Blast in Beirut, Lebanon - Page 15 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15113468
anasawad wrote:
@ckaihatsu

Size is irrelevant to whether a country is being imperialist or not.

@MadMonk

Agreed
I'd argue that regional powers' imperialism is even worse than that of global powers as a general rule since regional powers' imperialism has an element of cultural and social-imperialism coming with it and not only lasts longer but also have a larger presence in the target country due to the close distance, while a country like the US or China are far less attached with their imperialism being limited to resources and access without any significant cultural and social elements.



Also, this just in:

Black is white, and night is day.


*Of course* size matters, because a larger military empire means more military coercion *worldwide*.

You seem to measure 'imperialism' in terms of *culture*, for whatever odd reason.



US influence and voting reform

The scholarly consensus is that IMF decision-making is not simply technocratic, but also guided by political and economic concerns.[127] The United States is the IMF's most powerful member, and its influence reaches even into decision-making concerning individual loan agreements.[128] The United States has historically been openly opposed to losing what Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew described in 2015 as its "leadership role" at the IMF, and the United States' "ability to shape international norms and practices".[129]

Reforms to give more powers to emerging economies were agreed by the G20 in 2010. The reforms could not pass, however, until they were ratified by the US Congress,[130][131][132] since 85% of the Fund's voting power was required for the reforms to take effect,[133] and the Americans held more than 16% of voting power at the time.[134] After repeated criticism,[135][136] the United States finally ratified the voting reforms at the end of 2015.[137] The OECD countries maintained their overwhelming majority of voting share, and the United States in particular retained its share at over 16%.[138]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... ing_reform
#15113470
@ckaihatsu
*Of course* size matters, because a larger military empire means more military coercion *worldwide*.

No it doesn't.
The scale of attachment is the decisive factor, not the size of the sides.

You seem to measure 'imperialism' in terms of *culture*, for whatever odd reason.

The US invasion of Iraq happened to spread political influence and dominance.
In the context of Iraq, although the US is significantly larger than Iran, the US imperialism is limited to geo-political and geostrategic ends, it doesn't have any influence over social structures, culture, demographics, etc.
All while, Iran, also being imperialist in Iraq, is actively changing demographics through violence, destroying the social system and culture, and building a new one subservient to it, and in general, its imperialism in Iraq is heavily ideological and cultural.

The US is only present in the political and economic arena and would leave at one point one way or another.
Iran, on the other hand, could destroy the very fabric of Iraqi society.

One is temporary, the other is near permanent. Because one is on the other side of the world and has highly limited attachment, while the other is just there, always present in every little aspect of the country.
#15113473
MadMonk wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't have used Russia as an example, that is on me. I agree that the US/NATO/EU troika (or their predecessors) have been the primary aggressors since the Russian Revolution.



Also:

Spanish–American War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E ... erican_War


MadMonk wrote:
I maintain that the current and historical geo-politics of the Middle East is far more complex than simply either demonizing or sanctifying any power faction. What is becoming painfully obvious is that the current national borders, of which we can thank its colonial legacy, are only maintained by fear and terror in one form or another. US allies in the region includes some of the very worst 'bad guys' imaginable and the hypocrisy of painting Iran as the super villain while cozying up with the Saudi Royal Dynasty is nauseating.



Yup on that last part.

Considering the trajectory / continuum of historical-progress (mode of production), the *most* historically-progressive development has been that of the *soviets* (workers councils), with *soviet democracy*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy


So even the Middle East countries fall onto this continuum of West-vs.-progress, to put it coarsely.

Here's that excerpt from the WSWS again:



Under various banners, the Arab bourgeoisie has sought to advance itself as the “natural leader” of the movement of the oppressed Arab masses against imperialist domination. In the case of Pan-Arabism and Ba'athism, it sought to combine the project of building an “Arab nation” with pledges to construct an egalitarian regime, akin to socialism. It was aided in this task by the Stalinist parties, which subordinated the independent interests of the working class to the bourgeoisie and its nationalist program.

The history of Syria and the entire Middle East has demonstrated, in the negative, the correctness of the Marxist theory of Permanent Revolution, as elaborated by Leon Trotsky. In countries with a belated capitalist development—even those possessing vast oil wealth—the native bourgeoisie is organically incapable of leading the workers and oppressed masses in overcoming the legacy of feudal backwardness and colonial subjugation. Its interests are fundamentally linked with and subordinate to those of the imperialist powers—economically, politically and militarily. Above all, it is concerned with suppressing the internal political threat to its rule posed by the working class.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/06/assa-j16.html



---


And:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image
#15113474
anasawad wrote:
@ckaihatsu

No it doesn't.
The scale of attachment is the decisive factor, not the size of the sides.



WTF is 'scale of attachment' -- ? And how is it any different from *scale of militarist deployment* -- ?


anasawad wrote:
The US invasion of Iraq happened to spread political influence and dominance.



Like this:



Security, looting and war damage

Massive looting took place in the days following the 2003 invasion.[256] According to U.S. officials, the "reality of the situation on the ground" was that hospitals, water plants, and ministries with vital intelligence needed security more than other sites. There were only enough U.S. troops on the ground to guard a certain number of the many sites that ideally needed protection, and so, apparently, some "hard choices" were made.

It was reported that The Iraq Museum was among the looted sites. The FBI was soon called into Iraq to track down the stolen items. It was found that the initial allegations of looting of substantial portions of the collection were heavily exaggerated. Initial reports asserted a near-total looting of the museum, estimated at upwards of 170,000 inventory lots, or about 501,000 pieces. The more recent estimate places the number of stolen pieces at around 15,000, and about 10,000 of them probably were taken in an "inside job" before U.S. troops arrived, according to Bogdanos. Over 5,000 looted items have since been recovered.[257] An assertion that U.S. forces did not guard the museum because they were guarding the Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior is disputed by investigator Colonel Matthew Bogdanos in his 2005 book Thieves of Baghdad. Bogdanos notes that the Ministry of Oil building was bombed, but the museum complex, which took some fire, was not bombed. He also writes that Saddam Hussein's troops set up sniper's nests inside and on top of the museum, and nevertheless U.S. Marines and soldiers stayed close enough to prevent wholesale looting.

"Two great libraries, with priceless ancient collections"—the Awqaf Library (Library of the Ministry of Religious Endowments) and the National Library of Iraq and National Centre for Archives (the House of Wisdom)—"have been burned," The Boston Globe reported in 2003, adding that the libraries at the University of Mosul and University of Basra had been looted. András Riedlmayer, a specialist in Islamic architecture at Harvard University,[258] said the U.S. State Department had asked him for advice before the invasion, and that "everybody warned them that the greatest danger was not from Tomahawk missiles but from looting." Noting that Iraq had been unified only in 1922 and that relatively little attention had been paid to this local history, Keith D. Waterpaugh, a specialist in Ottoman history, said, "Imagine if we could not go back and read The New York Times from 1922 on. If we are going to help the Iraqi people build a new nation, we don't do it by letting their past be destroyed."[259]

More serious for the post-war state of Iraq was the looting of cached weaponry and ordnance which fueled the subsequent insurgency. As many as 250,000 tons of explosives were unaccounted for by October 2004.[260] Disputes within the US Defense Department led to delays in the post-invasion assessment and protection of Iraqi nuclear facilities. Tuwaitha, the Iraqi site most scrutinized by UN inspectors since 1991, was left unguarded and was looted.[261][262]

Zainab Bahrani, professor of Ancient Near Eastern Art History and Archaeology at Columbia University, reported that a helicopter landing pad was constructed in the heart of the ancient city of Babylon, and "removed layers of archeological earth from the site. The daily flights of the helicopters rattle the ancient walls and the winds created by their rotors blast sand against the fragile bricks. When my colleague at the site, Maryam Moussa, and I asked military personnel in charge that the helipad be shut down, the response was that it had to remain open for security reasons, for the safety of the troops."[263] Bahrani also reported that in the summer of 2004, "the wall of the Temple of Nabu and the roof of the Temple of Ninmah, both sixth century BC, collapsed as a result of the movement of helicopters."[263] Electrical power is scarce in post-war Iraq, Bahrani reported, and some fragile artifacts, including the Ottoman Archive, would not survive the loss of refrigeration.[263]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_inva ... war_damage



---


anasawad wrote:
In the context of Iraq, although the US is significantly larger than Iran, the US imperialism is limited to geo-political and geostrategic ends, it doesn't have any influence over social structures, culture, demographics, etc.



It controls *finance* -- countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and potentially Iran, have all been invaded by the U.S. due to their plans to go off the petrodollar standard, and to valuate their own stock markets and trade outside of the U.S. dollar.


anasawad wrote:
All while, Iran, also being imperialist in Iraq, is actively changing demographics through violence, destroying the social system and culture, and building a new one subservient to it, and in general, its imperialism in Iraq is heavily ideological and cultural.

The US is only present in the political and economic arena



'Only' -- ?

That's what a political economy is *measured* in -- politics and economics.


anasawad wrote:
and would leave at one point one way or another.
Iran, on the other hand, could destroy the very fabric of Iraqi society.

One is temporary, the other is near permanent. Because one is on the other side of the world and has highly limited attachment, while the other is just there, always present in every little aspect of the country.



No, the U.S. has far greater hegemony, and is *not* merely the 'supercop' to the world.

I don't *condone* Iranian impositions on Iraq, but I don't think that the U.S. / NATO would *improve* things by playing 'supercop' there.
#15113475
@ckaihatsu
WTF is 'scale of attachment' -- ? And how is it any different from *scale of militarist deployment* -- ?

There is a huge difference between conquering a country to use its resources or to have strategic positioning, and conquering a country to colonize it.

Like this:

Imperialism isn't just a military thing, how hard is this to understand?

It controls *finance* -- countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and potentially Iran, have all been invaded by the U.S. due to their plans to go off the petrodollar standard, and to valuate their own stock markets and trade outside of the U.S. dollar.

And? Did any of them stop being Iraqi or Libyan or Syrian?
Did the US force destroy the cultures of these countries?
Did the US force an ideology and social structure on any of these countries?

No, because the US is only led by a political, strategic, and, indirectly, economic ends. It does not seek to force its social structures, traditions, culture, and ideology on countries it controls.

'Only' -- ?

That's what a political economy is *measured* in -- politics and economics.

Do you have a problem reading or are you intentionally attempting to build a strawman?

I don't *condone* Iranian impositions on Iraq, but I don't think that the U.S. / NATO would *improve* things by playing 'supercop' there.

Both imperialists, but in the context of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, Iran is far more involved and far more imperialist than the US.
#15113487
When told that size matters when considering whether a nation (or cat) is being imperialist, anasawad wrote:No it doesn't.
The scale of attachment is the decisive factor, not the size of the sides.

So if the cat outside my window wakes up a hundred people with a loud meow, it is being imperialist because of the scale of the attachment?

Once again, your "point" depends on destroying the shared meanings of words.

ckaihatsu ...it's not very useful to debate with someone who has his own meanings for the words he uses as is the case with anasawad.
#15113520
@QatzelOk
The only one trying to change the meaning of words here is you, anyone can easily check the meaning of the words I use in any standard dictionary if they didn't understand my posts.

Also, your attempt at ridicule is embarassing. To you.
#15113528
QatzelOk wrote:So if the cat outside my window wakes up a hundred people with a loud meow, it is being imperialist because of the scale of the attachment?


I don't think he means that. This is an extreme stretch.


QatzelOk wrote:Once again, your "point" depends on destroying the shared meanings of words.


Both Spain and Britain are rather small countries by themselves, the Netherlands and Belgium are even smaller. They all engaged in Imperialism at some point in history. I do not agree that Member anasawad had twisted the meaning of Imperialism.
#15113546
anasawad wrote:
@ckaihatsu

There is a huge difference between conquering a country to use its resources or to have strategic positioning, and conquering a country to colonize it.



You're splitting hairs in an apologetic for imperialism. There's no reason for the U.S. to be occupying territory outside of its own boundaries.


anasawad wrote:
Imperialism isn't just a military thing, how hard is this to understand?



Imperialism can't be done *without* the military, as in establishing norms of finance.


anasawad wrote:
And? Did any of them stop being Iraqi or Libyan or Syrian?
Did the US force destroy the cultures of these countries?
Did the US force an ideology and social structure on any of these countries?

No, because the US is only led by a political, strategic, and, indirectly, economic ends. It does not seek to force its social structures, traditions, culture, and ideology on countries it controls.



That's only because the world is past a *colonialist* period, and instead uses militarist hegemony to enforce *financial* terms.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Only' -- ?

That's what a political economy is *measured* in -- politics and economics.



anasawad wrote:
Do you have a problem reading or are you intentionally attempting to build a strawman?



Your vague insult is bringing you off-topic. You keep *saying* that imperialist hegemony is measured by the yardstick of *cultural* imperialism, but then you also admit that it includes 'economic ends' -- which can be just as controlling, through finance, as any *other* kind of dominance.


anasawad wrote:
Both imperialists, but in the context of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, Iran is far more involved and far more imperialist than the US.



You keep *repeating* this line, but then you expect others to just accept your contention at face-value. You may want to provide some evidence here, considering that you haven't addressed the factor of *scale* (of foreign policy, for any given country).
#15113571
@ckaihatsu
You're splitting hairs in an apologetic for imperialism. There's no reason for the U.S. to be occupying territory outside of its own boundaries.

There is no reason for anyone to occupying territory outside its own.
I'm not defending the US, you're defending Iran.


Imperialism can't be done *without* the military, as in establishing norms of finance.

Debt traps.

But sure, though there is a big difference between an imperialist power that just enforces a military mandate, and an imperiali power that seeks to control the occupied country to even how people get married or what language they speak.

That's only because the world is past a *colonialist* period, and instead uses militarist hegemony to enforce *financial* terms.

But that military hegemony is, by its very nature, temporary.
Colonialism is either permenant or very long term.

Iran is a colonial empire. The US is just a military one.

You keep *saying* that imperialist hegemony is measured by the yardstick of *cultural* imperialism, but then you also admit that it includes 'economic ends' -- which can be just as controlling, through finance, as any *other* kind of dominance.


So you didn't understand my argument.
I'm saying imperialism is measured by how much the imperial power is involved (Attachment) in the country it controls.
An imperial power that just focuses on the politics, strategic positioning, or economic ( even though economic dominance is usually the bi-product and not the key end as we've seen in Iraq for the US) is significantly lighter than an imperial power that seeks to dominate the culture, social structures, language, historical narrative, etc.

You can survive a temporary military dominance, you can fight it off.
The later type, it take 2 generations before your nation ceases to exist.
One is considerably worse.

You keep *repeating* this line, but then you expect others to just accept your contention at face-value. You may want to provide some evidence here, considering that you haven't addressed the factor of *scale* (of foreign policy, for any given country).

Exactly, the scale, not the size.
The US put Iraq under a military occupation and controlled the political scene.

Iran, on the other hand, is now controling the political landscape, the economic landscape, the religious landscape, the cultural landscape, and considering that its opening tons of schools in Iraq, if it managed to continue this trend for 20-30 years more, Iraq will be Persianized with only possibly the western and northern parts.

So even though the US is significantly bigger than Iran, the scale of imperial control and involvement of the US is dwarfed by that of Iran in the context of Iraq.

And that's news.
#15113579
ckaihatsu wrote:You keep *repeating* this line, but then you expect others to just accept your contention at face-value. You may want to provide some evidence here, considering that you haven't addressed the factor of *scale* (of foreign policy, for any given country).

Patrickov takes all of anasawad's contentions (and new definitions of words) at face value.

Patrickov even suggested that since Belgium and Holland are currently "small" countries (compared ot European neighbors like France and Germany), then very small countries can be imperialist, therefore a cat can also be in search of new territory (to have sex in) and therefore the cat in my alley may be as imperialistic as Holland was in the 17th Century.

So maybe instead of discussing how much the abstract concept of "empire" is all that's left to motivate a completely disconnected and parasitic elite, and rather than discussing how much harm this kind of useless and decadent endeavor has always been in human history, we need to talk about how a loud cat is equally dangerous.

This is how destroying word meanings (to win an argument) is bad faith and also destroys logic and truth.
#15113584
anasawad wrote:
There is a huge difference between conquering a country to use its resources or to have strategic positioning, and conquering a country to colonize it.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're splitting hairs in an apologetic for imperialism. There's no reason for the U.S. to be occupying territory outside of its own boundaries.



anasawad wrote:
@ckaihatsu

There is no reason for anyone to occupying territory outside its own.
I'm not defending the US, you're defending Iran.



No, I'm *not* defending Iran, and the following is my standing position, from this thread:


ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't *condone* Iranian impositions on Iraq, but I don't think that the U.S. / NATO would *improve* things by playing 'supercop' there.



viewtopic.php?p=15113474#p15113474



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Imperialism can't be done *without* the military, as in establishing norms of finance.



anasawad wrote:
Debt traps.

But sure, though there is a big difference between an imperialist power that just enforces a military mandate, and an imperiali power that seeks to control the occupied country to even how people get married or what language they speak.



What you call 'debt traps', I call *imperialism*, because the imperialist country floods the undeveloped country with cheap mass-produced goods that local producers cannot *hope* to compete with, and so the empire takes market share and fosters economic dependence on the empire's cheap commodities. This happens *internally*, too -- the U.S. has 'internal colonies', like the South, historically.

And if the colonized country wants to *modernize* it becomes dependent on *capital goods* / finance from the imperialist country -- the 'debt trap', as through the IMF. (See Lebanon currently.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's only because the world is past a *colonialist* period, and instead uses militarist hegemony to enforce *financial* terms.



anasawad wrote:
But that military hegemony is, by its very nature, temporary.
Colonialism is either permenant or very long term.

Iran is a colonial empire. The US is just a military one.



You seem unaware of this history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization


Hegemony is what the ruling classes of all countries *do* and it's not in their interests to give up that power. The *means* of maintaining hegemony may vary slightly, but the *effect* is the same whether it's done with military violence, through local proxies, or with finance.

Before you recklessly begin accusing Iran of "imperialism", you may want to review the recent U.S.-Iran history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%8 ... ulf_crisis


You're *exaggerating* the significance of Iran's involvement in Iraq, especially since the U.S. military presence there continues to *overshadow* the entire situation:



On 5 January, Iran announced that it would not continue to abide by the limitations mentioned in the 2015 nuclear deal. An Iranian government statement on state television said "If the sanctions are lifted ... the Islamic Republic is ready to return to its obligations."[194] Iran also demanded the Iraqi parliament to get rid of the American presence in their country. The Iraqi parliament passed a resolution to expel all foreign, particularly U.S., troops from Iraqi territory through a vote boycotted by Sunni and Kurdish representatives.[195][196][197][198] The media initially reported that the U.S. would comply with the resolution after a draft letter from Brigadier General William H. Seely III addressed to the Iraqi Defense Ministry emerged claiming as such, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark A. Milley and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper soon clarified that the letter had been sent in error and the U.S. Armed Forces would not withdraw from Iraq.[199] In response to the Iraqi parliament situation, Trump threatened to impose sanctions on Iraq "like they've never seen before".[200] On January 10, Acting Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi placed a telephone call to Secretary of State Pompeo demanding that the U.S. send a delegation "to prepare a mechanism to carry out the parliament's resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq".[201] Pompeo rejected Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi's requests. Shortly afterwards Iraq's highest-ranking Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the U.S.–Iran crisis.[202]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%8 ... ommitments



---


anasawad wrote:
So you didn't understand my argument.
I'm saying imperialism is measured by how much the imperial power is involved (Attachment) in the country it controls.
An imperial power that just focuses on the politics, strategic positioning, or economic ( even though economic dominance is usually the bi-product and not the key end as we've seen in Iraq for the US) is significantly lighter than an imperial power that seeks to dominate the culture, social structures, language, historical narrative, etc.



And *you're* not understanding that there's no such thing as a 'little' imperialism in a foreign country, just as a woman can't be a 'little' pregnant. Either U.S. troops are in Iraq, or they're not.


anasawad wrote:
You can survive a temporary military dominance, you can fight it off.
The later type, it take 2 generations before your nation ceases to exist.
One is considerably worse.



This sounds like abstract philosophizing since you're not providing any *specifics*. You may want to *contextualize* this.


anasawad wrote:
Exactly, the scale, not the size.
The US put Iraq under a military occupation and controlled the political scene.

Iran, on the other hand, is now controling the political landscape, the economic landscape, the religious landscape, the cultural landscape, and considering that its opening tons of schools in Iraq, if it managed to continue this trend for 20-30 years more, Iraq will be Persianized with only possibly the western and northern parts.

So even though the US is significantly bigger than Iran, the scale of imperial control and involvement of the US is dwarfed by that of Iran in the context of Iraq.

And that's news.



Who continues to have troops in Iraq, and what exactly is the purported U.S. interest in having its military there? (Hint: It's not for the *people* of Iraq -- they deserve *reparations* and *reconstruction* from the U.S. for what the U.S. did there in the first decade of this century.)
#15113589
@ckaihatsu
What you call 'debt traps', I call *imperialism*, because the imperialist country floods the undeveloped country with cheap mass-produced goods that local producers cannot *hope* to compete with, and so the empire takes market share and fosters economic dependence on the empire's cheap commodities.

So you agree that China is imperialist. Good.

Hegemony is what the ruling classes of all countries *do* and it's not in their interests to give up that power. The *means* of maintaining hegemony may vary slightly, but the *effect* is the same whether it's done with military violence, through local proxies, or with finance.

So you agree that using proxies to dominate and colonize other countries is part of imperialism?

You seem unaware of this history:

I am aware of what is referred to as decolonization in the west. What I'm saying is colonization is not limited to western empires but is also done by other empires.

Before you recklessly begin accusing Iran of "imperialism", you may want to review the recent U.S.-Iran history:


Iran is being imperialist, you just described Iranian imperialism at the beginning of your post.
A country being the subject of a stronger country does not mean that itself can not subject smaller countries to its imperialism.

You're *exaggerating* the significance of Iran's involvement in Iraq, especially since the U.S. military presence there continues to *overshadow* the entire situation:

Lets see;
Iran controls the politics, the economy, the education system as well as the religious structures and thus culture due to both, it controls various militias in the country, and is using the country in a proxy war with the US.

Who's more imperialist here, the US staying in its military basis, or Iran controlling every aspect of the country and the lives of its people?
Who's proxy militias is suppressing protests and shooting them?


And *you're* not understanding that there's no such thing as a 'little' imperialism in a foreign country, just as a woman can't be a 'little' pregnant. Either U.S. troops are in Iraq, or they're not.

Then by that logic, you can't say that Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc aren't imperialists since you're saying that the scale of the action doesn't matter.

This sounds like abstract philosophizing since you're not providing any *specifics*. You may want to *contextualize* this.

In Lebanon, in my country in the south, kids are learning since kindergarten to have full loyalty to Khamenei and many people in the south today don't even consider themselves Lebanese first but rather nationals of the axis of resistance under what they call Hussein of the era (Khamenei) and soldiers in his cause.

Though Iran failed to spread this indoctrination in Baalbek as the tribes hold a significant degree of independence and self-governance, the south was fully under Iranian clerical and ideological control and that's the main reason why Hezbollah is fighting in Syria and Iraq while heading towards a civil war as we speak. (Listen to Nasrallah's speech yesterday).

If this type of colonization managed to sustain itself over several decades, the subject country will cease to exist.
This is also how the Baath attempted to eraze the Kurdish people, not only using violence but also through banning their language and culture and enforcing a new culture on them. Same in Iran against the Kurds, Arabs, Azzari Turks, Baloch, Loris, etc.


Who continues to have troops in Iraq, and what exactly is the purported U.S. interest in having its military there?

Both the US and Iran have troops in Iraq.
Iran's military presence both with the IRGC and through proxy militias is significantly larger than that of the US.
#15113592
@ckaihatsu
You're splitting hairs in an apologetic for imperialism. There's no reason for the U.S. to be occupying territory outside of its own boundaries.

No, I'm *not* defending Iran, and the following is my standing position

And neither am I defending US imperialism.
I'm arguing that imperialism is not limited to the US, but that countries like Iran, Russia, China, etc are also being imperialist even if under a lesser capacity.
And considering that I am a Lebanese Iranian who lives in Belarus with routine back and forth with Lebanon, I'm not going to ignore the imperialism experience by both Lebanon from Iran and Belarus from Russia and both with the support of China, only to focus on US imperialism which isn't really much of a factor for me or my people.
#15113596
anasawad wrote:
@ckaihatsu

So you agree that China is imperialist. Good.



No, I *don't* agree -- you're again not being cognizant of the *type* of globalization at-hand, for the historical era being discussed.

China is able to participate freely in *finance*-based relations with the companies of advanced economies due to its large built-up currency reserves. It's the second-largest economy in the world.

In Africa its deals more resemble *barter*, than imperialist expropriation based on financial loans at predatory interest rates. (Note the present-day availability of near-zero-percent loans, due to capitalism's overproduction of capital goods / finance.)



Mergers and acquisitions

From 1993 to 2010, Chinese companies have been involved as either an acquiror or acquired company in 25,284 mergers and acquisitions with a total known value of US$969 billion.[280] The number and value of deals hit a new record in 2010. The number of deals that happened in 2010 has been 3,640, which is an increase of 17% compared to 2009. The value of deals in 2010 was US$196 billion, which is an increase of 25% compared to the year before.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... quisitions




Target country Deal value in USD
Switzerland 41840.11
Canada 19119.31
United Kingdom 14284.17
United Kingdom 13742.43
Singapore 11553.58
Hong Kong 11255.81
United States 10380
China 9948.41
Finland 8600
Switzerland 7157.4
Brazil 7111
United States 6500
United States 6496.88
United States 6067.41
Italy



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ent_abroad




Economic relations between China and Africa, one part of more general Africa–China relations, began in the 7th century and continue through the present day. Nowadays, China seeks resources for its growing consumption, and African countries seek funds to develop their infrastructures.

Large-scale structural projects, often accompanied by a soft loan, are proposed to African countries rich in natural resources. China commonly funds the construction of infrastructure such as roads and railroads, dams, ports, and airports. Sometimes, Chinese state-owned firms build large-scale infrastructure in African countries in exchange for access to minerals or hydrocarbons, such as oil.[1] In those resource-for-infrastructure contracts, countries in Africa use those minerals and hydrocarbons directly as a way to pay for the infrastructure built by Chinese firms.[1]

While relations are mainly conducted through diplomacy and trade, military support via the provision of arms and other equipment is also a major component.[citation needed]

In the diplomatic and economic rush into Africa, the United States, France, and the UK are China's main competitors. China surpassed the US in 2009 to become the largest trading partner of Africa. Bilateral trade agreements have been signed between China and 40 countries of the continent. In 2000, China Africa Trade amounted to $10 billion and by 2014, it had grown to $220 billion.[2]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa%E2 ... _relations



---


anasawad wrote:
So you agree that using proxies to dominate and colonize other countries is part of imperialism?



Sure -- the Marxist term is 'comprador bourgeoisie'.



With the emergence or the re-emergence of globalization, the term "comprador" has reentered the lexicon to denote trading groups and classes in the developing world in subordinate but mutually-advantageous relationships with metropolitan capital. The Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin has discussed the role of compradors in the contemporary global economy in his recent work.[9] In addition, the Indian economist Ashok Mitra has accused the owners and managers of firms attached to the Indian software industry of being compradors.[10] Growing identification of the software industry in India with comprador "qualities" has led to the labeling of certain persons associated with the industry as "dot.compradors."[11][12]

In Marxist terminology, comprador bourgeoisie, perceived as the serving the interests of foreign imperial powers, is counterposed to national bourgeoisie which is considered as opposing foreign imperialism and promoting the independence of its own country and, as such, could be, under some circumstances, a short-term ally of socialist revolutionaries.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprador



---


anasawad wrote:
I am aware of what is referred to as decolonization in the west. What I'm saying is colonization is not limited to western empires but is also done by other empires.



In general you need to be more specific -- what 'other empires' do you have in mind here?


anasawad wrote:
Iran is being imperialist, you just described Iranian imperialism at the beginning of your post.
A country being the subject of a stronger country does not mean that itself can not subject smaller countries to its imperialism.



No, I did *not* describe any purported "Iranian imperialism" in my previous post.

And you're speaking in *abstractions* again -- you need to provide some *specificity* / context for your position to have any descriptive power.


anasawad wrote:
Lets see;
Iran controls the politics, the economy, the education system as well as the religious structures and thus culture due to both, it controls various militias in the country, and is using the country in a proxy war with the US.

Who's more imperialist here, the US staying in its military basis, or Iran controlling every aspect of the country and the lives of its people?
Who's proxy militias is suppressing protests and shooting them?



No, I don't see any alleged Iranian hegemony over the people or nation of Iraq. You may want to provide some sources for this claim of yours.

I *will* agree that there's a real 'Cold War' going on between the U.S. and Iran, and that Iraq is getting caught in the crossfire, similar to Poland in WWII.

You're being hyperbolic about any alleged Iranian presence in Iraq.


anasawad wrote:
Then by that logic, you can't say that Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc aren't imperialists since you're saying that the scale of the action doesn't matter.



I've covered China. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are definitely both adventurist, because of involvement in Yemen and Syria, respectively. I don't know what you mean with Pakistan, you haven't made any case regarding Iran, and Russia hasn't gobbled-up any external territories that I know of.


anasawad wrote:
In Lebanon, in my country in the south, kids are learning since kindergarten to have full loyalty to Khamenei and many people in the south today don't even consider themselves Lebanese first but rather nationals of the axis of resistance under what they call Hussein of the era (Khamenei) and soldiers in his cause.

Though Iran failed to spread this indoctrination in Baalbek as the tribes hold a significant degree of independence and self-governance, the south was fully under Iranian clerical and ideological control and that's the main reason why Hezbollah is fighting in Syria and Iraq while heading towards a civil war as we speak. (Listen to Nasrallah's speech yesterday).

If this type of colonization managed to sustain itself over several decades, the subject country will cease to exist.
This is also how the Baath attempted to eraze the Kurdish people, not only using violence but also through banning their language and culture and enforcing a new culture on them. Same in Iran against the Kurds, Arabs, Azzari Turks, Baloch, Loris, etc.



Yeah, it's a regional economic and power vacuum. Iran is simply mopping-up, politically, in the wake of disastrous U.S. foreign policy and imperialism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

I think your characterization of Iranian "colonization" is incorrect, though -- I just think that many people around the globe, particularly in the Middle East, are simply *in agreement* with Iran, geopolitically.

Your point about sectarian national chauvinisms of various countries is acknowledged.


anasawad wrote:
Both the US and Iran have troops in Iraq.
Iran's military presence both with the IRGC and through proxy militias is significantly larger than that of the US.



What 'proxy militias'?

You have to keep in mind that Iran has been the *most* effective at repelling and containing ISIS, while the U.S. was initially *supporting* it, through Turkey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_i ... %93present)#Timeline



Political dimension

In Iraq

Iraq:

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said "we do respect this Iranian commander and our collaboration with him is not a secret", adding that Iran was quick in sending arms to Iraq and helping Baghdad when ISIS captured the country's Sunni provinces.

Iraqi leader Hadi al-Amiri said that "If it were not for the cooperation of the Islamic republic of Iran and General Suleimani, we would not today have a government headed by Haider al-Abadi in Baghdad".[75] During the Second Battle of Tikrit, Hadi al-Amiri said US has failed to live up to its promises to help Iraq fight ISIL, unlike the "unconditional" assistance being given by Iran.[76]

On 31 December 2014, Defence Ministers of Iran and Iraq signed a military pact to combat ISIS.[77]

"Iranians will try to calm the fears of the Sunnis instead of persecuting them because the Iranian officials know that it is in their best interest to keep the Iraq united," said Hadi Jalo, a Baghdad-based political analyst. "For the Iranians, it is easier to dominate one country instead of three separate states."[78]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_i ... %93present)#In_Iraq
#15113606
QatzelOk wrote:Patrickov takes all of anasawad's contentions (and new definitions of words) at face value.

Patrickov even suggested that since Belgium and Holland are currently "small" countries (compared ot European neighbors like France and Germany), then very small countries can be imperialist, therefore a cat can also be in search of new territory (to have sex in) and therefore the cat in my alley may be as imperialistic as Holland was in the 17th Century.

So maybe instead of discussing how much the abstract concept of "empire" is all that's left to motivate a completely disconnected and parasitic elite, and rather than discussing how much harm this kind of useless and decadent endeavor has always been in human history, we need to talk about how a loud cat is equally dangerous.

This is how destroying word meanings (to win an argument) is bad faith and also destroys logic and truth.



As I see it is you who keep destroying word meanings by using extremely stretchy examples to twist Member anasawad's and my meanings.

There is only one cat I know who can be considered as Imperialist, and he is fictional.

Why can't you address more directly on how Member anasawad and my points are ridiculous, and instead use even more ridiculous examples yourself? I can easily say the cat examples do not sync with what I said, primarily because cats have no power, ability (and possibly no intention too) to induce fear on humans (again, unless it's Garfield, but it's fiction).

Maybe a cat in the alley can be said as Imperialistic to other cats. But not to us, OK?
#15113652
Patrickov wrote:Maybe a cat in the alley can be said as Imperialistic to other cats. But not to us, OK?

Your meme-partner anasawad and yourself are both apologizing for power-abuses on this page of this thread by erasing the important differences between the powerful Empire and its vassals (like Canada), and the defenceless countries it steals from and reduces to rubble.

In your worldview, a megalomaniac developer could destroy thousands of city blocks of housing killing thousands of house pets - the screams of dying animals could be heard throughout the entire city - and your concern would be "the imperialism" of the cats who insist on meowing against progress.
#15113999
QatzelOk wrote:Your meme-partner anasawad and yourself are both apologizing for power-abuses on this page of this thread by erasing the important differences between the powerful Empire and its vassals (like Canada), and the defenceless countries it steals from and reduces to rubble.

In your worldview, a megalomaniac developer could destroy thousands of city blocks of housing killing thousands of house pets - the screams of dying animals could be heard throughout the entire city - and your concern would be "the imperialism" of the cats who insist on meowing against progress.


Imperialistic Cat = China, property developer = US, house pets = us, right? If not, stop using stupid figuratives. Say what you fucking want to say.

Using my above assumption of what you mean, I don't think we are house pets.
We are small, but not pets. Property developers destroying blocks are actually avoidable, and in some sense benefitial to small animals, as they have means to establish themselves. A large group of bullying cats, meanwhile, harm the small pets in the houses much more, especially if they are in the same house.

Seeing other people as house pets very much reflects how "high" you view others. Disgusting.
#15114002
Patrickov wrote:Imperialistic Cat = China, property developer = US, house pets = us, right? If not, stop using stupid figuratives. Say what you fucking want to say.


Megalomaniac developer: USA and Western European capitalists

House pets: the innocent victims of war and economic predation

Cats meowing: the victims who try to strike back with whatever they have (meows)

Seeing other people as house pets very much reflects how "high" you view others. Disgusting.

For me, your inability to figure out metaphors and analogies is a tragedy, and severely limits your comprehension of complex moral arguments.
#15114033






Also


ckaihatsu wrote:The Ba'ath Party isn't fascist

You're sounding distinctly Zionist


It isn't fascist but anything anasawad doesn't like appears to be fascist. And he sounds like a Zionist because he is one, something he admits.

anasawad wrote:The clerics' regime in Iran is imperialist. The Baath party is Imperialist.


Again with that dictionary that nobody else uses. :D
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 20
What is Fascism

The Fash, noun. A mischaracterization of normal b[…]

In the words of maz, i am going to try to chill t[…]

Fox News censor mentions of George Soros with Chr[…]

Is that a serious question? I guess you're not th[…]