US foreign policy

[hot enough]

Quote

I figured we could talk about what was wrong with US foreign policy, but at least keep it factual.

Did you not read William Blum's article settting out the myriad illegal US invasions of sovereign nations, James?

[JamesHackerMP]

12 hours ago, hot enough said:

http://www.cracked.com/article_23252_5-awful-ways-america-influenced-hitler-without-knowing-it.html

That's the best you can do? Cracked? Is this a serious discussion or not? I read the cracked "article" and thank you, it gave me a good laugh.  Or at least it would have if most of its conclusions had been based on more than a few parallels with pop culture.  Seriously, you can do better than that.  As for the other article, let me get back to you.  If it's anything like your other so called source I should have a  good laugh as well.

[blackbird]

On 2017-06-13 at 2:18 PM, Omni said:

And of course it turned out to be illegal and it served to beget ISIS. There's some foreign policy that backfired big time.

There is some question as to whether the invasion of Iraq caused ISIS.  There have always been two different sects of Islam, the Sunnis and the Sheites.  The radical version of Sunnis decided they wanted a caliphate and got support from many Islamic radicals.  They are not content living in peace with other non-violent Muslims.  They have been blowing up Muslims in Iraq, not Americans.  They oppose anyone who does not believe their extreme version of Islam.  That is the real reason for their existence, not Americans in Iraq.

Quote

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by blackbird

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is some question as to whether the invasion of Iraq caused ISIS.  There have always been two different sects of Islam, the Sunnis and the Sheites.  The radical version of Sunnis decided they wanted a caliphate and got support from many Islamic radicals.  They are not content living in peace with other non-violent Muslims.  They have been blowing up Muslims in Iraq, not Americans.  They oppose anyone who does not believe their extreme version of Islam.  That is the real reason for their existence, not Americans in Iraq.

 

The Sunni's ran Iraq under the Baath party. After the US invasion they left a Shia in charge who set about firing all the experienced people to replace them with his own people. The place fell apart even more. Some of the displaced Sunni decided to rebel, and they had at their disposal a whole shitload of military hardware the US left behind. And from there things progressed. 

[JamesHackerMP]

I think it was more the "Arab Spring" that had to do with the rise of ISIS than the US invasion of Iraq.  But perhaps it isn't so clear cut, no?

[JamesHackerMP]

10 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

That's the best you can do? Cracked? Is this a serious discussion or not? I read the cracked "article" and thank you, it gave me a good laugh.  Or at least it would have if most of its conclusions had been based on more than a few parallels with pop culture.  Seriously, you can do better than that.  As for the other article, let me get back to you.  If it's anything like your other so called source I should have a  good laugh as well.

OK, I'm sorry hot enough, I think I was a bit out of line last night saying it that way.  Let me get back to you on the article you posted above.

The problem with "illegal" wars or invasions is, how do you define a war that's illegal? We haven't declared war since WWII.  And of course the US has pulled plenty of shenanigans, as I admitted above.  But certainly no less than our counterparts in Moscow.  I had hoped that that would end with the end of the Cold War.  An Aussie I know put it best: Now that America no longer has to defend liberty and justice, it can defend liberty and justice! But then again, there's realpolitik to consider.

[eyeball]

The consideration America puts into it's efforts is a waste of time given the un-principled, un-ethical and amoral prescriptions it comes up with for solving its issues with the world.

The real realpolitic is that principles ethics and morality matter...immensely.

America ignores these at everyone's peril and especially it's own. 

[hot enough]

11 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

That's the best you can do? Cracked? Is this a serious discussion or not? I read the cracked "article" and thank you, it gave me a good laugh.  Or at least it would have if most of its conclusions had been based on more than a few parallels with pop culture.  Seriously, you can do better than that.  As for the other article, let me get back to you.  If it's anything like your other so called source I should have a  good laugh as well.

You failed to note that there were extensive links within that article, James. 

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination – by starvation and uneven combat – of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

— P. 202, “Adolph Hitler” by John Toland

[hot enough]

34 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

OK, I'm sorry hot enough, I think I was a bit out of line last night saying it that way.  Let me get back to you on the article you posted above.

The problem with "illegal" wars or invasions is, how do you define a war that's illegal? We haven't declared war since WWII.  And of course the US has pulled plenty of shenanigans, as I admitted above.  But certainly no less than our counterparts in Moscow.  I had hoped that that would end with the end of the Cold War.  An Aussie I know put it best: Now that America no longer has to defend liberty and justice, it can defend liberty and justice! But then again, there's realpolitik to consider.

No, you weren't out of line, James. How we react to things is a lot of who we are and what we have been exposed to. 

Illegal wars are defined, were defined by the Nuremberg Standards, largely a concoction of the USA/Justice Robert Jackson.

Quote

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. 

...

In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."^[2] [3] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

...

 

 

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I think it was more the "Arab Spring" that had to do with the rise of ISIS than the US invasion of Iraq.  But perhaps it isn't so clear cut, no?

The group grew after the invasion and then spread out from Iraq. Broke off from the Al-Queda types thinking they were too soft.  The Arab Spring helped them for sure, but then you have to understand what role the west played in the Arab Spring. Throw in the attack in Benghazi. and the Clinton email servers lead to some gun running through Libya into Syria via the west.

That is what brought ISIS into the spotlight more and I would say that the west with the help of certain Arab allies, started that whole mess.

[CITIZEN_2015]

A couple of examples of US foreign policy:

US overthrows the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/us-released-report-on-1953-cia-coup-against-irans-democratic-government/2017/06/17/

US overthrows the elected  socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82588

 

United States of America stands for anti-democratic forces all over the world (and Russians are no better).

Edited June 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

United States of America stands for anti-democratic forces all over the world. Down with USA (and Russians are no better).

That was only two of the more than 70 US illegal invasions of sovereign nations since WWII. 

Russia and China are definitely better than the US. They aren't perfect for sure. Both R and C, as noted by a number of US writers, are the go to countries to help liberate people. They both aided Korea and Vietnam in throwing out the invading hordes of Americans/Australians/... . Then China and Russia went home, they didn't try to over run Korea and Vietnam, subjugate the people and rape and pillage those countries. When they easily could have. 

Russia was forced/tricked into invading Afghanistan by the US who were very comfortable with using the Afghan people to "give the USSR its own Vietnam". The US knew that a million or two Afghan lives would be lost but they "were comfortable" with those numbers. 

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

Russia is more evil than the US and here is why:

Russia oppressed half of Europe (Eastern Europe) and took their population for slavery. Whenever a nation tried to rise up then they invaded and put a brutal end to independence movements like in Hungry (1956) and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Russian regime were even brutal to their own people as the atrocities committed soon after the Bolshevik revolution and years after in Stalin years when millions of dissidents send to Siberia and killed. Not to mention the so called Soviet Union which was a union of oppressed nations by Russians. They suck the blood of all these nations and spent it on Kremlin and military and secret police (KGB) while the people lived in poverty.

The only reasons Russia and China supported Vietnam was for political reasons that was to bring down their competition, the United States economically and militarily and they succeeded. They couldn't care less about Vietnam people. In 1953 they forced Americans to stage a military coup in Iran as the Russians have their own puppets, the Soviet backed Tudeh party in Iran which was plotting a take over and make Iran another oppressed nation of Soviet Empire.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with the US. They staged a military coup in Afghanistan very similar to what US did in Iran in 1953 and overthrew the monarchy  and since their puppet regime was so unpopular the people rose up so they killed their own puppets and installed another and another and once they realized that they could not keep their puppets in power any longer then they invaded and started a brutal campaign against defenseless Afghan population murdering women and children even using dirty tactics like dropping toys from the planes which were actually explosives and the use of cluster bombs. How can anyone support this?

Not to mention the brutal war by Russian military against defenseless Chechnian population whose only fault was to have their independence. 

And the latest example is the brutal bombardment of Syria's civilian population including many women and children and even hospitals killing the sick they don't wish to spare anyone and stand short of nothing to brutally suppress opposition to Assad regime in order to keep brutal Assad regime in power. They are committing the worse atrocities not seen since Vietnam war.

In contrast America has done a lot of good deeds as well like democratic transitional regimes and supporting democratic movements opposing dictatorships, especially recently but Russians have done nothing good in the past or recent history even as I mentioned brutal to their own people. Russia do not have democracy at home either. Putin is a clear dictator and eliminated his opponents Many Russians are Racist, anti-gay and anti-democratic. There is no freedom in Russia as we speak. How can they support democracy when they don't have it themselves at home?? The population even hate their own former people from Muslim and non-white former Soviet Empire.  Russians are worse and FAR from perfect. Down with Russia.

I am not extreme or biased in my views. I tell the truth as they are. I call spade a spade whether is is Americans or Russians I tell their good and bad deeds. No good deeds for Russians though.

Edited June 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

A couple of examples of US foreign policy:

US overthrows the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-news/us-released-report-on-1953-cia-coup-against-irans-democratic-government/2017/06/17/

US overthrow the elected  socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82588

 

United States of America stands for anti-democratic forces all over the world (and Russians are no better).

 

America is staunchly anti-Communist by policy. Both Allende and Mossadeq toyed with Marxism/Communism...a no-no in the US sphere of influence (as per Churchill).

Like Tesio, you won't be seein' them again.

[CITIZEN_2015]

15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

America is staunchly anti-Communist by policy. Both Allende and Mossadeq toyed with Marxism/Communism...a no-no in the US sphere of influence (as per Churchill).

I mentioned the Tudeh party in my post about Russia being worse than US. Tudeh hated by population was a Soviet (Russian) puppet party whose plan was to serve Russians by selling Iran to Russians in exchange for power. They collaborated with Mosaddegh but Mosaddegh himself was a nationalist not a communist and hence was also opposed to this party's agenda. The Tudeh party was abusing the popularity of Mossaddegh to take power but definitely Mossaddegh was no where close to Marxism/Communism. He was a nationalist.

Edited June 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I mentioned the Tudeh party in my post about Russia being worse than US. Tudeh hated by population was a Soviet (Russian) puppet party whose plan was to serve Russians by selling Iran to Russians in exchange for power. They collaborated with Mosaddegh but Mosaddegh himself was a nationalist not a communist and hence was also opposed to this party's agenda. The Tudeh party was abusing the popularity of Mossaddegh to take power but definitely Mossaddegh was no where close to Marxism/Communism. He was a nationalist.

Mossadeq needed the Tudehs to win his 'democratic election'. But seeing the Tudeh's behaviour was already known from the 1946 UN Crisis...he knew what devil he was dealing with. As I mentioned...they smelled coup and abandoned Moddadeq to try and seize power themselves...but the Army cracked-down hard...bye bye Tudeh Party. It still exists outside Iran, I think.

[CITIZEN_2015]

They collaborated with post revolutionary Islamic government but the Islamic government was smarter than Mosaddegh as they knew well the devil this Tudeh party is so as soon after they solidified their hold on power they started cracking down on this Soviet Puppet and traitor party. Not sure it is possible they may still have a few members in Russia but I hope they all exist in hell.

Edited June 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

They collaborated with post revolutionary Islamic government and the Islamic government was smarter than Mosaddegh as soon after they solidified their hold on power they started cracking down on this Soviet Puppet and traitor party. Not sure it is possible they may still have a few members in Russia but I hope they all exist in hell.

 

I think you're right as it was Marxists who initially ousted the Shah. But then came the Mullahs and all that Communism stuff was done away with.

Edited June 18, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[CITIZEN_2015]

I think that the Marxists help the mullahs to cease power as they were the military force fighting the armed forces backing the monarch but the mass mobilization of civilian population was organized by mullahs and it was the latter not the former which overthrew the shah as the army was a thousand times stronger than the armed Marxists. The Shah was quite ready to fight and kill the Marxists as he believed they were traitors and likely he was right but the Shah refused to fire on his own population mobilized by mullahs at the end and left abroad and that was what brought about the revolution as the civilians mobilized by mullahs attacked the garrisons and picked up the arms..

Edited June 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I think that the Marxists help the mullahs to cease power as they were the military force fighting the armed forced backing the monarch but the mass mobilization of civilian population was organized by mullahs and it was the latter not the former which overthrew the shah as the army was a hundred times stronger than the armed Marxists. 

 

Crazy times. I remember watching the whole thing. 

One thing is for sure...times were much better under the Shah...unless you were a religious loony. The Shah wasn't particularly religious. It was their constant nattering sermons about cooperating with the Israelis that started the people grumbling. It wasn't as if life sucked under The Shah. More a response to constant Israeli victories that were causing some second thoughts as to Islam's dominance over the Jews. At least at that level. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

It depends. Times were better for who? Maybe for the top 10% westernized and educated at that time (now in 2017 the figure is as high as 60% or likely higher even).  I don't think collaborating with Israelis played a major role if any at all. Iran has historically many Arab enemies and as they say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think it was the gap between rich and poor and rapid westernization faster than the nation could absorb then and likely most importantly the 1953 CIA coup as many former Mossadegh colleagues played a major role in revolution and persuading the US to abandon the Shah and help a transition to revolutionaries and even initially they formed the Islamic government.

Edited June 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

....The real realpolitic is that principles ethics and morality matter...immensely.

America ignores these at everyone's peril and especially it's own. 

 

Then why do Canada, the EU, and Japan desperately want the United States to continue doing so after more than 70 years of "world order"?

Ethics and morality don't matter much when blue heron's want protection.

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

eyeball said: ....The real realpolitic is that principles ethics and morality matter...immensely.

 

Those things only matter to those who are human.

[hot enough]

xxxxx wonky formatting made new post

Quote

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan had nothing to do with the US.

You've got to read some history, C. 

Quote

The CIA's anticommunist jihad

President Jimmy Carter immediately declared that the invasion jeopardized vital U.S. interests, because the Persian Gulf area was "now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan. But the Carter administration's public outrage at Russian intervention in Afghanistan was doubly duplicitous. Not only was it used as an excuse for a program of increased military expenditure that had in fact already begun, but the U.S. had in fact been aiding the mujahideen for at least the previous six months, with precisely the hope of provoking a Soviet response. Former CIA director Robert Gates later admitted in his memoirs that aid to the rebels began in June 1979. In a candid 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brezinski, Carter's national security adviser, confirmed that U.S. aid to the rebels began before the invasion:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan [in] December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would....

That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap.... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War."

The Carter administration was well aware that in backing the mujahideen it was supporting forces with reactionary social goals, but this was outweighed by its own geopolitical interests. In August 1979, a classified State Department report bluntly asserted that "the United States' larger interest...would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." That same month, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, State Department spokesperson Hodding Carter piously announced that the U.S. "expect the principle of nonintervention to be respected by all parties in the area, including the Soviet Union."

...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by hot enough