Defending the USA

[barbos]

It's only fair to have this thread as well.
I recently watched documentary about war ships. and in it they mentioned how US conquered stuff in Pacific Ocean. So there was a US navy ship in Cuba and one day it blows up (not sure why), US blames Spain and send their ships to punish them (in ..... Philippines). Spain fleet with wooden ships was no match for US fleet, so job is well done. But then US guy decides he would stay in Philippines so Philippines become US property I guess. then Hawaii, Guam, etc - Basically everything Spain had for themselves there. All because some dumbasses had fire on their ship in Cuba and blown themselves to pieces.

 

[braces_for_impact]

OK. Isn't the idea of an analogy to have some root basis for which the analogy is supposed to relate? I mean, if your point is that the U.S. has had some of it's own imperialistic tendencies, then, fine, but again, what's the point of this thread? I don't know too many people here that would disagree with the point. Some could even be pointing to shortcomings with, gasp, several countries of the world.

Maybe it's just my perception, but you seem remarkably sensitive to anything critical of Russia. Is it that we're not mentioning the U.S. problems enough in your opinion? Is there a preferred ratio? Like, for every criticism of Soviets or Russia related things shall we point out difficulties in Western powers as well twice as often? That's going to make for an unnecessarily long thread I think.

 

[barbos]

OK. Isn't the idea of an analogy to have some root basis for which the analogy is supposed to relate? I mean, if your point is that the U.S. has had some of it's own imperialistic tendencies, then, fine, but again, what's the point of this thread? I don't know too many people here that would disagree with the point. Some could even be pointing to shortcomings with, gasp, several countries of the world.

Good, I will hold you to that.

Maybe it's just my perception, but you seem remarkably sensitive to anything critical of Russia.

Not anything, just bullshit.

Is it that we're not mentioning the U.S. problems enough in your opinion?
Is there a preferred ratio? Like, for every criticism of Soviets or Russia related things shall we point out difficulties in Western powers as well twice as often? That's going to make for an unnecessarily long thread I think.

It's not about that. In some areas US problems are mentioned way too much and in some there is complete absence of any mentioning of glaring problems. For example Russia related ones. You can go on and on about how US politicians/government is wrong, stupid, incompetent about something, but the moment discussion starts about Russia the same people become geniuses and simply the best. I mean dude, you were just trashing this guy few seconds ago, why all of a sudden you trust his opinion about this Putin character?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I don't. Any more than I trusted Bush when he looked into his eyes and saw his soul. It's not a matter of what Donald has to say about Putin that I find at all persuasive. In fact, if there's something I find persuasive in this mess, it's the complete respect and lack of criticism Trump gives to Putin that no one else receives. As far as what Trump thinks, I wish he would take it more seriously, I wish he could perform at least one aspect of his job with a modicum of professionalism, alas it's not to be.

 

[barbos]

I don't. Any more than I trusted Bush when he looked into his eyes and saw his soul. It's not a matter of what Donald has to say about Putin that I find at all persuasive. In fact, if there's something I find persuasive in this mess, it's the complete respect and lack of criticism Trump gives to Putin that no one else receives. As far as what Trump thinks, I wish he would take it more seriously, I wish he could perform at least one aspect of his job with a modicum of professionalism, alas it's not to be.

LOL, I see what you did here, good one
You don't trust Bush/Trump, fine with me. But you trust McCain, Hillary Clinton and Obama. Why?

 

[steve_bank]

The argument the far left has made for decades, the US is no better than any of the worse regimes in the last 200 years...colonialism, slavery, subjugation of Native Americans and so on.The inference being in the past absolute moral decisions could have been msde that would have resulted in some imagined perfect society today/

We are not the country we were on 1800 or 1900. You can not highlight the negatives without a balanced view including the positives. If things are getting bad or worse, compared to what, and what are your metrics?

What we call poverty today is nothing like what it meant in 1951 when I was born.

Electrification. Clean water for all 124/7 is historically a great accomplishment. Sewers as well.

The DOI and COTUS that was a second attempt at a federal system were historically staggering. The idea of self rule without an aristocratic ruling class was a great experiment that is still evolving.

Since the founding we have moved steadily towards greater freedom and social equality. Not just the US, but what we generally call Western civilization.

With some 300 million people we produce so much excess

Circa 1900 being well off meant havbing clothers for the sesons, clean water, shelter, and decent food every day.

We need to do work on health care, but today if you have insurance you have care unheard of even 50 years ago. A kid I grew up with died of a kidney disease that today is likely easily curable. calories we have an obesity problem even at the lower economic levels.

 

[bigfield]

The theme of Defending Hitler and Defending the Soviet Union was arguing whether those entities get a raw deal in the literature. The USA, which emerged as the winner of the 20th century, has been flattered by history books in the West.

 

[barbos]

The theme of Defending Hitler and Defending the Soviet Union was arguing whether those entities get a raw deal in the literature. The USA, which emerged as the winner of the 20th century, has been flattered by history books in the West.

True, but in both cases it quickly degenerated (not really surprising in case of Hitler) into bashing, so I thought, US can use some of that too

 

[LordKiran]

I don't. Any more than I trusted Bush when he looked into his eyes and saw his soul. It's not a matter of what Donald has to say about Putin that I find at all persuasive. In fact, if there's something I find persuasive in this mess, it's the complete respect and lack of criticism Trump gives to Putin that no one else receives. As far as what Trump thinks, I wish he would take it more seriously, I wish he could perform at least one aspect of his job with a modicum of professionalism, alas it's not to be.

LOL, I see what you did here, good one
You don't trust Bush/Trump, fine with me. But you trust McCain, Hillary Clinton and Obama. Why?

Because they don't threaten the precarious balance of power on the global scale with constant diplomatic blunders and incompetency.

The simple act of having Trump as our president reduces our prestige in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike. Its a bad time.

 

[J842P]

I don't. Any more than I trusted Bush when he looked into his eyes and saw his soul. It's not a matter of what Donald has to say about Putin that I find at all persuasive. In fact, if there's something I find persuasive in this mess, it's the complete respect and lack of criticism Trump gives to Putin that no one else receives. As far as what Trump thinks, I wish he would take it more seriously, I wish he could perform at least one aspect of his job with a modicum of professionalism, alas it's not to be.

LOL, I see what you did here, good one
You don't trust Bush/Trump, fine with me. But you trust McCain, Hillary Clinton and Obama. Why?

Because they don't threaten the precarious balance of power on the global scale with constant diplomatic blunders and incompetency.

The simple act of having Trump as our president reduces our prestige in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike. Its a bad time.

Um, sure they do. Nothing Trump has done comes even close to, say, Iraq.

 

[humbleman]

It's only fair to have this thread as well.
I recently watched documentary about war ships. and in it they mentioned how US conquered stuff in Pacific Ocean. So there was a US navy ship in Cuba and one day it blows up (not sure why), US blames Spain and send their ships to punish them (in ..... Philippines). Spain fleet with wooden ships was no match for US fleet, so job is well done. But then US guy decides he would stay in Philippines so Philippines become US property I guess. then Hawaii, Guam, etc - Basically everything Spain had for themselves there. All because some dumbasses had fire on their ship in Cuba and blown themselves to pieces.

The US is still doing the right thing.

It was formed under principles of freedom from a foreign power.

It created so many new initiatives taken from different ideologies of other cultures, and in a group to be established in a new country.

The problem was "competence".

In order to succeed, a nation must overcome OVER other nations.

There is no powerful nation in the history of humanity that became powerful just by good principles and hard work by their people.

To become a powerful nation then other nations must be subjected. The whole empires of the world have follow this rule and the US won't be the exception.

Democracy, the style of government which started three centuries ago in the US is not "shared" but imposed to other countries. If they don't follow democracy then boycott and invasions to change those "regimes" will be the answer.

There is no other way, because otherwise the other systems of politics, economy and social status will be imposed from others over us.

 

[Copernicus]

The theme of Defending Hitler and Defending the Soviet Union was arguing whether those entities get a raw deal in the literature. The USA, which emerged as the winner of the 20th century, has been flattered by history books in the West.

True, but in both cases it quickly degenerated (not really surprising in case of Hitler) into bashing, so I thought, US can use some of that too

Barbos, I'm really having difficulty trying to understand what you hoped to accomplish by starting either thread. One can find good things to say about both the US and the Soviet Union. One can also find bad things to say about them. You can dwell on the worst sides or the best sides of any issue. You seem to be stuck in some kind of cold war throwback mentality where it is important to measure the two countries up against each other, as if it made sense to call one morally superior to the other. When I look at both countries today, I see both of them run by reprehensible narcissists. Both Trump and Putin are nativists who seem intent on dragging their countries back into a 1950s mentality, although I would still credit Putin with being the smarter and saner of the two, if I were forced to choose between two evils. Both men are dangerous blunderers, but Trump is probably the more dangerous of the two, because he appears to lack self-discipline and any appreciation of what could go wrong.

I don't know how long you've lived in the US, but haven't you discovered by now that Americans can be just as into bashing their own country as they are in bashing Russia? You get people on all sides of the political spectrum in every country on the planet. When I visited the SU in 1965, I met Komsomol members--the cream of the elite--who would argue with each other over whether their country was pointed in the right direction. (Of course, they were much more circumspect about voicing such opposition than Americans tend to be, but they faced more serious consequences for airing their feelings in public.)

 

[barbos]

The theme of Defending Hitler and Defending the Soviet Union was arguing whether those entities get a raw deal in the literature. The USA, which emerged as the winner of the 20th century, has been flattered by history books in the West.

True, but in both cases it quickly degenerated (not really surprising in case of Hitler) into bashing, so I thought, US can use some of that too

Barbos, I'm really having difficulty trying to understand what you hoped to accomplish by starting either thread.

I did not create Russia bashing thread. I created US bashing one for balance.

I don't know how long you've lived in the US, but haven't you discovered by now that Americans can be just as into bashing their own country as they are in bashing Russia? You get people on all sides of the political spectrum in every country on the planet. When I visited the SU in 1965, I met Komsomol members--the cream of the elite--who would argue with each other over whether their country was pointed in the right direction. (Of course, they were much more circumspect about voicing such opposition than Americans tend to be, but they faced more serious consequences for airing their feelings in public.)

I already explained that. I am annoyed at how united US is in their Russia bashing.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, I am annoyed at how united Russia is in their US bashing.

 

[barbos]

Well, I am annoyed at how united Russia is in their US bashing.

I am annoyed at that too. But to be fair, US started it first, and Russia can stop it at any time, Putin would just say a word and they will stop

 

[Copernicus]

Well, I am annoyed at how united Russia is in their US bashing.

I am annoyed at that too. But to be fair, US started it first, and Russia can stop it at any time, Putin would just say a word and they will stop

I have my doubts on that, because Putin is smart enough to realize that he does not dictate behaviors. He manipulates people because of the way they are predisposed to behave. He plays Russian nativists, at least partially, because that is what keeps him in power. In just the same way, Donald Trump plays American nativists, using their biases to manipulate them. Ultimately, what really matters to people like Trump and Putin is what is in it for them.

As for who "started it first", really??? Did that ploy work when you were a child? My parents had less patience for it. Nobody cares who "started it", not that you would even know.

 

[barbos]

Well, I am annoyed at how united Russia is in their US bashing.

I am annoyed at that too. But to be fair, US started it first, and Russia can stop it at any time, Putin would just say a word and they will stop

I have my doubts on that, because Putin is smart enough to realize that he does not dictate behaviors.

Trust me, the moment US stops this nonsense, russian propaganda will stop too. It already happened with Turkey after that jet plane incident.
Turkey apologized scape-goated some people for it and russian propaganda forgot what they were doing yesterday.

He manipulates people because of the way they are predisposed to behave. He plays Russian nativists, at least partially, because that is what keeps him in power. In just the same way, Donald Trump plays American nativists, using their biases to manipulate them. Ultimately, what really matters to people like Trump and Putin is what is in it for them.

Well, true. But sometimes there is no need to manipulate anybody, sometimes it is crystal clear what's going on.

As for who "started it first", really??? Did that ploy work when you were a child? My parents had less patience for it. Nobody cares who "started it", not that you would even know.

You need parents for it to fail to work. Clearly there are no parents here, only children. So yeah, US started it, not Putin.

 

[Copernicus]

OK, barbos. I see no point to continuing the discussion. Thanks for your time.

 

[barbos]

OK, barbos. I see no point to continuing the discussion. Thanks for your time.

Yes, US started it. And your analogy does no work. Because there are two grown up countries here, not children with parents.
And again my point, how come US makes a lot of mistakes but when it comes to Russia US is 100% mistake-less?
No one questions anything coming from Russia-bashers. Take for example McCain, the guy who choose that "what's her name?" as a running mate. Why is he a fucking genius when he comments on Russia?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The argument the far left has made for decades, the US is no better than any of the worse regimes in the last 200 years...colonialism, slavery, subjugation of Native Americans and so on.The inference being in the past absolute moral decisions could have been msde that would have resulted in some imagined perfect society today/

We are not the country we were on 1800 or 1900. You can not highlight the negatives without a balanced view including the positives. If things are getting bad or worse, compared to what, and what are your metrics?

Are we? Over 1 million Iraqis were displaced permanently as a direct result of the US occupation of Iraq... not to mention the over 100,000 Iraqi civilians that were killed, not from our invasion, but the massively incompetent securing of the nation.

The US has a lot of pluses in its history. First to develop a nationalized form of Democratic governance. We landed (and still are the only ones to have) on the gray one. Voyager. Braintrust that came up with the League of Nations and then UN. Major force in defeating the Nazis.

The US has a lot of negatives (varying in magnitudes) in its history. The proxy stuff with the Soviets that led to the suffering of millions in nations we didn't want to turn red. The whole Native American thing. The Mexican War to steal California. Hawaii. Civil War.

The US has left a major finger print on the world, for better and for worse.

What we call poverty today is nothing like what it meant in 1951 when I was born.

Electrification. Clean water for all 124/7 is historically a great accomplishment. Sewers as well.

Yeah, the funny thing is, things have gotten so good in the nation, so many people in the US are oblivious to their benefits and how they came about.