US policy of dishonesty and hypocrisy
Comments
-
I was playing off these words..Drowned Out said:I could list a few, but I'm sure you would shrug them off as either humanitarian actions, the unfortunate, unforeseen consequences of working with a double crossing dictator...or, of course, actions necessitated by soviet / Russian aggression.
0 -
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..Drowned Out said:
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots.polaris_x said:this should give people insight on why no matter how shitty the russians and chinese are ... the US will always be the worst ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam
The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.0 -
Creators of ISIS and Al Qaeda?? That's a really bizarre argument that the US policy somehow created Wahhabism. I didn't know the DOD was writing religious texts now. Good to know.polaris_x said:
again ...mrussel1 said:Chechnya
Hodolomor
Poland
Katyn
Afghanistan
Great Purge
Cultural Revolution
honduras
chile
vietnam
nicaragua
iran
creators of al qaeda
ISIS
and the list goes on ...
not even close ...
Now which one of the ones in the list was genocidal?0 -
Wait.. so is the goal Balkinization or war profiteering? And if it's Balkinization, that's another unusual argument because it was achieved in Versailles (oh and FYI, Canada signed that... you can thank that country for creating the chaos in the middle east)...polaris_x said:
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..Drowned Out said:
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots.polaris_x said:this should give people insight on why no matter how shitty the russians and chinese are ... the US will always be the worst ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam
The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.Post edited by mrussel1 on0 -
That's achieved in spades..jeffbr said:
Yeah, "the worst" is a bit of a hyperbole. It would take an authentic lack of historical perspective to actually believe this.mrussel1 said:
Beyond delusional. History didn't start in 1990.polaris_x said:this should give people insight on why no matter how shitty the russians and chinese are ... the US will always be the worst ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam0 -
mrussel1 said:
Wait.. so is the goal Balkinization or war profiteering? And if it's Balkinization, that's another unusual argument because it was achieved in Versailles (oh and FYI, Canada signed that... you can thank that country for creating the chaos in the middle east)...polaris_x said:
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..Drowned Out said:
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots.polaris_x said:this should give people insight on why no matter how shitty the russians and chinese are ... the US will always be the worst ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam
The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
'stop picking on America, Canada is no better'
Cnada rarely breaks with US / NATO policy, we are aware of that. We benefit from the same crimes...but pretty rarely instigate them. You're right about Versailles creating chaos, but Canada was barely even allowed to sign, and didn't participate in negotiations (unlike the US)...so not really sure what that little outburst was about.
And don't be coy about Balkanization and war profiteering. It's all the same shit. Throw in some other catch phrases like hegemony and petro dollar. Do you honestly believe that the US does not have long term goals, spanning multiple regimes from both sides of the aisle, to maintain regional dominance in the Middle East?
No no its R2P! Pure benevolence. Oh, and national security! Protecting the motherland!
Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
That's what I mean tho...if the guy was a fuckin intelligence officer, he should know the underlying goals. If you and I could see it, are we really to believe that a guy in his position is part of the brainwashed masses? I don't think so. He is glossing over the true motives, and even worse, putting a partisan spin on it.polaris_x said:
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..Drowned Out said:
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots.polaris_x said:this should give people insight on why no matter how shitty the russians and chinese are ... the US will always be the worst ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam
The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer.
0 -
Let me counter a few points here:Drowned Out said:mrussel1 said:
Wait.. so is the goal Balkinization or war profiteering? And if it's Balkinization, that's another unusual argument because it was achieved in Versailles (oh and FYI, Canada signed that... you can thank that country for creating the chaos in the middle east)...polaris_x said:
the majority of americans believe this stuff ... it's not like the power brokers actually tell the army and intelligence offers that they are going to iraq for war profiteering ... it's the difference between believing it was accidental or purposeful ..Drowned Out said:
These interviews drive me nuts.... portraying the US govt as bumbling fools who made a big mistake and didn't listen to intelligence saying sectarian violence, civil war, etc would be the outcome. Anyone with a passing knowledge of US policy can see that this was not an oversight or simply shrugged off: it was the goal. Balkanization. All the proof we need is the fact that they repeated the same actions in Syria and Libya, despite a new administration calling the shots.polaris_x said:this should give people insight on why no matter how shitty the russians and chinese are ... the US will always be the worst ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam
The guy lost me right at the start by saying he supported the war because it would be good for the people of Iraq. Bullshit. If you thought that, you are the opposite of an 'intelligence' officer. 'stop picking on America, Canada is no better'
Cnada rarely breaks with US / NATO policy, we are aware of that. We benefit from the same crimes...but pretty rarely instigate them. You're right about Versailles creating chaos, but Canada was barely even allowed to sign, and didn't participate in negotiations (unlike the US)...so not really sure what that little outburst was about.
And don't be coy about Balkanization and war profiteering. It's all the same shit. Throw in some other catch phrases like hegemony and petro dollar. Do you honestly believe that the US does not have long term goals, spanning multiple regimes from both sides of the aisle, to maintain regional dominance in the Middle East?
No no its R2P! Pure benevolence. Oh, and national security! Protecting the motherland!
1. The United States gained nothing but the commitment to the League of Nations from WWI. It was France and England that benefited from the spoils.
2. Canada benefits from the war crimes but rarely instigates them... is that a superior moral position? Sounds like a giant pussy.
3. Does the US want to have (not maintain) regional dominance? Of course we do. Again, I'm not stupid. But you don't think Russia's motives in the middle east, their alliances with Iran, taking of Crimea, etc. are not all related to the same strategic economic goals? Of course they are.
4. I have never made the statement that US actions are about benevolence. My point through this whole argument is that it is absurd to say (as has been said just recently here) that the US is much worse than Russia. That's crazy talk. The Russians have so much more direct, intentional blood on them than the US.0 -
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.Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
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.Drowned Out said: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.
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.0 -
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 10 -
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
0 -
I've been thinking about this since I posted it earlier - not surprised to see you digging deeper on itbenjs said: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.
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.
Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
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.Drowned Out said: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
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.
Post edited by mrussel1 on0 -
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.
0 -
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.Drowned Out said: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.
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.0 -
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.Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
.0
-
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.
http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_201701070
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help