US politics - Yes country for old men

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Certainly the case with US.  

Well, I meant tyranny for most people involved in the uprising. The US certainly fulfilled its role as a tyrannical colonial power and slave nation, though at least they laid some important foundations for gradual improvement over time.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Well, I meant tyranny for most people involved in the uprising. The US certainly fulfilled its role as a tyrannical colonial power and slave nation, though at least they laid some important foundations for gradual improvement over time.

And committed what may be the world's largest genocide in history, against the indigenous population, and developed into the nation most capable of projecting violence across the globe, and home to the world's largest carceral system.

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

6 minutes ago, Bironic said:

I don't know what your measure is for success, but the French revolution would actually fall into your category of "failed" revolutions because it went from Bourbon rule into revolution into Napoleonic rule and then back to Bourbon rule... and even that "half" a century of revolutions were in the end mostly failures, the revolution of 1848 leading to Napoleon III and the Paris commune of 1871 most notably amongst them... But in the really long term the revolution prevailed and from 1871 on France remained a liberal republic for almost all the time...

But no not all revolutions lead to tyranny, a large part might but not most of them (and even in cases were in the short or midterm it does, in the long term it's hard to put the genie back into the box, look at France 1754-1871)... the revolutions happening first in the mediterranean: Portugal, greece, Spain(1974-1986) then Latin america (from Argentina to Chile, 1983-1990), eastern asia (Philippines, Taiwan, South korea, 1985-1989) the revolutions of 1989-1991 (Eastern Block), the colour revolutions and euromaidan (2000-2014) were all at least partially successful... With some noteable exceptions such as Russia, Belarus, PRChina... and at least in the first two cases there was a period of relative freedom and only later on they backslided into tyranny...

My slapdash comment is of course papering over a lot of details and complexities. And what we mean by successful, partially successful, or failed revolutions can be debated, and will always depend on the span of time considered.

I guess what you could say I'm arguing is that revolution is a sword without a hilt. Maybe it's necessary, maybe it's justified, maybe you'll get lucky and things really will turn out right. But more often than not, you're meddling with powers you don't comprehend, and are likely to lead to more chaos and misery, not less. Yet to the people wielding the sword or cheering their heroes on, it feels right and true, and clear as day.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

And committed what may be the world's largest genocide in history, against the indigenous population, and developed into the nation most capable of projecting violence across the globe, and home to the world's largest carceral system.

Yes. The evils were and are real. But it's also true that US and other evil empires played a big role in acting on and spreading the liberal and progressive ideals that allow us to look back at their deeds as evil. It's tough to wrap our heads around. But it's important to try to take in all of the dimensions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Why don't you tell me?  What did Chomsky say that was apologia for Pol Pot and when did he say it, and when did he change his mind?

Again, I think it's pretty interesting that we're targeting the claims of people who have zero to very little actual political power, and so incredibly reticent to criticize the people who actually make decisions.  

Here you go.  Offer a defense for regimes engaging in genocide (as the Khmer Rouge were) still seems problematic to me.  Now… I’m happy to condemn the US’s support for the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s after the Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to stop the genocide.  I… as a citizen of the US… own some responsibility for the US’s actions in supporting the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s.

https://libcom.org/article/chomsky-and-pol-pots-genocidal-regime-cambodia

[Larry of the Lawn]

54 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here you go.  Offer a defense for regimes engaging in genocide (as the Khmer Rouge were) still seems problematic to me.  Now… I’m happy to condemn the US’s support for the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s after the Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to stop the genocide.  I… as a citizen of the US… own some responsibility for the US’s actions in supporting the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s.

https://libcom.org/article/chomsky-and-pol-pots-genocidal-regime-cambodia

Thanks for the link.  If you're willing to dig into it a bit, I'm curious about your thoughts on the first Lukes' article [in] the second pdf criticizing Chomsky and taking him to task for doubting the first hand reports of genocide by refugees.  Lukes argues (or at least I think that's a reasonable interpretation)that the US is responsible for turning Cambodia into a wasteland of disease and warfare.

You don't have to say, or answer any of these questions, but I'm going to go ahead and ask anyway:

You're not that much older than me, so I'm guessing you're between 50-55?  In the mid 80's were you even voting?  Curious about how you consider yourself complicit.

If you're complicit in the US's later support of the Khmer Rouge, what about the US's role in the genesis of that conflict?

This goes back to wondering about whether the actions of one random person with no power are somehow The Problem rather than the decisions made by governments to execute violence and war.  

  

Edited March 7 by Larry of the Lawn

[Rippounet]

It's deliciously ironic that Noam Chomsky's life work was pointing out how selective outrage in the media reflects the decision-makers' agenda and/or the dominant ideology, but people will -unironically- express outrage at the facts he got wrong.
Just like it's ironic that a guy commits suicide to protest against a genocide, but people are seemingly shocked that his positions were radical.
Or the idea that one should be wary of change because you might end up worse off... ? Seemingly forgetting that there are lots of people already struggling to survive.

Gods, I'm getting too old for this shit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Thanks for the link.  If you're willing to dig into it a bit, I'm curious about your thoughts on the first Lukes' article [in] the second pdf criticizing Chomsky and taking him to task for doubting the first hand reports of genocide by refugees.  Lukes argues (or at least I think that's a reasonable interpretation)that the US is responsible for turning Cambodia into a wasteland of disease and warfare.

You don't have to say, or answer any of these questions, but I'm going to go ahead and ask anyway:

You're not that much older than me, so I'm guessing you're between 50-55?  In the mid 80's were you even voting?  Curious about how you consider yourself complicit.

If you're complicit in the US's later support of the Khmer Rouge, what about the US's role in the genesis of that conflict?

This goes back to wondering about whether the actions of one random person with no power are somehow The Problem rather than the decisions made by governments to execute violence and war.  

  

I first voted in 1990… I turned 18 in 1989.  But… I’m a citizen of the US.  We are to a degree all responsible for what the Government we elect does.  That’s the nature of Representative Government.  I couldn’t vote… but boy did I cheer for the Reagan Administration when I was in grade school.  There is some responsibility there.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Here you go.  Offer a defense for regimes engaging in genocide (as the Khmer Rouge were) still seems problematic to me.  Now… I’m happy to condemn the US’s support for the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s after the Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to stop the genocide.  I… as a citizen of the US… own some responsibility for the US’s actions in supporting the Khmer Rouge in the mid 80’s.

https://libcom.org/article/chomsky-and-pol-pots-genocidal-regime-cambodia

Can you tell me what Noam Chomsky is in the US political system or how Pol Pot is relevant to current US Politics? 

If not, can you take it to some other topic? 

[IheartIheartTesla]

The US is announcing (or rather, Biiden will during SoTU) that it will build a floating pier to allow aid into Gaza. I am cynical enough to believe this is to assuage leery Democratic voters, but it should ultimately be a good thing too, yes?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

16 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Or the idea that one should be wary of change because you might end up worse off... ? Seemingly forgetting that there are lots of people already struggling to survive.

Nope, not forgetting. I literally mentioned that in several previous posts. That acknowledgement doesn't obviate the wisdom of wariness.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The US is announcing (or rather, Biiden will during SoTU) that it will build a floating pier to allow aid into Gaza. I am cynical enough to believe this is to assuage leery Democratic voters, but it should ultimately be a good thing too, yes?

Will the Israeli Navy… resist?

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The US is announcing (or rather, Biiden will during SoTU) that it will build a floating pier to allow aid into Gaza. I am cynical enough to believe this is to assuage leery Democratic voters, but it should ultimately be a good thing too, yes?

This and the airdropping thing are in my mind a remarkable condemnation of US power. In order to provide non-military aid to people we need to ask Israel, a supposed ally, permission for our planes to fly over and not get shot down. Same with the Navy. 

[Ran]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

permission for our planes to fly over and not get shot down

Uh, we ask permission and clear all flights over allied or non-hostile states, for the sake of prudence if nothing else. Would be really upsetting if Israeli radar saw unidentified planes approaching without any prior clearance and someone decided to send some SAMs up...

Has nothing to do with US power, and just the nature of air travel. See here for the relevant international laws that dictate this.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

Uh, we ask permission and clear all flights over allied or non-hostile states, for the sake of prudence if nothing else. Would be really upsetting if Israeli radar saw unidentified planes approaching without any prior clearance and someone decided to send some SAMs up...

Has nothing to do with US power, and just the nature of air travel. See here for the relevant international laws that dictate this.

We often don't do this, especially if we really want to do something. We don't ask for permission, we do it and we occasionally say 'don't shoot us down or else'. This is what we do in places like Pakistan, for instance. This is what we've done in other places when delivering aid.

But nope, not Israel. 

[Ran]

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We often don't do this, especially if we really want to do something. We don't ask for permission, we do it and we occasionally say 'don't shoot us down or else'.

This is what we do in places like Pakistan, for instance.

The chances of Pakistan shooting down our aircraft is much less than the chance of Israel doing it, just from a technological point of view.

Moreover, the reason we didn't always ask permission of Pakistan was that Pakistan military intelligence was often in cahoots with the terrorists we were targeting and giving them warnings. But the US takes the importance of permission seriously, and high-level negotiations with Pakistan were a thing a couple of years ago.

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is what we've done in other places when delivering aid.

What places where the country had the realistic capability of shooting down our aircraft and is also not involved in hostilities against us did we fail to clear overflights for purposes of providing aid? I am curious.

30 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But nope, not Israel. 

I mean, Israel is approving the air drops, so I guess the complaint is that Israel is ... uh, supporting the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza?

Edited March 7 by Ran

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

These past few months I keep getting reminded of the various lefty artists and intellectuals of earlier decades who rightly criticized US policies...but also blindly and blithely praised and protected the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, ad infinitum.

To put Castro in that company is freakin' ridiculous.  The others killed millions.  Of their own people. Castro ... not so much.  Unless you wanna prosecute that dead dog of the War of Angolan independence, in which Cuban fighters held off Portugual, then the South African and Nambian German forces who intended to turn Angola into apartheid South Africa?

Right now we're traveling with someone whose father was one of those Cuban warriors, and another who now is a scholar of the history, language and religious practices of the region, to which he was introduced while fighting there, with Black Angolans.

The present power in Cuba, the people do not support, because another incompetent on the order of our NYC mayor.  But they always loved and supported Fidel I am told by them.

Unlike Russia of China, Cuban isn't doing terrorism either. Or making war on its neighbors.

So tired of these unthinking, uninformed toss offs re Cuba!

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

.  I couldn’t vote… but boy did I cheer for the Reagan Administration when I was in grade school.  There is some responsibility there.

I'm gonna go ahead and say there isn't any responsibility on you there, but agree to disagree I suppose.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Indeed.  On some occasions you are correct.  Why don’t you give a fuck about Norm Chomsky defending genocide?

He was always critical of Israel's Ziomist goals, and Israel's attacks and oppressions and apartheids.  Does that help?

Edited March 7 by Zorral

[Conflicting Thought]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

To put Castro in that company is freakin' ridiculous.  The others killed millions.  Of their own people. Castro ... not so much.  Unless you wanna prosecute that dead dog of the War of Angolan independence, in which Cuban fighters held off Portugual, then the South African and Nambian German forces who intended to turn Angola into apartheid South Africa?

Right now we're traveling with someone whose father was one of those Cuban warriors, and another who now is a scholar of the history, language and religious practices of the region, to which he was introduced while fighting there, with Black Angolans.

The present power in Cuba, the people do not support, because another incompetent on the order of our NYC mayor.  But they always loved and supported Fidel I am told by them.

Unlike Russia of China, Cuban isn't doing terrorism either. Or making war on its neighbors.

So tired of these unthinking, uninformed toss offs re Cuba!

Yeah, that also caught my eyes, but decided to not say anything, glad to see someone call it out