[Pants-of-dog]

@JohnRawls

If you want to reframe everything so that the USA seems like it had justification for meddling int he affairs of other sovereign countries, feel free.

Note that this merely justifies the behaviour that makes up my claim, and does not contradict it.

All this to say that a uni-polar world with the west at the helm is no safer or more beneficial for the developing countries than a multi-polar world.

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls

If you want to reframe everything so that the USA seems like it had justification for meddling int he affairs of other sovereign countries, feel free.

Note that this merely justifies the behaviour that makes up my claim, and does not contradict it.

All this to say that a uni-polar world with the west at the helm is no safer or more beneficial for the developing countries than a multi-polar world.

And the alternative of two-polar world was better for their development? Last time I checked those countries stagnated and didn't develop that fast compared to the post Cold war and 1990s period. If you are interested in development then I am not really sure why are you against the current globalised one-pollar system. Also you can't ignore that the two-pollar world will collapse at some point like it did before and the other half did have it super rough after collapse.

[Unthinking Majority]

After consulting declassified KGB archives, I know for a fact that many conflicts in Latin America that were supposedly about Soviet influence were, in fact, not about Soviet influence at all since the Soviets did almost nothing.

Since you seem to include these in your “knowledge” of events caused by Soviet influence, it seems that you incorrectly think that events were precipitated by Soviet influence when they were not.

This is why I asked you to name events where you know Soviet influence was involved.

Yes, we do. We are the ones buying all the product. All the cocaine and undocumented workers are sold to North Americans.

Afghanistan and Iraq are either neoimperial vassals of the West, and became so after the Cold War ended. And Iran is obviously being targeted by the west, despite a complete lack of Soviet influence.

Russia is western, and developed, and capitalist, and about as democratic as Florida (which is to say, not much at all, but still within the parameters of the USA),

Putin is definitely not trapped in a Cold War mentality. If you want to look at Russian history to see. where he draws his ideas from, look back to imperialist Russia. He is definitely a capitalist and has no plans on rebuilding the USSR.

Do you think Latin America is western?

Disagreeing with something doesn't make it true. ie: the Taliban and Al Qaeda were born out of the Cold War, after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the late 70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#S ... %80%931992)

Defending the Soviets/Russia and blaming America for everything tells me everything I need to know. You have good reasons to hate America, more than most, it doesn't mean they are the cause of all the world's ills. They do some good, they do some bad, like most anyone else. Even the CCP isn't all bad.

I find your arguments very black and white. You pick a group you like and one you don't and you treat one like the devil and the other as a helpless victim, no nuance or context, and never budge from that stance.

Not really sure about Latin America. Large parts of Latin America are at least partially western, since they have Spanish/Portuguese influence as well as some Italian and German.

Here's one proposed map of "the West": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:Western_World_Latin_America_torn_countries.png

[Rancid]

I always wonder why people think Latin America is not western? They speak Western European languages, adopted western musical traditions (fucking accordions in Mexico for fucks sake), adopted Western European religion en masse, follow many of the same traditions, if not, many of their traditions have their roots in western europe, and if not, the native traditions were merged/influenced by western traditions. The native cultures were basically wiped out and mostly replaced with western culture. How is Latin America not western?

I can only think of two reasons.

1 - Not as many white people there (although there are white people there). Too many browns and blacks?
2 - Because Latin America basically failed (for various reasons, including external interference, but also their own bumbling mistakes), and never rose to be a great power (economic, industrial, scientific, or militarily), people don't include them as western. Probably because it somehow would soils the notion of the greatness and legacy of western civilization.

[Potemkin]

I always wonder why people think Latin America is not western? :?: They speak Western European languages, adopted western musical traditions (fucking accordions in Mexico for fucks sake), adopted Western European religion en masse, follow many of the same traditions, if not, many of their traditions have their roots in western europe, and if not, the native traditions were merged/influenced by western traditions. The native cultures were basically wiped out and mostly replaced with western culture. How is Latin America not western?

I can only think of two reasons.

1 - Not as many white people there (although there are white people there). Too many browns and blacks?

The concept of “western” culture arose after the north-western corner of Europe had risen to dominance - you know, the pasty-faced Germanic types with their Protestant work ethic and their gloomy joyless religion and their ‘scientific’ racism which ‘proved’ (to their own satisfaction at least) that they were chosen by Divine Providence to rule over everyone else. Before these assholes took over, civilisation was seen as a Mediterranean thing - classical Greece and Rome. They didn’t give a fuck what colour somebody’s skin was, so long as they were civilised and not barbarians like those pasty-faced savages from north-west Europe. Lol. So yeah, Latin America had too many swarthy-faced types for the 19th century European imperialists to consider them “western”. Nowadays, that’s much less important.

2 - Because Latin America basically failed (for various reasons, including external interference, but also their own bumbling mistakes), and never rose to be a great power (economic, industrial, scientific, or militarily), people don't include them as western. Probably because it somehow would soils the notion of the greatness and legacy of western civilization.

Consider how Latin America began - as colonies of the Spanish (and Portuguese) crown. They were centres for resource extraction - mines, farms, you name it. There was no attempt made to build infrastructure (other than to service the resource extraction centres), or to develop or educate or nurture the native population. Even the pure-blooded Spanish who had been born in Latin America were second-class citizens in their own society, sidelined by the Peninsular-born administrators. Three wasted centuries, @Rancid. Talk about getting off to a bad start.

[Fasces]

If England had discovered the New World first and Brazil settled second by Spain and Portugal, the situation would likely be reversed - capitalism was an innovation of necessity in response to being unable to compete under the old imperial systems by second-rate powers in England and the Netherlands, and a refinement of Mediterranean banking traditions. Little to do with Catholicism or swarthiness. Don't tell the Germans.

[Pants-of-dog]

And the alternative of two-polar world was better for their development? Last time I checked those countries stagnated and didn't develop that fast compared to the post Cold war and 1990s period. If you are interested in development then I am not really sure why are you against the current globalised one-pollar system. Also you can't ignore that the two-pollar world will collapse at some point like it did before and the other half did have it super rough after collapse.

I never said I was interested in development.

The claim was that a uni-polar world under the west was not any better for the developing world than the Cold War.

————————

Disagreeing with something doesn't make it true. ie: the Taliban and Al Qaeda were born out of the Cold War, after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the late 70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#S ... %80%931992)

Yes, and the USA had no reason to take over Afghanistan and create instability in the region after the Soviets left. Yet they did, and things like human rights in Afghanistan are abysmal now.

Defending the Soviets/Russia and blaming America for everything tells me everything I need to know. You have good reasons to hate America, more than most, it doesn't mean they are the cause of all the world's ills. They do some good, they do some bad, like most anyone else. Even the CCP isn't all bad.

I find your arguments very black and white. You pick a group you like and one you don't and you treat one like the devil and the other as a helpless victim, no nuance or context, and never budge from that stance.

This is all untrue and insulting things you want to believe about me for some reason. Ignored.

Not really sure about Latin America. Large parts of Latin America are at least partially western, since they have Spanish/Portuguese influence as well as some Italian and German.

Here's one proposed map of "the West": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:Western_World_Latin_America_torn_countries.png

I see. Thanks for answering the question.

[Rich]

Yes, and the USA had no reason to take over Afghanistan and create instability in the region after the Soviets left. Yet they did, and things like human rights in Afghanistan are abysmal now.

The USA did not take over Afghanistan after the Soviets left. The West ignored Afghanistan for over 12 years. The reason that the West had to take over Afghanistan in 2001 was because Liberals and Cuckservatives were desperate to believe in the three great lies.

1 9/11 was not perpetrated by Muslims.

2 It had nothing to with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.

3 The Saudi and Pakistani states had no involvement in 9/11.

The reason such idiotic thinking fell on such fertile ground is that so many people like you think that everything wrong in the world is the fault of the West.

[late]

The USA did not take over Afghanistan after the Soviets left. The West ignored Afghanistan for over 12 years. The reason that the West had to take over Afghanistan in 2001 was because Liberals and Cuckservatives were desperate to believe in the three great lies.

1 9/11 was not perpetrated by Muslims.

2 It had nothing to with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace.

3 The Saudi and Pakistani states had no involvement in 9/11.

The reason such idiotic thinking fell on such fertile ground is that so many people like you think that everything wrong in the world is the fault of the West.

In the 1980s, we taught the guys who would do 9/11 (like OBL) how to do international terrorism. The CIA did not want to do it, Republicans forced them.

The Clinton transition team repeatedly warned the Bush team that the biggest threat was terrorism from the ME. They were ignored.

Bush's top terrorism guy, was worried enough that he went to the White House personally, and without appointment. The White House reassigned him and told him to never contact the White House again.

The sheer incompetence is staggering, but I am glad to see you keeping the tradition.

[late]

If England had discovered the New World first and Brazil settled second by Spain and Portugal, the situation would likely be reversed - capitalism was an innovation of necessity in response to being unable to compete under the old imperial systems by second-rate powers in England and the Netherlands, and a refinement of Mediterranean banking traditions. Little to do with Catholicism or swarthiness. Don't tell the Germans.

Capitalism,in the Renaissance, was a departure from Mediterranean banking traditions. One of the reasons banks went to England and the Netherlands was to escape Church taxes.

The other problem with your idea is that France and Spain imposed their way of doing things. If you were Spanish or French, and you needed something, you had to buy something, you had to buy from a countryman so that the government could get it's cut. It took a long time for that to change.

Your basic idea is prob sound, the Brits figured out in the 1600s that R&D was crucial and started putting government money into it. That and science.

[Rancid]

The concept of “western” culture arose after the north-western corner of Europe had risen to dominance - you know, the pasty-faced Germanic types with their Protestant work ethic and their gloomy joyless religion and their ‘scientific’ racism which ‘proved’ (to their own satisfaction at least) that they were chosen by Divine Providence to rule over everyone else. Before these assholes took over, civilisation was seen as a Mediterranean thing - classical Greece and Rome. They didn’t give a fuck what colour somebody’s skin was, so long as they were civilised and not barbarians like those pasty-faced savages from north-west Europe. Lol. So yeah, Latin America had too many swarthy-faced types for the 19th century European imperialists to consider them “western”. Nowadays, that’s much less important.


Consider how Latin America began - as colonies of the Spanish (and Portuguese) crown. They were centres for resource extraction - mines, farms, you name it. There was no attempt made to build infrastructure (other than to service the resource extraction centres), or to develop or educate or nurture the native population. Even the pure-blooded Spanish who had been born in Latin America were second-class citizens in their own society, sidelined by the Peninsular-born administrators. Three wasted centuries, @Rancid. Talk about getting off to a bad start.

I do enjoy your posts.

[JohnRawls]

@Fasces

Macron and Von Der Leyen went to China, let us see if Xi wants trade or not and will he change stance on Ukraine and put pressure on Russia. Actually usually I would say no but Russia recently cucked the Chinese with the nuclear threats to the world that China promised won't happen and semi-ignored the Chinese peace plan which was pretty good considering the situation they are in. I guess a low chance exists that China might change its mind but I wouldn't bet on it, Xi is relatively slow at change or adaptation as of late.

[Szabo]

China’s Ambassador to the E.U. Tries to Distance Beijing From Moscow

The ambassador, Fu Cong, said China was not on Russia’s side in the war in Ukraine. “‘No limit’ is nothing but rhetoric,” he said, referring to a statement from last year about the countries’ relationship.

[JohnRawls]

China’s Ambassador to the E.U. Tries to Distance Beijing From Moscow

The ambassador, Fu Cong, said China was not on Russia’s side in the war in Ukraine. “‘No limit’ is nothing but rhetoric,” he said, referring to a statement from last year about the countries’ relationship.

Actions speak louder than words and current China actions indicate that they don't care or slightly support Russia, both cases are unacceptable to Europe.

[Szabo]

Actions speak louder than words and current China actions indicate that they don't care or slightly support Russia, both cases are unacceptable to Europe.

Why do you think it's unacceptable? I personally am grateful that China isn't helping Russia militarily, otherwise we would have so much more problems on our hands. So far China hasn't done anything overt to hurt Ukraine, and I can't expect them to hurt their economy by stopping to do good business with Russia.

Ukraine certainly wouldn't stop doing business with the west even if the west were in the wrong.

[JohnRawls]

Why do you think it's unacceptable? I personally am grateful that China isn't helping Russia militarily, otherwise we would have so much more problems on our hands. So far China hasn't done anything overt to hurt Ukraine, and I can't expect them to hurt their economy by stopping to do good business with Russia.

Ukraine certainly wouldn't stop doing business with the west even if the west were in the wrong.

I want China to blockade Russia and issue an ultimatum either they go out of Ukraine or there is no real trade with China anymore and no import substitution and so on.

You might think that it is overboard but Europe is at liberty to demand this since we have a strong interest for our own safety on one side as reasoning and strong hand with the Chinese on the other. We can't force the Chinese to do this if they are not willing for their own ideas but trade with Europe far outweighs trade with Russia in any shape or form. We can also tie in our future relations in to this since we did not support US policies against China with minor exceptions where we couldn't do anything or our own companies would be sanctioned otherwise.

Also China is not a small country that has no voice. Their whole idea of resurgence and so on, well this is one of those situations where larger blocks or countries need to step up and resolve. They are not doing it.

So either we start supporting all of US policies towards China and we start to make trade harder or China supports EU side of things which includes full Ukraine victory. We are not asking to support Ukraine arms(which would be nice by the way) but a full blockade of import substitutions and pressure on the oil/gas front is nice.

We can also throw the argument that US is doing its part but China is doing nothing. So it is a no brainer who we should be with in the "surely seems likely" conflict between EU and US.

[Fasces]

I'm against Europe being a subservient power to the US and just falling in line with US foreign policy objectives. Europe shouldn't choose the US or China.

[Rugoz]

Putin traveled to Beijing before the war. Pretty sure he got guarantees from Xi that China would not sanction Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Of course Xi expected it to be over quickly, like everyone else.

Ultimately China enables this war by refusing to sanction Russia, even though it has every right to since Russia is in clear violation of the UN charter. China's attempts to wash its hands in innocence are silly.

I'm against Europe being a subservient power to the US and just falling in line with US foreign policy objectives. Europe shouldn't choose the US or China.

You sound like a CCP bot.

[Fasces]

You sound like a tired neolib.

[Szabo]

We can also throw the argument that US is doing its part but China is doing nothing. So it is a no brainer who we should be with in the "surely seems likely" conflict between EU and US.

Conflict between the EU and US? What do you mean by this?