If you didn’t do it at the right time, and instead “retroactively register” when you are being investigated, isn’t that just a confession?
Well, he’s always said he worked for the Ukrainian government, so it’s not an admission in that sense, in the way that Flynn retroactively registering as a Turkish agent was. What he’s denied is that he worked for the Ukrainian government as a stooge for Putin (and that stuff about the missing money the current Ukrainian government wants back)
Well, if you’re going from “we deserved it” to “karmic poke in the eye”, perhaps I took you too seriously. If you’re just trying to observe something ironic, that’s one thing. But if you’re trying to make some sort of historical point about just desserts, that’s something else.
Snarkiness aside, do you disagree that the objective of the United States and her allies during the Cold War was stability and democracy? And if you do disagree, do you at least understand the difference between Western values and communism? Because it’s an important distinction.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up this idea that “we’re hated”. If there’s a relevant point in there, I’m honestly not following you.
Look, you and Adam are reduced to insulting me by comparing me to Bush, so either I’m not making myself clear or you guys aren’t following me. But all I’m saying is that our objectives are diametrically opposed to Russia’s objectives, now and historically. So when you say we deserve what happened during the 2016 elections, it sounds to me like you don’t understand what’s different about what we do and what Russia does.
But if you’re just saying, “funny that we used to do that during the Cold War…”, then I don’t disagree.
-Tom
KevinC
3541
It’s very much this (although not exactly fun or funny, but I know what you mean). In your reply, you again mention US vs Russian objectives and methods. I never made any comparison between the two, nor was I trying to.
When I asked your for some good sources, I wasn’t asking about the West vs Communism or how awful the latter was (because I haven’t been talking about either). I apologize for the waspish tone in my last reply, it was late and I felt like you were being rude and condescending when I was just trying to understand where you were coming from. I like and respect you, Tom, so when it sounded like you had a VERY different take on what we’ve done in Latin America, I wanted to try to see things from your eyes (and hey, I try to keep an open mind, maybe my POV changes as well). Again though, I haven’t been making and comparisons between our actions and Russian/Soviet, either then or now. I certainly wasn’t trying to, anyway, so I think perhaps we got our wires crossed somewhere. I think this would have been a very different conversation hanging out on a patio having a couple beers instead of text, as it seems there are things getting lost in translation, so to speak!
Sorry for any typos or autocorrect shenanigans, I’m having to type this out on mobile. I’ll try to fix it up when I get to a computer.
vyshka
3542
Sure Tom, regale me with tales of how overthrowing Mosaddegh was in line with our ideals, because of horrible acts undertaken by the mullahs who grabbed power 25+ years later. All is fair in love and war amirite?
I don’t think anyone is saying that Russia and US are equivalent. What they are saying is the US shouldn’t be surprised when shit happens or when the rest of the world shrugs its shoulders at it, because we have a history of doing rather questionable stuff regardless of the geopolitical stakes involved. And karma is a bitch
Clay
3543
I’m not sure I agree with that. The objective was to protect and promote the United States. Whether and how that was done at the expense of other countries largely was immaterial. Sometimes the damage was explicitly planned and executed (various military interventions to overthrow governments) and other times it was a result of ignorant foreign policy (pigs in Haiti, for example).
This country has meddled in the politics of other countries when it suited our own interests. They have also ignored atrocities when there wasn’t some financial incentive involved.
I’m not saying the US hasn’t done some good out there, but to act as if all those times we intervened in places was completely selfless would be disingenuous at best.
Timex
3545
It’s a totally moot argument.
We could have literally bombed Russian cities and murdered all their people, and we would still not want them to do the same to us. There’s no notion of “Oh well, we’re just getting what we deserved!”
Yeah, we do stuff that other countries don’t like. That doesn’t mean we aren’t gonna do everything to stop them from doing shit we don’t like.
Apologies right back at you, @KevinC. I was being more antagonistic than I needed to. I pretty much knew what you meant, but I focused too much on the word “deserved”. My bad.
[quote=“KevinC, post:3541, topic:127454, full:true”]
When I asked your for some good sources, I wasn’t asking about the West vs Communism or how awful the latter was (because I haven’t been talking about either).[/quote]
Yeah, that was just me trying to narrow things down to recent history. I didn’t know if we were going back to stuff like our intervention in the Spanish American war, how we hung back from World War II for a while, etc…
[quote=“KevinC, post:3541, topic:127454, full:true”]
…it sounded like you had a VERY different take on what we’ve done in Latin America…[/QUOTE]
You’re probably right about this! I fully understand what we did in Chile. And Iran, to address @vyshka’s comment. Let’s even throw Vietnam in there if we want to talk about more direct intervention. And where I probably do differ in opinion from a lot of people on this forum is that I don’t disapprove of the intent. In fact, I’m so hawkish on the Cold War that I can speak neoconservative! I understand the thinking behind the invasion of Iraq and I don’t disapprove of the intent (establish a stable core in the Middle East and let it “domino theory” outwards). But I was still firmly against the invasion because it applied outdated thinking to a complex situation. That it was botched by incompetence and inexperience just made things worse.
Absolutely, and I’m glad we all eventually realize this. But thanks for taking the high road when I was getting snippy.
-Tom
But that’s not really saying much, is it? That’s true of literally every country in the history of countries. My points is that when you examine our ultimate objective in the Cold War, the objective we shared with our allies and particularly NATO, it was to promote certain values (I realize that spelling out those values makes me sound like George W. Bush, so I’ll refrain).
To put it another way, our objective was ultimately for prosperity for the most people (ourselves first, of course, which is where your point is right on). The objective for the Soviet Union was power for the Soviet Union. One of us was promoting an ideology. The other was building an empire.
Or to put it yet another way, I believe in American exceptionalism. At least, I hope to go back to believing in it. I’m kind of on hold for another three years.
-Tom
Okay, and if someone in this thread argues as much, I’ll join you in disagreeing with that person!
-Tom
I’m honestly not sure which is which. To the extent that empire is about power projection, the US was absolutely doing that. And certainly Soviet expansionism was ideological.
This isn’t about equivalence (false or otherwise). Nobody’s denying the SSSR was rotten to the core, in a way that the US for all its faults wasn’t and isn’t. But to claim that US intervention in, say, Latin America was fundamentally about promoting democracy flies in the face of the evidence. Stability, I might grant, but only when that stability favoured American interests.
ShivaX
3550
It was about stopping the spread of Communism. Doesn’t make it anymore right, but if you accept that Communism is definitely evil, then it becomes a lot easier to see how things played out like they did.
I imagine a lot of the logic was that you can’t really force democracy on some places, but in those same places Communism could easily take hold (since it’s not far off of the dictatorships people we’re generally talking about). So to prevent Communism from gaining power they made “less evil” governments since they’d never become democratic republics. Greater Good, etc, etc.
I don’t agree with that mindset much, but I can see the logic. Add in some nationalistic realpolitik and you’ve got a ballgame.
Well, if you want to get semantic, fair enough. I was trying to build on a point I was making. But, yes, the USSR was spreading an ideology, too, and if you want to use the word “empire” in a loose and ahistorical sense, you could argue the US was building an “empire”. But I’m not sure what purpose that would serve.
I didn’t say “fundamentally”. I said “ultimately”. Those are different words (ugh, semantics!). The ideals of the United States include self-determination for other nations. This has always been tricky and it remains tricky (democracy is, unfortunately, not always liberal democracy). But realpolitik in places like Chile aside, it doesn’t change the fact that self-determination is a core value of American foreign policy. We don’t/didn’t project power the way the Soviet Union projected power, and we don’t/didn’t have any interest in an empire the way the Soviet Union did.
If you’re not arguing for equivalence, I’m not sure why you’d disagree with that pretty obvious point. It’s astonishing to me there’s any debate about this, but I guess I’ve grown out of my younger more radical days.
We’re just talking about the Cold War, right? Then, yeah, instability in the Soviet sphere of influence was part of how we fought the war. But I’d argue it was our ultimate objective for every country once communism was driven back. Unless you’re going to get into tinfoil hat territory about the military/industrial complex profiting from war, stability is pretty much always a long-term objective.
-Tom
I’m down on the side that thinks it’s karma finally catching up with the US. Sure, do whatever to defend yourself (a bit late now though, considering the e-voting system and institutions have been considered vulnerable for at least 16 years…) but nobody should be surprised that it is happening. I wouldn’t even be mad at Russia about it, think of them as water raining down on your roof, if the tiles are rotten, the water will seep in… and I guess you can all agree that there’s something rotten in Washington.
As public schools are defunded everywhere and “mainstream media” gets filled with more ads and viewed upon as false, blogs are considered reputable sources, and anyone with 1.000.000 viewers on youtube is considered a journalist, I guess disinformation campaigns will be more and more successful.
May we live in interesting times.
It’s just so awesome electing trolls to office
GG.
Timex
3555
I know someone who works for Haley. She alternates between seeming totally reasonable, and totally whack. I don’t know how much is the administration, and how much is her.
The UN is part of the New World Order that wants to take away our sovereignty. Isn’t that the cockamamie thinking behind this sentiment? Anything that weakens the UN must be a good thing?
