How is this relevant to my criticism of Freedom House? I questioned the objectivity of your source, not the morality of the American foreign policy.
How is this relevant to my criticism of Freedom House? I questioned the objectivity of your source, not the morality of the American foreign policy.
Most Empires have only the justification that they are big and powerful and that's the end of it. The USA often goes on about the whole "land of the free" line and some people think that they should follow this.
Of course, they never have in their entire history and enjoyed the same methods of disenfranchising and when required killing those who don't want to join Team USA. Setting the bar as low as "hey - we didn't support killing 1/3 of the population" makes most of the things the British Empire did practically benign.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Crandar, the link is an advertisement for the Financial Times and FH gave Russia a score of 20. Hardly a score for a democracy. Maybe you have some real evidence that I would gladly read and respond to.
Rory, real Americans made real choices that didn't always help real problems. I certainly don't agree with all of the choices we made. Which nation has a perfect track record?
Last edited by Agent Miles; 01-03-2018 at 17:51.
Sometimes good people must kill bad people to protect the rest of the people.
I copy-pasted the article. My second point is that Freedom House, financed by the government, considers Russia as democratic as UAE, which is preposterous. The Wikipedia link I provided is fully cited.
Established by a former first lady, they are pretty open about who finances them.Originally Posted by Financial Times
Last edited by Crandar; 01-03-2018 at 18:09. Reason: Potentially provocative sentence zapped. Sorry.
Here's what one might call real evidence:
https://freedomhouse.org/sites/defau...ments_2016.pdf
So yes, FH gets government grants. Just about every organization in the US does too. That doesn't make them a joke. Ron Paul's statement is from 14 years ago. Maybe they got it right since then. Read the assessment of Iran from FH and present evidence to the contrary. Besides FH efforts in those countries are shadowing what Gene Sharp's book does for free.
Sometimes good people must kill bad people to protect the rest of the people.
I'm sure it includes outside agitators.
Russia has opened the Pandora Box here with its cyberwar investments (and this is exactly what cyberwar looks like, not the sci-fi stock of explodifying aircraft or the power grid from afar). Everyone from China down is moving to partake of the Meddling Pie. We don't have a chance.
The Arabs in the southwest of Iran sure did disappoint Saddam Hussein in his expectation of Arab solidarity. Any Saudi interference probably isn't restricted along ethnic lines.
You didn't mean it that way, but a Salafist takeover in Iran would certainly be a turn for the worse.
As for my other question, why do you hate Arabs so much compared to Persians?
A telling comment from a ___ over New Year's upon hearing of Russian material support for the Kim Jong Un regime: 'North Korea just wants nuclear weapons because America is trying to conquer it [sort of], and they have the right to manage to their own affairs and self-defense [arguably], so we shouldn't try to stop them from having nuclear weapons [there are other reasons to dislike a nuclear North Korea, and those who are helping them along...]. North Korea is defending itself, just like Israel defends itself from Iran.'
The obvious question to pose here is, does Iran similarly have a right to "defend itself" from Israel and the United States? Hezbollah is an Iranian creation, and the worst thing you can say about Iran's foreign policy is that it wants to control Syria and Lebanon, thereby access to the East Med coast, and are willing to fund international crime and terrorism to do it. This is a sticking point on the same level as nuclear proliferation, and a much better argument for a US counter to Iran than "they say mean things about Israel". And as far as I am aware, Iran has never directly attacked the territory of Israel, but Israel has directly attacked the territory of Iran. But the United States has been unfair and hypocritical in its disposition toward Iran, more so than is justifiable through Iran's fundamental governance or policies.
An ideal show of force in the Middle East, if such a thing exists, might have been to demand mutual deconfliction and normalization of relations between Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran as a prerequisite to full participation in the American order. We meet some of our objectives for the region, and we don't have all of the aforementioned playing us against Russia for profit. If the US guarantees the peace (between states), then the various parties have no business cultivating clients and proxies anyway. Probably not feasible today - maybe in 2002.
CIA operations in the Vietnam War were "technically" very successful. So were CIA coups and assassinations. Unfortunately, CIA successes have tended to be much worse for the world than CIA failures.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Admittedly, our coterie of kleptocratic thugs murdered too many innocents, but decidedly LESS than the Stalinist thugs. Sadly, that means they were "better" for some values of better.
The USA gets derided for being too jingoistic and naive in foreign affairs AND for being too cynical and calculating. I think the world would truly be happiest if we voted "abstain" hereafter in the UN and just funded what they asked us to fund without upsetting everyone.
Europe was happiest with us under Carter, since he had the only truly consistent and principle-driven foreign policy we've displayed over the last half century, with his human rights centered approach. Of course, we see how well that worked out in the long run
Last edited by Seamus Fermanagh; 01-03-2018 at 18:30.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
The political resistance has nothing to do with Iranian foreign policy toward the US or Israel or support for Hezbollah. The people want to be free. Students are jailed for having a party. Only opposition candidates approved by the government can run. It's an autocracy.
Seamus, "all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Last edited by Agent Miles; 01-03-2018 at 18:29.
Sometimes good people must kill bad people to protect the rest of the people.
To understand America's place in the world, you need to remember that Carter's administration was not at all out of step with American post-war consensus foreign policy. I'm sure Kissinger would describe it something like, rearranging the deck of the ship of state rather than changing its course. If an American president must propagate war crimes and crimes against humanity in due course, then Carter is as guilty as any of them, even if others have done worse.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/01/21/...-jimmy-carter/
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
For your first point in all fairness we do do both and that is normal for a great power. The wonderful irony of it all is the criticism leveled at us since WW2 is essentially the same criticism we leveled at the British and French during the previous century.
As for Europe being happiest, I'd say they were happiest with Kennedy in charge. The mix of optimism, energy, and purpose mixed together with a bit of resolve let them love us. There's a reason people know the "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech as opposed to anything Carter said. Additionally, his evangelical angle is very un-European.
Only thing I'll really credit Carter with accomplishing though is the Egypt-Israeli peace which is still in effect. Having the Suez be safe and open for business is a boon for Europe's economy. The previous Arab-Israeli wars closed it for years at a time.
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
-Abraham Lincoln
Four stage strategy from Yes, Minister:
Stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
As far as enacting a liberal foreign policy, the US was probably at its most focused, driven and effective under the Clinton-Blair axis. Blair is included because he was the one who drove the foreign policy in this manner. Unfortunately the legacy has been blotted by the Iraq debacle, which was driven by Bush and his neocons. However, Blair cannot be wholly excused from this, since he genuinely believed in the intervention, if not in its execution.
Which brings up the obvious. Millions of liberals are dazed and confused about how the electoral college works. They seem to have a loss of memory as to how Gore's own Presidential run ended. Add to this paranoid delusions about Hitler and Nazis. What could explain this? Hmmm...
Sometimes good people must kill bad people to protect the rest of the people.
Bookmarks