• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Madison

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,388
Lima, Peru
When it comes to the USSR, which was an autocratic state which routinely slaughtered its own people over the course of its history and championed an economic system that underfed its population and led to the demise of the state? Yes. They were the least bad option between the two
Unlike the US that just supported autocratic states which routinely slaughtered its own people over the course of their history and championed economic systems that underfed its populations and led to the demise of their states

I would argue that they were equally bad on foreign policy.
 

Haubergeon

Member
Jan 22, 2019
2,269
I remember reading Rachel Maddow's foreign policy book "Drift" sometime last year I think - written back when Rachel was decent on foreign policy obviously - and the book is just filled with anecdotes of hideous incompetence from that foreign policy era, and scaremongering about completely fictitious Soviet aggression. By the 80s, almost all that shit was purely invented fearmongering from US conservatives for electoral purposes. The stage of the cold-war where war was a legitimate possibility had long-since passed at that point - the Soviets were far more concerned with internal affairs and their own foreign embarrassments that war with the US was never going to happen. Saying "all those nukes were for our defense!" is fanciful to put it mildly. How many times do you need to be able to destroy the planet to feel secure?

And yet we've objectively created the most peaceful time in human history. That's in an inarguable, incontrovertible fact. The US Navy protects international trade and are literally a day away at most for aid and disaster relief around the world. We stopped Europeans from engaging in pointless wars and conflicts.

We're not perfect by any means, but our two closes replacements should we fall on the global stage (China, and Russia) are so far beyond the pale, that if you're such an isolationist that you'd be willing to cede world influence to these regimes, you're fucking batshit crazy.

I'm no isolationist, but the argument that we need a military anywhere near the scale that it is right now is completely insane, and seeing people who present as left-of-center join the fucking Reagan Battalion in piling on Bernie for saying an irrefutable fact - that the US in the 80s was unquestionably ramping up arms manufacturing explicitly to aggressively posture to the USSR - is a bummer and also kind of unsurprising, is all I'm saying.

The US military can be a force for good in the world if led by the right people. It often was used for totally pointless conflicts in the cold-war era however. It's depressing that a lot of this history is erased.
 

Entryhazard

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,843
And yet we've objectively created the most peaceful time in human history. That's in an inarguable, incontrovertible fact.
*looks at middle east, africa, and south america* eeeeh
The US Navy protects international trade and are literally a day away at most for aid and disaster relief around the world.
I'm pretty sure the world is going to be fine without your sea cops
We stopped Europeans from engaging in pointless wars and conflicts.
You didn't do shit beside using us as pawns for your cold war, the steps taken towards forming the EU did.
We're not perfect by any means, but our two closes replacements should we fall on the global stage (China, and Russia) are so far beyond the pale, that if you're such an isolationist that you'd be willing to cede world influence to these regimes, you're fucking batshit crazy.
So you're essentially keeping the world hostage
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Unlike the US that just supported autocratic states which routinely slaughtered its own people over the course of its history and championed an economic system that underfed its population and led to the demise of the state.

I would argue that they were equally bad on foreign policy.
Korea, Gulf War, Bosnia, etc. - they weren't. The US had a lot of fuckups, but not all of them were fuckups. (though in your area of the world, they were mostly fuckups)
I'm no isolationist, but the argument that we need a military anywhere near the scale that it is right now is completely insane, and seeing people who present as left-of-center join the fucking Reagan Battalion in piling on Bernie for saying an irrefutable fact - that the US in the 80s was unquestionably ramping up arms manufacturing explicitly to aggressively posture to the USSR - is a bummer and also kind of unsurprising, is all I'm saying.

The US military can be a force for good in the world if led by the right people. It often was used for totally pointless conflicts in the cold-war era however. It's depressing that a lot of this history is erased.
People in the 80s didn't understand the USSR was on the brink of collapse because we were lapping them economically. 2020 hindsight on that is harmful.

The US military exists on the scale it does right now mostly because a lot of nations are free-riding on it. (This is meant to be a neutral framing, not a criticism of them btw) It kinda ended up that we had a lot more resources/money/etc. than them.
 

Haubergeon

Member
Jan 22, 2019
2,269
*looks at middle east and south america* eeeeh

Especially since when climate change hits its stride and leaves the Middle East largely uninhabitable and creates a refugee crisis and a series of political destabilization on a scale not seen in modern times, saying the US has made the world a peaceful place more than any other hits a little hollow for me - we've effectively done nothing to prevent this from happening or to prepare for what's coming after. If we had any sense we would be using the logistical strength and raw-manpower of our military to help prepare for a post-climate change world.

I apologize though - this is becoming more and more off topic.
 

B-Dubs

That's some catch, that catch-22
General Manager
Oct 25, 2017
32,714
I see Politico continues to be garbage.
Reading the actual article it does seem like there's a legit critique in there (that Harris isn't giving enough policy specifics when answering questions), but it's something that's totally fixable given a bit of time and practice.

That said, Politico's framing of this article is utter trash.
 

TerminusFox

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,851
*looks at middle east, africa, and south america* eeeeh

I'm pretty sure the world is going to be fine without your sea cops

You didn't do shit beside using us as pawns for your cold war, the steps taken towards forming the EU did.

So you're essentially keeping the world hostage
main-qimg-ca57e04510785849e15f25ebac070cf3.webp


You were saying?

You didn't do shit beside using us as pawns for your cold war, the steps taken towards forming the EU did.

So, kick us out. SOFA allows you to do so, and legally we would HAVE to leave but NO European nation is going to do it. Japan won't either. Why do you think that is?

I'm pretty sure the world is going to be fine without your sea cops

lmao, so you really have no idea how the British were able to establish dominance early on during the colonial period.
 

JustinP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,343
Reading the actual article it does seem like there's a legit critique in there (that Harris isn't giving enough policy specifics when answering questions), but it's something that's totally fixable given a bit of time and practice.

That said, Politico's framing of this article is utter trash.
Other than Warren, none of the candidates are really running on detailed policy yet (which is pretty normal I think). It'd be great if they were but it this is pretty expected at this stage and harping on it feels like nitpicking at best, but more likely just trying to get clicks by trying to create controversy where there is none.

It was already posted a few pages ago too

Politico is often little more than a political gossip rag and they produce some of the stupidest content out there.
 

KidAAlbum

Member
Nov 18, 2017
3,177

Totally fine to shit on Bernie for reparations, but bring that same heat towards all the other major candidates. Only one that is legit for reparations is Williamson.

Other than Warren, none of the candidates are really running on detailed policy yet (which is pretty normal I think). It'd be great if they were but it this is pretty expected at this stage and harping on it feels like nitpicking at best, but more likely just trying to get clicks by trying to create controversy where there is none.

It was already posted a few pages ago too
Yang is. Think he has like 75 policies up.
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
6,631
Mind you Bernie had like 20 seconds to reply to that reparations question. I'm sure we'll hear a more comprehensive answer later.
 

Deleted member 2426

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
Threatening M.A.D. to prevent them from being used in the first place and replacing older ones you need to retire out of the system.

Yes, many of us are Americans!

You had no saying in the implementation of those decisions. That's just nationalistic jingoism.

But let's talk about 2020 instead hihi. Bernie is going to win.
 
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
You had no saying in the implementation of those decisions. That's just nationalistic jingoism.

I feel like if I said "actually none of us are really responsible for America's Cold War policy because we were all babies so it's unreasonable to criticize us for it" you would not be too happy with that opinion either.

Ultimately if America is a democracy we must all accept collective responsibility for the actions of its government, since we create it.
 

Ortix

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,438
You had no saying in the implementation of those decisions. That's just nationalistic jingoism.

But let's talk about 2020 instead hihi. Bernie is going to win.
I don't get why you're getting hung up over this. People also talk about how "we won the world cup" or "we have the most people incarcerated/capita in the world". That's hardly nationalistic, just a manner of speech.
 

Entryhazard

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,843
User Warned: Inflammatory commentary
I feel like if I said "actually none of us are really responsible for America's Cold War policy because we were all babies so it's unreasonable to criticize us for it" you would not be too happy with that opinion either.
"we weren't there" is not enough when some here are deepthroating the boot by fully endorsing that policy anyway.
Similarly nobody living today was there during slavery, but still we talk about reparation because the damage to the descendants (and the benefits for the descendants of the oppressors) are still there today.

NO European nation is going to do it. Japan won't either. Why do you think that is?
Because:
1) Our ruling class is entirely complicit in your imperialism
2) Even while we have the "legal" right to kick you out if we were to you'd do anything in your power to crush us back under your boot, even military invasion.
lmao, so you really have no idea how the British were able to establish dominance early on during the colonial period.
The British Empire, another world-wide oppressor, what a positive example.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 2426

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,988
I feel like if I said "actually none of us are really responsible for America's Cold War policy because we were all babies so it's unreasonable to criticize us for it" you would not be too happy with that opinion either.

Ultimately if America is a democracy we must all accept collective responsibility for the actions of its government, since we create it.

I just don't like when people identify with their nations because it sparks "otherism". It does not spark joy.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
I feel like if I said "actually none of us are really responsible for America's Cold War policy because we were all babies so it's unreasonable to criticize us for it" you would not be too happy with that opinion either.
Without delving further into your actual opinion on this, I want to say that we live in a post-Cold War world where the US were the victors and today's American generation benefits from the exploitations and atrocities carried out in those years in America's name.

Just like structural issues of patriarchy and racist apartheid, we all derive our joys (and sorrows) from the actions of the past. Usually I'm in the camp of "the sins of the father will not pass onto the son", but the fact remains that "the wealth of the father does indeed pass on to the son", and it is this passing on of wealth, whether capital or social, that's at the root of inequality and suffering in the world.
 
Jan 15, 2019
4,393
Detailed policy doesn't matter anyway because voters are idiots.
I do think Buttigieg makes a good point about establishing the Democratic party's values first before it dives into the policy litmus tests, and I think the party has been doing a fairly good job of that lately with AOC's "No one should be too poor to live in the richest country in the world" and others' similar statements.
 
Nov 20, 2017
3,613
Because:
1) Our ruling class is entirely complicit in your imperialism
2) Even while we have the "legal" right to kick you out if we were to you'd do anything in your power to crush us back under your boot, even military invasion.

Right, because all governments are hapless puppets who somehow couldn't make the decision to align themselves with other geopolitical powers (e.g. China or Russia), and reducing geopolitics to a 'conqueror/conquered' dichotomy is not at all stupid.

The British Empire, another world-wide oppressor, what a positive example.

You understand TerminusFox wasn't trying to praise the British Empire but rather draw a comparison, right?
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,014
And yet we've objectively created the most peaceful time in human history. That's in an inarguable, incontrovertible fact. The US Navy protects international trade and are literally a day away at most for aid and disaster relief around the world. We stopped Europeans from engaging in pointless wars and conflicts.

We're not perfect by any means, but our two closes replacements should we fall on the global stage (China, and Russia) are so far beyond the pale, that if you're such an isolationist that you'd be willing to cede world influence to these regimes, you're fucking batshit crazy.
Gee i wonder why America protects trade routes, gee i wonder why America routinely destabilizes regions composed of non white people. What a mystery.
 
Nov 20, 2017
3,613
Gee i wonder why America protects trade routes, gee i wonder why America routinely destabilizes regions composed of non white people. What a mystery.

lol so you are conceding his point, right? Because nothing you ranted about actually contradicted any of that. Any empire, the US or not, would do the same, and it is a fact. I don't like it at all, but geopolitics is often a game about allying with the least shit powers based on the hand you're dealt.
 
Jan 15, 2019
4,393

Most Americans dont want somone over 75 or a socialist?

Bernie or Biden it is then!

I think these kinds of polls are usually a little dumb (I'm just saying this in general, not necessarily refuting you) because someone could very easily not like the abstract idea of a 75+ socialist or democratic socialist, but still be a big fan of Bernie Sanders. And likewise someone could like the idea of a black woman but not necessarily care for Kamala Harris. As soon as you make these things about a specific person I think the matter of their identity tends to take a back seat.
 
OP
OP
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
lol so you are conceding his point, right? Because nothing you ranted about actually contradicted any of that. Any empire, the US or not, would do the same, and it is a fact. I don't like it at all, but geopolitics is often a game about allying with the least shit powers based on the hand you're dealt.

No, I don't think this is true. America's history of doing this has mostly been terrible and actively counterproductive to America's ostensible foreign policy goals. For example, our desire to ally with the Shah of Iran has led to negative outcomes way out of proportion with any temporal benefit we received.

We can believe in Pax Americana without wholesale adopting Kissinger's vision of foreign policy. Actually we should have supported democratic values instead of local strongmen in general.

It's also worth recognizing that while Stalin turned out to be running a totalitarian murder state, we actually mostly didn't know this at the time and were not making foreign policy decisions based on it, but rather on a generic ideological framework which is much harder to defend.
 

Tomohawk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,014
lol so you are conceding his point, right? Because nothing you ranted about actually contradicted any of that. Any empire, the US or not, would do the same, and it is a fact. I don't like it at all, but geopolitics is often a game about allying with the least shit powers based on the hand you're dealt.
The post I was responding to was defending U.S's involvement in fueling the cold war, by saying look at all the good shit we did. When that good shit was in service of protecting the interests of the wealthy and their exploitation of poor countries. Saying we're not perfect and look at how bad the other guys are doesn't absolve America from criticism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.