Defend what? I don't think the parallel you want to draw works quite as well as you think. My point is that Redditors can cast stones in their ignorance at people who they would struggle to string a whole sentence together to describe without buzzwords because they know jack shit about what those people actually think. Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
Defend what?
ourselves
they know jack shit about what those people actually think
I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
I'm not sure how they can be if they think everyone to the right of them is a liberal.
But defend yourselves from what?
Not everyone to the right is a liberal, people like theocrats exist, but the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal (with influence from those evangelical theocrats), which is a subset of the larger political-philosophical category of liberalism. We can point to some differences between Republican and Democrat, but they are overwhelmingly of style and PR, not the substance. There are very specific issues, like abortion, where you can pretty reliably see differences, but even here the difference is overstated and this is evidenced by the fact Obama didn't even try to codify Roe when he got elected and had Dems controlling congress.
Why is this? Well, I think you can avoid needing to offer people a carrot if you can just offer them not getting the stick, but if you make them secure then they'll start asking for carrots. But that's personal speculation.
More important is the overwhelming consensus seen on a variety of issues when you look at their actions. Biden has over and over had the chance to let Trump-Era executive orders simply die, but he has repeatedly signed on to their continuation or even expansion. All the power that Trump unfortunately wielded in office to push EOs and theoretically to veto seems to have evaporated when they touched old Joe's hands. Why is that? It can't be ignorance.
I knew people who thought Joe would be less hawkish on China, since that is traditionally the role of Republicans, but he in fact has been more hawkish! He has done a better job of stabilizing relationships with America's North Atlanticist allies, but the imperial policies under Trump and Obama have continued aside from pulling out of Afghanistan (which Trump began working on but was too much of a coward to follow through on, we need only see the media backlash to Biden doing so to understand why).
I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
But defend yourselves from what?
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
In order: learn how federation works, oh no you poor thing, and Ben Shapiro wants his shtick back.
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
You don't need to tell a communist that the people are to the left of the politicians, but apparently a communist needs to tell you that as far as engaging with individuals go, that means shit if they are too occupied with the same "gommunism no food" talking points the politicians to their right fed them.
As an aside, Denmark is still liberal, capital is the dominant power there as much as in the US.
I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
I said "consider," you have the right to be willfully ignorant and undercut your professed interests, those freedoms are some of the few that really are protected in the US. Regarding speech, it is only free if it doesn't matter and otherwise you're in jail or shot, and you need only look at Assange for evidence of that.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world, overthrowing whatever country it deems too much of a problem unless that country hardens itself remarkably against external threats. Huh, I wonder if there's some throughline here?
Your argument is getting throughly scattered and devoid of meaning. You might as well say, "I'm trolling you.", and save yourself the effort.
I said “consider,”
I did.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world
I don't agree with the US cold war policy of toppling socialist countries and instating capitalist dictatorships. Thankfully modern US foreign policy is about supporting democracies. edit: spacing
Do you, like, investigate any of this? Are you not familiar with the attempts to topple Venezuela, the brief coup government in Bolivia that massacred protestors, or anything that isn't a White House Press Release? Do you think the bombs dropped on Yemen were for democracy? Do you think the continued colonizing of Palestine is for that purpose?
Weirdly I can see the actions you're describing as wrong, but still understand the benefits of American democracy.
Just so we can move on and not talk in circles, is that you tacitly admitting that the US FP is not about "supporting democracy"?
Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.
The coup in Bolivia and the more recent attempts on Venezuela were just a few years ago.
I assume with Libya and Syria you'd just accept the flimsy pretext the US offered like with Yemen despite the barbarous butchering of civilians in all cases. Do you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were also for democracy? Are you that far gone?
From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator. I haven't heard of any coup attempt by the CIA in Venezuela recently. At a glance there seems to be Silver Corp that did Operation Gideon. It's not a state sponsored group. I don't support the concept of just toppling one dictator in exchange for a US friendly dictator. The incentives a dictator has will inevitably lead them to side with other dictatorships over democracies regardless of who put them in power.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians. However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
I'm honestly not super familiar NATO's intervention of Libya. I've read a bit. Sounds like it was bungled quite badly.
I mean Bush wanted to kill Saddam, because of the assassination attempt on his dad, Bush senior, by Saddam. The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries. I think what we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator
The actual coup sounds like it was a conspiracy theory? Or US involvement?
Quickly skimming and finding that the US is faultless is the definition of being a mark.
Regarding VZ, I didn't mean the 2020 attempt with a few guerillas, I meant mainly the ~2019 attempt that actually caused a national crisis, the one connected to Guaido that was based on lies from the NED and friends.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians.
Most of them do when you don't consider every boy over 14 a potential terrorist. Anyway:
However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
Syria was opposing terrorists. This shit only makes sense if you think every Muslim with a gun (or within a block of a Muslim with a gun) is a terrorist.
Apologetics for OIF are just disgusting.
What is the possible standard for saying that the US is making excuses rather than believing whatever flimsy pretext they throw out? Because if you support OIF, it seems like you'll believe anything they say.
The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries
You are smoking crack. Libya lies in ruins with open-air slave markets and Syria remains somewhat together despite US attacks on Assad.
I think what we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
What is this shit? What possible basis do you have for claiming the US has any interest in democracy when you understand that "democratic" interventions to "liberate" countries in the 20th century were imperialist warmongering? Sometimes it's even the same country being invaded or otherwise sabotaged both then and now!
It's pure fucking doublethink. It's not like the US has come out and said "hey, toppling Allende was bad, we're prosecuting the people responsible".
@GarbageShoot addressed everything else and debunked it, but I want to talk about this:
I don't need to defend ever [sic] single thing the US has done wrong or what you think the US has done wrong to enjoy and understand the benefits of democracy. US is certainly not perfect [sic] but it beats living in a dictatorship that's for sure. I want the US to support and defend democracies.
This sort of nonsense of dismissing all anti-democratic actions by the U.S. government (ex. below) by saying “I don’t need to defend everything” is absurd and ignorant.
the insertion of the dictator Syngman Rhee in south Korea; the support for the ROK’s government as it placed 188k people in prison for sympathizing with socialism/communism (Korea’s Place in the Sun, p. 349), put 70,000 leftists in concentration camps (Korea’s Place in the Sun, p. 223), and massacred tens of thousands in Jeju for protesting; the undemocratic and uneducated division of Korea (Patriots, Traitors and Empires, p. 73), etc.
inciting terrorism and supporting Nazi “stay behind” troops in countries with communist resistance movements (Italy, Greece, Germany, Turkey, etc.) with the intention of pinning this terrorism on communist movements and tricking the population into voting for the U.S.-backed parties (see Paul L. Williams’ Operation Gladio)
the support for the coup by dictator Pinochet against the popularly elected Allende in Chile
“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves” - Kissenger
every single action in the Cold War that subverted democratic principles (see The Jakarta Method)
There comes a certain point when the “democracy” thesis must be questioned; in which U.S. military intervention did America “fight for democracy”? You’ve brought up Iraq and Afghanistan. What evidence is there that these were genuine pursuits for democracy? Afghanistan HAD democracy under the DRA, but the U.S. decided to undermine social reform in the country to supplant Soviet influence in the Middle East:
“The United States’ larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reform in Afghanistan.... The overthrow of the DRA [Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviet’s view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate” (US State Department memorandum reproduced in Cockburn and St. Clair’s Whiteout, pp. 262–63).
We know that the lie of support for the Mujahideen being afforded by the U.S. merely to push back against Soviet invasion is false, since the U.S. admitted to supporting the Mujahideen at least half a year before the invasion (US Foreign Policy and the Soviet-Afghan War, Lowenstien). The volatile conditions in Afghanistan are the exact result of the U.S. fathering the Taliban for influence in the region, and the intervention in Afghanistan had no democratic results apart from furthering U.S. interests (and U.S. corporate oil interests, see Parenti’s “Afghanistan: Another Untold Story”), which were decidedly undemocratic. By the way, the U.S. is still starving people in Afghanistan.
And Iraq, this MUST be the single democratic war fought by the U.S. right? Apart from killing more people than Saddam ever did (and this is of course excluding that the U.S. supported Saddam as he gassed Iran)., giving children birth defects and cancer from depleted Uranium, s-xually abusing and torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and so on, the effect was merely “democratizing” (giving to western corporations) Iraqi oil shares. And one of your pig-dogs already admitted to the war being an imperialist bid for oil and not “democratic”:
“People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell
do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs” - Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator (1997-2009) and U.S. Secretary of Defense (2013-15)
Say that bs “oh I guess they weren’t ready for democracy” nonsense again I dare you. You don’t deserve to prance around these topics and “learn” by defending horrific atrocities and seeing what responses you get.
Defend what? I don't think the parallel you want to draw works quite as well as you think. My point is that Redditors can cast stones in their ignorance at people who they would struggle to string a whole sentence together to describe without buzzwords because they know jack shit about what those people actually think. Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
I'm not sure how they can be if they think everyone to the right of them is a liberal.
But defend yourselves from what?
Not everyone to the right is a liberal, people like theocrats exist, but the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal (with influence from those evangelical theocrats), which is a subset of the larger political-philosophical category of liberalism. We can point to some differences between Republican and Democrat, but they are overwhelmingly of style and PR, not the substance. There are very specific issues, like abortion, where you can pretty reliably see differences, but even here the difference is overstated and this is evidenced by the fact Obama didn't even try to codify Roe when he got elected and had Dems controlling congress.
Why is this? Well, I think you can avoid needing to offer people a carrot if you can just offer them not getting the stick, but if you make them secure then they'll start asking for carrots. But that's personal speculation.
More important is the overwhelming consensus seen on a variety of issues when you look at their actions. Biden has over and over had the chance to let Trump-Era executive orders simply die, but he has repeatedly signed on to their continuation or even expansion. All the power that Trump unfortunately wielded in office to push EOs and theoretically to veto seems to have evaporated when they touched old Joe's hands. Why is that? It can't be ignorance.
I knew people who thought Joe would be less hawkish on China, since that is traditionally the role of Republicans, but he in fact has been more hawkish! He has done a better job of stabilizing relationships with America's North Atlanticist allies, but the imperial policies under Trump and Obama have continued aside from pulling out of Afghanistan (which Trump began working on but was too much of a coward to follow through on, we need only see the media backlash to Biden doing so to understand why).
Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
https://www.citizen.org/news/progressive-policies-are-popular-policies/
I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
In order: learn how federation works, oh no you poor thing, and Ben Shapiro wants his shtick back.
You don't need to tell a communist that the people are to the left of the politicians, but apparently a communist needs to tell you that as far as engaging with individuals go, that means shit if they are too occupied with the same "gommunism no food" talking points the politicians to their right fed them.
As an aside, Denmark is still liberal, capital is the dominant power there as much as in the US.
I said "consider," you have the right to be willfully ignorant and undercut your professed interests, those freedoms are some of the few that really are protected in the US. Regarding speech, it is only free if it doesn't matter and otherwise you're in jail or shot, and you need only look at Assange for evidence of that.
But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world, overthrowing whatever country it deems too much of a problem unless that country hardens itself remarkably against external threats. Huh, I wonder if there's some throughline here?
Your argument is getting throughly scattered and devoid of meaning. You might as well say, "I'm trolling you.", and save yourself the effort.
I did.
I don't agree with the US cold war policy of toppling socialist countries and instating capitalist dictatorships. Thankfully modern US foreign policy is about supporting democracies. edit: spacing
Do you, like, investigate any of this? Are you not familiar with the attempts to topple Venezuela, the brief coup government in Bolivia that massacred protestors, or anything that isn't a White House Press Release? Do you think the bombs dropped on Yemen were for democracy? Do you think the continued colonizing of Palestine is for that purpose?
Weirdly I can see the actions you're describing as wrong, but still understand the benefits of American democracy.
Just so we can move on and not talk in circles, is that you tacitly admitting that the US FP is not about "supporting democracy"?
Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.
The coup in Bolivia and the more recent attempts on Venezuela were just a few years ago.
I assume with Libya and Syria you'd just accept the flimsy pretext the US offered like with Yemen despite the barbarous butchering of civilians in all cases. Do you think the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were also for democracy? Are you that far gone?
From what I've read about Bolivia quickly sounds like that was a conspiracy theory from the dictator. I haven't heard of any coup attempt by the CIA in Venezuela recently. At a glance there seems to be Silver Corp that did Operation Gideon. It's not a state sponsored group. I don't support the concept of just toppling one dictator in exchange for a US friendly dictator. The incentives a dictator has will inevitably lead them to side with other dictatorships over democracies regardless of who put them in power.
I disagree with drone strikes that killed civilians. However, letting terrorists like ISIS run around in Syria and Iraq and now Africa more recently, is a bad idea when they make it their business to butcher civilians for not being extreme as them.
I'm honestly not super familiar NATO's intervention of Libya. I've read a bit. Sounds like it was bungled quite badly.
I mean Bush wanted to kill Saddam, because of the assassination attempt on his dad, Bush senior, by Saddam. The political reality is that we did bring democracy to those countries. I think what we've learned from Afghanistan and Iraq is that democracy cannot be forced. People have to want to live, die, and fight for it. And in the case of Iraq, democratic intuitions have to be maintained, or else the country will backslide to authoritarianism.
The actual coup sounds like it was a conspiracy theory? Or US involvement?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/18/silence-us-backed-coup-evo-morales-bolivia-american-states
Quickly skimming and finding that the US is faultless is the definition of being a mark.
Regarding VZ, I didn't mean the 2020 attempt with a few guerillas, I meant mainly the ~2019 attempt that actually caused a national crisis, the one connected to Guaido
that was based on lies from the NED and friends.
Most of them do when you don't consider every boy over 14 a potential terrorist. Anyway:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
Syria was opposing terrorists. This shit only makes sense if you think every Muslim with a gun (or within a block of a Muslim with a gun) is a terrorist.
Apologetics for OIF are just disgusting.
What is the possible standard for saying that the US is making excuses rather than believing whatever flimsy pretext they throw out? Because if you support OIF, it seems like you'll believe anything they say.
You are smoking crack. Libya lies in ruins with open-air slave markets and Syria remains somewhat together despite US attacks on Assad.
What is this shit? What possible basis do you have for claiming the US has any interest in democracy when you understand that "democratic" interventions to "liberate" countries in the 20th century were imperialist warmongering? Sometimes it's even the same country being invaded or otherwise sabotaged both then and now!
It's pure fucking doublethink. It's not like the US has come out and said "hey, toppling Allende was bad, we're prosecuting the people responsible".
Wut
Please, would you explain yourself
@GarbageShoot addressed everything else and debunked it, but I want to talk about this:
This sort of nonsense of dismissing all anti-democratic actions by the U.S. government (ex. below) by saying “I don’t need to defend everything” is absurd and ignorant.
There comes a certain point when the “democracy” thesis must be questioned; in which U.S. military intervention did America “fight for democracy”? You’ve brought up Iraq and Afghanistan. What evidence is there that these were genuine pursuits for democracy? Afghanistan HAD democracy under the DRA, but the U.S. decided to undermine social reform in the country to supplant Soviet influence in the Middle East:
“The United States’ larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reform in Afghanistan.... The overthrow of the DRA [Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviet’s view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate” (US State Department memorandum reproduced in Cockburn and St. Clair’s Whiteout, pp. 262–63).
We know that the lie of support for the Mujahideen being afforded by the U.S. merely to push back against Soviet invasion is false, since the U.S. admitted to supporting the Mujahideen at least half a year before the invasion (US Foreign Policy and the Soviet-Afghan War, Lowenstien). The volatile conditions in Afghanistan are the exact result of the U.S. fathering the Taliban for influence in the region, and the intervention in Afghanistan had no democratic results apart from furthering U.S. interests (and U.S. corporate oil interests, see Parenti’s “Afghanistan: Another Untold Story”), which were decidedly undemocratic. By the way, the U.S. is still starving people in Afghanistan.
And Iraq, this MUST be the single democratic war fought by the U.S. right? Apart from killing more people than Saddam ever did (and this is of course excluding that the U.S. supported Saddam as he gassed Iran)., giving children birth defects and cancer from depleted Uranium, s-xually abusing and torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and so on, the effect was merely “democratizing” (giving to western corporations) Iraqi oil shares. And one of your pig-dogs already admitted to the war being an imperialist bid for oil and not “democratic”:
“People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs” - Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator (1997-2009) and U.S. Secretary of Defense (2013-15)
Say that bs “oh I guess they weren’t ready for democracy” nonsense again I dare you. You don’t deserve to prance around these topics and “learn” by defending horrific atrocities and seeing what responses you get.