US launches airstrike against Iranian-backed forces in Syria - Page 5 - 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

User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15158993
Patrickov wrote:
Yes.

And they let people under their rule effectively enjoy the freedom and non-corruption which they lose under their own people's rule.

The U.S. is a failed example because they (sometimes) rule the world with cowboy mentality, but the British did it pretty well.

In any sense, I see the U.S. a lesser evil than Russia or China. Polish will answer for the Russian question while I can tell you a lot of Chinese atrocities.

We need more Murray MacLehose and Chris Patten.



So you're *really* ready to sign-off on all of the following -- ?



British Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

British Empire

The British Empire was composed of the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It began with the overseas possessions and trading posts established by England between the late 16th and early 18th centuries. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power.[1] By 1913 the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1925 it covered 35,000,000 km2 (13,500,000 sq mi),[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its constitutional, legal, linguistic, and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets", as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.[4]

During the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal and Spain pioneered European exploration of the globe, and in the process established large overseas empires. Envious of the great wealth these empires generated,[5] England, France, and the Netherlands began to establish colonies and trade networks of their own in the Americas and Asia. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America. Britain became the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent after the East India Company's conquest of Mughal Bengal at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.

The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. British attention then turned towards Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. After the defeat of France in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century, and expanded its imperial holdings. The period of relative peace (1815–1914) during which the British Empire became the global hegemon was later described as "Pax Britannica" ("British Peace"). Alongside the formal control that Britain exerted over its colonies, its dominance of much of world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many regions, such as Asia and Latin America.[6][7] Increasing degrees of autonomy were granted to its white settler colonies, some of which were reclassified as dominions.


Contents
1 Origins (1497–1583)
2 English overseas possessions (1583–1707)
2.1 Americas, Africa and the slave trade
2.2 Rivalry with other European empires
3 Scottish attempt to expand overseas
4 "First" British Empire (1707–1783)
4.1 Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies
5 Rise of the "Second" British Empire (1783–1815)
5.1 Exploration of the Pacific
5.2 War with Napoleonic France
5.3 Abolition of slavery
6 Britain's imperial century (1815–1914)
6.1 East India Company rule and the British Raj in India
6.2 Rivalry with Russia
6.3 Cape to Cairo
6.4 Changing status of the white colonies
7 World wars (1914–1945)
7.1 First World War
7.2 Inter-war period
7.3 Second World War



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




American imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

"American empire" redirects here. For other uses, see American Empire (disambiguation).

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change.[1][page needed]

The policy of imperialism is usually considered to have begun in the late 19th century,[2] though some consider US territorial expansion at the expense of Native Americans to be similar enough to deserve the same term.[3] The federal government of the United States has never referred to its territories as an empire, but some commentators refer to it as such, including Max Boot, Arthur Schlesinger, and Niall Ferguson.[4] The United States has also been accused of neocolonialism, sometimes defined as a modern form of hegemony, which uses economic rather than military power in an informal empire, and is sometimes used as a synonym for contemporary imperialism.

The question of whether the United States should intervene in the affairs of foreign countries has been debated in domestic politics for the whole history of the country. Opponents pointed to the history of the country as a former colony that rebelled against an overseas king, and American values of democracy, freedom, and independence. Supporters of the so-called "imperial Presidents" William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft justified interventions in or seizure of various countries by citing the need to advance American economic interests (such as trade and repayment of debts), the prevention of European intervention in the Americas, the benefits of keeping good order around the world, and sometimes racist ideas about the inability of other peoples to govern themselves.


Contents
1 History
1.1 Overview
1.2 1700s–1800s: Indian Wars and Manifest Destiny
1.3 1800s: Filibustering in Central America
1.4 1800s–1900s: New Imperialism and "The White Man's Burden"
1.5 1918: Wilsonian intervention
1.6 1941–1945: World War II
1.6.1 The Grand Area
1.7 1947–1952 Cold War in Western Europe: "Empire by invitation"
1.8 Post-1954: Korea, Vietnam and "imperial internationalism"
2 American exceptionalism
3 Views of American imperialism
3.1 Political debate after September 11, 2001
3.2 Academic debates after September 11, 2001
4 U.S. foreign policy debate
4.1 Cultural imperialism
5 U.S. military bases
6 Support
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
#15158995
Igor Antunov wrote:Covid relief payments since election: $0
Missiles dropped on Syria since election: $500,000,000
Clown world country level: priceless

Say hi to Putin for us.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#15158998
Unthinking Majority wrote:Say hi to Putin for us.


Hi Putin.
User avatar
By Negotiator
#15159057
B0ycey wrote:Please...please...please Biden don't be a war hungry president. [...]


Dude, seriously ? :eh:

He was a war monger throughout his politicial life, he was vice president under Obama, and he has surrounded himself with many people originating from the arms industry ... of course he's "war hungry".

The hope is that the US empire is weakened enough that they dont actually manage to start new wars. But they will definitely try to, thats obvious.
By skinster
#15159072
US Bombs Syria And Ridiculously Claims Self Defense
On orders of President Biden, the United States has launched an airstrike on a facility in Syria. As of this writing the exact number of killed and injured is unknown, with early reports claiming “a handful” of people were killed.

Rather than doing anything remotely resembling journalism, the western mass media have opted instead to uncritically repeat what they’ve been told about the airstrike by US officials, which is the same as just publishing Pentagon press releases.

Here’s this from The Washington Post:

The Biden administration conducted an airstrike against alleged Iranian-linked fighters in Syria on Thursday, signaling its intent to push back against violence believed to be sponsored by Tehran.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the attack, the first action ordered by the Biden administration to push back against alleged Iranian-linked violence in Iraq and Syria, on a border control point in eastern Syria was “authorized in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats.”

He said the facilities were used by Iranian-linked militias including Kaitib Hezbollah and Kaitib Sayyid al-Shuhada.

The operation follows the latest serious attack on U.S. locations in Iraq that American officials have attributed to Iranian-linked groups operating in Iraq and Syria. Earlier this month, a rocket attack in northern Iraq killed a contractor working with the U.S. military and injured a U.S. service member there.


So we are being told that the United States launched an airstrike on Syria, a nation it invaded and is illegally occupying, because of attacks on “US locations” in Iraq, another nation the US invaded and is illegally occupying. This attack is justified on the basis that the Iraqi fighters were “Iranian-linked”, a claim that is both entirely without evidence and irrelevant to the justification of deadly military force. And this is somehow being framed in mainstream news publications as a defensive operation.

This is Defense Department stenography. The US military is an invading force in both Syria and Iraq; it is impossible for its actions in either of those countries to be defensive. It is always necessarily the aggressor. It’s the people trying to eject them who are acting defensively. The deaths of US troops and contractors in those countries can only be blamed on the powerful people who sent them there.

The US is just taking it as a given that it has de facto jurisdiction over the nations of Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and that any attempt to interfere in its authority in the region is an unprovoked attack which must be defended against. This is completely backwards and illegitimate. Only through the most perversely warped American supremacist reality tunnels can it look valid to dictate the affairs of sovereign nations on the other side of the planet and respond with violence if anyone in those nations tries to eject them.



It’s illegitimate for the US to be in the Middle East at all. It’s illegitimate for the US to claim to be acting defensively in nations it invaded. It’s illegitimate for the US to act like Iranian-backed fighters aren’t allowed to be in Syria, where they are fighting alongside the Syrian government against ISIS and other extremist militias with the permission of Damascus. It is illegitimate for the US to claim the fighters attacking US personnel in Iraq are controlled by Iran when Iraqis have every reason to want the US out of their country themselves.

Even the official narrative reveals itself as illegitimate from within its own worldview. CNN reports that the site of the airstrike “was not specifically tied to the rocket attacks” in Iraq, and a Reuters/AP report says “Biden administration officials condemned the February 15 rocket attack near the city of Irbil in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish-run region, but as recently as this week officials indicated they had not determined for certain who carried it out.”

This is all so very typical of the American supremacist worldview that is being aggressively shoved down our throats by all western mainstream news media. The US can bomb who it likes, whenever it likes, and when it does it is only ever doing so in self defense, because the entire planet is the property of Washington, DC. It can seize control of entire clusters of nations, and if any of those nations resist in any way they are invading America’s sovereignty.

It’s like if you broke into your neighbor’s house to rob him, killed him when he tried to stop you, and then claimed self defense because you consider his home your property. Only in the American exceptionalist alternate universe is this considered normal and acceptable.



This sort of nonsense is why it’s so important to prioritize opposition to western imperialism. World warmongering and domination is the front upon which all the most egregious evils inflicted by the powerful take place, and it plays such a crucial role in upholding the power structures we are up against. Without endless war, the oligarchic empire which is the cause of so much of our suffering cannot function, and must give way to something else. If you’re looking to throw sand in the gears of the machine, anti-imperialism is your most efficacious path toward that end, and should therefore be your priority.

In America especially it is important to oppose war and imperialism, because an entire empire depends on keeping the locals too poor and propagandized to force their nation’s resources to go to their own wellbeing. As long as the United States functions as the hub of a globe-spanning power structure, all the progressive agendas that are being sought by what passes for the US left these days will be denied them. Opposing warmongering must come first.

Standing against imperialism and American supremacism cuts directly to the heart of our difficulties in this world, which is why so much energy goes into keeping us focused on identity politics and vapid energy sucks which inconvenience the powerful in no way whatsoever. If you want to out-wrestle a crocodile, you must bind shut its mouth. If you want to take down a globe-spanning empire, you must take out its weapons. Opposing warmongering and killing public trust in the propaganda used to justify it is the best way to do this.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/02/26 ... f-defense/
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15159211
late wrote: We are allied to the Sunni, Iran is Shia. That's a mistake, but it's one we've been doing since before anyone here was born. Even me, and I can remember dinosaurs.

Odds are, we approached Iran, and they weren't feeling cooperative. So we responded to their action.

Iran has about a million reasons to hate us, and they're basically all really good reasons.

A lot of people's "explanations" about why the USA is bombing this particular country (among many) look complicated like this. It's all about freedom and democracy, Sunni allies, balancing the peace, controlling the gangs, getting more moderates everwhere... That's why we are bankrupting our country in wars and blowing up third world countries left and right...

But really, it's just this again:

Image
By Patrickov
#15159762
ckaihatsu wrote:So you're *really* ready to sign-off on all of the following -- ?


If it's all bad, the very existence of Murray MacLehose and Chris Patten means Britain has grown past that stage.

My extended family and most of my acquaintances have first-hand experience of British Imperialism.

What my experience can tell is simply this: You are being extremely biased against Anglo Imperialism.

There are beneficiaries of Anglo Imperialism and I can fucking assure you that currently those nations opposing them are much, much more childish and brutal.

It is a mistake for them to retreat rather than continue to lead.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15159785
Patrickov wrote:
If it's all bad, the very existence of Murray MacLehose and Chris Patten means Britain has grown past that stage.

My extended family and most of my acquaintances have first-hand experience of British Imperialism.

What my experience can tell is simply this: You are being extremely biased against Anglo Imperialism.

There are beneficiaries of Anglo Imperialism and I can fucking assure you that currently those nations opposing them are much, much more childish and brutal.

It is a mistake for them to retreat rather than continue to lead.



*Or* -- why does Hong Kong, or any other place for that matter, need to be colonized, under Western imperialism?

Why are you so *nostalgic* for a past period of imposed foreign rule, as from the British Empire?

And what about *home rule*, or *decolonization*, that so many people, in so many countries, have struggled so hard for in the 20th century -- !

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


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You sound like you're making the White Man's Burden argument, that the peoples of the world "need" to be transformed from above, by the Western countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden



Patrickov wrote:
They do have that burden.

If what all of you said is true, they have the responsibility to clean up this mess themselves.

I really don't trust pestered people to be in a psychologically capable position to handle such matters. Gandhi was an exception, most of them act more like Pol Pot.
By Patrickov
#15159822
ckaihatsu wrote:*Or* -- why does Hong Kong, or any other place for that matter, need to be colonized, under Western imperialism?

Why are you so *nostalgic* for a past period of imposed foreign rule, as from the British Empire?

And what about *home rule*, or *decolonization*, that so many people, in so many countries, have struggled so hard for in the 20th century -- !

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


I think we need to accept that "imposed foreign rule" is water under the bridge. We are at a time well past it and I think we should review it differently with more information available, especially when the "return to self-rule" struggle is more or less complete now.

From my own experience, even if you think "imposed foreign rule" is wrong, it does not mean "return to self-rule" is right. More often than not, the people in concern either have lost the ability to self-rule, or are found to be incapable of self-rule in the first place.

My concern is very simple: It has to be cleaned up, and the White people are the only ones who are both capable and responsible for this job. You suggested otherwise, but what I see is that most colonised places fared worse after independence, not better. India, Taiwan and Singapore are the most notable exceptions, but other places probably don't.

Syria is, IMHO, in the middle -- the al-Assads are capable enough to hold their feet, but the place under their rule is certainly not happy.

My ideal is the general local involvement with the white being in supervision, gradually handing over power as the locals progress. In some sense, Hong Kong could have headed, or even was heading for, that direction, but China's sense of national glory, as well as the general Communist Party style of "control everything they can reach", put everything into jeopardy.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15159910
Patrickov wrote:
I think we need to accept that "imposed foreign rule" is water under the bridge. We are at a time well past it and I think we should review it differently with more information available, especially when the "return to self-rule" struggle is more or less complete now.

From my own experience, even if you think "imposed foreign rule" is wrong, it does not mean "return to self-rule" is right. More often than not, the people in concern either have lost the ability to self-rule, or are found to be incapable of self-rule in the first place.

My concern is very simple: It has to be cleaned up, and the White people are the only ones who are both capable and responsible for this job. You suggested otherwise, but what I see is that most colonised places fared worse after independence, not better. India, Taiwan and Singapore are the most notable exceptions, but other places probably don't.

Syria is, IMHO, in the middle -- the al-Assads are capable enough to hold their feet, but the place under their rule is certainly not happy.

My ideal is the general local involvement with the white being in supervision, gradually handing over power as the locals progress. In some sense, Hong Kong could have headed, or even was heading for, that direction, but China's sense of national glory, as well as the general Communist Party style of "control everything they can reach", put everything into jeopardy.



You're too satisfied with domineering / hierarchical imperialist international relations, and you seem to think that imperialist relations are strictly in the past. I'll note that the Trump administration imposed *sanctions* on several countries, flexing *militaristic* / imperialist might, as a reminder, which proves that imperialism is still alive and well.

You're looking at relations only in terms of official state politics, and you're *overlooking* the *economic* relationships among the various imperialist and subordinated countries, as through IMF and World Bank sovereign indebtedness.

Regarding *Syria*, I'll say the same thing to you as I did to Istanbuller, who raised a similar point as yours, earlier in the thread, that the imperialist Western countries are *not neutral* around matters of national self-determination:


Istanbuller wrote:
Obama failed to support Syrian opposition when they were about to take down Assad.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The Free Syrian Army quickly became a geopolitical *pawn* for international bourgeois intrigues against the democratically elected sovereign Assad government -- you're indicating the same kind of 'supercop' imperialist politics as Patrickov.




By October [2011], the FSA would start to receive military support from Turkey, who allowed the rebel army to operate its command and headquarters from the country's southern Hatay province close to the Syrian border, and its field command from inside Syria.[49] The FSA would often launch attacks into Syria's northern towns and cities, while using the Turkish side of the border as a safe zone and supply route.



Prior to September 2012, the Free Syrian Army operated its command and headquarters from Turkey's southern Hatay province close to the Syrian border with field commanders operating inside Syria.[45][250] In September 2012, the FSA announced that it had moved its headquarters to rebel-controlled territory of Idlib Governorate in northern Syria,[251][252] which was later overrun by the Islamic Front in December 2013.[citation needed][253]

According to a France 24 report in October 2012, "rich businessmen from Damascus and Aleppo support the FSA as well as political organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood." The ideology of various FSA groups depended on their sponsors and funders. "If a militia receives money from the Muslim Brotherhood, then it obviously going to be an Islamist militia", an observer stated.[254]



On 7 December 2012, about 260 to 550 commanders and representatives of the Syrian armed opposition met in Antalya and elected a new 30-person military council for the FSA, called Supreme Military Council.[258] Colonel Riad al-Asaad, who was not present at the meeting, retained his formal role as Commander-in-Chief but lost effective power to Brigadier General Salim Idris, who was elected as the new Chief of Staff of the FSA and effective leader.[citation needed]

Security officials from the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Jordan were present at the meeting,[259][260][261] days before a meeting of the Friends of Syria Group that had pledged non-military aid to militant rebels.[260]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syri ... _Formation




viewtopic.php?p=15158658#p15158658
By Patrickov
#15160008
ckaihatsu wrote:Regarding *Syria*, I'll say the same thing to you as I did to Istanbuller, who raised a similar point as yours, earlier in the thread, that the imperialist Western countries are *not neutral* around matters of national self-determination:


You are naive to believe we actually think the West to be "neutral" in an objective sense, but they are no worse than the so-called "locals", many of whom are only capable of turning the place into a living Hell.

I don't see any actual self determination in many of those former colonies, just tribal or oppressive rule.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15160055
Patrickov wrote:
You are naive to believe we actually think the West to be "neutral" in an objective sense, but they are no worse than the so-called "locals", many of whom are only capable of turning the place into a living Hell.

I don't see any actual self determination in many of those former colonies, just tribal or oppressive rule.



Certainly, and I don't mean to apologize for Assad or to defend him in any way -- Syrians were initially *trying* to oust him early-on, in the tail end of the Arab Spring, but then that popular political opposition quickly got militarized (the FSA), and then internationalized, with Western 'great power' predations looming, clearing the way for the Islamists as nominal proxies.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15160561
Patrickov wrote:...the so-called "locals"...

In a world of multinational corporations hunting for profits, there can be no recognition of "local cultures," seems to be what you are suggesting.

If this is true, than you can just go live somewhere else if you don't like what is happening where you are. No need for democracy or local input into decisions. Just mobility (migration) and resource extraction.

For your next meme, I suggest that you remind everyone that "the Locals" have never officially been recognized as a modern nation state, nor do they have a seat at the UN with "Locals" written on it. Then you can start a well-funded PAC that explains to everyone (ad nauseam) why colonization is so very beautiful.
By Patrickov
#15161760
QatzelOk wrote:In a world of multinational corporations hunting for profits, there can be no recognition of "local cultures," seems to be what you are suggesting.


Don't stretch my point, although in terms of administration quality I do think that Western multinational corp rule is definitely freer than Chinese "local" rule -- as well as Middle Eastern or Russians -- pro-West or otherwise.


QatzelOk wrote:If this is true, than you can just go live somewhere else if you don't like what is happening where you are. No need for democracy or local input into decisions. Just mobility (migration) and resource extraction.


A more important point is freedom of speech, at least the freedom of criticize whoever in power, without the fear of retaliation without a chance of re-retaliation on my part. As demonstrated by China, Russia, Iran, Myanmar, Sudan, etc., most non-Western and non-corporation ruled society lack this, which means even legitimately criticizing the local administration can mean personal security risk. This is the real reason why there are so many people migrating to places ruled by multinational corporations, even when the destination in concern is well known to be deadly racist (Yes I mean United States. Take that)

Most of those anti-West nations use national security as their excuse to abuse power, but what they did only makes me think national security is bullshit.

The good point of Western multinational corporation rule is that there is no single entity which can control all, which means people have plenty of space to switch between them. At least some of them know that pushing for progression (or at least pretending to support it) would bring them better profits because some people will be willingly paying them in that case.

You think multinational corporation rule is bad? Count your blessings.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@Julian658 Unlike American morons, I have actua[…]

Now reading

I have Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, awaitin[…]

How America Lost its Leadership during the Pandemi[…]

April 17, Friday All of General Grant’s plans […]