The Spread of American Democracy.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-05-2018 03:25PM

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

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

The Gatling gun.

Atoms for Peace · 07-05-2018 03:28PM

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

Elmer Blooker · 07-05-2018 03:31PM

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 · 07-05-2018 03:46PM

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 · 07-05-2018 03:55PM

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 · 07-05-2018 03:57PM

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 · 07-05-2018 03:59PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:05PM

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.

07-05-2018 04:07PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:12PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:12PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:19PM

[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 · 07-05-2018 04:20PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:21PM

Gatling wrote: »

How's the censorship coming along

What are you talking about?

Gatling · 07-05-2018 04:23PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:25PM

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?

07-05-2018 04:31PM

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.

07-05-2018 04:38PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:39PM

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 · 07-05-2018 04:46PM

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.

Irish Praetorian · 07-05-2018 04:49PM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

Have there been any big US invasions since Iraq? Now I'm certainly familiar with this multi-country plan but I think the more relevant point is that it didn't end up happening and pretty much stopped after Iraq, once the realities of such actions revealed themselves.

Also slightly depressing to see that video and see the highest rated comment is 'I think Jews made the decision.'

Irish Praetorian · 07-05-2018 04:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Quite plausibly, although I'm rather doubtful of the Soviet ability to project power navally in the 1940s, it might well have ended up being the case that 'we' in the sense of the UK and Ireland remained free (or perhaps became Airstrip 1). As for how long it might have ended up lasting, well that would bring us deeply into the realm of counter-factual.

Ipso · 07-05-2018 05:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Shh. Nothing bad was ever started by Europe in recent times, just by America.

Ipso · 07-05-2018 05:06PM

Gatling wrote: »

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

I don't think so. The country seems a bit more unified, Iraq was held together by fear of a psychotic thug that no one supported. The people had no reason to fight for what Iraq represented.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-05-2018 05:15PM

Ipso wrote: »

Shh. Nothing bad was ever started by Europe in recent times, just by America.

You have a unique view of recent.

Ipso · 07-05-2018 05:18PM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You have a unique view of recent.

You also have a unique view of other peoples opinions. If they disagree with me then they are imperialist war mongers.

07-05-2018 05:57PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Quite plausibly, although I'm rather doubtful of the Soviet ability to project power navally in the 1940s, it might well have ended up being the case that 'we' in the sense of the UK and Ireland remained free (or perhaps became Airstrip 1). As for how long it might have ended up lasting, well that would bring us deeply into the realm of counter-factual.

Russia was a naval power right up until Stalin took over with a Baltic force bigger than Germany at the start of WW2. Sure, Stalin destroyed their navy, but they could have built it up relatively easy considering the ingenuity in which they created their mass production for other armaments. Throw in the navies of other countries or those taken during the advance through Europe, and they might have gathered a significant force. The age of Naval power near landmasses was ending anyway, with the focus on airpower becoming more effective as time went by. I wouldn't underestimate the Russian ability to produce enough equipment which might not have been as advanced but just as effective in numbers. Then throw in the scientists, machinists, factories, etc taken during the advance and they would have the knowledge of Germany to use as a basis.

Without US involvement in Europe, Overlord wouldn't have happened, and the Russian front had most of German forces already... and they still buckled. It's unlikely that the forces used in France against the Allies would have made much difference in the long term, since Germany just didn't have the manpower to sustain a war like the one they had.

And yes, it's all guesswork. Too much time playing Hearts of Iron.

Ipso wrote:

Shh. Nothing bad was ever started by Europe in recent times, just by America.

Huh? Can you be more specific? How does that relate to what you quoted?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-05-2018 06:00PM

Ipso wrote: »

You also have a unique view of other peoples opinions. If they disagree with me then they are imperialist war mongers.

That would be a good reply to me calling you “an imperialist war monger”. Since I didn’t, it is merely a strawman.

07-05-2018 06:01PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have there been any big US invasions since Iraq? Now I'm certainly familiar with this multi-country plan but I think the more relevant point is that it didn't end up happening and pretty much stopped after Iraq, once the realities of such actions revealed themselves.

Also slightly depressing to see that video and see the highest rated comment is 'I think Jews made the decision.'

After Iraq, the US went back to their older foreign policy of remotely interfering with other nations, by identifying groups unhappy with the status quo. The operations of the cold war provide the groundwork for a lot of the behavior of US foreign policy since Iraq. Hence the focus on creating allies of democracy in other nations... building 'friendships' etc.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-05-2018 06:03PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have there been any big US invasions since Iraq? Now I'm certainly familiar with this multi-country plan but I think the more relevant point is that it didn't end up happening and pretty much stopped after Iraq, once the realities of such actions revealed themselves.

Also slightly depressing to see that video and see the highest rated comment is 'I think Jews made the decision.'

I think the US has clearly moved onto using proxies in its wars but yes - Syria and Libya have been overthrown. Iran was always the big one and is continually being threatened.

The Spread of American Democracy.

Comments