American imperialism and ruthlessness masquerading as freedom and democracy.

[gambit]

One time someone from America told me, and it stuck with me to this day. America is neither good nor evil, everything America did or do or will do in future is for its own interest, It is as simple as that. America is not inherently good or evil, America invade countries because they can, they have the fire power/Financial Power/Political Power to do and face its consequences, that's it. America do regime changes because they can, they have the buying power for Politicians/Generals, America support Dictators when it suits them, America sanctions countries for been dictatorships when it suits them, America will continue to do so until another power comes along, and than if by that time we alive we will be calling that new Super Power evil and imperialist, America is a super Power that needs to keep its title of a super power, and you can't do that by just letting your allies go to your enemies court, nor you allow your allies countries to be overrun by others, because America's super power comes from its Military and economical power, they have military bases in every region, they can use these bases for spying, attacking etc

Personally I think America is neither evil nor good, people on the ground are good and they also disagree with many of their own Govt policies but unfortunately their voices are seldom heard or make a differences when it comes major policy matters, America has stopped many major conflicts around the world but started off many others, but it is the reality that America has failed to solve many world major geographical issues which they could easily, two of these issues they inherited from British Empire was Kashmir/Palestine, If America over the decades has solved these two issues by using its influence I would easily declare America to be the greatest country in last couple of centuries. But again, its not about people's sentiments , good or evil, justice or Liberty or any other fancy words, its all National Interests.

A superpower is inevitable. Not THE, but A. Others have described the US as a 'hyperpower' and in many ways, they are correct when compared to past superpowers in all relevant metrics. Any power that has the resources, the willpower, and the path WILL become dominant enough to earn the title of 'superpower'. Then once that status is achieved, also inevitable is that lesser powers will do what all lesser powers do -- bandwagoning. In that progress, also inevitable is that the superpower will incur responsibilities and will act to protect the collective interests. This is realpolitik.

 

[Goritoes]

A superpower is inevitable. Not THE, but A. Others have described the US as a 'hyperpower' and in many ways, they are correct when compared to past superpowers in all relevant metrics. Any power that has the resources, the willpower, and the path WILL become dominant enough to earn the title of 'superpower'. Then once that status is achieved, also inevitable is that lesser powers will do what all lesser powers do -- bandwagoning. In that progress, also inevitable is that the superpower will incur responsibilities and will act to protect the collective interests. This is realpolitik.

The Power game of the 20th/21st century is difference, we don't have colonial powers anymore, that I give credit to America. One thing I respect about America is that they make UK their personal B!tch, a Country responsible for almost every current geopolitical issue, but I partially Agree with you.

 

[gambit]

Yeah, and so am I. And this is the reality of America, I know many Americans likes to use words like Freedom, Democracy , liberty blah blah but reality is that America do what's best in its and its allies interest because it has to maintain that hold over its allies to keep its Influence around the globe.

So I ask you this...

Would you rather countries be honest on what they want? Or to couch what they want with high minded principles? Be careful, because religion will be involved.

As for lobbying, yes they exists and everyone knows it and those Lobbies can only do so to a limit, The most powerful Lobby in USA is Jews and Israel's support, hence Israel can get away with War crimes, If America was standing out for Truth/Justice/Liberty they would've seen through the brutality of Israel that uses mostly America arms of civilians.

In America everyone talks about self defense, ask any American and he will give lecture on self defense and its importance, but i saw clip not long ago of White House Spokesman and some Journalist ask him that if Palestine has the right to self defense, and that poor guy cannot say yes lol he constantly say Israel has the right to self defense but his mouth was unable to utter the same words for Palestine, there are many such examples exists in this world. I personally don't care if a country is good or bad, I am personally good, do good to others and live a peaceful life and die in peace, I let God be the Judge Jury and executioner for us humans.

Am sure there are 'nuances' in that issue. But I do not expect you to be admonished for not understanding those 'nuances'. As long as you criticize US, you will get a pass on those 'nuances'.

The Power game of the 20th/21st century is difference, we don't have colonial powers anymore, that I give credit to America.

Not too quick on that credit. Am sure the other guy will come up with some 'nuances' on why the US forced the world to do away with colonialism. Probably the MIC is in there somewhere.

 

[Goritoes]

Would you rather countries be honest on what they want? Or to couch what they want with high minded principles? Be careful, because religion will be involved.

Neither, You have to maintain a balance between the two, but than history judges the countries. Religion only involved to gather up the masses and rally people, if you see the world major conflicts around the world which start after 9/11, they might look like religious conflicts but all of them are geopolitical in nature.

Am sure there are 'nuances' in that issue. But I do not expect you to be admonished for not understanding those 'nuances'. As long as you criticize US, you will get a pass on those 'nuances'.

I don't know what that nuances is, but I criticism is not limited to USA alone. People are more than welcome to give a counter argument or disagree with me in a respectful manner.

Not too quick on that credit. Am sure the other guy will come up with some 'nuances' on why the US forced the world to do away with colonialism. Probably the MIC is in there somewhere.

This would be much more easier to respond if I understand what's with that nuances is lol

 

[tower9]

Neither, You have to maintain a balance between the two, but than history judges the countries. Religion only involved to gather up the masses and rally people, if you see the world major conflicts around the world which start after 9/11, they might look like religious conflicts but all of them are geopolitical in nature.


I don't know what that nuances is, but I criticism is not limited to USA alone. People are more than welcome to give a counter argument or disagree with me in a respectful manner.


This would be much more easier to respond if I understand what's with that nuances is lol

If you are having problems making sense of his ranting, don’t worry, it’s because his logic is incoherent and nonsensical. Essentially his viewpoint is that the US cannot commit evil because it is a magnet for immigration, so that proves the US is only capable of good.

Go back in this thread, I challenged his assertion by stating that it is an absolutist position that does not make any sense and that yes, the US often does commit evil acts through its warmongering foreign policy and the fact that it is a magnet of immigration does not negate these crimes against humanity. I stated specifically that one has to be nuanced in judging these positions and his autistic, illogical, senile self has latched on to the word nuance and has constantly repeated it in a mocking manner like some autistic retard laughing at his own joke that no one else gets. The funny thing is that he doesn’t even use that word correctly and that’s why you and others are confused by his terminology.

In short, he’s a hyper nationalist that cannot tolerate any criticism of the US and gaslights you when you mention the very real role of the Israel lobby or the military industrial complex and their influence on our foreign policy. He has consistently attempted to portray himself as some kind of expert in all matters when in reality, you scratch beyond the surface and you realize that much of what he says is hubris and lacking in substance, which leads me to believe we are dealing with a habitual liar who is prone to bouts of fantasy and whose claims about themselves you can barely believe in.

 

[gambit]

Neither, You have to maintain a balance between the two, but than history judges the countries. Religion only involved to gather up the masses and rally people, if you see the world major conflicts around the world which start after 9/11, they might look like religious conflicts but all of them are geopolitical in nature.

Even communists disguised their wants. They use words like 'liberation', 'oppression', 'decadent', and so on, when the ultimate goal is control. So if 'liberty', 'freedom', and 'democracy' are suspect, should not what the Marxists says or couches also equally suspect? Religionists do the same thing. Words like 'salvation', 'blessed', or 'holy' are used to motivate people into doing something the religionists want. We are talking about the necessity of speech here.

I don't know what that nuances is, but I criticism is not limited to USA alone. People are more than welcome to give a counter argument or disagree with me in a respectful manner.

This would be much more easier to respond if I understand what's with that nuances is lol

In my yrs, I learned to be suspicious of anyone who used the word 'nuance'. %99.999 of the time, its usage is pseudo intellectual and pretentious. The speaker/user do not understand the issue well enough but want to pass on the impression that he does. The word 'nuance' is a convenient cover for his ignorance and reluctance to explain his knowledge.

Take our friend who used the word, for instance. For all his pretense about his claimed knowledge of the nuances of US foreign policies, he reduced it down to: The MIC did it.

A genuine exploration of the nuances of any issue would be something like: A and B produced C, but the social conditions were not supportive, then five yrs later, D and E collaborated to produce the appropriate environment, and so on and on. The true nuances of any issue are multi faceted, multi layered, and take time. Very seldom does any issue have a single root cause. Usually, there were multiple contributors where the end is that 'perfect storm' phrase that created the perception of one root cause. But for the US: The MIC did it.

The US under JFK created the Peace Corps. But the false 'nuance' argument is that the Peace Corps was a CIA front.

Back in '03, George W Bush and his wife spearheaded President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and helped unknown people in Africa. But the false 'nuance' argument was that PEPFAR was a plan to make Africa dependent on the (white) West.

Just a couple examples of 'nuance' not much different than 'The MIC did it'. US foreign policies are devoid of genuine altruism and humaneness. Hence the word 'masquerading' in the title.

All I did was cut thru the BS. Look at the start of this thread. The insinnuendo here is that only an 'evil' country could and would produce such 'evil' foreign policies. The implication is left to the reader(s) to flesh out his own 'nuances' of the issue. A true accounting of the true nuances would require libraries but for our friends: The MIC did it.

I do not deny that the US had foreign policies errors, to put it mildly, but if the US is such an 'evil' country, as 'proved' by its 'evil' foreign policies, then why do people continues to come here?

 

[tower9]

Even communists disguised their wants. They use words like 'liberation', 'oppression', 'decadent', and so on, when the ultimate goal is control. So if 'liberty', 'freedom', and 'democracy' are suspect, should not what the Marxists says or couches also equally suspect? Religionists do the same thing. Words like 'salvation', 'blessed', or 'holy' are used to motivate people into doing something the religionists want. We are talking about the necessity of speech here.


In my yrs, I learned to be suspicious of anyone who used the word 'nuance'. %99.999 of the time, its usage is pseudo intellectual and pretentious. The speaker/user do not understand the issue well enough but want to pass on the impression that he does. The word 'nuance' is a convenient cover for his ignorance and reluctance to explain his knowledge.

Take our friend who used the word, for instance. For all his pretense about his claimed knowledge of the nuances of US foreign policies, he reduced it down to: The MIC did it.

A genuine exploration of the nuances of any issue would be something like: A and B produced C, but the social conditions were not supportive, then five yrs later, D and E collaborated to produce the appropriate environment, and so on and on. The true nuances of any issue are multi faceted, multi layered, and take time. Very seldom does any issue have a single root cause. Usually, there were multiple contributors where the end is that 'perfect storm' phrase that created the perception of one root cause. But for the US: The MIC did it.

The US under JFK created the Peace Corps. But the false 'nuance' argument is that the Peace Corps was a CIA front.

Back in '03, George W Bush and his wife spearheaded President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and helped unknown people in Africa. But the false 'nuance' argument was that PEPFAR was a plan to make Africa dependent on the (white) West.

Just a couple examples of 'nuance' not much different than 'The MIC did it'. US foreign policies are devoid of genuine altruism and humaneness. Hence the word 'masquerading' in the title.

All I did was cut thru the BS. Look at the start of this thread. The insinnuendo here is that only an 'evil' country could and would produce such 'evil' foreign policies. The implication is left to the reader(s) to flesh out his own 'nuances' of the issue. A true accounting of the true nuances would require libraries but for our friends: The MIC did it.

I do not deny that the US had foreign policies errors, to put it mildly, but if the US is such an 'evil' country, as 'proved' by its 'evil' foreign policies, then why do people continues to come here?

Cut the shit. It’s actually pretty simple what happened. You came on this thread to refute the possibility that the US can commit evil because it’s a magnet for immigration. I refuted what you said and specifically referred to the debacle in Afghanistan where countless civilians were murdered in large part due to a policy meant to funnel billions of dollars towards defense contractors. You’re trying to mock my position as if what I am stating was not based on actual facts, which they are and it is irrefutable.

Go suck a bag of dicks and stop wasting my time. If anybody here is a pretentious pseudo intellectual, it’s you, running around in circles trying to disguise your lack of intelligence and coherence with frothy language when you can’t even get to the point.

 

[gambit]

Cut the shit.

Unfortunately, I had to: YOURS.

It’s actually pretty simple what happened. You came on this thread to refute the possibility that the US can commit evil because it’s a magnet for immigration.

No. The error is YOU thinking that I came here to 'refute' anything. I just bypassed the implication that the US is an 'evil' country and got straight to the point and the question. What you said about Afghanistan is largely hyperbolic and not intended to be 'nuanced' about anything. A real nuanced view would be that the US wanted to change the culture and social conditions of Afghanistan to reduce the odds of Islamic terrorism to return. But the US was wrong in estimating that we could make that change. In the end, we ended up wasting billions thru Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) at all levels of the governments of the US and Afghanistan. But hey, if 'The MIC did it' make you feel good about your knowledge, be content.

Go suck a bag of dicks and stop wasting my time.

Who forced you to come here? More like your pretentiousness exposed and you do not like it.

 

[tower9]

Unfortunately, I had to: YOURS.


No. The error is YOU thinking that I came here to 'refute' anything. I just bypassed the implication that the US is an 'evil' country and got straight to the point and the question. What you said about Afghanistan is largely hyperbolic and not intended to be 'nuanced' about anything. A real nuanced view would be that the US wanted to change the culture and social conditions of Afghanistan to reduce the odds of Islamic terrorism to return. But the US was wrong in estimating that we could make that change. In the end, we ended up wasting billions thru Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) at all levels of the governments of the US and Afghanistan. But hey, if 'The MIC did it' make you feel good about your knowledge, be content.


Who forced you to come here? More like your pretentiousness exposed and you do not like it.

Yes, the US was so committed to changing and building Afghanistan when in 20 years, barely anything was built except for endless conflict which conveniently funneled money into the arms of defense contractors and also fueled the opium trade. Afghanistan was a money laundering scheme and hundreds of thousands of civilians paid for it. The fact that you are trying to deny this well known and irrefutable fact just demonstrates again how intellectually dishonest you are.

 

[Avicenna]

With Jobs at Home Scarce, Young Chinese Are Heading to Africa

https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1011956/with-jobs-at-home-scarce%2C-young-chinese-are-heading-to-africa?source=channel_home When Zhu Yuying began looking for graduate jobs this fall, the finance major quickly realized it was going to be tough going. The 24-year-old sent out around 70...

defence.pk

Must be African exceptionalism.

 

[gambit]

Yes, the US was so committed to changing and building Afghanistan when in 20 years, barely anything was built except for endless conflict which conveniently funneled money into the arms of defense contractors and also fueled the opium trade. Afghanistan was a money laundering scheme and hundreds of thousands of civilians paid for it. The fact that you are trying to deny this well known and irrefutable fact just demonstrates again how intellectually dishonest you are.

See that book at the far right (no pun intended) end?

The author Peter Tomsen received well deserved praise for his book. It is comprehensive and the analyses contains within are, unlike yours, truly nuanced.

To prove that the image is that of my home library, you can ask for any page, and I will post an image of that page with War Machine pointing to the first paragraph. There are 716 pages of information and 90 pages of Notes and References. Last is the Index.

Respected and established authors put MIC-believers in the category of flat-Earthers. You do believe the Earth is round, right? Anyway, they know that MIC-believers took what Eisenhower said 180-deg out of context. Tomsen has nothing about 'The MIC did it' because from his foreign service experience, he knows the issue is more complex and truly nuanced than ignoramuses like you believes about yourselves.

Am no 'intellectual'. Never claimed to be. But I read a lot. Probably more in quantity and scope than you do.

 

[tower9]

See that book at the far right (no pun intended) end?

The author Peter Tomsen received well deserved praise for his book. It is comprehensive and the analyses contains within are, unlike yours, truly nuanced.

To prove that the image is that of my home library, you can ask for any page, and I will post an image of that page with War Machine pointing to the first paragraph. There are 716 pages of information and 90 pages of Notes and References. Last is the Index.

Respected and established authors put MIC-believers in the category of flat-Earthers. You do believe the Earth is round, right? Anyway, they know that MIC-believers took what Eisenhower said 180-deg out of context. Tomsen has nothing about 'The MIC did it' because from his foreign service experience, he knows the issue is more complex and truly nuanced than ignoramuses like you believes about yourselves.

Am no 'intellectual'. Never claimed to be. But I read a lot. Probably more in quantity and scope than you do.

The fact that our government is captured by special interest lobbies is a well known fact not a conspiracy theory. If you won’t even acknowledge established facts and resort to referencing establishment figures because you cannot defend your position intellectually, then we are done here.

You are an old confused man and you have made many contradictory and incomplete assertions in this thread alone. Stop hiding your absolute dishonesty behind pretentious, pseudo intellectual language or your claims of being well read. It’s obvious you read what you feel reinforces your own beliefs because you are a denier of facts and truth.

Stop wasting my time Uncle Chan.

 

[gambit]

...then we are done here.

We were 'done' when I saw the word 'nuance'.

 

[tower9]

We were 'done' when I saw the word 'nuance'.

Autism is one hell of a drug.

You're also a habitual liar.

 

[Goritoes]

Even communists disguised their wants. They use words like 'liberation', 'oppression', 'decadent', and so on, when the ultimate goal is control. So if 'liberty', 'freedom', and 'democracy' are suspect, should not what the Marxists says or couches also equally suspect? Religionists do the same thing. Words like 'salvation', 'blessed', or 'holy' are used to motivate people into doing something the religionists want. We are talking about the necessity of speech here.

Yeah but here we are talking about America, As a Country/Super power not a ideology like Communism or Religious systems. Those are two separate things and topics.

I do not deny that the US had foreign policies errors, to put it mildly, but if the US is such an 'evil' country, as 'proved' by its 'evil' foreign policies, then why do people continues to come here?

Well what you have discuss with others in this thread is something I can not comment, but On this particular part of your post, you really sugar coated brutality with Policy errors, those errors costed thousands of lives in direct confrontations and indirect civil unrest. As for the premises that USA can not be evil because people wants to come here, so I think its wrong, majority of USA immigration revolves around the economic reasons, people from all over the world comes to USA for better future and opportunities, now one can argue that their own countries are f'd up by America or its policies directly or indirectly, that's a whole another topic. Than you have people who immigrated due to their families/marriages, that has nothing to do with American foreign Policy or America been righteous. And than you have those who come here as Students/work of course that covers my point about the economic immigration, and last are those who come to USA as asylum seekers because things are not good in their countries, but just because their countries are bad doesn't make America right, right ? There might be some people who come here because they actually consider that America is the last/only righteous nation on earth.

Personally I stand by my point that America is neither all evil nor all good, I admire a lot of things about America since I came here 2 years ago, and the list a long one. On the other hand I dislike many American policies but than who am I to have a say in all that ? I am not even American citizen and even If i was it won't matter. America does and will keep doing what's best in its interest even if it means siding with scums of human race or oppressors like India or Israel, so Justice/Liberty/Equality/Freedom loses its air when it comes to those USA allies and their brutality, Right now USA is powerful and if you replace USA with China, they will do the same, replace them with Russia or India or Pakistan everyone will do the same, If USA stood with what's right than USA would lose many powerful allies hence America has to look the other way, or in Israel's case they have complete change the narrative, turn Israel offensive into a defensive situation hence the getting the much needed public support but deep down every intellectual knows that its unfair and outright brutal how Israel treat the Palestinians or how Kashmiri's were denied their right to chose, and many such disputes around the world where USA could stay neutral but they put their weight on the wrong side (morally).

In last I should say, There is a famous line from Spiderman movies/comics, With Great Powers comes great responsibility, USA becomes super power and started putting their weight around the globe and decisions, even to this day they pretty much control global Organizations like UN/IMF/World Bank etc, but to me personally they (America) has failed in this particular regard where they did not stood for the values they preach, and just like every empire from the past be like British/Romans/Ottomans/German/Han/Genghis etc power corrupts and turn even people/countries with amazing values turn their back on them.