Pentagon eyes ways to use military

[Judge Hades]

I prefer stew pot. Caucasian. The Other White Meat.

 

 

*munch munch munch*

 

Though Mexican food makes me gassy.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Dark_Raven]

America = The boiling pot.

[Walsingham]

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

 

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,"

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...We need them for Soylent Green.

[Dark_Raven]

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

 

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,"

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...We need them for Soylent Green.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[213374U]

I suggest you read this: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Caribbea...tions_Cuba.html

 

Wow, another whole new perspective!

Oh, of course. A brilliant article written by the world-renowned geopolitical expert Salim... who? Wait, did I say brilliant? I meant painfully tendentious. Yes, putting the US embargo against Cuba on the same level as the 11-S attacks (as he considers it terrorism) is a whole new perspective alright!

 

Thanks for the laugh. Now, how does the embargo justify in any way Castro's regime? I'd like you to explain that. If possible, without another revolutionary pamphlet.

 

 

Are you going to launch into a tirade against the UN, now, given that they voted 184 to 4 to end the Cuban embargo? Or so I quote:

 

"The embargo has been the source of almost unanimous international criticism. Annual votes in the United Nations General Assembly that call on the U.S. to lift its sanctions pass with exceptionally large margins (173 to 3 in 2002; 179 to 4 in 2004). In the 2004 vote, only the U.S., Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau voted against the resolution (with Federated States of Micronesia abstaining)." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...go_against_Cuba

The UN? You've got to be kidding me. The "United Nations" are only good as a lobby for the powerful to forward their interests behind a thin fa

[Azarkon]

Thanks for the laugh. Now, how does the embargo justify in any way Castro's regime? I'd like you to explain that. If possible, without another revolutionary pamphlet.

 

Because that's what I argued, right? You claimed that the internationality of the embargo proved its universal justifiability. You were wrong on both counts. The embargo against Cuba is neither internationally supported nor did it *do anything* to Castro's regime other than add yet another humanitarian crisis that the US gets to blame on Castro. It's all politics. It's got little to do with right and wrong and everything to do with the strength of the Cuban expatriate lobby in the US. Otherwise, where's our "international" sanctions against the two dozen other repressive dictatorships of the world?

 

Why, of course they voted against the embargo. They aren't getting anything out of it, and it's always nice to be nice.

 

Yes, yes, yes. The UN is just a group of windbags. The US is the only righteous nation on the planet, and all that we do, regardless of what the international community feels (note the unanmity of the vote? Why, what happened to the US's ALLIES?), are justified. I get you.

 

And I should care because? It's their problem. Perhaps they aren't ready for democracy. We weren't just given democracy overnight, you know. We paid our price in blood. They got it for free, and now they are reaping the benefits.

 

You didn't do **** for democracy. Your ancestors, if they were indeed there during the Revolutionary War/anti-monarchial movements in Europe, paid the price for what you reap.

 

Consequently, they also later sewed the seeds for other peoples' discontent. Kind of hypocritical for you to attribute your luxury to the deeds of your ancestors and simultaneously deny other peoples' problems due to the same, don't you think?

 

"My country's great because of what people did two hundred years ago!"

 

vs.

 

"It's bull**** to blame Mexico's problems on the past! You know, when conquistidors from Spain more or less wiped out their civilization."

 

Eventually they will grow tired of being robbed and cheated by foreigners with aid from their own leaders, and will take matters into their own hands.

 

When was the last time something like this happened - successfully, mind you - while the US opposed it?

 

What was the education level in France in 1789?

 

Right.

 

When was the last time you saw a third world country rise into first world status without US/European economic cooperation? We live in a modern world, Bob, not the age of the wigs. This is a world where a nation is capable of projecting its power across the globe and freely engage in the wellbeing of other economies. This is a world where without an education you can do jack **** outside of manual labor. And it's not like the US uses its economic power solely for the purpose of toppling repressive dicatorships. Quite a few democratically elected governments have been destroyed by US intervention - but of course, they're not "healthy democracies," right? At least in the US's eyes.

 

I suggest you do some research on the history of US intervention in South America. No, it's not all the US's fault that they're dirt poor. But quite a bit of it is due to the effects of European imperialism - you'd have to be stupid to think that Mexico is in anyway led by a indigenous government responsible to the people, and not a white elite vested only in its own interests (which, so it happens, the US supports). And if you recognize that, then it's dead obvious why they can't solve their own problems.

 

Unless Mexico becomes a terrorist state, that is.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Azarkon

[213374U]

You claimed that the internationality of the embargo proved its universal justifiability.  You were wrong on both counts.  The embargo against Cuba is neither internationally supported nor did it *do anything* to Castro's regime other than add yet another humanitarian crisis that the US gets to blame on Castro.

No. It's really sad when you have to twist my arguments so you can attack them. What I said is that Castro's regime is the cause for the international isolation of Cuba (which the embargo is only a part of). Also, I wasn't referring specifically to the embargo, because even if the international community doesn't approve of it, that doesn't mean they are willing to deal with Cuba on the same level as if it was a democracy.

 

Try again.

 

 

It's all politics.  It's got little to do with right and wrong and everything to do with the strength of the Cuban expatriate lobby in the US.  Otherwise, where's our "international" sanctions against the two dozen other repressive dictatorships of the world?

Of course it's all politics. But if you want to assume a purely utilitarian stance, then your own arguments regarding the humanitarian crisis caused by the embargo aren't worth jack, as it's all a conflict of interests. Thanks for shooting down your own discourse.

 

 

Yes, yes, yes.  The UN is just a group of windbags.  The US is the only righteous nation on the planet, and all that we do, regardless of what the international community feels (note the unanmity of the vote? Why, what happened to the US's ALLIES?), are justified.  I get you.

Finally. I was starting to get the impression you'd never get it.

 

Has the vote changed anything? No. It only does when it's the powerful that gang up on someone else. Thus my point is proven.

As for the US allies, everyone knew that supporting the embargo or not is of little consequence. But it looks bad to be on the US' side, these days.

 

 

You didn't do **** for democracy.  Your ancestors, if they were indeed there during the Revolutionary War/anti-monarchial movements in Europe, paid the price for what you reap.

How the hell do you know what have I done for democracy? Tell you what, if we are to get along, you don't make random assumptions about me, and I won't assume you're talking out of your ass. How about it?

 

 

Consequently, they also later sewed the seeds for other peoples' discontent.  Kind of hypocritical for you to attribute your luxury to the deeds of your ancestors and simultaneously deny other peoples' problems due to the same, don't you think?

 

"My country's great because of what people did two hundred years ago!"

 

vs.

 

"It's bull**** to blame Mexico's problems on the past! You know, when conquistidors from Spain more or less wiped out their civilization."

Eh... yes. Those civilizations were replaced with a copy of our own, which was ruled over by criollos once the countries kicked the Spanish out. That was about... two hundred years ago. They have had more than enough time to get back on their feet. Why haven't they?

 

 

When was the last time something like this happened - successfully, mind you - while the US opposed it?

No idea. Vietnam, maybe?

 

 

This is a world where a nation is capable of projecting its power across the globe and freely engage in the wellbeing of other economies.

Hardly without the consent of the local leaders. And in this case, local leaders are elected democratically. Sorry.

 

 

This is a world where without an education you can do jack **** outside of manual labor.  And it's not like the US uses its economic power solely for the purpose of toppling repressive dicatorships.  Quite a few democratically elected governments have been destroyed by US intervention - but of course, they're not "healthy democracies," right? At least in the US's eyes.

Yeah. It's called hegemony, and imperialism. Again, welcome back to planet reality, "Bob". It has existed since there's a recorded History. And eventually, those empires have always been brought down. People fought them, though. For some reason, this doesn't seem to be the case. If they won't fight for their own future, I sure as hell won't.

 

 

I suggest you do some research on the history of US intervention in South America.  No, it's not all the US's fault that they're dirt poor.  But quite a bit of it is due to the effects of European imperialism - you'd have to be stupid to think that Mexico is in anyway led by a indigenous government responsible to the people, and not a white elite vested only in its own interests (which, so it happens, the US supports).  And if you recognize that, then it's dead obvious why they can't solve their own problems.

It seems it's you who needs to do some reading. There's no such "white elite" ruling in South America. In some cases it's the descendants from criollos (half-native, half-Spaniard), and in some other cases it's native folk. I don't know, Morales looks pretty native to me. Mind you, the descendants of criollos are full-fledged citizens of those countries. I hope you're not suggesting that anyone from Spanish heritage should be banned from the exercise of public functions.

 

You also seem to need to read up on the amount of money invested in South America in the last 20-25 years, and how none of that has served to increase the life quality of the people there. Corruption is the word. On the other hand, we have the emergent economies in southeastern Asia.

Edited May 17, 2006 by 213374U

[Azarkon]

No. It's really sad when you have to twist my arguments so you can attack them. What I said is that Castro's regime is the cause for the international isolation of Cuba (which the embargo is only a part of). Also, I wasn't referring specifically to the embargo, because even if the international community doesn't approve of it, that doesn't mean they are willing to deal with Cuba on the same level as if it was a democracy.

 

So what is your point here? That Castro is a dictator? What does that have to do with my argument that every time a nation attempts to defy the US it's slapped with a sanction and/or embargo that prevents it from having a chance at developing its economy? This isn't limited to regimes such as Castro's, btw. This applies to *any* regime the US considers illegitimate or against its own interest, as the US-backed overthrow of numerous democratically elected regimes demonstrate. We put Saddam in power. We toppled Iran's democracy in 1953. As recent as 2002 we have attempted to overthrow Venezuela's democratically elected government.

 

So what, exactly, has democracy done to promote the social wellbeing of people in South American countries? You yourself admits in this post that the system's corrupt and exploitive. You yourself admits that in order for something to happen the Mexicans would have to overthrow their "democratic" overlords. All that's needed for me to complete my argument is the idea that the US will prevent such an uprising from happening. So, do you have an argument against that or not?

 

But if you want to assume a purely utilitarian stance, then your own arguments regarding the humanitarian crisis caused by the embargo aren't worth jack, as it's all a conflict of interests.

 

Duh. I'm not the one arguing that the US is right and everyone else wrong. It's only natural that I don't argue vice versa, either.

 

No idea. Vietnam, maybe?

 

North Vietnam had control of its own army and the support of both the USSR and China, not to mention logistic distance from the US and proximity to its allies. What does Mexico have? The US army can practically invade through Texas and CA to take over the entire area.

 

Hardly without the consent of the local leaders. And in this case, local leaders are elected democratically. Sorry.

 

I guess thats how we overthrew so many democratically elected governments and replaced them with our own puppets?

 

There's no such "white elite" ruling in South America.

 

I'm not even going to bother. Try googling. Then read this article about why people immigrate: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/feature...documented_war/

[213374U]

So what is your point here? That Castro is a dictator? What does that have to do with my argument that every time a nation attempts to defy the US it's slapped with a sanction and/or embargo that prevents it from having a chance at developing its economy? This isn't limited to regimes such as Castro's, btw.  This applies to *any* regime the US considers illegitimate or against its own interest, as the US-backed overthrow of numerous democratically elected regimes demonstrate.  We put Saddam in power.  We toppled Iran's democracy in 1953.  As recent as 2002 we have attempted to overthrow Venezuela's democratically elected government.

Nope. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy that exists in a discourse blatantly apologetic of a regime that systematically suppresses basic freedoms, while at the same promptly taking the moral high ground and to down fire on the embargo.

 

At any rate, it's irrelevant if the US has helped to overthrow governments, as in most cases, it was an internal affair, with external US help. If there weren't factions in those countries willing to sell their own people for money (as those governments are invariably corrupt), that kind of foreign policy would be unfeasible for the US. They couldn't do that in (western) Europe, for instance.

Again, they are just not ready to have democracy. And it shows.

 

Also, I'd like you to present evidence (actual evidence, not another of your pamphlets) to back your claims regarding those alleged schemes to overthrow or kill Chavez.

 

 

You yourself admits that in order for something to happen the Mexicans would have to overthrow their "democratic" overlords.  All that's needed for me to complete my argument is the idea that the US will prevent such an uprising from happening.  So, do you have an argument against that or not?

Not really. But how is the US going to stop a civil war? Like in Iraq?

 

Right.

 

Duh.  I'm not the one arguing that the US is right and everyone else wrong.  It's only natural that I don't argue vice versa, either.

Who's arguing who is right and who is wrong? As I said before, it's a matter of interests. The US do the only thing anyone in their right mind would do, protect their interests. On the other hand, it's you who's apologetic of a dictatorship.

 

 

North Vietnam had control of its own army and the support of both the USSR and China, not to mention logistic distance from the US and proximity to its allies.  What does Mexico have? The US army can practically invade through Texas and CA to take over the entire area.

That sounds like lame excuses. Also, I don't think the US have the manpower right now to occupy Mexico. There was some talk about reinstating the draft, and that's a no-no for any President that wants to even think of a second term.

 

 

I guess thats how we overthrew so many democratically elected governments and replaced them with our own puppets?

Are you talking about the military dictatorships of the 70's? Again, those people had the support of many within their own country.

 

 

I'm not even going to bother.  Try googling.

Neat. Next time you make an argument that's difficult to refute, I'm going to use that line as well. Not that that's going to happen anytime soon, though.

[Azarkon]

If there weren't factions in those countries willing to sell their own people for money (as those governments are invariably corrupt), that kind of foreign policy would be unfeasible for the US. They couldn't do that in (western) Europe, for instance.

Again, they are just not ready to have democracy. And it shows.

 

There are *always* people within nations willing to sell their own people for money. None in Western Europe? You mean aside from the quislings that cooperated with Hitler's every whim after he invaded their countries, including turning over their own citizens for death camps? I didn't see a massive rebellion in France, Poland, Czevkoslavkia, etc. Did you?

 

Let's not go into the whole "if it were Americans we'd fight to the last man" theory, cause the last time Americans did that was well over 300 years ago, and even then not all the colonies supported the independence. The reality is that the average citizen cares only about self-preservation and would not lift a gun for any ideology. It takes a rare leader (such as Ho Chi Minh) to unite a people under a common cause. Citing the lack of one as an inherent weakness in a country's people is more or less absurd.

 

Also, I'd like you to present evidence (actual evidence, not another of your pamphlets) to back your claims regarding those alleged schemes to overthrow or kill Chavez.

 

Like what? What would you consider evidence? We've got former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez affirming that Bush was planning the downfall of the Chavez government, and that should be sufficient for the purpose of my argument.

 

Not really. But how is the US going to stop a civil war? Like in Iraq?

 

Right.

 

Same way we stopped Castro when his government won against the American-backed Batista government. Let me remind you: the US has claimed absolute hegemony over the foreign politics of Mexico as per the Monroe Doctrine. While Bush's attempts to isolate Iran have failed due to China and Russia, this will not happen with Mexico, and any attempts to aid a potentially rival government in Mexico will undoubtedly result in full scale retaliation. There is no way that the US will allow a potentially independent (as in the sense of being able to forge its own national destiny apart from US goals) government to arise in Mexico. The US has made that quite clear over the years declaring Mexico as its own backyard.

 

Who's arguing who is right and who is wrong? As I said before, it's a matter of interests. The US do the only thing anyone in their right mind would do, protect their interests. On the other hand, it's you who's apologetic of a dictatorship.

 

I never apologized for Castro's government. That's you putting words into my mouth. I merely used him as an example for US interventionism and the price one must pay for trying to go up against the US, which you pleasantly ignore in declaring that if Mexicans really wanted a better life they should just go up against Fox's government instead of immigrating to the US. Sorry, but the latter is a hell of alot more realistic than the former even with US troops on the border.

 

]That sounds like lame excuses.

 

Only to someone who turns a blind eye to the practical reality of military logistics. Weren't you criticizing me for having an idealistic view of the world earlier? In Vietnam the US was literally fighting blind. In Mexico we would have the full support of the elite plus existing military bases in the area, not to mention any country capable of significant military and economic support would be an ocean away and unlikely to care. Any sane Mexican should rather take his chances with the border patrol.

 

Are you talking about the military dictatorships of the 70's? Again, those people had the support of many within their own country.

 

And Fox's government is supported by the rich elite of his country, but that's exactly the problem isn't it? The rich lording it over the poor - who are powerless to change their own circumstances due to the stratified caste system. You might want to read this article:

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05199/539779.stm

 

Neat. Next time you make an argument that's difficult to refute, I'm going to use that line as well. Not that that's going to happen anytime soon, though.

 

Get a list of the last dozen or so Mexican presidents and their cabinets. Count the number of dark-skinned people, compare that to the % of dark-skinned population at large, and then argue that I'm wrong. But really, do we even need to know that the elite is white to know that it's an oppressive regime that perpetuates the division between rich and poor while promoting immigration to the US so as to get rid of its impoverished? Are you really arguing that the Bush administration should be building a wall when it could be taking a stand against the source of the problem: the corruption of Fox's government?

 

The US seems perfectly willing to overthrow democratic governments hostile to its goals in the name of freedom and humanitarian value. Getting rid of Fox should be no problem, right?

[LoneWolf16]

The US seems perfectly willing to overthrow democratic governments hostile to its goals in the name of freedom and humanitarian value.  Getting rid of Fox should be no problem, right? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only because I'm curious...when did we do that?

[Azarkon]

Try reading "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," Kinzer.

 

Or http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project...entions_project

 

Of course, that's only one side of the story. I'm sure those supportive of US interventionism abroad have their takes, too. However, facts cannot be disputed, and I've never seen anyone dispute the fact that the US has overthrown a hell of alot of governments - many of them classified as democracies. It's only a matter of whether the US considers its actions justified... And whether the governments in question, so to speak, were legitimate in the US's eyes. Of course, illegitimacy in this case can range anywhere from a supposedly botched election to religion (ie Iran's current government). Yet truth reveals itself, I think, when you compare the governments that the US overthrows to the governments that we support/establish afterwards. Saddam Hussein? The Taliban? The Shah of Iran? The list goes on and on.

 

And the trouble is, given Bush's actions or at least intentions in Iraq, Haiti, and Venezuela, I don't see how greatly we've changed since the days of the Cold War. Of course, in this day and age when the shadow of the USSR no longer looms over the globe, people are wont to be alot less tolerant of the US's actions.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Azarkon

[Judge Hades]

The United States of America has a long history of interfering with governments to for their own agenda and very very very very rarely do they interfere for the better.

[Walsingham]

I'm not sure it's sensible to say whether it was for good or ill. We don't know what would have happened instead.

 

And could we TRY to be a bit more restrained on the post sizes? I have to admit I begin to zone out after five paragraphs.

[213374U]

For Wals' pleasure, here comes my marvel of a multi-volume post (as the quote limit doesn't allow me to put everything in a single post).

 

 

There are *always* people within nations willing to sell their own people for money.  None in Western Europe? You mean aside from the quislings that cooperated with Hitler's every whim after he invaded their countries, including turning over their own citizens for death camps? I didn't see a massive rebellion in France, Poland, Czevkoslavkia, etc.  Did you?

It's not the same. In that case, there wasn't much choice but to cooperate, as the country had already been crushed militarily. It wasn't a civil war in which one of the factions was backed by the US.

 

 

It takes a rare leader (such as Ho Chi Minh) to unite a people under a common cause.  Citing the lack of one as an inherent weakness in a country's people is more or less absurd.

Not only you need to read more history, you also need to watch the news more often. It's happening in Iraq right now, buddy.

 

 

Like what? What would you consider evidence? We've got former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez affirming that Bush was planning the downfall of the Chavez government, and that should be sufficient for the purpose of my argument.

Evidence, as in declassified documents, for instance. And what if Bush was planning Chavez' downfall? It looks like for whatever reasons, he didn't implement it. End of story.

 

 

Same way we stopped Castro when his government won against the American-backed Batista government.  Let me remind you: the US has claimed absolute hegemony over the foreign politics of Mexico as per the Monroe Doctrine.

So what? Castro had, until '91, the support of the USSR, that offered Castro a lot of "preferential deals". Besides, the embargo only affects the US, not the rest of the world. So, no. It's not a very effective way of stopping a revolution, sorry.

 

 

While Bush's attempts to isolate Iran have failed due to China and Russia, this will not happen with Mexico, and any attempts to aid a potentially rival government in Mexico will undoubtedly result in full scale retaliation.  There is no way that the US will allow a potentially independent (as in the sense of being able to forge its own national destiny apart from US goals) government to arise in Mexico.  The US has made that quite clear over the years declaring Mexico as its own backyard.

That's speculation, as nothing like that has ever come even close to happening. The US is in no shape right now, militarily, politically or diplomatically, to conduct "full scale retaliation" against Mexico in the event of a large scale revolution, or civil war.

 

 

I never apologized for Castro's government.  That's you putting words into my mouth.

Really? then what's this?

When such a regime does not exist, the common response has been to isolate, contain, and sanction (ie Cuba) - can't exactly run a happy country when the US forcibly cuts you off from the rest of the world.

That sounds pretty goddamn apologetic to me.

 

 

I merely used him as an example for US interventionism and the price one must pay for trying to go up against the US, which you pleasantly ignore in declaring that if Mexicans really wanted a better life they should just go up against Fox's government instead of immigrating to the US.  Sorry, but the latter is a hell of alot more realistic than the former even with US troops on the border.

Is there even a reason to go against the US? It's not an hegemony for nothing, you know. But at any rate, Cuba is not a valid example. Despite all of the US efforts, Castro still stands. So it can be done.

 

And no, crossing over a border is not more realistic than overthrowing the corrupt government that rules your country. It's easier. There's a difference.

 

Only to someone who turns a blind eye to the practical reality of military logistics.  Weren't you criticizing me for having an idealistic view of the world earlier? In Vietnam the US was literally fighting blind.  In Mexico we would have the full support of the elite plus existing military bases in the area, not to mention any country capable of significant military and economic support would be an ocean away and unlikely to care.  Any sane Mexican should rather take his chances with the border patrol.

Right, because the US would be able to take over the whole Central and South America without batting an eyelash. Just like they took over Afghanistan, or Iraq. Now, who's turning a blind eye to military logistics and domestic political climate?

[213374U]

And Fox's government is supported by the rich elite of his country, but that's exactly the problem isn't it? The rich lording it over the poor - who are powerless to change their own circumstances due to the stratified caste system.  You might want to read this article:

 

[snip]

Stratified societies have always existed, and they always will. As a matter of fact, a stratified, pyramidal organization is necessary for the society to have any degree of stability as things are right now. That's how things work. Anything else is a proven failure. Sorry if you can't handle it, but that's how it is.

 

As for the particular circumstances in Mexico, it's a democracy. If they don't like it, they are supposed to have the power to change it. If they can't change it because it's a flawed system, they have to bring down the system and start over. If they don't do either, they deserve what they have. I already explained this.

 

 

Get a list of the last dozen or so Mexican presidents and their cabinets.  Count the number of dark-skinned people, compare that to the % of dark-skinned population at large, and then argue that I'm wrong.

No, I'm not going to make your research. You are making an argument, you bring the facts to back your claims.

 

 

 

But really, do we even need to know that the elite is white to know that it's an oppressive regime that perpetuates the division between rich and poor while promoting immigration to the US so as to get rid of its impoverished? Are you really arguing that the Bush administration should be building a wall when it could be taking a stand against the source of the problem: the corruption of Fox's government?

 

 

The US seems perfectly willing to overthrow democratic governments hostile to its goals in the name of freedom and humanitarian value.  Getting rid of Fox should be no problem, right? 

Why should the US act against Fox's corruption? It's beneficial to the US. It's the Mexicans who should do that. Sorry if the US isn't making all they can to make the world a better place. That's not the aim of any government.

 

 

And the trouble is, given Bush's actions or at least intentions in Iraq, Haiti, and Venezuela, I don't see how greatly we've changed since the days of the Cold War.

The US act just like the Roman, British, French, and Spanish empires did, only with today's means. You love to throw mud at your country (or the strategic ally of your country) while you dream of worlds in pink. But if it wasn't for the very policy you hate, you probably wouldn't even have the luxury of considering those thoughts.

 

Inequality is a constant in human society. Give thanks you're part of the privileged part, and deal with it.

 

And also, don't reply to yourself. I'm not a figment of your imagination.

[Azarkon]

It's not the same. In that case, there wasn't much choice but to cooperate, as the country had already been crushed militarily. It wasn't a civil war in which one of the factions was backed by the US.

 

And let me ask, who exactly would supply the weapons to this so-called rebellion against Fox's government? China and Russia propped the Vietnamese. Who would prop Mexico against the US?

 

Not only you need to read more history, you also need to watch the news more often. It's happening in Iraq right now, buddy.

 

What, exactly, is happening in Iraq? Bush has toppled the Saddam government. He's plunged a country into ethnic strife and civil war. Sure, he hasn't exactly succeeded in owning the place, but he's damn well set them back twenty years in terms of develoment. Like I said earlier: Mexico can go the same way and become a terrorist state. But how would that help their living conditions? It clearly hasn't helped the Iraqis.

 

That sounds pretty goddamn apologetic to me.

 

There's nothing in that statement that suggests apologetism. No, Castro *cannot* run a happy country when there's an area wide embargo and sanction against him. That doesn't mean his country was happy to begin with, or that if US sanctions/embargo lifted Cuba would become a Communist paradise. It simply says that you can't run a happy country while being sanctioned and embargo'd. What the hell do you think economic warfare is supposed to do, if not wreck a country's chance at development?

 

<snipped rest of your post since it's basically come down to "no, you're wrong">

 

The US act just like the Roman, British, French, and Spanish empires did, only with today's means. You love to throw mud at your country (or the strategic ally of your country) while you dream of worlds in pink. But if it wasn't for the very policy you hate, you probably wouldn't even have the luxury of considering those thoughts.

 

I'm not sure about the Romans, but last I checked the British, French, and Spanish empires were systematically dismantled and vilified. Last I checked, "Imperialism" became a dirty word right around the time of decolonization. The US is about the only true empire left in the world, and there's no reason why it - or any other empire - should exist. Wasn't that the whole purpose of decolonization, self-determination, the formation of the UN, etc. or are you still stuck in the mindset of the 18th century?

 

It's no world of pink to desire an end to neo-colonialism, and there's nothing inevitable about US dominance. In fact, in the coming years, I expect to see it dismantled piece by piece. That, consequently, is what makes my argument sensible - because I don't think that world politics is a zero-sum game, where if the US relinquishes hegemonic status someone else will take its place. A multi-polar world, for all the dangers associated with it, seems far more preferrable in the long run, and I wouldn't mind seeing the old elites given a run for their money.

 

I can only hope that whatever governments in power (across the globe) would be sensible enough to understand the passing of an unipolar world rather than lash out against humanity one last - and apocalyptic - time.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Azarkon

[Judge Hades]

Two words that have marked US expansion and imperialism: Manifest Destiny.

[Lucius]

What does this 'multi-polar world' even mean? And why should it be desirable?

Edited May 19, 2006 by Lucius

[213374U]

I see you've given up trying to use customized quotes, good. It's important to know one's own limitations.

 

 

<snipped rest of your post since it's basically come down to "no, you're wrong">

I am tempted to modify this quote and use it to dismiss you as the dimwit you are obviously making an effort to look like, but I won't. Right now I have nothing better to do, so I can waste some time with this. I am, however, going to ignore several of your statements and focus on the root of the problem, that is, your detachment from reality.

 

 

I'm not sure about the Romans, but last I checked the British, French, and Spanish empires were systematically dismantled and vilified.  Last I checked, "Imperialism" became a dirty word right around the time of decolonization.  The US is about the only true empire left in the world, and there's no reason why it - or any other empire - should exist.  Wasn't that the whole purpose of decolonization, self-determination, the formation of the UN, etc. or are you still stuck in the mindset of the 18th century?

Oh? And which mindset are you stuck in? The enlightened vision that gave birth to the laughable imposture known as the United Nations? The one that led to capitalism running rampant? The one that's leading to globalization? Or maybe you're more of a Marxist type of guy? Yeah, Marxism was awesome. Damn shame it's failed everytime anyone has tried to implement it. Marx failed to take into consideration a little but fundamental factor when elaborating sociopolitical and economic theories. He forgot about human nature.

 

I hear what you say about the evils of imperialism and how there's no reason for empires to exist anymore. In your world of chocolate and gingerbread, that is.

You obviously haven't given much thought to why empires exist, or otherwise, you would realize how sadly unrealistic your discourse is. The reason why there are, have been, and there will be empires is simple. There just isn't enough of anything for everyone. Quite simply, we're just too many, and resources are too few. Which basically means that to enjoy the very comfortable first-world life you lead, people have to suffer and die. When I see you giving up your lifestyle and going to live under a rock, I'll take you seriously. Until then, you're just another armchair humanitarian. Another goddamn hypocrite.

 

 

In fact, in the coming years, I expect to see it dismantled piece by piece.  That, consequently, is what makes my argument sensible - because I don't think that world politics is a zero-sum game, where if the US relinquishes hegemonic status someone else will take its place.

This is where you are wrong. The US will fall eventually, but other will take its place (provided there's no nuclear war). This is backed by housands of years of human History. On the other hand you rely on... your daydreams of a world of happy faces, peace, and streets paved with candy, to make those predictions.

 

 

A multi-polar world, for all the dangers associated with it, seems far more preferrable in the long run, and I wouldn't mind seeing the old elites given a run for their money.

That's just nonsense. A "multi-polar" world, as you describe it, only drives to widespread warfare until a hegemony is stablished once again, as it's happened time after time before. And everytime the "old elites" are given a run for their money, it's only so a new elite can replace it. So, yeah.

[Azarkon]

Oh? And which mindset are you stuck in? The enlightened vision that gave birth to the laughable imposture known as the United Nations?

 

No.

 

The one that led to capitalism running rampant?

 

That would be the US.

 

The one that's leading to globalization?

 

Again, the US.

 

Or maybe you're more of a Marxist type of guy? Yeah, Marxism was awesome. Damn shame it's failed everytime anyone has tried to implement it. Marx failed to take into consideration a little but fundamental factor when elaborating sociopolitical and economic theories. He forgot about human nature.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. For starters, Marxism is not the same as Communism, and "Marxist" theory can range from the realization that the accumulation of capital is the driving force of modern history to the literary critique of use and exchange value. A Marxist, in this sense, is simply one who subscribes to the economic principles and methodologies posed by Marx in Das Kapital or any of his other works. Communism, by contrast, is a political and economic ideology exploited by dictators for the sake of power. Other than the utopian vision of post-capitalist society purportedly shared by the two movements, they have little in common in practice, and it would be foolish to assume that Marx, if he lived that long, would have supported any of the Communist dictators.

 

To state that Marx "forgot" about human nature completely misses the point of Das Kapital and his comprehensive analyses of historical capitalism.

 

I hear what you say about the evils of imperialism and how there's no reason for empires to exist anymore. In your world of chocolate and gingerbread, that is.

 

Empires have not always existed in this world, especially not empires of the sort we're talking about. The modern imperial power was made possible by the immense industrial and technological advantage accrued through the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions in Europe. Without the benefits of either, Europe would simply be another set of nation-states amidst a world of nation-states. To not see this, and to generalize modernity across the breadth of history, is ridiculous.

 

You obviously haven't given much thought to why empires exist, or otherwise, you would realize how sadly unrealistic your discourse is. The reason why there are, have been, and there will be empires is simple. There just isn't enough of anything for everyone. Quite simply, we're just too many, and resources are too few. Which basically means that to enjoy the very comfortable first-world life you lead, people have to suffer and die. When I see you giving up your lifestyle and going to live under a rock, I'll take you seriously. Until then, you're just another armchair humanitarian. Another goddamn hypocrite.

 

I find it funny that you hold these opinions as if they were gospel, and then turn back and criticize the guy who formally theorized much of it as an idiotic idealist. Not only that, but you misunderstand the very essence of the argument that history is a struggle for natural resources. Namely, you mistake greed for necessity: there are certainly enough resources for the survival, and even contentment, of the human race. There is not enough resources for those who always want more.

 

Empires serve those who always want more.

 

Btw, being a hypocrite would involve me actively working against that which I believe in, and a first world life style is damaging only insofar as it is done in ignorance. Since you know neither what I do nor how I got to the US, I recommend restraint before you make a complete fool out of yourself. Just in case you insist on arguing this point: giving up my "first world" life style changes nothing. What must happen for suffering to end is systematic change, and systematic change is best effected at the level of those who are in power. Therefore, being in the first world allows me the ability to effect changes where they will make the most difference. Crawling under a rock in the third world, on the other hand, will do little more than distribute what influence I hold onto the likes of you. I'm sure you see the logical fallacy of your argument.

 

I also find it funny that you depend so much on assumptions of my person, and yet the first time I make the observation that you've never truly fought for the democracy you take for granted, you throw a fit on how I shouldn't make assumptions about who you are. Who is the real hypocrite here?

 

This is where you are wrong. The US will fall eventually, but other will take its place (provided there's no nuclear war). This is backed by housands of years of human History. On the other hand you rely on... your daydreams of a world of happy faces, peace, and streets paved with candy, to make those predictions.

 

Thousands of years of human history under a single global hegemony, or even a local empire of the sort extended by the Europeans? Please refrain from your own breed of daydreaming, for your understanding of history is rather embarassing.

 

That's just nonsense. A "multi-polar" world, as you describe it, only drives to widespread warfare until a hegemony is stablished once again, as it's happened time after time before. And everytime the "old elites" are given a run for their money, it's only so a new elite can replace it. So, yeah.

 

Widespread warfare is made possible by the imbalance of power, not the contraposition of it. Global hegemony has not reduced the number of wars the US engages in, and did not do so for any empire that ever existed. Warfare is a constant *either way*, while exploitation is far worse in an unipolar world. Your misunderstanding of history is at the center of your assumptions. No offense, but you've said nothing here that hasn't been posed before by others, and all of the points you've raised have been the heavily criticized opinions of US hawks - the laughing stock, in some cases, of those who see it for what it really is: imperialistic propaganda.

 

I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism for a discussion of it.

 

Finally, whether I am detached from reality is not for you to decide. I fail to see the point of continuous ad hominem attacks except to cause a mod to close this thread, so let that be a warning to you if you are serious about the discussion, which I don't think you really are anyhow. Still, I'll entertain this thread a little while longer.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Azarkon

[213374U]

Ah, crap. I hate this quote limit. Oh well, here we go again.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.  For starters, Marxism is not the same as Communism, and "Marxist" theory can range from the realization that the accumulation of capital is the driving force of modern history to the literary critique of use and exchange value.

Do I really have to explain the concept of conversational context to you? If this is a debate about politics and economy, it doesn't take much thinking to assume that I'm referring to that part of his works. Also, please be so kind as to quote the exact paragraph where I said that Marxism is the same as Communism. Communism is, however, the closest social scheme to Marx's postulates.

 

 

Communism, by contrast, is a political and economic ideology exploited by dictators for the sake of power.  Other than the utopian vision of post-capitalist society purportedly shared by the two movements, they have little in common in practice, and it would be foolish to assume that Marx, if he lived that long, would have supported any of the Communist dictators.

No. As a matter of fact, Communism in its various brands is what happened to Marx's ideals after different people attempted to implement them. Since you like the wikipedia so much, go and cross-reference the articles on both subjects to find that they have more in common than merely an utopian vision.

 

And of course Marx wouldn't have supported any dictators. He was a romantic revolutionary, idealistic, and ultimately blind.

 

 

To state that Marx "forgot" about human nature completely misses the point of Das Kapital and his comprehensive analyses of historical capitalism.

This statement is just a baseless assertion derived from your personal impressions, that incidentally, matches your sadly mistaken view of the current and past state of global affairs, and the nature of the human being itself.

 

 

Empires have not always existed in this world, especially not empires of the sort we're talking about.  The modern imperial power was made possible by the immense industrial and technological advantage accrued through the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions in Europe.  Without the benefits of either, Europe would simply be another set of nation-states amidst a world of nation-states.  To not see this, and to generalize modernity across the breadth of history, is ridiculous.

Again, please be so kind to quote the exact paragraph where I said that Julius Caesar used the might of his tank divisions to conquer the world. Or where I stated that Napoleon used his vast network of industrial centers to out-produce his competitors. Or where I said that the Mayans ruled an empire that spanned the entire globe. Until you can find a quote along those lines, please keep your straw men to yourself.

 

It is true that empires have not always existed. There were times in which countries, factions or nations fought among themselves for hegemony. Examples of this are the Middle Ages, the classic period in the Eastern Mediterranean, or Europe at the beginning of the XX century. I'd much rather not have another of those, thank you very much, especially not after seeing two World Wars.

 

Obviously, before the advent of the industrial society, the size and reach of empires and local hegemonies was different. Obviously, with the advent of global communications, corporate-based economy and industrial production, it's possible to manage larger empires (or at least with a larger sphere of influence). However, all empires (or rather, all hegemonic empires), throughout history share one common characteristic, that defines them: their power, be it military or economic, or a combination of both, was greater than that of any of their neighbors, and in most cases, greater than the combination of their neighbors' as well. And this power was always applied to favor the interests of the empire. The Evil US is no different in the essence, only the methods.

 

 

Namely, you mistake greed for necessity: there are certainly enough resources for the survival, and even contentment, of the human race.  There is not enough resources for those who always want more.

 

Empires serve those who always want more.

I guess overpopulation means jack to you.

 

You say that there are more than enough resources for the survival of everyone, with which I'm inclined to agree. I do not suscribe the opinion that the contentment is guaranteed as well, unless you expect everyone to live in some sort of soviet-style quasi-misery and be "content" with it.

 

 

Btw, being a hypocrite would involve me actively working against that which I believe in, and a first world life style is damaging only insofar as it is done in ignorance.

Nah. Criticizing the evils of capitalism, globalization, and US imperialist policies while enjoying your broadband Internet connection in a comfortable room makes you a hypocrite. It's that simple. Sorry if you don't like it.

 

 

Since you know neither what I do nor how I got to the US, I recommend restraint before you make a complete fool out of yourself.  Just in case you insist on arguing this point: giving up my "first world" life style changes nothing.  What must happen for suffering to end is systematic change, and systematic change is best effected at the level of those who are in power.  Therefore, being in the first world allows me the ability to effect changes where they will make the most difference.  Crawling under a rock in the third world, on the other hand, will do little more than distribute what influence I hold onto the likes of you.  I'm sure you see the logical fallacy of your argument.

Following your logic, everyone should get into politics, instead of voting. Oh, that's right. You don't like democracy either. Too bad.

 

And, um... if it's the thought of losing your influence and depriving the world of your wonderful theories, that prevent you from going to live under a rock in Africa, don't sweat it. It's unlikely anyone will seriously try to implement your suggestions. Fortunately.

Edited May 22, 2006 by 213374U

[213374U]

I also find it funny that you depend so much on assumptions of my person, and yet the first time I make the observation that you've never truly fought for the democracy you take for granted, you throw a fit on how I shouldn't make assumptions about who you are.  Who is the real hypocrite here?

What assumptions have I made? Only that you have an Internet connection and discuss ways to fix the world. Well, you're right. You might be doing so from Africa or South America in your spare time between building a well and harvesting the crops, but I doubt it. If that's the case, feel free to correct me. I'll take it all back.

 

 

Thousands of years of human history under a single global hegemony, or even a local empire of the sort extended by the Europeans? Please refrain from your own breed of daydreaming, for your understanding of history is rather embarassing.

Thousands of years of empires rising and falling. Not only in Europe, but also in South America and Mexico, Asia... basically anyplace where society progressed locally past the tribal level. This doesn't even require a "understanding of history", as it's not dependent on any interpretations. It's just facts. It's you who's embarassing yourself with your unrealistic claims, and gleaming lack of historical knowledge.

 

 

Widespread warfare is made possible by the imbalance of power, not the contraposition of it.

Another jewel. A "contraposition" of power is equal to an imbalance of power, except in the case of two competing hegemonies. Last time that happened, it was called the Cold War. Another thing I'd rather not have back.

 

 

Global hegemony has not reduced the number of wars the US engages in, and did not do so for any empire that ever existed.  Warfare is a constant *either way*, while exploitation is far worse in an unipolar world.

Well, now it's you who doesn't know what's talking about. The empires of old were often involved in constant war, either to keep their potential competitors from developing a strong economy, or simply to expand. And, at any rate, the wars that the US engage in today are very local, and rather contained, and whose extent is not comparable to that of the wars of old if we take into consideration today's weaponry.

 

 

Your misunderstanding of history is at the center of your assumptions.

And yet, it's you who keeps on posting historically inaccurate stuff, without providing anything that can remotely dispute my allegedly mistaken historical claims. Obviously, it's hard to find data to back you up when you are, as a matter of fact, wrong. And no, your revolutionary pamphlets don't count, as they are full of the same fallacies and historical inaccuracies you suffer from.

 

 

No offense, but you've said nothing here that hasn't been posed before by others, and all of the points you've raised have been the heavily criticized opinions of US hawks - the laughing stock, in some cases, of those who see it for what it really is: imperialistic propaganda.

None taken. The fact that my opinions may sometimes be coincidental with that of those "US hawks" has absolutely nothing to do with their validity. It's also common for fools to laugh at what they don't understand. That doesn't worry me in the least.

 

 

Finally, whether I am detached from reality is not for you to decide.  I fail to see the point of continuous ad hominem attacks except to cause a mod to close this thread, so let that be a warning to you if you are serious about the discussion, which I don't think you really are anyhow.  Still, I'll entertain this thread a little while longer.

The difference between an ad hominem attack and a mere statement is that the former aims at undermining the validity of a point without actually addressing it, while the latter is just another part of the discussion. I don't argue ad hominem as I always address and debate people's points properly regardless of personal comments. I'm not sure the same can be said about you and your

[Fionavar]

Well rather than see this derail into sparring and personal remarks, let's chalk this up to a good reminder of Ye Olde from days long gone.