
Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:Scotland's not colonizing lands beyond its borders, is it? It's seceding from G.B. That's like... anti-imperialism. You wouldn't call former colonies, which secede from their masters, imperialistic, would you? That wouldn't make sense.
BBC wrote:Generally, imperialism refers to expansion through military conquest, colonization, etc. That's why people don't balk at the saying, "China was an empire" because it was. It leaned on neighboring powers for tribute and has a lovely history of conquering and colonizing lands. To this day, it even manages at least three colonies! (Tibet, Xinjiang, and... Northeast Mongolia--or whatever they call it), and it would love to conquer Taiwan.
burb wrote:Currently, China is building the means to project its power farther, and it's getting pushy about a bunch of rocks and reefs--which isn't as Grand as the Mongolian Empire, but all imperial means start with a first step.
mrswdk wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Scotland's not colonizing lands beyond its borders, is it? It's seceding from G.B. That's like... anti-imperialism. You wouldn't call former colonies, which secede from their masters, imperialistic, would you? That wouldn't make sense.
I never said that Scotland was currently trying to colonize anything.
'Imperilaism, as it is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries, is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.'
Do you no longer stand by this definition?BBC wrote:Generally, imperialism refers to expansion through military conquest, colonization, etc. That's why people don't balk at the saying, "China was an empire" because it was. It leaned on neighboring powers for tribute and has a lovely history of conquering and colonizing lands. To this day, it even manages at least three colonies! (Tibet, Xinjiang, and... Northeast Mongolia--or whatever they call it), and it would love to conquer Taiwan.
1 - tribute was something other people had to give China in order to start trading with China. If you didn't want to trade with China, there was no need to pay tribute. There was no 'leaning on people for tribute'.
2 - Mongolia and the rest of China merged because the Khans invaded China and merged the two. That is basically the total opposite of China running off and colonizing other people.
3 - Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan? Haha, okay! And California is a US colony! Ukraine's claim to Crimea is colonial! Everyone's an empire!
burb wrote:Currently, China is building the means to project its power farther, and it's getting pushy about a bunch of rocks and reefs--which isn't as Grand as the Mongolian Empire, but all imperial means start with a first step.
China is building the means the protect itself and its sovereignty in its own seas. It has no desire to project its power over a wider area.
a6mzero wrote:In keeping with this threads revisionist history of the Japanese surrender, North Vietnam did fire on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin,Poland did attack Germany first and there were WMD's in Iraq.
general wrote:Syria, we backed I believe, in some cases some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that's a little confusing to people. So I've always maintained, and go back quite some time that we were backing the wrong types. I think it's going to turn out maybe this weekend in a new special that Brett Baer is going to have Friday that's gonna show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS.
PBS report wrote:They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as "Hussein." "They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."
BigBallinStalin wrote:3000+ word post...
It's interesting but takes too long to independently verify.
In general, it's very difficult to say that policy X was intended to cause outcome Y twenty years later (e.g. US training and funding the mujahideen). As that time range narrows, one's confidence in determining intention can increase; however, ....
... With the proto-ISIS in Libya, it's hard to say. The US/NATO bombs Libya government targets, this destabilizes the country, they know some people will steal weapons, but did they know that they'd use those weapons against the Syrian government and then the FSA, in order to found the Islamic State? I'm not so sure because that takes a bigger jump of confidence across a larger river of possibly related stories.
The simpler explanation is that the USG is much like the Soviet planners who tried to control an economy--they have no idea what they're doing because the rationality of their decision-making is hampered by the absence of market prices. It's just politics that dominates those decisions--the kind of politics that stumbles in the dark looking for solutions (e.g. its height of idiocy was 'war communism'). Instead, the US has a torch to illuminate some darkness (thanks to the market economy which provides all its toys and risk analysis, which the bureaucrats can distort with selective perception), but I don't see how this illuminates the alleged tendency toward pulling off great conspiracies.
Think of the ineptitude of the USG before it invaded Iraq: ill-prepared to even communicate with the local populace and hardly any of the top guys were familiar with Iraqi history. Consider the CIA's alleged powers: failed to predict the collapse of the USSR, failed to predict the Arab Spring, etc. Somehow they can pull off these big projects spanning years across several countries that result in this intended outcome? Maybe they felt that by funding a bunch of rebels some were bound to cause trouble which required US 'assistance'--or that possible outcome was perceived as negligible and instead they mainly intended to have the rebels beat down governments which the US didn't like.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Not sure if you saw this NY times article, but it's about foreign governments using US think tanks to shape US foreign policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/po ... .html?_r=0
BigBallinStalin wrote:Not sure if you saw this NY times article, but it's about foreign governments using US think tanks to shape US foreign policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/po ... .html?_r=0
shickingbrits wrote:Unintended consequences.
Incompetence.
Haha. You guys are a hoot.
patches70 wrote:
The strategy Obama used in Libya and Syria was developed way back in the days of the Afghan/soviet war. Lo and behold it worked and it's formulaic. Prop up a proxy army and use that proxy army to wage war to accomplish a specific goal. In the case of Afghanistan it was to stick it to the Russians. In the case of Syria it's for Qatari benefit. Oh, and certain US corporations who have invested billion in the Qatari natgas production sector/infrastructure.
It is not nor ever have been about humanitarian reasons or saving the Syrian people from a tyrant.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the real bad guys in this scenario. They all have the the financial interests at stake in this mess and they are the ones who have supported ISIS the most, even now that ISIS has gone "rogue". They want Assad gone. ISIS is just the muscle. They'll shrivel and die off as soon as the money and support dry up.
Dukasaur wrote:In general I think your analysis is good, but this is where I have a problem.
It seems to me that if building the pipeline was the only consideration, then bribing Assad would be a lot cheaper than building a revolution against him which will later have to be extinguished. And yeah, I realize that he has a strong historic alliance with the Lubyanka, but every man has his price...
I have no doubt that the pipeline deal plays a part in these machinations, but to say that it's the sole motive for all that's happened doesn't seem to stand up to a cost-benefit analysis.
Dukasaur wrote:patches70 wrote:
The strategy Obama used in Libya and Syria was developed way back in the days of the Afghan/soviet war. Lo and behold it worked and it's formulaic. Prop up a proxy army and use that proxy army to wage war to accomplish a specific goal. In the case of Afghanistan it was to stick it to the Russians. In the case of Syria it's for Qatari benefit. Oh, and certain US corporations who have invested billion in the Qatari natgas production sector/infrastructure.
It is not nor ever have been about humanitarian reasons or saving the Syrian people from a tyrant.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the real bad guys in this scenario. They all have the the financial interests at stake in this mess and they are the ones who have supported ISIS the most, even now that ISIS has gone "rogue". They want Assad gone. ISIS is just the muscle. They'll shrivel and die off as soon as the money and support dry up.
In general I think your analysis is good, but this is where I have a problem.
It seems to me that if building the pipeline was the only consideration, then bribing Assad would be a lot cheaper than building a revolution against him which will later have to be extinguished. And yeah, I realize that he has a strong historic alliance with the Lubyanka, but every man has his price...
I have no doubt that the pipeline deal plays a part in these machinations, but to say that it's the sole motive for all that's happened doesn't seem to stand up to a cost-benefit analysis.
shickingbrits wrote:The reason for war is war.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users