Support NeoGAF

[Dopus]

I'm following your logic to their natural conclusion.

Well the problem with your use of logic is that it's leading you to take the stance that I am a Russian Shill. Only someone who has poor reading comprehension and disregards the vast majority of what I've written would arrive at such a conclusion, but I'll come back to that right at the end of my post.

Hint: it's not the US that wanted anything to do with Libya.

What a poor rebuttal. So what if the US was weary of Libyan intervention? They bombed it anyway and left it a failed state. The pro-Western dictator served his purpose until he couldn't and we needed to aid the Libyan peoples from his brutal iron fist. Something like that, yeah?

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.

I don't care. It was unthinkable, great. But it was just a precursor to the next 16 years in the region. That's the issue. The invasions and subsequent drone attacks have left it unstable and open to exploitation by groups like ISIS. It was the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan that contributed heavily to this disaster we see today and the rise of extremism that we see all across the world and especially in Europe.

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.

The WikiLeaks claim is bandied around but there really isn't any proof of it. The most vehement of critics are usually claim Snowden is a Russian agent too. Would you like to make that claim or shall we just skip that one?

Do give me the context for US imperialism then if you will. I'd love to hear some good reasons for Latin America, the Middle East, North Africa and Indochina. Do tell how it's a force for good and how it's made the world a safer place for us in the West without regard for those nations we decimated and forgot the rebuild. Do tell me why cosy relationships and installing pro-Western dictators is good and just. Give me a break.

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.

You disregard my critique of US inverntionism and then say ”who is saying to ignore the conflicts that are still there?" Moreover, it's not just about the conflicts that are still happening, but the ones that have happened in the past that shape our view on US foreign policy. That's how you get an understanding of how the country asserts its dominance in the world. Just looking at it from administration to administration can be damning in and of itself, but who does that?

That last little line about Assange is also quite a ridiculous statement, but I'll let it slide because it'll just further derail the thread and open up yet another pointless debate.

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!

I've just addressed this above. It's a really weird comment to make and one that doesn't make sense.

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.

This is just a non-answer. You've got a habit of ignoring everything I write and just talking about what you want, don't you? Give us the context the policy in Latin America. Give the context when the US has installed puppet regimes.Give us the context when the US supports authoritarian dictators who brutalise their populations. Give us the context when the US after Batista was ousted in Cuba engaged in a a terror campaign that lasted decades upon decades. Cuba, which is still heavily embargoed today.

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.

Mael, this is the last post that I'm making in response to you because you're mostly rambling and deflecting onto anything and everything.

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.

Dear me. I just explained Assange's stance and then mine at the end. Your reading comprehension is awful. I mean, I literally say it right there. ”I don't condone the timing of the releases nor do I share the same opinion of the Panama papers as Assange." I've bolded and underlined what I wrote in case you missed it. Let me know if you want larger text. If you're disputing the funding of OCCRP then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm done talking with you too TestofTide. I really can't be bothered anymore.

 

[Mael]

What a poor rebuttal. So what if the US was weary of Libyan intervention? They bombed it anyway and left it a failed state. The pro-Western dictator served his purpose until he couldn't and we needed to aid the Libyan peoples from his brutal iron fist. Something like that, yeah?

Gaddafi a pro Western dictator?
BAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
The guy pushed socialism like his life depended on it, he bombed planes and shit.
After he was killed they should have strapped him with electrodes!
They could have powered half of the region with all the turning he's doing in his grave.

And ISIS in Afghanistan too now?
You have a more simplistic view than Nicolas Sarkozy!

 

[Dopus]

Gaddafi a pro Western dictator?
BAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
The guy pushed socialism like his life depended on it, he bombed planes and shit.
After he was killed they should have strapped him with electrodes!
They could have powered half of the region with all the turning he's doing in his grave.

When I say that, it's in a loose sense. He did what he was told for the most part and cooperated with both the United States and the United Kingdom, and of course there was the cosy oil relationship that was once held. Of course, the West didn't like him and his relationship with the ANC as that proved problematic for them when the US supported apartheid South Africa. And when the opportunity presented itself to oust him it was taken, but only when it was an assurance. Hence the reason for the rejection of a transition into democracy and the approval of bombing yet another country.

And ISIS in Afghanistan too now?
You have a more simplistic view than Nicolas Sarkozy!

Of course I'm talking about the region as a whole. Something you've once again failed to understand.

Nice chatting to y'all.

 

[Mael]

When I say that, it's in a loose sense. He did what he was told for the most part and cooperated with both the United States and the United Kingdom. Of course, the West didn't like him and his relationship with the ANC as that proved problematic for them when the US supported apartheid South Africa. And when the opportunity presented itself to oust him it was taken, but only when it was an assurance. Hence the reason for the rejection of a transition into democracy and and the cosy oil relationship that was held.

Sure, very cooperative and the US really was the only country that had an issue with Libya.
All part of the plan to force the King of Morroco to fund a villa for Bill Clinton.

Of course I'm talking about the region as a whole. Something you've once again failed to understand.

Yes and Al Qaida had ties to Saddam Hussain.

 

[TestOfTide]

Hey Dopus, if NATO is just an arm of the US as you like to ridiculously claim, then why didn't NATO back the War in Iraq?

 

[JZA]

Just reading the sophistication of the writing on some of the top comments on the reddit AMA makes me feel like a caveman. Could really use an ELI5 on the whole AMA.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm following your logic to their natural conclusion.

You're not. You're concocting a strawman argument. You are imagining something different than what Dopus is actually saying, and then arguing against that.

 

[Mael]

You're not. You're concocting a strawman argument. You are imagining something different than what Dopus is actually saying, and then arguing against that.

He considers the US imperialism a bigger danger to overall peace than Russian interventionalism.
A metaphorical day after Russia extended its borders in the most brazen act of disregard to national sovereignity of the decade.
If the conclusion to that isn't that Russia can do no wrong then it's next level mental gymnastic.

 

[Rentahamster]

He considers the US imperialism a bigger danger to overall peace than Russian interventionalism..

You're missing out on a lot of the nuance of his argument. We both do bad shit, but it's a legitimate argument that by certain metrics, the results of US meddling has had a bigger impact on the world than what Russia has been doing. It's complicated, of course.

Russian imperialism is problematic, but US imperialism is far more effective and has been since the 50s.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't criticise Russia for their imperialism, I'm saying it pales in comparison to the United States.

A metaphorical day after Russia extended its borders in the most brazen act of disregard to national sovereignity of the decade.
If the conclusion to that isn't that Russia can do no wrong then it's next level mental gymnastic.

Thinking his position is "Russia can do no wrong" is a strawman argument.

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.

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.

I will not ever support US imperialism, Russian imperialism or the emerging China's imperialism.

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.

 

[TestOfTide]

You're missing out on a lot of the nuance of his argument. We both do bad shit, but it's a legitimate argument that by certain metrics, the results of US meddling has had a bigger impact on the world than what Russia has been doing. It's complicated, of course.







Thinking his position is "Russia can do no wrong" is a strawman argument.

There is a difference between reasonable criticism of US foreign policy, and Dopus literally claiming that NATO is US Military Aggression.

 

[Dopus]

There is a difference between reasonable criticism of US foreign policy, and Dopus literally claiming that NATO is US Military Aggression.

I'm talking of the eastward expansion of NATO on Russia's borders, like I've said multiple times again and again.

Both yourself and Mael are having major problems with comprehending what it is that I have written, while at the same time misrepresenting my thoughts. This is the reason I'm not going to engage with either of you anymore.

 

[CrazyIvan1978]

I am pretty sure this thread has long stopped being about Asange answering questions live. You guys could probably continue your argument over at PM, right?

 

[Rentahamster]

There is a difference between reasonable criticism of US foreign policy, and Dopus literally claiming that NATO is US Military Aggression.

You're not getting the nuance of his argument.

 

[TestOfTide]

You're not getting the nuance of his argument.

There is no nuance to shit like this:

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.

His justification of calling NATO the aggressors is the fact that Russia doesn't like what NATO does.

And he phrased those nations joining NATO as "falling under the US" when those nations chose to join NATO by their own choosing.

And then claims at the end that NATO is just an arm of the US military. Yeah totally which is why numerous NATO nations didn't back the Iraq War, right?

 

[Dopus]

There is no nuance to shit like this:

His justification of calling NATO the aggressors is the fact that Russia doesn't like what NATO does.

And he phrased those nations joining NATO as "falling under the US" when those nations chose to join NATO by their own choosing.

And then claims at the end that NATO is just an arm of the US military. Yeah totally which is why numerous NATO nations didn't back the Iraq War, right?

It was "falling under US and Western influence. That's the key point with influence being the key word. Don't try to take my words out of context, I don't appreciate it.

This is just yet another example of you not understanding what I am saying.

Moreover, there is a difference between the words aggressive and aggressor. Both the US and Russia make aggressive actions to one another. My whole point was revolving around the border nations and them joining the alliance and how it is an aggressive move made on the part of the US dominated alliance. An alliance that further solidifies US interests and foothold in the region which is why I use the word hegemony. Then I've provided historical context to the alliance and Russia after the reunification of Germany which is crucial in trying to understand it all.

I know I said I wasn't going to respond to you, but you can't just twist my words.

 

[Beefy]

Thought there was a update about Assange. But it just like people arguing over who's worse USA ( Nato) or Russia.

 

[TestOfTide]

It was "falling under US and Western influence. That's the key point with influence being the key word. Don't try to take my words out of context, I don't appreciate it.

This is just yet another example of you not understanding what I am saying.

Moreover, there is a difference between the words aggressive and aggressor. Both the US and Russia make aggressive actions to one another. My whole point was revolving around the border nations and them joining the alliance and how it is an aggressive move made on the part of the US dominated alliance. An alliance that further solidifies US interests and foothold in the region which is why I use the word hegemony.

And I told you that your whole point falls apart at the fact that these nations chose to join NATO of their own volition AND the fact that these nations keep their own sovereignty when they join NATO.

You keep viewing this as "US vs Russia" and fail to acknowledge the reasoning of those bordering nations themselves. They aren't "falling under western influence". They are just joining NATO because they want their sovereignty protected.

and I'm ending this on that, because this has clearly veered away from the OP long enough.

 

[Dopus]

Thought there was a update about Assange. But it just like people arguing over who's worse USA ( Nato) or Russia.

Well he's been adding transcripts to the reddit AMA, so there's a lot more on there than there was last night if you didn't watch it.

and I'm ending this on that, because this has clearly veered away from the OP long enough.

To be honest Tide, we're not going to agree anyway and it was going in circles. If you want to discuss this further then I'm happy to via PM.