by coups, "civil war" or fraud ... the first two options generally involve arming so called rebels and/or military such as US invasion of iraq ...
as for russia ... it's been brought up because the assertion is that the US is the most evil country ... and that they are responsible for the most suffering historically and present day ... others believe russia is ... the other argument is that if the US didn't fuck over these countries - some other country would (russia) ...
Comments
2. It was a joke. Lighten up. And no, of course the Ukes cannot stand up to the Russians militarily. But the Canadians would never stand up to America because our interests are 98% aligned. And you are living under that same blanket of freedom and prosperity as me.
3. Russia took Crimea in self defense? That's a new argument. Did Germany take the Rhineland in self defense too?
4. Again...my post that started this argument was the statement that the US has committed far worse atrocities than Russia. That is historically inaccurate. So regardless of whether you care for the contest or not, it was stated.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
my point was that the establishment of an international economy most definitely benefitted the US, and has continued to as that system has evolved and consolidated.
2 & 3: im light as a guy who loves to punish his body can be after the holdays while talking genocide
So can we draw parallels to Crimea? It's different because of the history, yes. But how much local resistance was there to Russia invading Crimea? As a matter of principal, I don't support any foreign invasion of sovereign territory, I have to wonder what the local population feels, regardless of borders. Answer honestly, because I don't pretend to know more than what I read: which side do the people of the Crimean peninsula prefer?
If the people of Crimea feel more aligned with Russia than the west (nationally - western Ukraine, and internationally - NATO), at what point do we say that the people's right to self determination supercedes a nation's borders?
I know you support a nationalist position (which has scary connotations in regards to the current Ukraine government), but is that being forced on the people in Crimea, or is there more support for the nationalist position in eastern Ukraine than im led to believe? I don't think the people at ground zero of a tug of war between two powers should have their voices minimalized only for the sake of maintaining borders. Is that happening? Please be objective; I do value your opinions on this.
4. I disagree, but no...not interested. Enough going on in this thread already
if we assume that opportunism is an inescapable reality, then I guess we have to look at what opportunities are provided the the places powers see their own opportunity. The problem is the threat of force and sanctions skews the basis of the discussion - Russia does not have the same range of options in asserting its will.
Forgetting that...Is there really fair trade, and who is benefitting most if its not fair?
I would be curious to see direct, laymen comparisons for trade deals (including effects on currency) offered by the western powers and the rival BRIC powers...comparisons of royalties and revenue sharing for the pipeline routes that are a major catalyst in all of the wars we're discussing. And comparisons of deregulation and foreign investment in nations choosing which trade alignments to make.
Answering your question is a bit above my pay grade without making some big leaps. Hard to say who's thumb a nation is better off under...or rather, whether resisting alignment with the west is worth it in the long term. sad that the system we live under necessitates the conversation.
But I don't think self-determination is a fair answer. What if the city of Miami (or Dade County) voted to leave the US and join a free Cuba? Would the US be obligated to release South Florida? I seriously doubt that would happen. But you are essentially arguing or asking the same question. You're asking the country to give up a huge chunk of land and Black Sea ports, along with the strategic position within the Sea of Azov. Which is exactly why Russia wants it.
Using the US in your analogy isn't really fair. How about: Canada develops a trade beef with the US and decides to pivot to better Russian offers. Alberta resists and decides it wants to stay aligned with the US. The US sends troops to protect its interests, and those of the people of Alberta. Do Canada's borders matter in this scenario, or should the opinion of albertans matter?
This isn't to advocate for foreign intervention, like I said....I wouldn't want your military in my province at all....but stuck in the middle of two powers, why should I have my outcome dictated to me by another region of my country? we can't make these decisions on nationalist positions alone; you said it yourself that tribalism makes this an impossible path to peace.
Canada has its own long term issue with this obviously.. and if my limited knowledge of your politics serves me correctly, a vote to leave by Quebec would not allow them to leave. It would trigger some negotiations but it is not binding.
And for the record, I don't necessarily consider that vote as relevant since it wasn't monitored by the recognized international groups...at least not the two main ones. The UN did not consider the vote to be legal, presumably because there is no provision in the Constitution to exit.. Regardless, I would not expect a pro-West vote to prevail either way. I still don't think that gives them the right to leave.
And yes - Canada does have this issue, and I was going to use Quebec in my analogy but I can't see them wanting to align with the US in any of these scenarios lol. Honestly, I'm not sure what would have happened if the referendum had ended with a separation vote....I should probably know that. You're right, probably negotiations...and a new sovereign state - not an American one...so the analogy didn't make much sense compared to the current situation (essentially a proxy war) in Ukraine.
http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107
Data = shit the Russians try to steal.
I went back and read thru this entire thread...I am trying to find time to address some of your posts on page 6 and the start of page 7....there are some things people are really misinformed about regarding Syria...in the mean time, you might want to google Mahdi al-Harati and read about his history. The majority of senior Syrian 'rebels' are foreign mercenaries...many of them came straight from Libya to Syria. Many others were trained by US forces in Jordan, and entered Syria via Turkey.
Al-Harati's story is a pretty good indication of the way US / western intelligence has orchestrated the strife in Syria...and shows direct connections to Isis and al Qaeda. This little info graphic also shows either complicity or complete ineptitude in western media:
1. How does this prove that the US Intelligence community orchestrated the civil war? Are you arguing that this ISIS leader was a CIA asset? The graphic certainly doesn't allege that, let alone prove it (no graphic/meme proves anything, btw).
2. Are you arguing that this person not only was there (I have no reason to believe otherwise) but he somehow stirred up the war and was some sort of messiah to some portion of the Syrians to get them to rebel?
3. And if #2 is true...well then so what? Why does it matter whether a foreigner was the intellectual leader of Free movement or if it was organic? At the end of the day, it's hard to argue that it was ONLY foreigners involved in the fighting and there was no opposition to Al-Assad.
And that was the core of my argument on page 6/7. To declare that a country that is 75% Sunni population supports a Shia "president" like Al-Assad with 90% of the vote is just a ridiculous statement. And that was the statement Polaris X was making/supporting. You would have to be completely ignorant of that religious split or completely ignorant of religious makeup of the country to think that was true.
Al Harati has reported ties to MI6 and French intelligence as well. There is reason to believe he was a CIA asset as far back as 2009, possibly longer. He was on the Gaza freedom flotilla, is wanted in Spain in connection with the bombings there, and was the leader of the mercenary squad that attacked the hotel in Tripoli. The guy is the Forrest Gump of terrorism. He holds duel Libyan and Irish citizenship....when he was away doing terrorist stuff in Libya, his apartment in Ireland was robbed and a quarter million pounds stolen...he openly told journalists reporting the story that he got the cash from the CIA to fund his actions in Libya. Bullshit? maybe. But his history of links to US-backed mercenaries certainly suggests this is possible, even likely. Al Harati became the early 'face' of the rebel groups after setting up a village in Syria in 2011 as a propaganda centre in the early stages of the 'revolution'. The last news I can find for Al Harati are reports from when he became the mayor of Tripoli (he is no longer...)
As for the US intelligence community orchestrating the civil war....wikileaks cables indicate that the US and Israel began orchestrating regime change in Syria as early as 2006. The cables also detail funding for anti-Assad, pro rebel propaganda via TV a London based TV station. General Wesley Clark had Syria on his list of 7 nations targeted for regime change. Eventually all of this stopped being done covertly....this was when the talk of 'moderate' rebels began. Belhadj is one of McCain's moderates....
I mean....you'd have to be a fool to know US history of regime change (including statements from insiders like Gen.Clark), to follow the flow of fighters from Libya and Iraq, the money from Qatar and Saudi, the training from Jordan, the access points and logistics from Turkey etc etc.....and still not be able to decide that the CIA has been involved from the start. What aren't they involved in?
2. yes, shit-stirrer extraordinaire. No, not a messiah...a pariah....as in outsider.
3. What does it matter?? It's the only thing that matters. If it is foreign-led regime change via proxy forces, the whole 'revolution' is an illegal act of war. If it is solely a grass roots uprising meant to overthrow the government (as sold by the US and their media mouthpieces), it is something that can be encouraged, but still not legally supported by the US under international law. Ok, maybe it doesn't matter. Either way, the US/NATO is in the wrong.
As for ignorance regarding the religious split in Syria....you realize that Assad is Allawite - a sect that has only relatively recently become associated with Shia islam? His party is Baathist; secular nationalists by political ideology. He has many Sunni supporters, and the majority of Sunnis do not support the extremist Wahhabi Salafist (sunni) rebel groups. Yes, there are Syrians who reject secular government, but this is part of the tightrope of governance in the middle east. From what I have read, the situation is nearly identical to Iraq under their Baathist leader (Saddam). He used a heavy hand against extreme religious movements that were a threat to him and to his country's unity. I agree with skepticism of any 90%+ vote...but it's important that people realize that the 75% sunni population does not equate to 75% opposition to Assad, nor majority support for the rebels. Not even close.
I've covered too much ground to back this all up with links....hopefully anyone interested can do their own searches based on this info.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4642712/senator-thom-tillis-81-us-interventions-elections
Senator Thom Tillis: There have been 81 US interventions in other countries' elections, not counting coups and military interventions
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/313636-albright-im-very-concerned-by-trumps-tweets
http://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/05/21/us-officials-lists-aided-indonesian-bloodbath-in-60s/ff6d37c3-8eed-486f-908c-3eeafc19aab2/
http://www.mintpressnews.com/genocide-in-yemen-media-complicit-in-us-saudi-war-crimes/224106/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-netanyahu-donald-trump-travel-ban-muslim-ban-a7553141.html
Shocked by Donald Trump's 'travel ban'? Israel has had a similar policy for decades
Israel walls.... Israel torture policies...Israel Palestinian ban, sound familiar?
the notion that if the US didn't intervene someone (Russia) will is absurd ...
* what is the motivation for intervention?
* which country is most likely to have interests associated with those motivations?
* which country has the capacity to intervene?
* remember the USSR collapsed in 1992 which is fairly recent considering the US has been intervening abroad since the early 1900's
"We're not so innocent either"
The American military has failed to publicly disclose potentially thousands of lethal airstrikes conducted over several years in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, a Military Times investigation has revealed. The enormous data gap raises serious doubts about transparency in reported progress against the Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban, and calls into question the accuracy of other Defense Department disclosures documenting everything from costs to casualty counts.
In 2016 alone, U.S. combat aircraft conducted at least 456 airstrikes in Afghanistan that were not recorded as part of an open-source database maintained by the U.S. Air Force, information relied on by Congress, American allies, military analysts, academic researchers, the media and independent watchdog groups to assess each war's expense, manpower requirements and human toll. Those airstrikes were carried out by attack helicopters and armed drones operated by the U.S. Army, metrics quietly excluded from otherwise comprehensive monthly summaries, published online for years, detailing American military activity in all three theaters.
Most alarming is the prospect this data has been incomplete since the war on terrorism began in October 2001.
What is the motivation for intervention: Where possible, ensure that foreign politicians and their actions will contribute to your domestic gain.
Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations: Wouldn't that be all countries? Each and every country aspires to negotiate foreign policies in ways which benefit their people and their politicians before the foreign players. I'd think this would be intrinsically linked to how much power each country has though, as everyone is negotiating not for the global collective, but for their own nation. If I have something that you want, and we sit down to negotiate a trade deal, power is leverage and skews the ability to negotiate in my favour. What is it that Russia possesses that skews negotiations disproportionately in their favour compared to other nations? What immediately jumps to mind is the expansion of an empire with the intent of seizing power with the threat of war (nuclear or otherwise).
Which country has the capacity to intervene: That would depend on how cunning the two players are (if intelligence and deception are the method of intervention), how aligned the two players' goals are (if the pursuit of mutually beneficial initiatives is the method of intervention), or which country is more powerful (if display/exertion of strength is the method of intervention).
As for the USSR - can you clarify why you brought that up? My assumption is that you're trying to show that the earlier Soviet attempt of growing an empire resulted in the dissolution of that union and that their expansionism shouldn't be feared, but I'd like to make sure I'm not misinterpreting your comment.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations not all countries because not all countries economies are vested in all other countries resources ... also, unless you are a completely communist state where all industries are nationalized - when we talk economic gain, we are really talking about corporations ... so, you would have to look at corporations that not only would have an interest in foreign outcomes, you have to look at corporations that have the influence to achieve that affect ... you're really talking larger multi-nationals ... not all of them are american of course but many are ... i'm not quite sure i completely understand your question on what gives russia leverage ... Russia is an oil state with oil companies so they clearly are gonna have interests in the middle east especially when you consider access to pipelines and what not ... as far as empire building ... i'm not so sure I believe in empire building as much as I believe in strategic geography ... no nation really wants to take on more population that you have to go administer ...
Which country has the capacity to intervene not sure who you mean by two players? ... for sure, interventions now are not solely single state ... they do usually involve other states but in general ... regime change interventions are typically done by coups, "civil war" or fraud ... the first two options generally involve arming so called rebels and/or military such as US invasion of iraq ...
as for russia ... it's been brought up because the assertion is that the US is the most evil country ... and that they are responsible for the most suffering historically and present day ... others believe russia is ... the other argument is that if the US didn't fuck over these countries - some other country would (russia) ...