The Spread of American Democracy.

BalcombeSt4

Nothing to serious (except for the horriblr death & torture), I found this to be pretty funny, taught maybe some other people might might find it funny to.

pleas advice

tl;dw?

BalcombeSt4

.. funny and horrifying at the same time

Mutant z

The greatest myth on the planet.

verycool

nothing to serious / funny to what?

Hande hoche!

Couldn't let the USSR win...

Chaos Tourist

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” -- some U.S Major in Vietnam according to journalist Peter Arnett.

BalcombeSt4

^ The USSR was never going to win, it was pretty much falling apart slowly by the 70's.
It's just that a lot of American & Western heroics like the great victory against Fascism & Nazism is taught schools (the 26 million dead USSR citizens is usually left out tho), along with USSR atrocities during the Cold War, you never hear about American war crimes during the same periods..

BalcombeSt4

Unless you are a big fan of people like Suharto, The Shah & Pinochet then I could understand.

Hande hoche!

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Unless you are a big fan of people like Suharto, The Shah & Pinochet then I could understand.

Wouldn't be a fan of Suharto based on his headwear along. Like a less fun Fez.

BalcombeSt4

Chaos Tourist wrote: »

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” -- some U.S Major in Vietnam according to journalist Peter Arnett.

That has to be one of the most amazing quotes of thee 20th century. Kinda like Like Hilary on Libya about "we came, we saw, we killed him, muahahaha" - I forget the exact quote.

BalcombeSt4

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Wouldn't be a fan of Suharto based on his headwear along. Like a less fun Fez.

What about the Shah of Iran? "can you believe that fat f... Tony Soprano says Phi leotardo looks like him?

BalcombeSt4

pleas advice wrote: »

tl;dw?

I see this a lot, can some tell me what it means please?

Hande hoche!

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

That has to be one of the most amazing quotes of thee 20th century. Kinda like Like Hilary on Libya about "we came, we saw, we killed him, muahahaha" - I forget the exact quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

It's one of her more notable moments, along with Pokemon go to the polls and why aren't I 50 points ahead.

Irish Praetorian

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

^ The USSR was never going to win, it was pretty much falling apart slowly by the 70's.
It's just that a lot of American & Western heroics like the great victory against Fascism & Nazism is taught schools (the 26 million dead USSR citizens is usually left out tho), along with USSR atrocities during the Cold War, you never hear about American war crimes during the same periods..

People also tend to leave out the 20 million Chinese that died fighting the Japanese, a fight which began two years before the war in Europe erupted - one might suspect the further away people are from a conflict they less they are aware of it. Incidentally, China managed to fight the Japanese without agreeing to partition an innocent nation with them first, a la Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and Poland.

Also, while I'm on the point, 'never hear about US atrocities' - I kinda feel like you might have missed the whole Vietnam war? Now I'm not sure about you but the words My Lai seem to have a lot more purchase in the public sphere than somewhere like Tashqurghan. Just off the top of my head I can think Grenada, the Contras, Chile, heck the toppling of Mossadegh is talked about like it just happened yesterday when it happened 65 years ago.

It's almost as if you have an axe to grind...

Gatling

Must be a boring bank holiday for some

Vladimir Poontang

Don't worry guys the caped propagandist is here like clockwork ^^^

mynamejeff

Americans also funded terrorist organisations in Ireland for long enough and continue to

Pinch Flat

Does a country just need to have vast oil reserves before American democracy is offered to them?

Hande hoche!

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

What about the Shah of Iran? "can you believe that fat f... Tony Soprano says Phi leotardo looks like him?

The Shah was too much into the bling. Pincohet had a swanky pair of sunglasses at least.

Irish Praetorian

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Don't worry guys the caped propagandist is here like clockwork ^^^

Ironic coming from someone with your nickname In any case don't let me get in the way of the usual 'US so baaaad' funtimes with those minor things like nuance.

Irish Praetorian

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Does a country just need to have vast oil reserves before American democracy is offered to them?

Normally if you're not getting a response it's because your comment wasn't witty or funny enough, but you seem nice so I'll toss you a crumb.

Woah gnarly dude, 'no blood for oil man', that's almost as profound as 'Ron Paul 2012'.

To add a serious remark, there are 40 countries in the world with oil reserves in excess of one billion barrels, in the past quarter century the US has invaded one of them, before withdrawing almost all troops 7 years ago.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Don't worry guys the caped propagandist is here like clockwork ^^^

Mod note: Easy, tiger. We'll discuss the topic and not the poster, please.

Buford T. Justice

Pinch Flat

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Normally if you're not getting a response it's because your comment wasn't witty or funny enough, but you seem nice so I'll toss you a crumb.

Woah gnarly dude, 'no blood for oil man', that's almost as profound as 'Ron Paul 2012'.

To add a serious remark, there are 40 countries in the world with oil reserves in excess of one billion barrels, in the past quarter century the US has invaded one of them, before withdrawing almost all troops 7 years ago.

Or you know what, it might be a double post. Anyway problem solved, as you were.

Irish Praetorian

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Or you know what, it might be a double post. Anyway problem solved, as you were.

A double post...15 minutes and 2 separate replies after the first? Is that even technically possible?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

A double post...15 minutes and 2 separate replies after the first? Is that even technically possible?

Yes, it is.

Pinch Flat

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

A double post...15 minutes and 2 separate replies after the first? Is that even technically possible?

It would appear so.

Irish Praetorian

Fair enough, please forgive my cavalier demeanour in responding, I laboured under a misapprehension.

Hector Bellend

mad muffin

If it wasn’t for America, we’d all be speaking Germaniseian…

Irish Praetorian

mad muffin wrote: »

If it wasn’t for America, we’d all be speaking Germaniseian…

That might be the Soviets you're thinking of (shock horror) - unless you want to make a technical argument about whether or not the Soviets could have prosecuted the war against Germany to its conclusion without American economic assistance. The answer to that question is maybe, but I don't know for sure and it sounds so eminently tedious I don't especially care.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Don't worry guys the caped propagandist is here like clockwork ^^^

The Gatling gun.

Atoms for Peace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSVlPlnB8wI

Elmer Blooker

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

To add a serious remark, there are 40 countries in the world with oil reserves in excess of one billion barrels, in the past quarter century the US has invaded one of them, before withdrawing almost all troops 7 years ago.

But if any of these 40 countries even think of trading in a currency other than the dollar then they end up on the hit list. The problem for the US is that Iran and Russia are militarily too powerful to be taken on like Saddam was dealt with in 2003.

Irish Praetorian

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

But if any of these 40 countries even think of trading in a currency other than the dollar then they end up on the hit list. The problem for the US is that Iran and Russia are militarily too powerful to be taken on like Saddam was dealt with in 2003.

I recall having repeatedly dealt with that canard in the past; it sounds wonderfully elegant and all encompassing but it just doesn't really fit the fact that oil trading is in reality a rather small part of the demand for dollar currency and even today the idea that oil traders are obligated to employ a specific currency to move their stock just doesn't hold water. The argument is largely a rehash of 'invading Iraq to secure oil supplies' which fell apart when it became clear that the US had negligible Iraqi oil imports before the war and even fewer today.

Now you could make the argument that part of the motivation for the US invading Iraq was the belief that on completing the invasion they would have new markets and contract opportunities for many US companies to operate in, I have a LOT of time for that particular line of argument. Nevertheless I still feel the fundamental grounds for invasion was a a completely misguided belief that since the fall of the USSR that people could (and wanted to be) 'liberated'.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The problem for the US is that Iran and Russia are militarily too powerful to be taken on like Saddam was dealt with in 2003.

Iran would fall just as quickly as Saddam did , actually isn't Israel bombing Iranians with impunity in Syria .

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

Iran would fall just as quickly as Saddam did , actually isn't Israel bombing Iranians with impunity in Syria .

It won’t. Interfering that you aren’t even denying your everlasting support for US imperialism now. Iran will fall. Why? What’s Iran done to fall?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I recall having repeatedly dealt with that canard in the past; it sounds wonderfully elegant and all encompassing but it just doesn't really fit the fact that oil trading is in reality a rather small part of the demand for dollar currency and even today the idea that oil traders are obligated to employ a specific currency to move their stock just doesn't hold water. The argument is largely a rehash of 'invading Iraq to secure oil supplies' which fell apart when it became clear that the US had negligible Iraqi oil imports before the war and even fewer today.

Now you could make the argument that part of the motivation for the US invading Iraq was the belief that on completing the invasion they would have new markets and contract opportunities for many US companies to operate in, I have a LOT of time for that particular line of argument. Nevertheless I still feel the fundamental grounds for invasion was a a completely misguided belief that since the fall of the USSR that people could (and wanted to be) 'liberated'.

The petro dollar is indeed a rubbish argument. The US invasions have to do with neo conservative thought within the US state apparatus.

Irish Praetorian

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The petro dollar is indeed a rubbish argument. The US invasions have to do with neo conservative thought within the US state apparatus.

I think if you want to follow this point you would have to specify the invasions and then the state department apparatchiks. I mean if we take the two big invasions of the early 2000s, Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think its being unreasonable to argue the reasons for both were chalk and cheese.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Iran would fall just as quickly as Saddam did , actually isn't Israel bombing Iranians with impunity in Syria .

Iran is shockingly massive compared to an already large Iraq.. Plus Iraq itself didn't fall, and Iran doesn't have the cliche despot leader to depose.

Chaos Tourist

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I recall having repeatedly dealt with that canard in the past; it sounds wonderfully elegant and all encompassing but it just doesn't really fit the fact that oil trading is in reality a rather small part of the demand for dollar currency and even today the idea that oil traders are obligated to employ a specific currency to move their stock just doesn't hold water. The argument is largely a rehash of 'invading Iraq to secure oil supplies' which fell apart when it became clear that the US had negligible Iraqi oil imports before the war and even fewer today.

Now you could make the argument that part of the motivation for the US invading Iraq was the belief that on completing the invasion they would have new markets and contract opportunities for many US companies to operate in, I have a LOT of time for that particular line of argument. Nevertheless I still feel the fundamental grounds for invasion was a a completely misguided belief that since the fall of the USSR that people could (and wanted to be) 'liberated'.

John Gray is of sort of the same view. He goes through this in Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. Worth a read.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I think if you want to follow this point you would have to specify the invasions and then the state department apparatchiks. I mean if we take the two big invasions of the early 2000s, Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think its being unreasonable to argue the reasons for both were chalk and cheese.

Well since Iraq then, although according to Wesley Clark there were ideologues within the bush administration that wanted to attack Iraq first, and Afghanistan second if at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YtF76s-yM

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Iran is shockingly massive compared to an already large Iraq.. Plus Iraq itself didn't fall, and Iran doesn't have the cliche despot leader to depose.

It's big bit but for the most part it's unpopulated desert .
The 4th biggest army in the world fell twice besides Iran will likely explode at some stage in the future with people saying they have had enough of the so called revolution

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Interfering that you aren’t even denying your everlasting support for US imperialism now.

How's the censorship coming along

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

How's the censorship coming along

What are you talking about?

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Really !

Iran will fall either from within or at the hands of Israel

Franz Von Peppercorn

Gatling wrote: »

Really !

Iran will fall either from within or at the hands of Israel

Do you ever stop supporting mass destruction and imperialism. Do you realise that real people will die.

Why do you think Israel has the right to bomb Iran?

Irish Praetorian

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

That might be the Soviets you're thinking of (shock horror) - unless you want to make a technical argument about whether or not the Soviets could have prosecuted the war against Germany to its conclusion without American economic assistance. The answer to that question is maybe, but I don't know for sure and it sounds so eminently tedious I don't especially care.

TBF, without the US, we probably would have been speaking Russian rather than German. Stalin was well prepared to continue advancing on western Europe, and the only things stopping him from doing so, were the US forces and the threat of being nuked.

As much as I dislike the US, Europe was pretty screwed against both Germany and Russia without US intervention.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Iran will likely explode at some stage in the future with people saying they have had enough of the so called revolution

I've seen references from experts saying the same about China and yet they're still there. Same with Iran. These governments will continue as long as they can prevent an external power from generating enough disorder, and support for change.

Iran is easily the most stable state in the M.East, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. But hey! I'm pretty sure the US will continue in it's mission to destabilise the M.East, and topple any government that looks even remotely successful.

Odhinn

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

People also tend to leave out the 20 million Chinese that died fighting the Japanese, a fight which began two years before the war in Europe erupted - one might suspect the further away people are from a conflict they less they are aware of it. Incidentally, China managed to fight the Japanese without agreeing to partition an innocent nation with them first, a la Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and Poland.

Also, while I'm on the point, 'never hear about US atrocities' - I kinda feel like you might have missed the whole Vietnam war? Now I'm not sure about you but the words My Lai seem to have a lot more purchase in the public sphere than somewhere like Tashqurghan. Just off the top of my head I can think Grenada, the Contras, Chile, heck the toppling of Mossadegh is talked about like it just happened yesterday when it happened 65 years ago.

It's almost as if you have an axe to grind...

Possibly he does, but that video is, in the main, entirely accurate.

You can't understand the modern day situation with iran if you don't know the history of it.

In general, its good to see how - in fighting communism - the US gave rise to situations that would drive people to join communist fighters. Might even set off the odd alarm bell. Likewise the Indonesian and Bangladeshi genocides (or attempted genocides) are not as well known as they should be. That being said there's a genocide going on in Myanamar and nobody seems in a rush to fix it.

Irish Praetorian

Odhinn wrote: »

Possibly he does, but that video is, in the main, entirely accurate.

You can't understand the modern day situation with iran if you don't know the history of it.

In general, its good to see how - in fighting communism - the US gave rise to situations that would drive people to join communist fighters. Might even set off the odd alarm bell. Likewise the Indonesian and Bangladeshi genocides (or attempted genocides) are not as well known as they should be. That being said there's a genocide going on in Myanamar and nobody seems in a rush to fix it.

Yes the Myanmar one never ceases to leave me gob-smacked, if only by virtue of the comparisons. I mean consider for a moment the ire and venom Israel attracts on a fairly regular basis, particularly owing to flare up in fighting with the Palestinians. In Myanmar we have a country that in a matter of months expelled about one million of its Muslim citizens and the best we can do is saying maybe Aung San Suu Kyi should maybe have her Nobel prize taken away. That's maybe one and a half times the population of Gaza City (emphasis on city not strip). I don't know, perhaps there is something in the Western mindset that cannot condemn injustices that we cannot see ourselves as responsible for in some manner.