Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Grizzly

Grizzly's Political Thread

Recommended Posts

On 9/21/2017 at 4:08 PM, harrycoyster said:

That's very just the tip of the iceberg too. The amount of US eligible English and German youth players is dizzying. IIRC 5 players got German u17 caps last year that were US eligible.

It's the lesser thought about advantage of having 100,000 men placed on military bases in foreign countries I guess.

 

6 hours ago, Grizzly said:

Germany and Italy still occupied countries 70 years after the war and 25 years after the other occupying force left. Invade and occupy the world and get a good soccer team out of it (though obviously the US is not doing that for their soccer team, rather resource exploitation and power and control). 

 

6 hours ago, jpg75 said:

...and the Soviets would still be occupying numerous nation states post-war if it weren't for corruption and a lack of competence in running an economy.

 

3 hours ago, Grizzly said:

Maybe they would be, that is not my point. The Soviet Union collapsed and their army left Eastern Europe for a variety of reasons which are more complex then your summary but regardless of why they ended their occupation, it did end. On the other hand the US occupation of Europe and most of the rest of the world did not end. Depending on the estimate you believe the US has between 700 and 1400 military installations in countries outside of the US, while Russia is in 2nd place at 10 to 14 foreign bases. The one super power era of western capitalist democracy instead of bringing a more peaceful world brought about a more violent one. It should have led to sovereign free countries trading peacefully instead it led to increased military intervention and occupation of any country who resisted American hegemony and who did not submit to all the various financial and political tools to make states obey. When Russia was too weak to be the enemy and provide an excuse to wage war on other countries, they came up with the War on Terror which became a war of terror inflicted by the West on much of the rest of the world. Indeed our actions during this time like the expansion of NATO and wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Rwanda, Yemen and many more showed that the Soviets were actually right in their assessment that they needed a buffer against western military expansion and aggression and that Gorbachov made a huge error in withdrawing his troops without requiring likewise from the US. The end of the Cold War was an opportunity for our western countries to show that we truly did believe in democracy, human rights, fair trade, rule of law but instead we showed we were interested only in corporate profits and hegemony and did not care how many people we had to kill or oppress to achieve that.

3 hours ago, jpg75 said:

Survival of the fittest, America (Fuck yeah!) won and the Commies lost. Sucks, but them's the breaks.

What we told Gorbachov and the other Soviets during negotiations was that we believed in peace and wanted to end conflicts around the world. Yes it was total bullshit but if you or Canadians as a whole are fine with that and our subsequent actions then lets cut the bullshit/propaganda about human rights and democracy and admit we murder for money and power and if any country defies our aims we will make them pay either through the various financial and political institutions or military intervention and terrorism. Why are there so many terrorist attacks in the West now? It is not because people are born hating the West or hating democracy, they hate our terrorism.

 

Edited by Grizzly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, jpg75 said:

Ok, but seriously what the hell does Rwanda and Yugoslavia have to do with US hegemony? Ethnic violence turned to Genocide seems like a pretty reasonable reason to intervene.
 

2 hours ago, harrycoyster said:

Seriously. If anything the US didn't respond fast enough to Rwanda, and including Afghanistan makes the exact opposite point.



There are many ethnic and religious conflicts throughout the world and we use them to achieve our political aims. In particular we often heat up conflicts and support one group over the other usually the extremist side because moderates would come to some sort of compromise. Moderates would find a compromise between Assad and opponents and no oil pipeline would get built from Saudi Arabia to Turkey/Europe or they would find find a compromise between Eastern and Western Ukrainians and we would not get US missiles on the border of Russia or the US taking over the Crimean Naval Base. And if an ethnic conflict serves our interests, we make damn sure to pour some oil on the sparks of conflict and make them into a fire. And once we do that we put leaders into situations where every decision they can make is bad in some way and that the side we are against will be sure to do some bad things which we will report to justify our actions while ignoring the bad things our side does.

Rwanda

In Rwanda the story we were told was that US and UN did not respond at all to Rwanda other than send a small poorly armed contingent of UN peacekeepers. Over the years a lot of things have come out about what really happened in Rwanda but no one cares anymore more. The background to the story is the US wanted to take control of Central Africa from France and in particular they wanted to have influence on Eastern Congo the big resource prize of Africa. This was a delicate situation since the US and France are supposed to be allies. Such situations tend to end up very violently as we also saw in another now mostly forgotten conflict in the Biafra region of Nigeria in which during the middle of the Cold War, Britain fought a proxy war over oil not against the Soviet Union but against France in which 1 million died.

When the plane containing the Hutu presidents of both Rwanda and Burundi was shot down at Kigali airport the story was that Hutu extremists did it because they were worried that the presidents were going to implement the Arusha peace accord which would largely settle the conflict. In recent years it has come out that it was actually the Tutsi RPF who shot down the plane. The RPF was led by Paul Kagame who is still the dictator of Rwanda. I think Kagame is starting to fall out of favour with the West as now there are stories about him being a brutal dictator and being responsible for the shooting down of the plane yet he was a brutal dictator this whole time and our media never mentioned it until recently. He is currently in a trade dispute over textiles with the US. Guess where Paul Kagame received his military training? And someone was indeed concerned about the Arusha Accords being implement, that was the USA because their implementation theoretically would have ended the conflict in these countries and with it ended the chance for the US to take control of these regions.

The genocide was a civil war not a genocide. The US backed RPF stormed across Rwanda and killed more Hutus than the Hutus killed Tutsis. Tustsis are actually a very small percentage of the population of both countries so the only way the numbers make sense is if a massive number of Hutus were killed. To cover this the story we got was that Hutu extremists killed Tutsis and moderate Hutus which doesn't make sense. Even Hitler did not go around killing moderate Germans, he killed German political opponents but he did not go around massacring moderate Germans. As in all conflicts like this there were extremists on both sides and some Hutus killed Tutsis and some Tutsis killed Hutus but it was not one side massacring the other like we were told. It is hard to tell Hutus and Tutsis apart in real life as they are not different tribes or ethnicities, they are basically the same people who were artificially divided by class by the Belgians in order to create a ruling class that was dependent on its colonial backers. So it was pretty convenient to the genocide narrative that one can not tell Hutus from Tutsis while alive let alone when dead. 

When the RPF was taking over Rwanda notice that we were never told about any massacres they were committing. If you ever read Dallaire's account of what happened he sure has an incredible man crush on Kagame, the hero of his story. It is pretty hard to believe that one side of the conflict is so good compared to the other side particularly when that good side happens to be a minority group taking over a country from a majority group that was about to implement a peace deal and the leader of the minority army and many of his fellow soldiers were trained in Fort Leavenworth and he has now been the brutal dictator of that country for 20 years. Kagame and the Rwandan military have also intervened in several war in the Congo, which is one of the purposes for which he was installed in power. He deposed the now out of favour with the West president of the Congo, Mobuto who had himself with the help of the US and Belgium overthrown the democratically elected Lumumba who was guilty of the crime of trying to help the citizens of Congo with the profits of Congo's resources as opposed to giving the profits to American and European countries. Kagame is not much of a humanitarian hero is he. 

How did Clinton get a hero's welcome in Rwanda shortly after the war when if the story we were told was correct he was the one responsible for not helping them stop the genocide? Dallaire and the UN troops were supporting and helping the RPF and Dallaire should have been jailed as a war criminal not made a Canadian Senator. If you listen to his interviews nothing makes sense. When you listen to his story about not trying to save the Belgian soldiers that he claimed were murdered by the Hutus he makes the ridiculous claim that when he drove by and heard them being tortured he decided his meeting with the Hutu generals was more important and then during the meeting he decided not to say "Don't kill my soldiers" because he wanted them to know he and the UN would stay in Rwanda no matter what they did. The Belgian troops killed conveniently also happened to be the ones on duty at the airport when the plane was shot down.

In a further Canadian angle there were two Canadian priests from Quebec working in Rwanda at the time of the conflict who  were killed by the RPF government. Despite the pleas of the families, the Canadian government has done nothing to investigate the situation. Also while I have done a lot of my own research on Rwanda I have also a lot of information from a Canadian lawyer who successfully defended a Hutu general from genocide accusations (the lawyer is on a Rwandan government hit list and was told by CSIS to be very vigilant wherever he goes) and a friend of mine who is a Tutsi survivor of the conflict and has machete scars to show for it.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/families-of-two-canadian-priests-killed-in-rwanda-still-wait-for-justice/article21599090/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Edited by Grizzly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly have strong beliefs about American globalism. I disagree. Somebody has to be the dominant world force and I think a Soviet Union victory in the Cold War would have been  considerably worse for the human race. There always have and always will be the haves and the have-nots in this world. I'm extremely grateful to be from one of the "have" countries.

You also have strong beliefs on the causes of the Rwandan genocide. Unfortunately, your points read like a series of tangentially related partialities that as a whole fail to explain half the complexity the Rwandan genocide contains. Not trying to be mean, I just have read enough on Rwanda to know that it was a ticking time bomb for generations.

I appreciate the time you're putting into this, but we have two very different outlooks on global politics. You're wasting your breath on me. I fundamentally disagree with the basis of your arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

You clearly have strong beliefs about American globalism. I disagree. Somebody has to be the dominant world force and I think a Soviet Union victory in the Cold War would have been  considerably worse for the human race. There always have and always will be the haves and the have-nots in this world. I'm extremely grateful to be from one of the "have" countries.

You also have strong beliefs on the causes of the Rwandan genocide. Unfortunately, your points read like a series of tangentially related partialities that as a whole fail to explain half the complexity the Rwandan genocide contains. Not trying to be mean, I just have read enough on Rwanda to know that it was a ticking time bomb for generations.

I appreciate the time you're putting into this, but we have two very different outlooks on global politics. You're wasting your breath on me. I fundamentally disagree with the basis of your arguments.

There is a big difference between being a dominant world force and being brutal and exploitative world force. Also that is basically the application of the Fuehrerprinzip on an international basis. Whether things would have been better if the Soviets would have won the Cold War is not something we can know but I think we have seen that the one super power model with the US as the power has been a failure on any sort of achievement ideals of humanitarianism, democracy, fairness, justice and the right to live without being murdered by a foreign county. At least during the Cold War each side was hemmed in their actions by the reaction of the other and the perception of others in their presentation of their ideological superiority. I hope that the revival of Russia, the continued development of China and possibly other countries becoming more powerful as well as a decline in the power of the US and other Western countries will result in a more multi-polar world where the interests of other countries need to be taken into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grizzly said:

There is a big difference between being a dominant world force and being brutal and exploitative world force. Also that is basically the application of the Fuehrerprinzip on an international basis. Whether things would have been better if the Soviets would have won the Cold War is not something we can know but I think we have seen that the one super power model with the US as the power has been a failure on any sort of achievement ideals of humanitarianism, democracy, fairness, justice and the right to live without being murdered by a foreign county. At least during the Cold War each side was hemmed in their actions by the reaction of the other and the perception of others in their presentation of their ideological superiority. I hope that the revival of Russia, the continued development of China and possibly other countries becoming more powerful as well as a decline in the power of the US and other Western countries will result in a more multi-polar world where the interests of other countries need to be taken into consideration.

To be clear, you think the Cold War was a more peaceful and prosperous period than the post-USSR era?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

To be clear, you think the Cold War was a more peaceful and prosperous period than the post-USSR era?

The Cold War period was also very violent with many conflicts and I don't have the stats to do a direct comparison and it probably depends on which period one chooses. The Vietnam War was the most violent conflict during that period and still more violent than anything we have had since the end of the Cold War although if one counts both Iraq Wars and the deaths from the sanctions in between it is approaching the body count of Vietnam. Like Vietnam the US has also bombed and started wars in many of the neighbouring countries. I think the main difference between the two periods is that if you were attacked by someone you could turn to one of the other powers to help you instead of just getting slaughtered. It might not have reduced the overall death toll but it did even it out between the sides. And as I stated earlier all the powers at least had to consider the reaction of the other side instead of having a carte blanche to attack whoever they wanted even if their own citizens were against it like in Iraq.

My main points are:

1) the Unipolar world with the US at the head has been a period of extreme brutality and has produced a worldwide military dictatorship instead of the peace, justice and prosperity it was supposed to produce

2) there is a severe double standard in judging the actions of western countries in comparison with other countries

3) our western democracies are not really democracies at all but militaristic oligarchies though for the most part our oppression is carried out on other populations not our own (the US being an exception to this, being highly repressive of large parts of its own population)

4) the idea of peaceful, human rights respecting Canada is complete BS when you look at we have done in the world in the past and are still doing now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grizzly said:

My main points are:

1) the Unipolar world with the US at the head has been a period of extreme brutality and has produced a worldwide military dictatorship instead of the peace, justice and prosperity it was supposed to produce

2) there is a severe double standard in judging the actions of western countries in comparison with other countries

3) our western democracies are not really democracies at all but militaristic oligarchies though for the most part our oppression is carried out on other populations not our own (the US being an exception to this, being highly repressive of large parts of its own population)

4) the idea of peaceful, human rights respecting Canada is complete BS when you look at we have done in the world in the past and are still doing now

1) I think that we are unequivocally in the least "brutal" twenty-five year in modern history.

2) Almost certainly. 

3) Sure, but the title of "militaristic oligarchy" can be applied to any great society in recorded history. It's a dog eat dog world and Rottweilers write the history books.

4) I agree, but what country has become prosperous without taking advantage of foreign peoples?

I don't think we are reading the map any differently. I just think the "peace, justice and prosperity" that you are after is both politically naive and practically impossible. The history of mankind is stories of men fighting to centralizing power...for themselves or their people or their states. It will never change and you shouldn't expect it to.

Edited by harrycoyster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, harrycoyster said:

1) I think that we are unequivocally in the least "brutal" twenty-five year in modern history.

2) Almost certainly. 

3) Sure, but the title of "militaristic oligarchy" can be applied to any great society in recorded history. It's a dog eat dog world and Rottweilers write the history books.

4) I agree, but what country has become prosperous without taking advantage of foreign peoples?

I don't think we are reading the map any differently. I just think the "peace, justice and prosperity" that you are after is both politically naive and practically impossible. The history of mankind is stories of men fighting to centralizing power...for themselves or their people or their states. It will never change and you shouldn't expect it to.

Unequivocally? Well, lots of academic researchers would dispute this. This will be easy for you to check assuming employees of NCAA institutions can access said universities academic data bases and search journals. One example is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440905/?report=reader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the Ken Burns documentary series on Vietnam. I don't know if he is good filmmaker, or telling the story accurately, but I have been surprised to learn so much about Vietnamese history so far. History never discussed in any American war films I've seen. 

I was particularly intrigued with the Hochimin story. I didn't realize how many times he tried to ally with the US and how he saw America as player in Vietnamese self-determination. 

I don't know if it's a naive view, but the series seems to suggest that if the US could have ignored political ideology and truly supported freedom, that Hochimin would have supported the US.

Comments above just made me think of this. Carryon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, youllneverwalkalone said:

I've been watching the Ken Burns documentary series on Vietnam. I don't know if he is good filmmaker, or telling the story accurately, but I have been surprised to learn so much about Vietnamese history so far. History never discussed in any American war films I've seen. 

Ken Burns is a good filmmaker and generally good researching his docs and presenting stuff accurately

Unlike the above mentioned Oliver Stone who is a poor to average filmmaker (who did have a good era and made a true masterpiece with JFK) and has a lowly reputation for presenting his docs accurately (both with historical and contemporary topics).

Anyways until there is more fun film talk I'm done here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Macksam said:

There is good evidence of this, but it's not always the case.... otherwise the US would have pressured the EU along time ago into creating a coalition with them and invade Switzerland, which could be deemed a radical state lol, albeit a great radical country.

You really think Switzerland is a neutral, independent country? You really think the West does not approve of all the money laundering and illegal banking transactions they are doing? We talk about corruption in other countries but is not almost every tax haven/offshore banking centre in a western country, which is the reason I always say the western countries are the most corrupt countries in the world except for most of the corruption is hidden and/or legalized. Notice that when something like the Panama papers gets released the data is not released publicly and we get media stories about a friend of Putin or Kim Jong Un having money there which may or may not be true but we have no access to the raw data. If we had access to the raw data I am pretty sure we would find out that the majority of the shady money in these tax havens like Switzerland belongs to western corporations and businessmen and politicians. I wonder how much money Trudeau or Harper have stashed in Panama or British Virgin Islands or Switzerland. If Switzerland was not doing what the US and Germany, France, UK and Canada etc. wanted they would have been invaded a long time ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Grizzly said:

... Notice that when something like the Panama papers gets released the data is not released publicly and we get media stories about a friend of Putin or Kim Jong Un having money there which may or may not be true but we have no access to the raw data. If we had access to the raw data I am pretty sure we would find out that the majority of the shady money in these tax havens like Switzerland belongs to western corporations and businessmen and politicians. I wonder how much money Trudeau or Harper have stashed in Panama or British Virgin Islands or Switzerland. 

When Panama papers happened a number of powerful westerners got hit royally along side Putin (Kim wasn't named). The President of Iceland and Malcolm Turnbull of Australia were directly outed (both to greater degrees than Putin, Assad and La Pen. Iceland guy resigned), the families of Cameron and Thatcher had members listed as were many of the Spanish royals. Also a ton of western organisations and businesses were busted in it.

6 hours ago, Grizzly said:

....If Switzerland was not doing what the US and Germany, France, UK and Canada etc. wanted they would have been invaded a long time ago. 

No cause even in World War 2 shit all happened to them even when Germany surrounded them and it wasn't because the Nazi were banking and trading with them, it was because the Swiss had a defence force that would make WW2 (which was going well for the Nazis at the time) a goddamn nightmare and made the war end sooner.

I'm not saying "Swiss bank accounts" do not exist but there are other reasons Switzerland still exists beyond being a banking capital.

Also why do these US/EU rule the world things always act like Russia and China don't have similar power when they do?

Edited by matty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2017 at 0:54 PM, matty said:

Unlike the above mentioned Oliver Stone who is a poor to average filmmaker (who did have a good era and made a true masterpiece with JFK) and has a lowly reputation for presenting his docs accurately (both with historical and contemporary topics).

Quite possibly the worst piece of film making of all time.  The suppositions and inaccuracies are now legendary particularly the lionizing of the bully and all around nutcase Jim Garrison.  If you don't believe me check him out on the Tonight Show.

Stone had everybody killing JFK except Oswald, Caroline and John John. Was it Vicent Bugliosi who said about Stone and JFK, well at least he got the date right.

 

Edited by Joe MacCarthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Quite possibly the worst piece of film making of all time.  The suppositions and inaccuracies are now legendary particularly the lionizing of the bully and all around nutcase Jim Garrison.  If you don't believe me check him out on the Tonight Show.

Stone had everybody killing JFK except Oswald, Caroline and John John. Was it Vicent Bugliosi who said about Stone and JFK, well at least he got the date right.

 

I'm not talking about the film's presentation of history. JFK is one of the best shot, acted and scored films of the 1990s and possibly the single best edited film of the decade.

Oliver Stone as I said isn't worthy of citation on any project for historical reason but for a brief era he was a good filmmaker who made a great film

Edited by matty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...