International Thread 3

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

No library should .be considered complete without Zinn

There are people who are unaware the US outright stole the northern third of Mexico which happened to include some of the richest gold deposits ever discovered?  
 

See California Gold Rush.

[DireWolfSpirit]

9th generation American Eva Longoria-

"My family didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!"

 

[Bael's Bastard]

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

9th generation American Eva Longoria-

"My family didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!"

 

Absolutely true. At the same time, there were no Longorias in the Americas before Spanish imperialism and colonialism.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Raja said:

I don't know what lessons you took away from these, or other books you've read. You don't have to prove anything to me, but I read the US politics thread to know well enough that you are not a troll like HoI or mother of queens or whatever that person's name is, but when you say something like this

First of all, yes, whatever that dude's name is is a massive, idiotic troll, but I don't think HoI is, at least not in the same way. He does actually seem to believe what he’s saying, so in effect he’s just okay with being openly callous and self-centered, and I hate to break it to you, but I suspect more people are like him than not. I think a lot of people want to signal their altruism without really ever acting on it.

Quote

It shows me, and the other people in here that have called you out on it, that you have not seriously engaged with the subject of colonialism when you state the above it reads, as  @larrytheimp stated above, like A "Whitewashing Colonialism 101" course catalog description.

Well I do believe I stated that I was also talking about foreign interventions. As to whitewashing colonialism, no I don’t believe in doing so hence why I cited Zinn. We need to be honest about our histories and it’s something America has failed woefully at. That said, I’m not interested in a conversation that basically reduces itself to “America bad!” That’s why I said it’s a lot more complicated than that.

Quote

And unfortunately, the attitude & statements above by you are par for the course for some white people that just haven't woken up to the world around them.

I’m really not sure that applies to me, but I understand what you’re saying.

Also, there’s a lot of people out there that would never consider me white, but that’s a different discussion all together.

[A True Kaniggit]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 Also, there’s a lot of people out there that would never consider me white, but that’s a different discussion all together.

El Nazis. 

(Just in case the person you were replying to didn’t know)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

El Nazis. 

(Just in case the person you were replying to didn’t know)

Raja’s a smart guy, he could figure it out. Just don’t tell him cricket is a niche sport.

[DMC]

On 1/2/2020 at 6:02 AM, Raja said:

the opposition to HoI and the attacks towards him are to do with him initially saying 'dictators are going to be installed, do you want them backed by the US or Russia' & 'The US might need to do some unsavory things but ho hum that is life' - *that* is what is being called out here ( see posts #352 & #353) - As you & several other people have rightly pointed out - it doesn't matter who props up your oppressive authoritarian regime.

Yeah, I guess I just actually appreciate when people admit their base self-interest.  Do I agree with such an approach?  Of course not.  But I don't see the point in attacking him or expressing outrage at such "moral bankruptcy" or whatever.  Seems to be pretty pointless.  Further, expressing an opinion like this:

On 1/2/2020 at 7:32 AM, Heartofice said:

Maybe it's just from a pragmatic point of view, I'd rather the US maintained its influence abroad, if backing off meant that China or Russia stepped in, because one of those 2 being head honcho would be less good for me than the current situation.

is hard to argue with in my book.  HOI is right, it is in the UK's interest for the US to maintain influence as opposed to China or Russia, considering UK's varying relationships with all three countries.

On 1/2/2020 at 6:02 AM, Raja said:

The US, like every other country in the world, gives zero fucks ( Edit - and obviously I think this is wrong) about these 'values' if it interferes with their broader foreign policy & military objectives ( And I know you probably know this, but it seems lots of people in this thread don't)

Well, they certainly care about these values inasmuch as they extend and promote their foreign policy interests.  I'm not saying the US has promoted free trade, open markets, and democratization out of the goodness of their hearts.  They did that because that was the way to extend the influence of the "first world" during the Cold War (which they're the leaders of), and it continues to be vis-a-vis China and Russian influence.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:09 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He did however point to the supposed human-suffering happening ing Venezuela  to shame people into supporting a US regime-change

He did?  Ok, sorry, I missed that.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:09 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Two of those things are more or less happily embraced by China and Russia as of now.

And for the last thing, who cares when the US’s foreign policy does not actually see the preservation of it as a goal.

Free trade and open markets most certainly are not happily embraced by China.  As for Russia, they did open up at the beginning of the post-Cold War era, but that has been readily dissipating since Putin wrested basically complete control over the government.  And, yes, I would still count on the US as a more reliable trade partner than Putin's regime in the long-term, even if one of the latter's lapdogs is currently in the White House.

And the US is interested in democratization - again, when it comes to industrialized countries.  That's, again, not due to any idealism, but simply that democracies were much more likely to adopt and be integrated within the Western model during the Cold War rather than rely on Russia and/or China as spheres of influence.  As for democratizing the Global South?  No, the US has no interest in that.  Those non-white people are there to be exploited and cheaply make our products.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:09 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A problem is that a lot of it is unnecessary evil. That the main beneficiaries of certain anti-democratic action or just flat-out horrific policies perpetrated are often not regular citizens. Often they're just international corporations with a vested interest in the country in question. 

I do not think it is a controversial to say the US’ trade-embargo against isn't to the betterment of either of the two nations. 

I do not think it is controversial if the US stopped selling weapons to brutal states like Saudi-Arabia that the rights of everyone in the US or ”Western world” would be in more serious risk. 

I'm pretty confused by this bit, but, sure, I agree US intervention is often - almost every time! - an unnecessary evil.  I also agree that the US' "trade-embargo" with Venezuela (if that's what you're referring to) is disgustingly wrong, as we've discussed months ago.  Not sure what you're trying to say there about Saudi Arabia.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:09 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I don't think anyone argued for that exactly. I kinda said the US for many of the countries which had Democratic governments before the US instituted a regime change could have won them over or kept them outside of China’ or Russia’s sphere of control without literally supporting/propping up a dictatorship in them. 

I believe I was referring to this:

On 12/30/2019 at 8:25 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I am not surprised there's little or no calls for US to intervene in Bolvia in order to help restore Democracy.

After all if a dictatorship benefits powers in Europe and the US, it's a necessary evil. 

If it doesn't you're a heartless monster if you don't support whatever methods utilized to oust the government by foreign powers. 

Again, it seems to be inconsistent to constantly refer to the US' abject record on intervention, and concurrently complain that there are no calls for the US to intervene.  This doesn't seem to be an actual argument but rather just another way to complain about US imperialism.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:36 AM, Rippounet said:

In geopolitics, "values" are just another tool or weapon to be used to maximize your country's influence, part of what Joseph Nye described as "soft power." They will be promoted as long as they don't harm your direct economic or strategic interests, and abandoned the minute they do, or might.
So my point was really that, as a question of intent, "Western values" don't matter, because in actuality they are interchangeable with other values (I will expand on that later).

As I said above to Raja, my point about Western values mattering is because they were employed in the US' assertion of soft power during the Cold War, and that's because they served the US' (and western Europe's) interests.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:36 AM, Rippounet said:

On the economic front, the idea that open markets and free trade are net positives is debatable to say the least.

Certainly is.  All I was saying is the Western model is preferable to the Soviet model, or the current regimes in China and Russia.  To paraphrase Churchill's famous quote (I know, he merely popularized it, he did not originate it):  The Western model is the worst form of international relations, except for all the others.  As I tried to emphasize in the last post by mentioning the negative impact of globalization and the predatory way the global market treats developing nations, I hardly think free trade/open markets are the bees knees.  I am much more in favor of the fair trade movement.  But, by the same token, "fair trade" relatively speaking is much closer to a reform/adjustment of the Western model - and a far cry from anything Russia or China have even remotely approached since WWII.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:36 AM, Rippounet said:

What they are interested is stability, and to a lesser extent, legitimacy, in their "client states."

Agreed.

On 1/2/2020 at 10:36 AM, Rippounet said:

What we do know for certain is that it's better not to have a single hegemon because neither Donald Trump nor Xi Jinping are in any way benevolent.

Of course.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well I do believe I stated that I was also talking about foreign interventions. As to whitewashing colonialism, no I don’t believe in doing so hence why I cited Zinn. We need to be honest about our histories and it’s something America has failed woefully at. That said, I’m not interested in a conversation that basically reduces itself to “America bad!” That’s why I said it’s a lot more complicated than that.

Quote

This itself seems like an oversimplification. No one has really argued that point. What has been argued that US Imperialism(with the way it has been utilized), is not better, or worse for much of the world as a whole than China’s or Russia. That the world not freer or a better place by virtue of it having the US hegemony. This is not saying ”US bad” Or Russia and China should take over the world or whatever. Or Russia and China are better countries.  

Saying US Imperialism or at the very least least not great for the world/= US bad. 

On 12/31/2019 at 3:13 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Well first I should say I don't know enough about China's history of conquests, but I do feel forcing their system on others would be worse because you'd have less rights, as demonstrated by the protests in Hong Kong.

I do not think you honestly believe the Dictators US props up or backs actually give their citizens much in the way of rights. ”Forcing their system on others” could be said of the US, Russia, or China. 

On 1/2/2020 at 7:36 AM, Rippounet said:

The Soviet Union promoted gender and racial equality and opposed colonialism before it was cool (because Marxism is all about equality) ; as ridiculous as it seems today, it held the

Ok this statement misses some nuance in regards to the Soviet Union’s racial politics. Although preaching racial unity was done,  Ethnic groups were persecuted under by it. Horrifically so in fact. 

Among them, Russian with German  ancestry, Poles, and Jews etc. 

But, some racial groups generally were treated with more dignity than they were in the US. Such as blacks.”And you are lynching Negroes.” was a catchphrase used by the Union to deflect bad light unto themselves onto the US. Which to be fair largely was doing just that.

In regards to gender politics, sure it was better than the US in many ways. For instance It made marital-rape illegal in the 20s 

The US would not start doing that until the 80s. And there are still states in the US where raping your spouse is not a crime if done in a certain way. 

[Raja]

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That said, I’m not interested in a conversation that basically reduces itself to “America bad!”

None of the posts you were responding to (and none of my posts) were actually saying that

Quote

That said, as someone who has lived in a developing country, the vibe I got was on the whole Western influence has been a positive thing even though we can all cite awful outcomes.

Quote

and the people I spoke to generally were overall okay with outside influences of the U.S. while also recognizing that there were some horrific failures (and to be clear, they weren't really victims of them so their perspective is different).

So the 'vibe you got on the whole' in 'a developing country' you visited were from people that weren't victims?

Okay, dude.

[Varysblackfyre321]

20 minutes ago, Raja said:

None of the posts you were responding to (and none of my posts) were actually saying that

So the 'vibe you got on the whole' in 'a developing country' you visited were from people that weren't victims?

You see the problem here, right?

True. And it's quite frankly dangerous to fall into trap of thinking critiquing a country’s foreign policy is saying that country is absolutely terrible, or just an expression of disdain for the country in general. 

Such thinking could lead to/justify a whole heap abuse-including abuse of the people of said country. 

[Heartofice]

Quote

He did however point to the supposed human-suffering happening ing Venezuela  to shame people into supporting a US regime-change

Mmm, just to be clear, before the defamation continues.. I didn't do that. What happened as far as I recall was that I challenged @Varysblackfyre321 after another one of his overlong ,ranty, 100% authority diatribes (think this was during his personal challenge of creating a new thread every day in order to get into arguments with people, something I helped him out with, because I am actually a nice guy). I'll openly admit that Venezuela isn't something I have much interest in though, but I think talking with absolutely certainty on these topics in black and white terms is pretty daft. 

Quote

Yeah, I guess I just actually appreciate when people admit their base self-interest.  Do I agree with such an approach?  Of course not.  But I don't see the point in attacking him or expressing outrage at such "moral bankruptcy" or whatever.  Seems to be pretty pointless.  Further, expressing an opinion like this:

My initial post on this was pretty throwaway, so I find it strange that certain individuals feel so motivated to perform Forum Archeology like that. But I'd rather be honest and say that if it was a choice between the safety of my country and that of some south american country I've never been to, then I'd pick my own. Hardly mind blowing. I don't trust anyone who says otherwise. 

And whatever anyone says, I absolutely do think there is an element of 'America Baaaad' in much of these posts in this thread. Thats fine if it makes people feel better about things I guess. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Mmm, just to be clear, before the defamation continues..

I take issue with this accusation. I think I merely arrived at the only logical conclusion one could make based on your actual words: that you pretended to care about whatever suffering happening in Venezuela 

In regards for repeated calls for the US not to militarily intervene in the country you said this:

Quote

I’m interested to know what people would want to do about Maduro, who has been a disaster for the country, without some form of intervention? Or should we just ignore it?

In response me simply reiterating my stance of the US should offer refuge to fleeing Venezuelans and not not militarily intervene you snarkily  replied this: 

Quote

This is seemingly the circular discussion you’ve been having these past few pages. I’m genuinely asking you a question as to what the rest of the world should do when a country like this goes to ruin. Is your answer to simply do nothing? 

Quote

Ok just wanted to check your answer was to do nothing.

And proceeded to do one more guilt trip once asked to deflect away from the question of why the US had a vested interest in supposedly ”restoring democracy” the country: 

Quote

I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying. It just seems like a bit of a diversion.

But the alternative is to sit back and do nothing seemingly, which sounds worse. The world might now have moved away from intervening in problem counties, holding its hands up and waving responsibilities  but then what is to be done in disaster zones like this.

All this on the same page thankfully. Took me 2 minutes to find these quotes. But in case anyone does not have my same temperament:

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

think this was during his personal challenge of creating a new thread every day in order to get into arguments with people, something I helped him out with, because I am actually a nice guy).

Nice guys typically don't boast that their nice guys to others. Egotists do.

Also, dude I didn't make the thread where you said any of the shit I cited.

I stated quite plainly you did this stuff in the last international thread. 

You seem lying about your actual thoughts(again). 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I'll openly admit that Venezuela isn't something I have much interest in though, but I think talking with absolutely certainty on these topics in black and white terms is pretty daft. 

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

And whatever anyone says, I absolutely do think there is an element of 'America Baaaad' in much of these posts in this thread. Thats fine if it makes people feel better about things I guess. 

 Yes, I do see talking with absolutely on these topics in black and white terms could be a bit daft. 

 Saying An American hegemony is not better or worse for other countries than a Chinese or Russian one is not saying America Baaaaad. If you actually think it is you’re a fool in addition to being a hypocrite. 

It's not(as you ridiculous insinuated) saying Russia or China are better countries. It’s not saying either of them having a hegemony is better for me or the world.

The fact you could even concede to these  premises  That not every abominable act perpetrated by the US in terms of foreign policy was really made to primarily improve or maintained the lifestyle of it's citizens? Or to save it's people’s lives? 

Is telling of your actual lack nuance in regards to these issues. 

Sure every horrific act the US has done abroad to other countries was absolutely vital to secure it’s people’s freedom, and safety. And by extension Britain. It's all a necessary evil. 

If you disagree you hate America. 

On 1/2/2020 at 9:28 AM, Heartofice said:

You write SO much.. assuming I really care?

It seems so important to you that you keep quoting me and harassing me.

What part of "I don't believe that the US gives a real shit about the morality or values of the countries it uses as allies and vassals" makes you think I believe the US always is trying to improve countries? Stop trying to create an argument with me about things I really am indifferent to. 

My point was that Putin seems happy enough to brazenly assassinate people in Britain and release deadly radioactive material (or so out of control of his subordinates that he can't stop them doing it) that having Russia being the major world power would make me pretty damn nervous, especially as a Brit, given our relations are so frosty. 
 

Did you honestly think lamenting my  posts can be long was a nice jab at me? Do you this often in discussions outside this board lol? I’m sorry man that has to be the funniest complaint against me I’ve heard in a while. Um seriously though, don't care, don't read, don't respond. No one is making you do anything man.

Also didn't accuse you of thinking the US is trying to improve other countries in this post.

Not my point 

Presumably, that threat would go away if you closely aligned more with Russia. 

Ditch the US and Nato, and Cozy up to Moscow if Russia becomes the hegemonic power. Putin will not poison defectors and traitors(and in the crossfire kill innocente). You’ll just give them over free of charge. Like you would do for the US. 

Of course you may have to worry more on the US committing more blatant(I think it's not naive to think it hasn't before) assassinations in the Uk. 

That's not really a good enough reason to see either country having a hegemon. 

Economic security certainly is one avenue one could make a case for why. DMC actually makes a case. One I disagree with but will try to address later. 

[Heartofice]

@Varysblackfyre321

I think what you've done here, is mistaken my challenging you on your posts for concern for Venezuela.  So when I said "I’m interested to know what people would want to do about Maduro, who has been a disaster for the country, without some form of intervention? Or should we just ignore it?", it was because you were so passionate about the state of the country and I genuinely wanted to know how you hoped to fix this issue you were so passionate about. 

I never feigned concern for the country, I was challenging your concern. So lets cut out the accusations of lying and defamation yeah? I take issue with you taking issue with it.

Quote

Nice guys typically don't boast that their nice guys to others. Egotists do.

I think your sarcasm detection meter must be broken if this is what you took from what I said here. This might however explain a number of occasions of misunderstandings.

Anyway, I have little interest in the rest of this discussion, as I've mentioned, so I'll let you get on with it.

[DireWolfSpirit]

New International thread opened-

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/156238-international-thread-4/