What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[shunyadragon]

Dismissal? What dismissal? I haven't denied or dismissed anything, and I said above that any war criminals should be arrested and prosecuted, if possible. I've seen the reports, and if any of it is true and can be proven, then, yes, they should be made to pay for their crimes. But my only point was that this, in and of itself, is not evidence of a plan for world conquest.

My previous posts dropped the issue of China and world conquest. Please respond to the recent posts concerning Russia.

Your dismissal of the extreme nature of Russian war crimes. You have failed to respond to the following . . .
As far as war crimes are concerned you are neglecting the extreme extent of Russian war crimes in Ukraine as documented. True all wars have war crimes, but Russia's war crimes are extreme beyond most wars in history. Your dismissal of Russia's war crimes appears equivalent to the violence of a football game.

. . . What is your alternative for the response to the NATO response to the Ukraine invasion by Russia?

 

[Stevicus]

My previous posts dropped the issue of China and world conquest. Please respond to the recent posts concerning Russia.

Your dismissal of the extreme nature of Russian war crimes. You have failed to respond to the following . . .
As far as war crimes are concerned you are neglecting the extreme extent of Russian war crimes in Ukraine as documented. True all wars have war crimes, but Russia's war crimes are extreme beyond most wars in history. Your dismissal of Russia's war crimes appears equivalent to the violence of a football game.

. . . What is your alternative for the response to the NATO response to the Ukraine invasion by Russia?

This discussion is going in circles. This sounds like you're bickering for the sake of bickering. I've already addressed these points. Now, unless you have any further points to make or any new information to offer, I don't see that there's much more to say at this point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, just an objective bystander....

You're not at all objective.
I recommend this series to improve your view.
(It's helped me immensely.)

 

[Boris Norris]

Well, "officially," the US has no real tangible interests in any of its foreign policy escapades. It's all about a purely noble and selfless desire to make the world safe for democracy. We get nothing out of it; it's all about our love and devotion to the rest of the world. We just want everyone on the planet to enjoy the freedom and democracy that we have had. It's all for love - even if it breaks us and leaves our own people impoverished.

I don't think love was involved. America has always had a desire to rule the world militarily and the invasion of Ukraine was an opportunity to show that.

 

[atanu]

If Russia is allowed to annex parts of Ukraine and install puppet a government in Kyiv, next Putin will invade the Baltic countries and do the same thing.

After that it will be Poland, Moldova and Georgia. The Baltics, Poland are NATO countries and US is required by treaty to intervene with troops.

So, it is best that Putin is stopped in Ukraine especially since Ukraine is willing to fight so hard and no US troops are at risk.

So US must install military base in Ukraine.

 

[atanu]

Well. US citizens have right to view actions of their government in light whether those actions suit them or not, whether her status quo is maintained or not etc. etc.

Outsiders too have such rights.

If I install guns in Revoltingest’s neighbour’s house, all directed at him, what will Revoltingest do? Will he allow me?

We can see history of US interventions (military and electoral) in other countries: Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, 2014 coup in Ukraine ……

But it becomes a joke when US citizens repeat the line of the rulers. More so, when the US, although being most prosperous till date, has the worst unequal wealth and income distributions. So when a person from the lowest 50% strata who own negative wealth (due to debt) parrot the lines that are suitable for those at the top 10% who own more that’s 85% wealth, it is plain indoctrination and effect of imposed nationalism. We see similar nationalism-majoritarianism in India.

I am not saying anything negative about the US citizens. I am pointing at those who have benefited and who benefit by selling arms and who create the popular narratives that common people feed on.
…

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well. US citizens have right to view actions of their government in light whether those actions suit them or not, whether her status quo is maintained or not etc. etc.

Outsiders too have such rights.

If I install guns in Revoltingest’s neighbour’s house, all directed at him, what will Revoltingest do? Will he allow me?

We can see history of US interventions (military and electoral) in other countries: Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, 2014 coup in Ukraine ……

But it becomes a joke when US citizens repeat the line of the rulers. More so, when the US, although being most prosperous till date, has the worst unequal wealth and income distributions. So when a person from the lowest 50% strata who own negative wealth (due to debt) parrot the lines that are suitable for those at the top 10% who own more that’s 85% wealth, it is plain indoctrination and effect of imposed nationalism. We see similar nationalism-majoritarianism in India.

I am not saying anything negative about the US citizens. I am pointing at those who have benefited and who benefit by selling arms and who create the popular narratives that common people feed on.
…

I get your bias when it comes to the actions of the USA. I have another version of bias.

 

[Stevicus]

You're not at all objective.
I recommend this series to improve your view.
(It's helped me immensely.)

I consider myself to be, on the whole, objective on matters of history and geopolitics (far more than you've ever demonstrated). I only saw enough of the video you've posted to see that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think love was involved. America has always had a desire to rule the world militarily and the invasion of Ukraine was an opportunity to show that.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think love was involved. America has always had a desire to rule the world militarily and the invasion of Ukraine was an opportunity to show that.

No, that is not true. As for the present day it is a part of it when you try to understand the behavior of the USA but in effect it is ideology more than it is just purely military control.

 

[atanu]

I get your bias when it comes to the actions of the USA. I have another version of bias.

Yes. The rich are able to impose their bias upon unsuspecting mass, under many guises.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. The rich are able to impose their bias upon unsuspecting mass, under many guises.

Yeah, I get that. But overdone it becomes a false dichotomy.

 

[Father Heathen]

If I install guns in Revoltingest’s neighbour’s house, all directed at him, what will Revoltingest do? Will he allow me?

So by your logic, if a woman carries pepper spray as a means of self defense, then she's actually provoking rapists and thus would deserved to be raped?

Also, when were you going to sac up and answer my earlier question (post #6)?

As they say in your country, "take poo to the loo."

 

[Stevicus]

Well. US citizens have right to view actions of their government in light whether those actions suit them or not, whether her status quo is maintained or not etc. etc.

Yes, that's the general idea, although whether or not government actions have any personal impact on an individual citizen can vary. Most government actions are mundane, with the public remaining largely indifferent if they're not personally affected by it. When people become passionate or outraged about something, it's presumably due to something personally affecting them.

Outsiders too have such rights.

Yes, they most certainly do.

If I install guns in Revoltingest’s neighbour’s house, all directed at him, what will Revoltingest do? Will he allow me?

Under current U.S. law, he would have no power to restrict the legal firearms ownership of other citizens. However, he may have grounds to sue or press charges if his neighbor harasses him or makes threats.

We can see history of US interventions (military and electoral) in other countries: Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, 2014 coup in Ukraine ……

Yes, and in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Iran, too. Panama, Grenada...in fact, it would probably be easier to list the places where the U.S. hasn't had some measure of involvement.

All of it has been done to safeguard democracy and freedom in the world, according to our government. Anyone who doesn't blindly go along with that is some kind of whacko "conspiracy theorist," which is another aspect of how such issues are addressed to the general public.

But it becomes a joke when US citizens repeat the line of the rulers. More so, when the US, although being most prosperous till date, has the worst unequal wealth and income distributions. So when a person from the lowest 50% strata who own negative wealth (due to debt) parrot the lines that are suitable for those at the top 10% who own more that’s 85% wealth, it is plain indoctrination and effect of imposed nationalism. We see similar nationalism-majoritarianism in India.

I am not saying anything negative about the US citizens. I am pointing at those who have benefited and who benefit by selling arms and who create the popular narratives that common people feed on.
…

It seems to be more prevalent online, where there tends to be a great deal of posturing and loud talk.

For those I know in real life, they're just trying to survive and get by. Most of their physical and mental energies are just dealing with the day-to-day issues that most people deal with - work, money, food, shelter, gas, healthcare when the kids are sick and have to go to the doctor, and many other things that become more stressful and angst-producing because the government bends over backwards to intentionally make life more difficult for people.

They become more apathetic about politics and mistrustful of government precisely because they're getting screwed and squeezed to the point where they don't know who or what to believe in anymore. These are not the kinds of things that are generally covered on CNN or in the Wall Street Journal, so those outsiders who rely solely on US media for information about America may not get an entirely clear picture on things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Yes, and in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Iran, too. Panama, Grenada...in fact, it would probably be easier to list the places where the U.S. hasn't had some measure of involvement.

All of it has been done to safeguard democracy and freedom in the world, according to our government. Anyone who doesn't blindly go along with that is some kind of whacko "conspiracy theorist," which is another aspect of how such issues are addressed to the general public.

It seems to be more prevalent online, where there tends to be a great deal of posturing and loud talk.

For those I know in real life, they're just trying to survive and get by. Most of their physical and mental energies are just dealing with the day-to-day issues that most people deal with - work, money, food, shelter, gas, healthcare when the kids are sick and have to go to the doctor, and many other things that become more stressful and angst-producing because the government bends over backwards to intentionally make life more difficult for people.

They become more apathetic about politics and mistrustful of government precisely because they're getting screwed and squeezed to the point where they don't know who or what to believe in anymore. These are not the kinds of things that are generally covered on CNN or in the Wall Street Journal, so those outsiders who rely solely on US media for information about America may not get an entirely clear picture on things.

The problem is that you pick your examples to suit your cases.
It is as if the USA is only "evil".
Yes, they have done wrong. Now look at the history of the USA and all of the world and tell me that it was all "evil".

I do get where you are coming from, but not just from this post of yours, but others it seems like you treat other players as if they are justified in all their behaviors, because they are threatened by the USA.
Is that a fair understanding?

 

[atanu]

No, that is not true. As for the present day it is a part of it when you try to understand the behavior of the USA but in effect it is ideology more than it is just purely military control.

What ideology?

 

[Stevicus]

The problem is that you pick your examples to suit your cases.
It is as if the USA is only "evil".
Yes, they have done wrong. Now look at the history of the USA and all of the world and tell me that it was all "evil".

I do get where you are coming from, but not just from this post of yours, but others it seems like you treat other players as if they are justified in all their behaviors, because they are threatened by the USA.
Is that a fair understanding?

First off, I don't recall any time where I referred to the USA as "evil," except possibly in jest. The fact is, I don't really believe in "good" or "evil" in any kind of supernatural sense. Human history and politics are far too complex to reduce it all down to "good vs. evil" or some other puerile, comic book perceptions.

I'm really not so unreasonable as certain posters here might seem to perceive me as. I'm certainly willing to listen if someone has something concrete and substantial to say.

But please understand that there's probably nothing I haven't heard before, when it comes to US foreign policy and our geopolitical and national security perceptions and aspirations. I'm not saying that to brag, but this subject has been a particular passion of mine for most of my life, although I will also point out that I was raised in a kind of conflicted environment, among both right-wing patriots (including many military veterans) and left-wing peaceniks and civil rights supporters.

So, there's very little that anyone can say on this subject that I probably haven't already heard and analyzed. I'm fairly familiar with most of the arguments from both sides. Because of this, I can empathize with and understand both positions and their various permutations.

I've been accused of being "too cynical" on a number of occasions, and maybe therein lies my flaw. However, my point in the post that you're quoting is that I would observe a tendency on the part of the general public to judge a government based on how they themselves are treated by it. If the government treats the common people well, then that will engender goodwill, loyalty, and support for that government during hard times. If the government treats the people poorly, then that will generate the kind of political divisions and perceived instability that we've been seeing as of late. And if the government really does need the support of the people in some kind of international crisis, then they might find that support lacking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What ideology?

The ideology of capitalism and their understanding of democracy and the idea of exceptionalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First off, I don't recall any time where I referred to the USA as "evil," except possibly in jest. The fact is, I don't really believe in "good" or "evil" in any kind of supernatural sense. Human history and politics are far too complex to reduce it all down to "good vs. evil" or some other puerile, comic book perceptions.

I'm really not so unreasonable as certain posters here might seem to perceive me as. I'm certainly willing to listen if someone has something concrete and substantial to say.

But please understand that there's probably nothing I haven't heard before, when it comes to US foreign policy and our geopolitical and national security perceptions and aspirations. I'm not saying that to brag, but this subject has been a particular passion of mine for most of my life, although I will also point out that I was raised in a kind of conflicted environment, among both right-wing patriots (including many military veterans) and left-wing peaceniks and civil rights supporters.

So, there's very little that anyone can say on this subject that I probably haven't already heard and analyzed. I'm fairly familiar with most of the arguments from both sides. Because of this, I can empathize with and understand both positions and their various permutations.

I've been accused of being "too cynical" on a number of occasions, and maybe therein lies my flaw. However, my point in the post that you're quoting is that I would observe a tendency on the part of the general public to judge a government based on how they themselves are treated by it. If the government treats the common people well, then that will engender goodwill, loyalty, and support for that government during hard times. If the government treats the people poorly, then that will generate the kind of political divisions and perceived instability that we've been seeing as of late. And if the government really does need the support of the people in some kind of international crisis, then they might find that support lacking.

Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, it is reasonable and indeed rational.
But there is a slight point that can show a different perspective.

When reading in general posts I always try to account for a given culture and the contra sub-culture within that culture.
My point is that I can spot that in your posts. You analyze the USA from a perspective within the USA. And in a sense your analysis is correct from that point of view. Now from my culture, your point is nether right nor wrong in the strong sense. Because you do have some points I can agree with. But there are others because I have a slight different point of view, where we differ.

Does that make sense? If yes, we can start looking at where I understand it differently.

 

[Stevicus]

Thank you for your answer. It makes sense, it is reasonable and indeed rational.
But there is a slight point that can show a different perspective.

When reading in general posts I always try to account for a given culture and the contra sub-culture within that culture.
My point is that I can spot that in your posts. You analyze the USA from a perspective within the USA. And in a sense your analysis is correct from that point of view. Now from my culture, your point is nether right nor wrong in the strong sense. Because you do have some points I can agree with. But there are others because I have a slight different point of view, where we differ.

Does that make sense? If yes, we can start looking at where I understand it differently.

Sure, I can understand that, and I understand that people from other countries and cultures might see things differently. In fact, this also has motivated me to try to learn more about the world. I studied Russian history and culture for that reason, too, since I was raised to fear them. I wanted to find out what made them want to destroy America. When I was around 15 or 16, it was the time of the Iranian hostage crisis, where they showed on the news all these massive crowds of people shouting "Death to America," and I wondered, "Whatever did we do to make them so angry at us?"

That may have been a turning point for me personally, since I decided to learn more and more about how the world actually works and what America's role in it has been. Strictly speaking, I don't see our government as "do gooders" or some kind of "Captain America" out to promote freedom, democracy, and to right all the world's wrongs. That's just so much bunkum for the masses, without any real basis in practical reality. I do not believe in American Exceptionalism.

What I believe is that we are an ordinary country with an ordinary government comprised of ordinary men and women who, for the most part, carry out a policy based on what they (presumably) believe to be in the best national interests of the country. It's not a conspiracy theory; it's what normal governments have done throughout most of recorded history (unless they're puppets or vassals of other states). Of course, the question of what is in the best national interests of the country is hotly debated and not always agreed upon, and this is where a lot of the argument goes sour.