I was talking to one of my friends and he mentioned staying home on July 4, citing how there are a lot of really ugly things going on in the US.
After thinking about this myself, I’m starting to feel the same way. Instead of being proud of the country, I’m feeling like I’m just another wallet that companies and the government are trying to suck all the money out of.
The cost of living is going up, the housing market is a nightmare, I don’t feel very confident in our government at all, the job market is a nightmare…
I think I’ll be staying home this year too… anyone else?
Can’t answer your post, it’s too deep (I’m on Connect, it doesn’t handle deep posts very well) so I’m answering your latest post here.
After WW2 (that Russia started with Germany):
Russia occupied half of Europe by force, calling it the soviet union. Most countries didn’t have a say and didn’t want to be in the union, and no one was allowed to leave. Some were outright invaded like Czechoslovakia.
The USA has military bases all around the world yes, but most of them are wanted by the countries, and if asked the USA will leave (see France for example). The USA has not tried to annex one single country.
If you can’t see the difference we’ll then I just can’t discuss more subtle things with you like countries and borders and gouvernances. So yeah it took a turn there I guess, a shame if it ends, because it’s been interesting!
Oh, Connect is still out there? Thought it is dead.
Annexation by USSR touched Baltics and parts of Poland. The rest was more of puppet governments - something the US has practiced extensively all around the globe.
Part of it was ex-Axis powers (like Japan), the other part - just about any government thinking of socialism or economic independence from the US or having oil (Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Brazil, Bolivia, Cambodia, Syria, Guatemala, China, Egypt - you name it). After the Cold War, there were barely a few years US was not involved in some conflict or the other over its “national interests” or “national security”, suggesting that it was never about rivalry with USSR. Needless to say, local population was generally not very happy about getting these military interventions, carpet bombings, coups and instated dictators.
So, I cannot in good faith agree that US was any better in this respect. Both sucked a lot, and same is likely to happen to any grand military power - if anything because military needs experience to stay efficient, and with great power comes great desire to use it to your advantage.
Well the USA is a democracy and Russia is and has always been an autocracy (with that little blip in the nineties). The USA doesn’t always value human life like you’d like but Russia outright uses, and has always used, people in slaughters, famins etc.
If you can’t see the difference then I do not want to try out your (anarchy?) solution…
Still interesting you can’t see your own country for what it is.
For what it is in what respect? You tried to argue that Cold War is a good vs evil situation, I argued that it is very much evil vs evil.
I fully admit Russia is and always was (I told you why nineties don’t really count) an autocracy, and that actions of Russian rulers have caused a lot of misery and suffering. This doesn’t stop me from admitting the US is a deeply flawed democracy, that American rulers are known to take plenty of unpopular decisions (including wars that no one asked for), and are generally known to not care about lives of people outside the country, causing even more misery all around the globe up to this day.
And this is exactly why I want the governments to have less power, and advocate for direct democracy. Any power is potential for abuse, and Russia and the US have likely proved it the most. Curbing the power of all governments, big and small, has great potential to reduce violence and abuse. With direct democracy and independent media, Russia could have never attacked Ukraine, Israel could never attack Palestine, and US wouldn’t threaten to enter Iran yet again. Russia also wouldn’t have opposition in jails or abroad, US wouldn’t send immigrants to Alligator Alcatraz, and level of human misery would be so much less.
As long as we lead ourselves to believe that this misery and suffering is righteous or “not that bad” to any degree, we empower the tyrants all around the globe.
I’m with you on a lot of things, but my angle is this:
If Russia, Iran, NK & China was democratic, the world police (the US, but now the EU is stepping up too because of the US president clown show) would need to do way less interventions in the world, just for the basic security of their people (they do bad things too I know that), and could like feed the people and so on.
I’m throwing in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, and a whole ton of other non democratic countries here. Before they let the people decide, we have to band together in the free world and do what we can to help them, if possible.
So no, we can’t become bohemian hippie countries just yet :-)
Or so I think.
So, bring in security by initiating wars?
My point is, these interventions have never been about democracy, or freedom, or security for that matter. They were about forcibly creating dependent puppet states acting in the economic interest of the US and reinforcing its hegemony, locals be damned. And it’s what every “successful” invasion has provided.
Take something like Chile as an example (it’s a particularly black-and-white one, but there are plenty more). It was a liberal democracy ran by an elected President, who just so happened to be socialist. The reforms he has introduced threatened foreign capital within the nation, including the American one; as a result, CIA has first launched a propaganda campaign, and when this failed, sponsored and armed a coup that led to the instatement of a brutal and bloody authoritarian regime.
Did the country become more democratic? No. Did it become safer? Hell no. But it suddenly became very dependent on and friendly to American capital, which this entire operation was all about.
If we want some real world police, we should extend the scope of the UN Peacekeepers, instead of relying on a country with a hundred year history of arbitrary invasions and covert interventions. We need the peacekeeping force to be globally recognized and supported.
I don’t know why do some people feel their country is entitled to carry world’s justice. It’s not better or more just, it’s just properly defended against retaliation. It is harassment, not policing.
Allende was like 50-60 years ago. Let’s talk about today? Say the nineties and onwards at least? But I feel you’re stuck with the Kremlin whataboutism and cannot see a good thing if any kind of bad thing happens, even if it was half a century ago+. Again, the idea of a “country” is very prevalent in your explanations IMO, which discredits your ideas IMO.
The UN? Lol, yeah sure, a police for everyone except for the powerful veto countries, how do you even think it should be ran?
But I think you have your fundamental ideas, and they are incompatible with mine it seems, so thanks for the chat but I’ll stop here.
Cheers
Right as we speak, the US assists Israel in its genocidal mission to destroy Palestine - one condemned by nearly the entire world. So much for “global benevolent police”.
Sure, there needs to be some updates to ensure UN has what it takes to establish an actually useful peacekeeping force. Guess who’s gonna veto it before anyone else, though, and for what reasons. It’s so so profitable to declare yourself a world police without asking anybody, and ravage any place on Earth on demand.
And this is one of the issues where I can’t reasonably agree to disagree. Covering up for mass murdering hegemon is not an option, whatever said hegemon is.
Cheers, though.