Pretty much none of your posts have been relevant yet here we are. It was nice chatting.
Julian Assange is Live on Twitch, answering user questions.
- Thread starter Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
- Start date
- Status
Pretty much none of your posts have been relevant yet here we are. It was nice chatting.
Says the guy who derail Assange discussions with constant deflections.
At least the Correct the Records guys were paid...
Silver Arrows
Banned
Aren't you the same person that seems to think it is OK for Wikileaks to dox Jewish pundits on Twitter because of their religion?
I've conversed directly with other users. I've not derailed the thread at all, but it's all down to perspective I suppose.
The Libyan issue is symptomatic of your arguments really, you pinpoint 1 part that allows you to paint what you claim to not like in 1 color and call it a day.
It's a surprisingly lazy method for someone who posts here.
You misunderstand my point about Ukraine earlier and claimed I didn't know what I was talking about while using poorly researched articles to blame the US on the Libyan invasion.
From my perspective it's hilarious if it didn't involve loss of human life.
I guess for all your talk about being a free thinking individual from the far left who hates neoconservatist capitalists like Barack Obama the worst neocapitalist the world has ever known you don't research your news very far.
You and I both know that is a dishonest summation of my views and also a non response to the post you quoted. Please don't engage with me if you are are going to be a disingenuous asshole.
TestOfTide
Banned
My argument isn't to justify the 2003 invasion, but to justify a hypothetical 2011 invasion.
My point is that the drone program allows for less casualties than boots on ground type operations.
We still need to improve our ability to get Intel and Obama is way too quick to use the program, but the simple fact is that predator drones are the future.
Then name all these horrible groups that you say he US is currently funding.
Also, your link doesn't show what I requested. I requested a link showing that Qaddafi made an offer to establish democracy in Libya and then Hillary rejecting it.
First off, Libya may still be doing poorly, but it's doing a shitload better than Syria, especially now that ISIS has been driven out of Libya.
Second I told you. The problem wasn't that the US got involved. The problem was that we didn't help Libya rebuild afterwards.
You literally justified calling NATO aggressors by posting a couple of Chomsky articles. Sorry, but without NATO, Russia would have already invaded the Baltic States and possibly taken more than just Crimea away from Ukraine.
You mean the same Glen Greenwald who is so far to the fucking left that he now is willing to praise BREITBART just because they have taken a pro-Russia stance?
That list I made was about the failures of US foreign policy. Libya was just one of the points. Unless you want to go through each one, then we can do that and you can defend Iraq and Afghanistan. Defend US intervention in Latin America and the drone programs. Go ahead and knock yourself out. It's not like I'm just saying US interventionism = bad, I do have a plethora of examples for my stance. Something you don't.
I'm not 'calling it a day', unless you want my posts to be thousands of words long, a few hundred words isn't going to cover it. I neither have the time, the patience, nor the willingness to talk with someone who holds your views in the fashion that you do. Especially when greater minds have analysed US interventionism and hegemony. There aren't really any good arguments for US Imperialism but by all means correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right that I misunderstood your point, but that's because it was firstly a shitpost and secondly not based on reality.
I don't know how you can defend the actions and meddling.
TestOfTide
Banned
Dude you have literally argued that NATO is bad, THAT's why you're being called a pro-russian shill.
Anyone that knows anything about foreign policy knows that without NATO the western world would have been a lot less stable and if we lose NATO in the future, then we will lose the stability it has given us.
A hypothetical 2011 invasion? Why are you even attempting to make this argument. What point are you trying to make here? There is a much stronger argument to be made that had the US not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan or made deadly use of the drone programs, there wouldn't be so much unrest in the Middle East today.
Libya is a failed North African state. Western Syria is still functioning. Most of ISIS is concentrated 1000+ miles from Libya. There was never a strong presence of them there.
This is what Greenwald actually said. Unless you're referencing something else. By all means link it to me so I can have a read.
Personally, I don't read Breitbart and from what I have seen I've been truly disappointed in it. Characters like Milo Yiannopoulos for example espouse gross views that need to be stamped out. But I don't see anything particularly wrong with his assessment. He explicitly states that he is saying this "in terms of impact" that the organisation is having.
What is the function of NATO?
When it was established, what was the function of NATO?
Would the Russians today view it as hostile?
Would the Russians be happy with border countries joining NATO and falling under US and western influence, thereby weakening their influence?
Is NATO looking to expand?
In their eyes it is aggression under the guise of defence. The United States knows exactly what it is doing. NATO is effectively an arm of the US military.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
At the very least, we can all agree with the statement that our record on interventionist actions is horrendous, right? Like, more bad than good. Much more bad than good.
edit:
You also shouldn't misrepresent what Greenwald said and why he said it.
TestOfTide
Banned
Except the Arab Spring happened and was going to happen no matter what. Syria shows what the Middle East would be like if the US did absolutely zero intervention.
Functional? Nothing about Syria has been functional for years now.
The fact that Glen is trying to claim Breitbart is a more independent news organization than actual respectable new organizations is asinine, particularly now that Steve Bannon has been working for Trump.
To serve as one big alliance of the western world.
Back when it was established, the purpose of that big alliance was to keep the Soviet Union from expanding too much.
No they would view it as a thorn in their side because it keeps Russia from being able to retake former Soviet territory.
Those border countries joined NATO in the first place to get protection from Russia. Try again.
Or maybe it's because having more of the world under one big alliance creates more stability for everyone under that alliance?
I didn't say that the US hasn't fucked up numerous times on foreign policy. I just take issue with this nonsense theory that the US should just back away from everything. When US allies don't feel like the US has their backs, they stop being US allies.
And no I didn't misrepresent what Greenwald said. Greenwald is an anti-western piece of shit that has basically gone so far as to defend the antisemitism of Trump's people: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/818513930767204352
You can't make arguments like that. The invasion was in 2003. If you want to discuss it is has to be isolated to the event and the years preceding it. Not a decade later. It was based on a lie and was disastrous for the peoples and area. Especially as it came in quick succession to the invasion of Afghanistan.
Moreover, you can't say that the Arab Spring was inevitable as we don;'t know what the political landscape would have looked like had the invasions not taken place. If the US actually encouraged democracy to flourish then who knows what would have happened. It's all hypothetical and useless talk as it's not a reality.
Regime controlled Syria (West) is still functioning. Albeit, barely - https://news.vice.com/article/how-five-years-of-war-has-fractured-syria-into-at-least-four-states
You've misrepresented Greenwald.
On NATO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okumqqsp7-w
Lmao you don't actually know how to debate, do you? The conversation does not fit in your narrow parameters. Address what the post you're replying to is saying instead of putting up different goalposts.
TestOfTide
Banned
And I already said that the 2003 Iraq invasion was a mistake made worse by the bullshit excuse the Bush Admin used to justify it.
To do so would have required US intervention.
If they are barely functioning then I wouldn't call that a win for Syria.
No I didn't. He is trying to say that Breitbart is such an independent organization when their fucking CEO became Trump's campaign chairman.
Excuse me?
I've answered him directly. Read what he said and what I replied.
As for the NATO response, he's edited his post to include his answers to that. Something that wasn't there when I hit reply and started writing.
What haven't I answered and how am I putting up different goalposts?
What an odd post.
TestOfTide
Banned
Yeah your only response to NATO is to deflect to Noam Chomsky opinions because you don't have any real opinions of your own that you can back up.
Actually answer my responses to NATO instead of deflecting to Noam Chomsky desperately.
So at the very least we agree on the Iraq points.
As far as it requiring US intervention - sure. It could have. US intervention can be used but it's the manner that it deploys it - that is the primary issue.
I'm not calling it a win for Syria, but it has the semblance of 'stability'. I do not support Assad, but for progression to take place it cannot come out of a failed state split and run by multiple factions and militias. This is the reality. Libya is not a good example of stability when the country is literally run by multitudes of groups and militias.
And okay, I get what you're saying about Steve Bannon and I'm inclined to agree with you. That said, I know nothing of the inner workings of the organisation.
I'm not deflecting to Chomsky. His views on the matter represent mine. I see NATO as an aggressor when they expanded to the east in the 90s and continue to do so.
US and Russia and geopolitical foes. That much is clear. As a result, NATO's expansion as viewed by Russia would be a cause of tension. Russia is of course looking to grow as a nation and so it's a direct threat. The missile defense system in Europe was a good talking point - one that was clearly designed as a defence mechanism against Russia, but the official reasons differed - but also it an aggressive move on part of the United States. I'm not here to defend Russian actions and I don't know about the ambitions of Putin, the annexation of Crimea is a complex issue but I don't really see it as any different to what the US has done to Cuba. It was a bold move and one that violated international law, one that should be condemned. I will not ever support US imperialism, Russian imperialism or the emerging China's imperialism. But to state that NATO isn't taking steps to safeguard US influence and hegemony and expand it with growing powers coming to light is in my view an unreasonable and naive opinion.
And actually, you did misrepresent him. You stated that Greenwald praised Brietbart for being pro-Russian in their coverage which is patently false. This is the source of his comments. And I've already highlighted and bolded the relevant parts a few posts up.
You haven't answered shit.
Would you mind being more specific?
TestOfTide
Banned
Which is why I want US foreign policy that involves more expansion of NATO and more things like the Marshall Plan.
At no point did I claim that Libya is stable. What I said is that it's currently in much better shape than Syria where half the country is under a brutal dictatorship and the other half is under the control of ISIS.
And as I said, the failure of Libya wasn't getting involved (because if we didn't then it would be in the same shitty shape as Syria), but not investing in helping Libya rebuild.
Except those nations that have been joining NATO wanted to join NATO. Some even went so far as to act as though they were part of NATO (by backing the activation of Article 5) even while they were still waiting to be approved.
And the difference is that when a nation joins NATO, they don't lose their sovereignty as a nation, but when Russia annexes land, that land loses its sovereignty from Russia.
And what you don't seem to get is that calling NATO "US imperialism" is ridiculous considering that nations that join NATO don't lose their sovereignty.
No what I said was that Greenwald is so anti-west that he is willing to praise any pro-russian organization. Greenwald can claim all he wants that he's just praising their "independence" (which is obviously bullshit for the reasons I previously stated), but anyone that knows the dude knows that he always takes whatever is the most "anti-west" side he can take.
Like, when he's tweeting shit like THIS, he's clearly an anti-west piece of shit: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/818513930767204352
I'm literally about to hit the sack so I'll respond to this post tomorrow, if that's okay with you.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
I see this being passed around a lot, and it's just misleading. WikiLeaks, using a video from 2010, tried to claim Bob Beckel was a Clinton strategist, and that was a blatant lie. The Democratic strategist label doesn't seem accurate, either.
http://www.snopes.com/bob-beckel-julian-assange/
Beckel ran multiple Democratic campaigns including Mondale's presidential campaign. He's also served under various democrats in Washington. If you want to say "former democratic strategist" fine, but I don't think it's controversial usage.
Seems on point re "Clinton Strategist" I agree.
TestOfTide
Banned
The tweet specifically says "Hillary Clinton strategist".
You keep failing again and again and again at this.
TestOfTide
Banned
Sorry for the double post, but I thought it would be fitting for everyone to know that Wikileaks is trying to claim that the Buzzfeed story is bullshit:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819037478627770368
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819037478627770368
MisterFalcon
Member
Accepting information published Wikileaks as fact is wrong simply because they make no effort to establish if what they publish is actually correct. It's like that scene from good old Yes Minister:
Many statements from the mails or diplomatic cables are not true. That can be because the person sending the information has been lied to or is lying themselves. Take for instance the mail from Stratfor where a Stratfor employee says there is an indictment against Assange. How did he know this ? Was he part of the Grand Jury, did someone who was or is in the DoJ commit a felony by revealing the existence of this indictment to him ? Maybe he was lied to or is just making up shit to look like an insider. In another mail by the same person he forwards a news article about 'White House Loses Nuclear Codes' with 'Monica Lewinsky has them' which is obviously not true. But as it was in a Wikileaks leak then it must be true apparently.
Snowden's leaks also are likely to be incorrect. They are obviously real documents from the NSA about their systems but are all those systems actually as good as those Powerpoints say they are ? I'm working with plenty of systems where the documentation claims they can do X million things an hour while struggling to actually deliver 1% of that performance or functionality. If they work at all.
Many statements from the mails or diplomatic cables are not true. That can be because the person sending the information has been lied to or is lying themselves. Take for instance the mail from Stratfor where a Stratfor employee says there is an indictment against Assange. How did he know this ? Was he part of the Grand Jury, did someone who was or is in the DoJ commit a felony by revealing the existence of this indictment to him ? Maybe he was lied to or is just making up shit to look like an insider. In another mail by the same person he forwards a news article about 'White House Loses Nuclear Codes' with 'Monica Lewinsky has them' which is obviously not true. But as it was in a Wikileaks leak then it must be true apparently.
Snowden's leaks also are likely to be incorrect. They are obviously real documents from the NSA about their systems but are all those systems actually as good as those Powerpoints say they are ? I'm working with plenty of systems where the documentation claims they can do X million things an hour while struggling to actually deliver 1% of that performance or functionality. If they work at all.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Not only does Buzzfeed say the docs are "unverified", and NYTimes describes the documents as "unsubstantiated", but now a person on 4chan is claiming to have fabricated the documents.
http://www.snopes.com/u-s-trump-intelligence-russia/
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Yes, we shouldn't assume everything said in a wikileaks document is fact simply because it's a leak. But there's at least 2 important distinctions between a typical wikileak and the Snowden documents:
- Snowden himself is a primary source, having worked on the programs he exposed. Usually we don't get the individual source of a wikileak to provide context and credibility.
- The Snowden docs were released to some of the best journalists in the world for further corroboration, statements from officials, etc. Corroboration from previous NSA whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and William Binney lend a ton of credibility.
So to cast doubt on the material released by Snowden is pretty damn tenuous. The journalists involved won a Pulitzer ffs.
Also, just to be totally clear, the Snowden docs have nothing to do with Wikileaks.
4chan taking credit is nonsense. The document originates from a former, known MI6 agent working for a private company.
So this is the primary issue when we're discussing NATO. You believe that it is a good thing and used as a Western military alliance - I think that it is upholding US hegemony.
Despite our difference of opinion on that matter, you should at the very least concede the point that expansion to the east and inviting member countries that border Russia is an aggressive move. Let me explain. NATO is clearly a US dominated alliance. That shouldn't even be a question. If you don't agree with this then please feel free to explain why that is not the case. When it was first established it was to curb the expansion of the Soviet Union.
Before the unification of Germany and after the cold war, Gorbachev attempted to make a pan-European security pact. This is what Chomsky refers to when he says a continent-wide security system. This was outright rejected by the United States. Soon after the reunification of East and West Germany, Gorbachev allowed Germany to join NATO. During the talks between the Soviet Union and the United States, Russia were led to believe that NATO would not expand to the east and that the United States would respect Russian interests in the region.
The question that needs to be answered though is whether Russia were deceived when it comes to NATO's expansion. Spiegel have a good write up on the incident after analysing declassified British and German documents. What's clear is that Russia were made to think that NATO would not expand to the east and in subsequent years felt deceived by the United States. This is only compounded when bordering nations are invited to join the alliance and when things the the missile shield exclude Russia - even when they attempted to be a part of the deal.
Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson has a very good paper entitled - Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion. You can find it here. In it he argues that during the 1990 German reunification negotiations, the United States promised the Soviet Union that it would not expand NATO into Eastern Europe through informal non-expansion assurances. This was a deliberate attempt by the US in that the Russians wanted everything in writing, but when NATO's expansion was addressed in February 1990 there were only verbal agreements. The purpose of which was to maximise U.S. power in post–Cold War Europe and minimise Russian influence in the coming decades.
So, with the subsequent expansion of the alliance getting ever closer to the borders of Russia and bordering nations being invited to NATO and Estonia and Latvia already members - Russia feel that this is a direct threat to them and further aggravates the sense of betrayal after the reunification of Germany. Then you have the exercises and war games in these nations clearly designed with Russia as a foe, literally on the border. This is aggression. Clearly.
And yes, this is US hegemony. They have a place in the world that they're not willing to let go and will do all they can to support its dominance. When you have emerging powers you must do everything in your power to solidify your position. It's hardly a ridiculous position to take.
I find it quote humorous that you mention Russia annexing Crimea when the United States has still annexed Cuba and has committed far worse in just the last two decades than Russia has. As the dominant power, they have been responsible for some of the biggest blunders in modern history. I'm not saying that you shouldn't criticise Russia for their imperialism, I'm saying it pales in comparison to the United States.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
link?
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I'm going to quote this post to make sure you can't delete it for future reference.
Yeah, this is all a very fun game of running interference, but if you want to sympathize with a strongman dictator and aggressor versus idiot-run government (and too often aggressor when the GOP gets in charge) but still interested in keeping democracies intact, you can do that in Russia.
No member of NATO is complaining about being safe from the neighborhood bully.
The "violation" is permitted under the promise of enduring freedom from tyranny.
You have a gross misunderstanding of my position.
I'm not for Russian or US imperialism. I'm against it. NATO's expansion is aggressive. We can understand the Russian position regarding NATO historically and now.
Don't misrepresent my views. I'm not sympathetic to the Putin administration, and I am most certainly not sympathetic to US hegemony.
Explain to me if you will, what I have stated that is wrong.
"Freedom from tyranny", that's utterly laughable.
TestOfTide
Banned
You call it aggression, but many of the countries that joined NATO, especially in the later years, did so of their own volition SPECIFICALLY AS PROTECTION FROM RUSSIA.
They aren't joining NATO due to US aggression. They are joining NATO because they want the protection that NATO gives them.
Well of course the US is going to oppose letting Europe join an alliance with the Soviet Union. The US saw the Soviet Union as a growing threat immediately after WW2. In fact part of the reason that the US did the Marshall Plan was to prevent the Soviet Union from being able to take advantage of the desolation of Europe.
That was before Putin showed interest in taking back the Baltic States. The whole point of the agreement was that NATO wouldn't expand to former Soviet land AND Russia wouldn't try to retake former Soviet land. Once Putin started showing interest in retaking the Baltics, the whole deal was null.
Nothing in your article talks about the Missile Shield.
Again, the whole agreement became Null as soon as Russia showed interest in retaking the former soviet land and you started seeing rhetoric in Russia about how great the Soviet Union was. I mean I understand that it was inevitable for Russians to start looking back fondly on a time when they were more powerful, but the government could have done more to educate its people about the atrocities the USSR committed, much like how Germany made sure its citizens wouldn't forget the scars of its Nazi past.
Except you are leaving out the part where Estonia and Latvia WANTED to join NATO for their own protection.
Yes, the US has the role as a global superpower, which apparently you don't like, but the fact is that in world that is so very connected, you will ALWAYS have global superpowers. If the US were to suddenly stop being a superpower, then Russia and/or China would take that role.
And while the US by no means has a perfect history as a global superpower, I would rather have the global superpower be a democratic nation than a dictatorship like Russia or China.
And I already said that I disapprove of everything related to Gitmo. But the difference is that whereas you can only point to the annexation of Guantanamo Bay, I can point to Russia annexing Crimea, annexing parts of Georgia, constantly doing "training programs" near the borders of neighboring nations, their funding of a pro-Putin president in Ukraine to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty, and all the far-right fascist political groups across the globe that Russia has directly collaborated with.
Sorry, but even WITH all the US's fuck ups, I'd rather have a democratic nation as the global superpower than any goddamn dictatorship that undermines the free speech and democracy of its own people.
The point we have been making to you is that the Baltic States didn't join NATO due to US aggression. They joined NATO because they started seeing Russian aggression and wanted NATO as a protection from such aggression.
Here's the problem with everything you're saying. Russia views it very much as aggression and expansion of a military alliance with the primary power being a geopolitical foe of Russia is by definition aggression. Sure, these countries join of their own volition, they're not being forced to do so, but the US is using its influence to back leaders and counties to the West of Russia. Ukraine and Georgia are both good examples of this and I've already given context as to why Russia would view this in the way that they do. You talk of the deal being made "null" when Putin started taking an interest in the Baltic states. The glaring problem with this is that NATO has been expanding since before Putin ever came onto the scene. You make an odd statement about Russia's ties to Yanukovych and talk as if it is such a terrible thing. Yet at the same time, the United States does the exact same thing even going a step further to install puppet regimes. There's a certain sense of irony here, but maybe I'm mistaken in that when the US does it, it somehow doesn't undermine a nations sovereignty. Regarding the missile shield, go and research yourself. It's been tiresome responding to you especially when you're really ignoring the crux of my argument. That is, US hegemony is bad and it needs to be talked about.
It's not that I don't like the US's role as a superpower, it's that I recognise the damage that has been caused by the foreign policy employed. I'm not just pointing to the annexation of South West Cuba, I gave a number of other examples. To call these "fuck ups" is rather dismissive of the intentions. These are calculated decisions that are made. If we're just talking about Cuba for a moment, the US constantly undermined that nation for decades upon decades with heavy CIA involvement and literal terror attacks after installing the U.S.-backed dictator Batista. Once the revolution took place every administration committed crimes against them. From the policy in Latin America, installing puppet regimes to the illegal wars waged in the Middle East. The policy in Libya and Syria and the drone strikes in 7 sovereign nations. All this destruction. Would you say that these actions have undermined the sovereignty of the nations involved? I would. And for what? To further American interests and power. It's not about promoting democracy or freedom from tyranny. Especially when dictators are installed by the US historically and the cosy ties to Qatar and Saudi Arabia who are the largest exporters of the Wahhabi ideology. It's about protecting their interests and their interests alone.
The US does much better for its own people, but it's all at the expense of other nations. You don't have to pick a side. You can recognise that both are bad. But this is where I'm checking out, I very much doubt we're going to agree so this is all rather pointless. I will not ever rationalise imperialism. That's all there is to it. You have a misplaced sense of trust and loyalty to the United States Government.
TestOfTide
Banned
So basically your onl response is to claim that because Russia views it as aggression then it must be aggression.
And how the hell are Georgia and Ukraine examples of "US aggression" when it's fuckig Russia that has taken sovereignty away from parts of those countries?
And you keep deflecting with how you hate the US being a global superpower, well what REALISTIC alternative are you asking for?
Once again you've ignored my primary talking points. I realise there isn't a justification for US imperialism, hence the reason you're ignoring it. That's fine.
You misunderstand my point. I'm talking of the talks to join NATO, specifically Ukraine. It's NATO aggression in the eyes of Russia and I've already explained why it is effectively an arm of the United States. This isn't about whether or not you think it's aggression. It's about whether Russia does - and the reality is that there is good reason to as I have already explained and as you have once again ignored. There is historical context for all of this. How can I make this anymore clear. The expansion of a military alliance led by the United States is an aggressive move and one that Russia feels uneasy about.
I never did propose an alternative. I was highlighting the crimes by the United States. Perhaps if they used their influence to promote a better world and focused equality instead of control. I mean, let's be realistic here - can you actually support your government after all that it has done and make a claim that it has committed these acts for just reasons? I've yet to hear a good argument for it and the go to seems to be something akin to 'yeah, we messed up', as if that provides adequate justification for atrocities committed.
How you can say I'm deflecting is simply beyond reason. That's what the entire argument hinges on and what I am talking about. US hegemony. It seems like you've now taken a slight shift and you're saying it's better than the alternative. Well, I'm sorry but that's not justification to support it. Like I said before, it's not a choice between the two. Recognise it for what it is.
TestOfTide
Banned
No what's going on here is you are calling it "US imperialism" when other nations choose to join NATO to protect themselves from russia's aggression.
You still have yet to show how nations joining NATO is "US imperialism".
That doesn't make it actual aggression that just means that Russia is trying to deflect their own aggression by claiming that NATO is somehow an aggressive alliance.
No you haven't. All you've stated is how it's a thorn in Russia's side.
Except Russia doesn't get to call NATO an aggressor when all they are doing to allowing other nations to join their alliance. NATO, unlike Russia, hasn't undermined any nation's sovereignty.
That's not aggressive. NATO isn't aggression. NATO is a DEFENSIVE military alliance.
First off I have already stated that I DO want the US to do more stuff like the Marshall Plan.
Second I have already laid criticism as many US foreign policy decisions.
Third you don't get to complain about the US being a super power and basically claim NATO is bad if you can't even bring up a realistic alternative.
You've deflected in the following ways:
- claiming that NATO is US aggression just because Russia claims it is.
- refused to acknowledge the fact that NATO doesn't undermine any nation's sovereignty while Russia HAS
- Refused to acknowledge the fact that those nations that joined NATO did so of their volition because they wanted protection from Russia's aggression
- Claimed that the whole problem is US aggression (by basically calling all US intervention as aggression) while refusing to acknowledge the fact that the US intervenes because if it doesn't then some other nation will take the role the US currently has
You've taken all context of NATO and thrown it out of the window. You can't look at it in isolation just from the last few years. You have to look at the reunification of Germany and the negotiations the USSR had with the United States to get and understanding of why Russia view the expansion eastward as aggression. All you've said about this is "of course the US would do that" without understanding the implications of it. Yes the United States wanted to curb and halt the USSR's progression, but deceiving and expanding to the East can only be viewed in one way. It may well be a defensive military alliance, but that's just a word. The fact is that through NATO, the United States has built up their own military bases and installations throughout Europe - closer to Russia. You can call this defence, and that's fine. But seeing as they're geopolitical enemies it's clear how Russia views the build up of US bases and NATO forces along with the expansion of the alliance. I'm truly bewildered as to what you mean when you use the phrase "actual aggression". That's what it is, it's military aggression. There is no other word for it. It's not faux aggression. In an alternate world, if Russia revived the Warsaw pact and edged closer and closer to Western Europe, building bases - would that not be aggression? Or would that merely be defensive? It's absurdity.
And of course I get to complain about US foreign policy. What kind of caveat is that, that I must propose an alternative? How about this as one? Don't invade and occupy sovereign nations. Don't install puppet regimes. Stop the murder of civilians. That would be a good start. You've said that you laid criticism on many US foreign policy decisions, but the fact remains that they are responsible for foreign policy with an aim to further their influence and hegemony and the end product of this has been the suffering of literally millions upon millions of people. Russian imperialism is problematic, but US imperialism is far more effective and has been since the 50s.
Your final points on me deflecting the issues really aren't worthy of discussion. I've already stated that members have joined of their own volition but I'm highlighting the problems of bordering nations, i.e. the very problems Gorbachev had when Bush Sr. and Clinton pushed eastward with the alliance. You've also failed to acknowledge your earlier claim that the deal was 'null' when Putin eyed up the Baltic states, and how this was supposedly the reason for expansion. Something that isn't based on any reality and so clearly revisionism I find it hard to believe you can even write that.
Ah yes,
NATO is aggression but Russia annexing part of another country is a defensive move...
I'm sure there's a way to pin Chechnya on the Western world too.
Lybia is absolutely not a failure of US foreign policy, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Afghanistan was going to happen after 9/11, there was no stopping that from happening.
You have no idea how US politics works and foreign policy as well if you think there was any stopping that.
And then you put it all in 1 shitty bag and call it a day.
There is no nuance in your ideology (if we can even call it that).
Policies and politics are a matter of people first and foremost, that you can claim that the US policies are the same accross generations is laughable.
You push the blame to the US using your sources while disregarding the same sources incriminating other countries.
Russia has been invading and extending its territory illegally for close to a decade now, China is doing some pretty fucked up shit that Colonial Europe wouldn't even dream of doing but sure the West is BAAAAAAD because it's the west.
The lack of World War since the advent of the US's designed UN kinda tells another story. The world isn't free of conflict and the end result is not some kind of utopia where everyone is happy and rich or something. It's still better than the fucked up instability we had before and that's not even debatable, go open an history book circa XIXth century or anytime before really. One thing the capitalist world gave was a tightly connected world by trade that made all out war a thing of the past mostly.
Heck while poverty is far from eradicated and inequalities are more serious than ever, we are on average in a far better position than before and we don't have to thank the Marxists for that.
Yeah ok, you just don't give a shit about mass corruption if the US is not implicated, at least we can agree on that.
There is no defending needing to be done, unless I'm mistaken and there's someone here who is a diplomat there is no one who can influence it.
The best we can do is understand and analyse, disregarding all nuances and just calling it bad will change nothing but shows how little you know of the subject.
e: and I realise that we veered really off topic of the Assange thing.
Good job derailing it I guess.
Maybe you can explain why you think Assange's position on the Panama Papers is worth anything at all?
NATO is aggression but Russia annexing part of another country is a defensive move...
I'm sure there's a way to pin Chechnya on the Western world too.
Lybia is absolutely not a failure of US foreign policy, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Afghanistan was going to happen after 9/11, there was no stopping that from happening.
You have no idea how US politics works and foreign policy as well if you think there was any stopping that.
And then you put it all in 1 shitty bag and call it a day.
There is no nuance in your ideology (if we can even call it that).
Policies and politics are a matter of people first and foremost, that you can claim that the US policies are the same accross generations is laughable.
You push the blame to the US using your sources while disregarding the same sources incriminating other countries.
Russia has been invading and extending its territory illegally for close to a decade now, China is doing some pretty fucked up shit that Colonial Europe wouldn't even dream of doing but sure the West is BAAAAAAD because it's the west.
The lack of World War since the advent of the US's designed UN kinda tells another story. The world isn't free of conflict and the end result is not some kind of utopia where everyone is happy and rich or something. It's still better than the fucked up instability we had before and that's not even debatable, go open an history book circa XIXth century or anytime before really. One thing the capitalist world gave was a tightly connected world by trade that made all out war a thing of the past mostly.
Heck while poverty is far from eradicated and inequalities are more serious than ever, we are on average in a far better position than before and we don't have to thank the Marxists for that.
Yeah ok, you just don't give a shit about mass corruption if the US is not implicated, at least we can agree on that.
There is no defending needing to be done, unless I'm mistaken and there's someone here who is a diplomat there is no one who can influence it.
The best we can do is understand and analyse, disregarding all nuances and just calling it bad will change nothing but shows how little you know of the subject.
e: and I realise that we veered really off topic of the Assange thing.
Good job derailing it I guess.
Maybe you can explain why you think Assange's position on the Panama Papers is worth anything at all?
TestOfTide
Banned
As opposed to you refusing to acknowledge the rest of the context of NATO, such as why NATO was formed in the first place.
Not if those recent NATO nations joined NATO of their own volition.
You keep calling NATO "US expansion" when, again, THE NATIONS THAT JOIN NATO DONT LOSE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. I mean look at Turkey, where decades of a successful secular democracy is falling apart thanks to erdogan taking away all the checks and balances. Other NATO nations aren't happy with Erdogan, but NATO isn't going to start overthrowing erdogan because NATO doesn't do that to its allies and because Turkey is still a very important ally in the Middle East.
The US has done so BECAUSE OUR NATO ALLIES ASKED US TO DO SO.
I've not made that claim. You're misrepresenting me and literally making things up.
Hillary Clinton was strongly in favour of bombing Libya. This destroyed a functioning state. As a result of this even more militias all across the country arose and started infighting for land and control over parts of the country. Moreover, the rejection of Saif Gaddafi's plea for a transition fell on deaf ears. It's also worth mentioning that before the bombing, an international tribunal was building a case to prosecute Gaddafi but were threatened with defunding from both the UK and the United States as Gaddafi was an oil partner. Libya was absolutely a failure. You have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to take that stance then you're going to need to explain why it was a success – something you've not done. You've just made a claim and not supported it with anything but your ramblings.
So what if Afghanistan was going to happen? We can still criticise it and the motivations and reasons for the war. It was the wrong decision and the effects of it are still being felt today in the region. This is the second time you've said I've lacked nuance in my ideology. A total bogus comment, either you don't understand the points that I've made, you're in denial, or you just see US hegemony through the exploitation of nations as a good thing. I imagine it's a concoction of all three.
And once again, you've made the claim that I am ignoring Russian imperialism. I most certainly am not. Like I said before, I'm highlighting US imperialism and the disastrous effects it has had on Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa. No shit Russia and China are doing terrible things. I've not disputed that, but for some reason while we can both agree on that point you won't agree on the US also having a terrible influence on foreign and sovereign nations when they use their power to assert dominance at a much higher degree. I don't know whether you're purposely trying to misrepresent my views or you're just slightly deluded.
It gave us ‘stability' at the expense of other nations. I've given countless examples of this. And it really doesn't tell another story unless you're purposely ignoring history and all the wars that the US has engaged in since the formation of the United Nations. And all out war doesn't occur between the larger nations because of the emergence of Nuclear weapons. It's now mostly through proxy wars. Yes alliances and trade that came through Capitalism has brought the world closer together, but to ignore US hegemony because of a more ‘secure' world is somewhat psychopathic. And it needs to be addressed and shouldn't be ignored like you so want it to be.
And yes, less people living in inequality is better. The point that I am making however is that the United States does not need to pursue its foreign policy in the way that it has done and abuse the most vulnerable nations to assert its position.
I'm not ignoring it; I've just been talking about US imperialism in isolation because both you and TestofTide refuse to believe it's even there. All these little comments that you make only add to the sense of delusion I'm getting from you. You don't even know my stance and you're trying to engage in conversation with me. We can't do that if you keep misunderstanding what it is that I am saying and you keep projecting your ideas of my views and addressing those made up points. It's a fruitless discussion if I keep having to tell you that's not what I think when I am writing what I think and you're just not processing it.
And here we go again. You're the one who lacks nuance. Your posts have been nothing but embarrassments. "There is no one who can influence it." What do I even say to that? What you're writing is just totally bonkers.
Regarding Wikileaks - As far as I'm aware, Assange's stance has been to credit the Panama papers as legitimate but criticise the Putin related stories that were published due to them being pushed by the OCCRP which is funded by USAID and Soros. Hence the reason he questioned the integrity of it. In any case, I have no issues with criticising Putin and I think Assange has dropped the ball on a number of occasions. The most recent of which was the DNC, Podesta and Clinton emails. That is to say the timing of the releases. I think that was irresponsible and should have either been done before the Primaries or after the election had taken place. However, I understand that they released them in the order and in the time they did for maximum coverage. This isn't me defending it, I'm providing context. I don't condone the timing of the releases nor do I share the same opinion of the Panama papers as Assange.
Honestly, I've answered your points here a number of times and don't really feel like rewording it yet again in the hopes that you understand. It's a pointless endeavour. Why you're so hung up on nations not losing their sovereignty is beyond me. US hegemony comes in a multitude of forms and expanding NATO eastward after the reunification of Germany is just that. Especially in light of assurances made to the Russians that it would not take place to respect Russian interests in Eastern Europe. I feel like you don't understand what hegemony is, but then again you're probably just ignoring my arguments.
And you've once again not addressed your point of Putin eyeing the Baltic States that led to the expansion and you've not given me an example of Russian aggression. It's just all over the shop. Let's be clear here. You've made a claim a couple of times in earlier posts that I don't understand foreign policy. Here's the reality though. You've thus far claimed the following.
- 1. Claimed Glenn Greenwald supports Brietbart for being ‘pro-Russian'. This was false as I gave the transcript of what he actually said. You misrepresented him and then doubled down.
- 2. Suggested that a claim could be made for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 or a hypothetical invasion in 2011 because due to the Arab Spring in 2011, Iraq would have needed US intervention later on.
- 3. Implied that because Obama's drone program has taken less innocent lives than the Iraq invasion, it's a positive. It's simply a terror campaign that has not made the ‘kill list' any shorter.
- 4. Said that the mistake in Libya wasn't the intervention, but the lack of an aid plan after the (pro-Western) regime toppled.
- 5. Claimed that Syria is a mess because the US didn't intervene in time. Hasn't history taught you enough already? Smashing things with a hammer doesn't really work.
- 6. Stated that even though Russia and the United States are geopolitical foes, the military alliance NATO expanding to bordering nations to Russia should not be regarded as military aggression.
- 7. Failed to recognise the US led NATO as US hegemony.
- 8. Claimed that I am "hell bent" on deflecting Russian imperialism when I have just been discussing US hegemony in isolation because you refuse to acknowledge it.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
savage post.
I'm following your logic to their natural conclusion.
Hint: it's not the US that wanted anything to do with Libya.
Aha, you're funny.
There was no way the Afghan situation was going to last any longer than it did.
Again no reaction from the US administration would have been unthinkable.
The international community agreed, even Moscow saw nothing wrong in supporting the intervention (which they are btw).
The way the US and the coalition handled afterward (which included more than 50 countries btw) is debatable but from the getgo no one objected and the result is not worse than the clusterfuck Pakistan let on its doorway.
And apparently you cannot seem to understand that WL is another agent of Russian imperialism.
You will barely see anyone defending the servile role of the media pre Iraq invasion but the same from the pro russian (or pro china or really whatever) and oh boy will you see the shields coming up.
No one is saying that the US is some angel that needs no scrutiny or whatever.
And look at the diplomatic leaks you will see that more US intervention was what many countries officials wanted (even against their population). Of course you'll ignore all that because you're safely behind your desk spewing useless venom.
Ah yes, why do you think we've mostly stopped even the hint of proxy wars in the West? Again go look up the situation as it was before with the Colonial powers, they didn't stop out of the kindness of their heart.
Do you think France/UK intervention in Egypt stopped because the Egyptian threw them out for example?
Who is saying to ignore the conflicts that are still there?
Americans are hopeless in diplomacy anyway, they are far less powerfull than they claim and it shows.
US hegemony is just the scarecrow used to put all the blame on some giant blob of badness, it's never explained how the US is to blame for stuffs they had no hand in or why.
Kinda like how somehow the US is to blame for the whole Assange wanting to stay in an embassy.
Aha, in the last 20 years the US foreign policy changed drastically 3 times.
That you could conflate the 3-4 different periods is funny in showing how little you understand of US policies.
I guess in 2 years you'll complain about US foregin policies without understanding that everything changed.
Heck it even changed between 2008 and 2012!
There is US imperialism, it's not as omnipresent as it's often claimed.
Your stance is clear from your post we do know how to read (and not just blattant propaganda unlike some).
You cannot talk about US imperialism anyway without talking about its context, it's a pointless endeavour.
It's like talking about the Cuban missile as an entirely US problem with Soviet missiles being put in some cuban bases. You're missing the point and the reason of the conflict.
You are the one embarrassing yourself with your delusional NATO "deconstruction".
Apparently we're allowed to spout utter nonsense so if I'm doing it in some way I'm just following your lead.
Fucking Soros? Dear god, I was right!
Your next milestone is lizard people (or global jewish conspiracy whichever comes first really). You're hopeless.
That you can't even see how close Assange's position is to Putin on most things is pretty telling.
And yeah the timing is the only problem with the emails, not who gave them or why they used them...sure.
Linkstrikesback
Member
Argue about whatever, but I refuse to sit here and not be a keyboard warrior when someone insults Einstein wrongly.
He would have destroyed most professional scientists at Applied Math, let alone the average person. You don't revolutionise Physics like he did (especially, you know, all the mathematical formalisms he played a part in ) without being "that good at math".
(Unless that's the point and I missed it).
He's garbo compared to any good Mathematician
.That was also kind of the point.
TestOfTide
Banned
How about because it's the big difference between the things you CLAIM are US aggression and Russia's actual aggression.
Why do you keep leaving out the fact that part of that agreement involved Russia respecting the sovereignty of those ex-Soviet states?
How the fuck can you claim that the Second Chechnyan War isn't Russian Aggression?
So why is Glen Greenwald saying something as blatantly false as to claim that Breitbart is a more independent news source?
Why did Glen Greenwald make a tweet dismissing the claims that Steve Bannon is an antisemite?
Show me when I specifically tried to justify a 2003 invasion.
No what I was saying is that COMPARED TO BOOTS ON THE GROUND it is a better alternative because it results in less deaths.
First off Gaddafi's Regime was about to become like how Syria has been.
And yes I stand by my statement that Libya would have been a success if we had done something like a Marshall Plan there after taking out Gaddafi. The fact that Turkey managed to be a secular democracy for decades proves that it could work in the Middle East.
When did I say I only cared about the war aspects of US intervention? Good to know that apparently you think it was a good thing for Obama to do nothing after Assad gasseshis own citizens.
There you go again treating this as only a two sided issue. Why don't you care about those nations that ASKED to be part of NATO so that they could be sovereign nations? Does their side not matter to you?
No it's more that YOU failed to recognize the other purposes of NATO and YOU failed to recognize that it wasn't simply the US making all the calls. All those NATO allies WANT the US to be in the role it is in.
That's quite a bullshit way of describing Russia TAKING SOVEREIGNTY AWAY FROM ITS NEIGHBORS.
I have addressed them but you don't like my answers because it doesn't suit your dumb narrative where you treat this as only a two sided issue.
How the fuck is it US aggression when the nations joining NATO asked to join NATO? Are you calling those nations that asked to join NATO aggressors? Yes or no?
Ok since you don't get my point I'll say it this way:
I would only call your hypothetical not aggression IF it wasn't just Russia deciding to reenact the pact. Meaning if those other nations currently not part of Russia ASKED for the revival of the pact, THEN you could argue it's not aggression.
But if it were simply Russia forcefully taking sovereignty away other nations, then THAT would be aggression.
Do you see the difference?
Apparently you think painting everything as a boogeyman of "OH NOES US HEGEMONY" is somehow smart.
- Status