Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, sir.
Name *one* instance of such alleged support.
Rancid wrote:
You support Russia.
ckaihatsu wrote:Russia's not an empire, and let's call it more like 'anti-NATO'.
Rancid wrote:
You support Russia's expansionism. That is imperialism. You can make up excuse to high heaven, but you are an imperialist. You support an illegal war that violates the sovereignty of another nation.
You are imperialist scum.
Allegations of imperialism
Main article: American imperialism
There is a growing consensus among American historians and political scientists that the United States during the American Century grew into an empire resembling in many ways Ancient Rome.[17] Currently, there is a debate over implications of imperial tendencies of U.S. foreign policy on democracy and social order.[18][19]
In 2002, conservative political commentator Charles Krauthammer declared cultural, economical, technological and military superiority of the U.S. in the world a given fact. In his opinion, people were "coming out of the closet on the word empire".[20] More prominently, the New York Times Magazine cover for January 5, 2003, featured a slogan "American Empire: Get Used To It". Inside, a Canadian author Michael Ignatieff characterized the American imperial power as an empire lite.[21]
According to Newsweek reporter Fareed Zakaria, the Washington establishment has "gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise as treason and negotiations as appeasement", and added, "This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy."[22]
Emily Eakin reflecting the intellectual trends of the time, summarized in The New York Times that, "America is no mere superpower or hegemon but a full-blown empire in the Roman and British sense. That, at any rate, is the consensus of some of the nation's most notable commentators and scholars."[20]
Many allies of the U.S. were critical of a new, unilateral sensibility tone in its foreign policy, and showed displeasure by voting, for example, against the U.S. in the United Nations in 2001.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism ... mperialism
ckaihatsu wrote:
Despite your bombast, the country *still* isn't some kind of globetrotting empire, as the Western European (etc.) countries *have* been, historically.
Your political attentions here are *highly* selective, in contrast to the poking-around that you *usually* do on the threads, about *all other* topics under the sun. Your political sensitivities are *also* highly selective -- a placeholder, apparently, for actual *principled* politics.
ckaihatsu wrote:Despite your bombast, the country *still* isn't some kind of globetrotting empire, as the Western European (etc.) countries *have* been, historically.
Your political attentions here are *highly* selective, in contrast to the poking-around that you *usually* do on the threads, about *all other* topics under the sun. Your political sensitivities are *also* highly selective -- a placeholder, apparently, for actual *principled* politics.
ckaihatsu wrote:Russia's not an empire, and let's call it more like 'anti-NATO'.
Steve_American wrote:
WTF, ckaihatsu, do you realize that all empires before 1500 were created by invading neighbors, and not globetrotting?
Even after 1500 in 1800 we speak about the French Empire that the French had created in Europe by invading their neighbors.
Your distinction is therefore not valid. Russia was an empire before WWI and after WWII the USSR was an empire also. Now, Russia has been starting to act like an empire, so it is imperialistic.
.
After the Cold War
Main article: Russia–NATO relations
The Revolutions of 1989 and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO and caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature, tasks, and focus on the continent of Europe. The shift started, with the 1990 signing in Paris of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe between NATO and the Soviet Union, which mandated specific military reductions across the continent, which continued after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991.[43] European countries then accounted for 34 percent of NATO's military spending; by 2012, that had fallen to 21 percent.[44] NATO also began a gradual expansion to include countries of Central and Eastern Europe and extended its activities into political and humanitarian situations that had not been thought of as NATO concerns.
An expansion of NATO came with German reunification on 3 October 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the alliance. That had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier that year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east. There was no formal commitment in the agreement not to expand NATO to the east, but there are diverging views on whether negotiators gave informal commitments regarding further NATO expansion.[45][46][47] Jack Matlock, the American ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a "clear commitment" not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators had the impression that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[48] Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the West German foreign minister, said in a conversation with Eduard Shevardnadze, "For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east."[48] In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs that "during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,"[49] and he repeated that view in an interview in 2008.[50] However, in 2014 Gorbachev stated the opposite: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all [in 1990], and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."[45][51] According to Robert Zoellick, a US State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, that appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.[52] Harvard University historian Mark Kramer also rejects that an informal agreement existed.[45][53] Memorandums published by the National Security Archive in 2017 indicate that multiple assurances against NATO expansion were indeed made to Soviet leaders at the highest levels in 1990 and 1991.[54]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... e_Cold_War
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Nazi Germany invades and annexes neighbours = empire
Napoleonic France invades and annexes neighbours - empire
Russia invaded and annexes neighours = pro-Crimea
ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, no. Nice try.
I'm not even going to (have to) provide Wikipedia for that one. Go fish.
(I'll parenthetically mention that even if that were *true*, that would be like a *frog gulp*, compared to what the West has done.)
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Very true, but it's also whattaboutism.
Summary
In the Prefaces to the essay, Lenin said the First World War (1914–1918) was "an annexationist, predatory, plunderous war"[2] among empires, whose historical and economic background must be studied "to understand and appraise modern war and modern politics".[3] That for capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism, and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with undeveloped and underdeveloped economies. In turn, that financial behaviour divides the world among monopolist business companies. In colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government will engage in geopolitical conflict over the exploitation of labour of most of the population of the world. Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies to exploit labour and natural resources, and the exportation of finance capital, rather than manufactured goods, to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of imperialism. Moreover, in the capitalist homeland, the super-profits yielded by the colonial exploitation of a people and their economy permit businessmen to bribe native politicians, labour leaders and the labour aristocracy (upper stratum of the working class) to politically thwart worker revolt (labour strike) and placate the working class.[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperiali ... Capitalism
ckaihatsu wrote:1] So this is all one big historical *continuation*, minus the interwar period, in your eyes?
2] How about covering events *after* 1800 -- ! (Yeesh.)
3] Why has NATO been engaging in *provocations* -- inching up to Russia's border?
Steve_American wrote:
1] The USSR was stopped by Poland in about 1923, so it turned inward.
2] I meant around 1800 France was called an Empire.
3] Why is the largest nation on earth with all the area it needs to hide its nuclear missiles, worrying about NATO on its borders? The US didn't want nuclear missiles so close in the 60s. However, it didn't mind Cuba enough to invade it.
I keep seeing Peter Zeihan going on about Russia needing to secure the 9 historical invasion routes into its heartland. I keep wondering why it can't rely on its nuclear warheads to keep invaders out. Why does it need to invade its neighbors to be secure?
And, the US mostly uses non-invasion methods to secure its "empire". I don't approve of most of it. But, it invaded few nations. Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, & Syria, IIRC over a 30 year period. We might include Vietnam, but it got invited in, and it left without winning.
.
United States involvement in regime change in Latin America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Participation of the United States in regime change in Latin America involved US-backed coups d'état aimed at replacing left-wing leaders with right-wing leaders, military juntas, or authoritarian regimes.[1] Lesser intervention of economic and military variety was prevalent during the Cold War in line with the Truman Doctrine of containment, but regime change involvement would increase after the drafting of NSC 68 which advocated for more aggressive combating of potential Soviet allies.[2]
Several instances of intervention and regime change occurred during the early-20th-century "Banana Republic" era of Latin American history to promote American business interests in the region.[1] United States influenced regime change in this period of Latin American history started after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in the wake of the Spanish-American War. Cuba gained its independence, while Puerto Rico and the Philippines were occupied by the United States.[3] Expansive and imperialist U.S. foreign policy combined with new economic prospects led to increased U.S. intervention in Latin America from 1898 to the early 1930s.[4] Continued activities lasted into the late 20th century.
Contents
1 History
1.1 Argentina
1.2 Bolivia
1.3 Brazil
1.4 Chile
1.5 Costa Rica
1.6 Cuba
1.7 Dominican Republic
1.8 Guatemala
1.9 Mexico
1.10 Nicaragua
1.11 Panama
1.12 Paraguay
2 See also
3 References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... in_America
ckaihatsu wrote:Keep going. Be creative.
Rancid wrote:
This is what you are saying:
"Russia isn't an empire so therefore it's ok for them to impose their will by force on a smaller nation. Including mass rape, and killing children"
Do you not see how fucking retarded you sound?
And yes, a nation with clearly stated expansionist goals is a fucking empire.
You are a fucking retard, and a fake leftist. You are an imperialist. It's time you accept that ugly fact about yourself.
In early March 2008, Abkhazia and South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their recognition to Russia's parliament shortly after the West's recognition of Kosovo which Russia had been resisting. Dmitry Rogozin, Russian ambassador to NATO, hinted that Georgia's aspiration to become a NATO member would cause Russia to support the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.[82] The Russian State Duma adopted a resolution on 21 March, in which it called on the President of Russia and the government to consider the recognition.[83]
Georgia began proposing the placement of international peacekeepers in the separatist regions when Russia began to apply more force on Georgia after April 2008. The West launched new initiatives for peace settlement, with peace proposals being offered and discussions being organised by the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Germany. The separatists dismissed the German project for Abkhazia approved by Georgia. Russia and the separatists did not attend an EU-backed meeting regarding Abkhazia. They also dismissed an OSCE offer to renew talks regarding South Ossetia.[84]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Geo ... _conflicts
late wrote:The head of the Atlanta Fed floated a 100 basis point increase (1%) as a possibility. 75 basis points has also been mentioned.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are signs the economy is cooling already.
Rich guys like Summers can deal with that, even make money. But you and me, it's just more money out of our pocket, with the very real possibility it can slow the economy more than was intended.
Because the president always gets blamed when there's trouble, Biden has backed away, and is letting the Fed take point. This is pretty much what we always do, and it rarely works out well. Been a long time since Volcker..
BlutoSays wrote:
ckaihatsu wrote:Russia's not an empire, and let's call it more like 'anti-NATO'.
- By KurtFF8
Supposedly Iran sent information on their attack […]
In some ways, the Debord text is a bit like Martin[…]
...Imagine the Russians telling the US it needs t[…]
LOL When protesters are arrested, it is cops be[…]
- By QatzelOk
- By Pants-of-dog