Who really sympathizes with Castro?

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

It does need the American label, because our beliefs around individualsm are guided by our culture. We've taken the unnecessary struggle of millions and made it a virtue of our culture. It's a belief in a myth that somehow the American system is some sort of ideal, and we can look down our noses at others.

polaris_x

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

PJ_Soul said:

polaris_x said:

PJ_Soul said:

polaris_x said:

PJ_Soul said:

unsung said:

mattsl1983 said:

Put political ideologies aside, who really thinks we lost something with Castro's death??

Other commies.

Well I'm a socialist and I don't mourn him simply because he was a tyrannical dictator. I don't go for that, even though I like Communism itself. Too bad Communism is always hijacked by people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro. Tyrannical dictatorships are not really Communist governments. They just stole the term and twisted Communism into an ugly cousin.

how do you define tyrannical? ... he may have been a dictator but tyrannical ... I don't think so ...

He punished all forms of dissent, harassed and intimidated those with opposing views, had dissenters murdered or threw them in horrible prisons, had repressive policies, he allowed no judiciary freedom, doled out public punishments, and held all three of the most powerful positions in government himself. He cracked down on journalists, trade unionists, and human rights advocates. He had them put in inhumane prisons and subjected them to beatings, denied them medical care, etc. His government refused to recognize the legitimacy of all human rights organizations, among others. There is no freedom of the press. I personally consider these actions extremely tyrannical. This is actually the definition of tyrannical. I have no clue how you've figured he wasn't.

where are you getting this stuff!?? ... check out amnesty international's views on cuba ... yes, some of the stuff he is responsible for such as his actions against political opponents is true however, not to say that it's right, but he's operated in a region that has had US imperialism fuck it up from mexico to chile ... he's governed a country that has been under threat of overthrow from the mighty US for decades ... do you know how the US often fucks around with countries like Cuba ... they create disinformation campaigns, fund rallies, and if possible arm rebel groups ... if there was no threat of US intervention - there likely would have been more freedom of press ... but this notion that he murdered innocent people is not substantiated by any independent source ...

Not innocent in his mind, I'm sure. I am not sure how you so casually dismiss repression like that. For me, such tyranny and the muzzling of political dissent and freedom of the press has literally no good excuse. I would NEVER lower myself to make excuses for Castro's tyranny, no matter what my other views relating to him are. I have higher standards than that.
I'm sure you are aware that it's not a black and white issue/ After all that said about Castro, I don't and never did support America's embargo against Cuba. That was fucking stupid given how stunningly hypocritical it was. And it's even more stupid and even more hypocritical that Trump is threatening to bring it back.

it's not about casually dismissing ... it's called understanding what he was up against and what history showed us ... you do know that ever single US president since Castro has been in power has been responsible for more deaths than Castro? ... you calling any of them tyrannical? ... and it's not just about the embargo ... it's about all the covert ops they've tried in Cuba since Castro took over ...

How many deaths was bill Clinton responsible for? Besides,how can you calculate that? Are there even accurate reports of the people Castro murdered?

i'm not sure ... people in afghanistan, kosovo and pakistan ... i mean this is the guy that bombed targets in iraq the day before his impeachment vote to detract from his own problems ...

castro only executed people after the revolution where he put people fighting for batista to death ... again - there are no death squads in cuba like other latin american countries ...

polaris_x

jeffbr said:

4 Categories of Castro Apologetics, and the Anti-Individualism That Knits Them Together - I'm guessing #2 is the most popular flavor of apologists on the AMT. Regardless, this sums it up for me:

No, the only way in which you can say Castro's authoritarian banning "worked" is if you deny the plight and agency of the individual, and subsume it all in favor of an up-down measurement of the collectivized state. This is, in the final analysis, what all these categories of apologetics have in common—the euphemism, the whataboutism, the juvenilia, the outsourcing of judgment to celebrities: They all gloss over or plow under or just ignore the fate of individual people suffering under a dictatorship.

That's a lesson for all of us. When your argument about a politician or a policy or a system waves an impatient hand when presented with acts of individual repression, it's a good time to step back from the keyboard or microphone or legislative drafting session and check yourself. Human beings are not here on this earth to provide propaganda fodder for a despot's statistics bureau; they are here to be free and to pursue happiness as they see fit.

The United States falls short of this ideal every day, which provides excellent reason to get up and get after it in the morning. But recognizing failure here (preferably by its non-euphemistic name) does not grant a blanket excuse for downplaying it elsewhere.

falls short!?? ... oh well ... let's just keep trying to do better!? ... america's "failures" are the cause of the things you guys are so railing against ...

honestly, do people actually think communism is a reason to kill innocent people and invade countries!???

rssesq

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Go Beavers

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

rssesq

yur deep like the Nile son.

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

polaris_x

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

jeffbr

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

Jason P

Go Beavers said:

And after they landed in Florida, a homeless person probably used their raft to make a shelter.

Because they are now homeless, that makes sense.

Go Beavers

They probably had family there that they could crash with.

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

no you (the US) won't. they stand on the sidelines during any number of human rights atrocities occuring around the globe at any given time. they just don't intervene as there is no economic benefit.

jeffbr

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

no you (the US) won't. they stand on the sidelines during any number of human rights atrocities occuring around the globe at any given time. they just don't intervene as there is no economic benefit.

I agree with that. But in the past when I've suggested that we just get the hell out of all of these conflicts I get one of two reactions:
1 - I made the mess, I should clean it up (I'm not sure that we did make the messes, but we exacerbated them for sure, and cleanup means staying and doing what we're doing) or;
2 - I'm a xenophobe and an isolationist. Not true, no fear, and I don't want to be an isolationist. I would hope that we could be trade partners with anyone around the world. Just don't want to be the world's police force.

Hey, I voted for a non-interventionist candidate. Nobody who voted for a major party candidate has any interest in cleaning up this mess.

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

no you (the US) won't. they stand on the sidelines during any number of human rights atrocities occuring around the globe at any given time. they just don't intervene as there is no economic benefit.

I agree with that. But in the past when I've suggested that we just get the hell out of all of these conflicts I get one of two reactions:
1 - I made the mess, I should clean it up (I'm not sure that we did make the messes, but we exacerbated them for sure, and cleanup means staying and doing what we're doing) or;
2 - I'm a xenophobe and an isolationist. Not true, no fear, and I don't want to be an isolationist. I would hope that we could be trade partners with anyone around the world. Just don't want to be the world's police force.

Hey, I voted for a non-interventionist candidate. Nobody who voted for a major party candidate has any interest in cleaning up this mess.

you can't clean this mess up. it's a stain that cannot be cleaned. time to say "sorry, we fucked up" and get the fuck out. unfortunately, the US has created and perpetuated its own myth as global big brother/superhero. which is obviously bullshit, but if it keeps going the way it is, the disease will be spread and no longer contained "over there". we've already seen evidence of this over the past 15 years, and it won't get better.

jeffbr

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

no you (the US) won't. they stand on the sidelines during any number of human rights atrocities occuring around the globe at any given time. they just don't intervene as there is no economic benefit.

I agree with that. But in the past when I've suggested that we just get the hell out of all of these conflicts I get one of two reactions:
1 - I made the mess, I should clean it up (I'm not sure that we did make the messes, but we exacerbated them for sure, and cleanup means staying and doing what we're doing) or;
2 - I'm a xenophobe and an isolationist. Not true, no fear, and I don't want to be an isolationist. I would hope that we could be trade partners with anyone around the world. Just don't want to be the world's police force.

Hey, I voted for a non-interventionist candidate. Nobody who voted for a major party candidate has any interest in cleaning up this mess.

you can't clean this mess up. it's a stain that cannot be cleaned. time to say "sorry, we fucked up" and get the fuck out. unfortunately, the US has created and perpetuated its own myth as global big brother/superhero. which is obviously bullshit, but if it keeps going the way it is, the disease will be spread and no longer contained "over there". we've already seen evidence of this over the past 15 years, and it won't get better.

I'm with you. Shouldn't have said "clean this mess up" because I agree that it can't be cleaned up. The best we can do is not cause any further damage.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

no you (the US) won't. they stand on the sidelines during any number of human rights atrocities occuring around the globe at any given time. they just don't intervene as there is no economic benefit.

I agree with that. But in the past when I've suggested that we just get the hell out of all of these conflicts I get one of two reactions:
1 - I made the mess, I should clean it up (I'm not sure that we did make the messes, but we exacerbated them for sure, and cleanup means staying and doing what we're doing) or;
2 - I'm a xenophobe and an isolationist. Not true, no fear, and I don't want to be an isolationist. I would hope that we could be trade partners with anyone around the world. Just don't want to be the world's police force.

Hey, I voted for a non-interventionist candidate. Nobody who voted for a major party candidate has any interest in cleaning up this mess.

you can't clean this mess up. it's a stain that cannot be cleaned. time to say "sorry, we fucked up" and get the fuck out. unfortunately, the US has created and perpetuated its own myth as global big brother/superhero. which is obviously bullshit, but if it keeps going the way it is, the disease will be spread and no longer contained "over there". we've already seen evidence of this over the past 15 years, and it won't get better.

I'm with you. Shouldn't have said "clean this mess up" because I agree that it can't be cleaned up. The best we can do is not cause any further damage.

Giving up hope and concluding that it can't be stabilized are two different things. Why give up hope when no alternatives have been tried?

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

no you (the US) won't. they stand on the sidelines during any number of human rights atrocities occuring around the globe at any given time. they just don't intervene as there is no economic benefit.

I agree with that. But in the past when I've suggested that we just get the hell out of all of these conflicts I get one of two reactions:
1 - I made the mess, I should clean it up (I'm not sure that we did make the messes, but we exacerbated them for sure, and cleanup means staying and doing what we're doing) or;
2 - I'm a xenophobe and an isolationist. Not true, no fear, and I don't want to be an isolationist. I would hope that we could be trade partners with anyone around the world. Just don't want to be the world's police force.

Hey, I voted for a non-interventionist candidate. Nobody who voted for a major party candidate has any interest in cleaning up this mess.

you can't clean this mess up. it's a stain that cannot be cleaned. time to say "sorry, we fucked up" and get the fuck out. unfortunately, the US has created and perpetuated its own myth as global big brother/superhero. which is obviously bullshit, but if it keeps going the way it is, the disease will be spread and no longer contained "over there". we've already seen evidence of this over the past 15 years, and it won't get better.

I'm with you. Shouldn't have said "clean this mess up" because I agree that it can't be cleaned up. The best we can do is not cause any further damage.

Giving up hope and concluding that it can't be stabilized are two different things. Why give up hope when no alternatives have been tried?

What sort of alternatives do you envision? I'd love to see something that was effective, didn't further bankrupt us, and that didn't result in additional loss of lives. I think there is often an arrogance here thinking we can solve others' problems. Issues in the Middle East have existed for far longer than we've been a nation. We aren't going to fix anything over there as far as I can tell. Giving up hope? Maybe not quite, but I'm getting very close.

polaris_x

jeffbr said:

polaris_x said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

rssesq said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

Just be careful that you're not an apologist for American individualism at the same time.

I am an apologist for individualism. Doesn't need the "American" qualification. I don't have much interest in nationalism.

Me neither. I am all about economic nationalism
Why spend trillions in the desert when I-95 is falling apart?

Because people who buy into individualism too deeply can be manipulated by fear of an external threat while at the same time minimize the importance of a shared infrastructure?

I see people who buy into collectivism just as scared by external threats. As soon as some of us want to minimize our influence around the world we are labeled xenophobes by the collectivists. Fear is a universal manipulator.

We're always on the continuum of individuality at one end and the collective at the other. Where to be on that continuum at any given time is best answered by the response of "it depends". Applying individualism as an answer to every decision that needs to be made is a failure to incorporate human nature. Shitty American health insurance is a good example of this.

I agree with "it depends", and as I've stated a number of times, I'm a pragmatist. I take indivudualism and human rights into account, not as an answer to every decision, but as a factor or variable. I just responded here because I see Castro being excused for his actions because "USA = bad". When we're in a Castro thread, it is about Castro. And he didn't have much respect for individualism at all. The continuum you talk about didn't seem to exist for him. The good of the state isn't always the best answer.

typical american response to its role in other countries ... it explains why it continues today and will continue for the foreseeable future ... the real apologists are the americans who refuse to acknowledge what role they play in global human rights violations ...

Well, that's the bitch of it all. If we continue doing what we're doing we're assholes and our soldiers die along with lots of innocents. If we pull completely out, at least our soldiers aren't dying, and the deaths that occur are not our doing, but we'll then be blamed for standing on the sidelines and letting it happen (and of course be blamed for creating the mess in the first place, as if the Middle East has only existed for 100 years). If we ramp up, then we're clearly the evil aggressors. It is a no-win for us, so I'll choose the path which causes the fewest casualties to us. We need to back out and let the Middle East figure out the Middle East. Let them go at it. We can then enter into mutually beneficial trade agreements with the ultimate victors. What's your answer? We can acknowledge our role in global human rights violations. Then what?

You have to understand why you guys are dicking everyone around ... it's to serve your corporate identity ... it's for greed ... you guys believe in democracy as much as you believe in santa claus ... it's nice that everyone thinks santa's real because it serves a purpose ...

so ... the solution ... stop all covert actions all around the world trying to control regimes ... stop funding and arming terrorist organizations ... contribute to global policing by contributing troops to UN led missions ..