Are you critical or negative about the United States of America? - Page 19 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Are you negative or critical of the United States of America?

Yes, I am negative or critical of the United States of America
24
63%
No, I am not negative or critical of the United States of America
5
13%
I am neither negative nor positive about the United States of America
9
24%
#15193940
annatar1914 wrote:I think the key takeaway here with @Rich is that he thinks the USA should have made peace with the Fascists in WWII, or not have gone to war with them in the first place. He also knows that Anti-Communism was the Trojan Horse for Fascists to operate in alliance with America during the Cold War, and all this to him is a good thing.

Rich is no dummy, I'm sure he's read all the right people.



Fuck me. Do we read different things? @Rich is anti communism and thinks we need to smash it down. His references are always about the ills of Stalinism, Mao and occasionally Castro. He hates Socialism in any shape or form and always sides with the imperial narrative when referencing points. He most definitely does not want the West to make peace with fascism and I suspect justifies all the wars we do to some extent because of that (he is anti Islam). Any user who thinks Cameron and May were geniuses who architect the perfect Brexit withdrawal, has a warped state of Patriotism and most of his posts belong back when The British Empire was a thing. Times have changed. Trying to shape the world to the Western image does not work and we should cooperate and not shape the world if we want to maintain the order. Otherwise the world will just align with China because otherwise to align with the West requires interference.
#15193947
B0ycey wrote:Fuck me. Do we read different things? @Rich is anti communism and thinks we need to smash it down. His references are always about the ills of Stalinism, Mao and occasionally Castro. He hates Socialism in any shape or form and always sides with the imperial narrative when referencing points. He most definitely does not want the West to make peace with fascism and I suspect justifies all the wars we do to some extent because of that (he is anti Islam). Any user who thinks Cameron and May were geniuses who architect the perfect Brexit withdrawal, has a warped state of Patriotism and most of his posts belong back when The British Empire was a thing. Times have changed. Trying to shape the world to the Western image does not work and we should cooperate and not shape the world if we want to maintain the order. Otherwise the world will just align with China because otherwise to align with the West requires interference.


This is a great post B0ycey. First because it is right about what needs to happen. The days of interfering too much with cultures and governments with bullshit manipulations of force and economics is soon going to be scrapped because it takes away focus from many nations internal problems and the lack of equality in wealth distribution creates too many migrants and instability that many ex empire nations can no longer address with just bullshit visas that jump put people in foreign situations expecting them to adapt without proper training and education and investment. It does not work that way.

Once you make bad habits a custom in communities for profit only? You get massive problems. Focus on clean water, healthy diet and exercise habits, good education programs, and livable wages and respecting the environment. It is the only series of actions that have a snowball chance in hell of reversing the damage these greedy capitalist banks and corporations have dumped on humanity's doorstep.

A documentary about Coca-Cola in Chiapas and Mexico. I live in a nation addicted to Coca-Cola drinks and this is what it creates. Diabetes en masse and mass death.

#15193957
@B0ycey ;

Fuck me. Do we read different things? @Rich is anti communism and thinks we need to smash it down. His references are always about the ills of Stalinism, Mao and occasionally Castro. He hates Socialism in any shape or form and always sides with the imperial narrative when referencing points.


Right, he's an Anti-Communist/Anti-Socialist, but not as someone coming from the perspective of liberal representative democracy.

He most definitely does not want the West to make peace with fascism and I suspect justifies all the wars we do to some extent because of that (he is anti Islam).


Not sure where you see @Rich as being antifascist. I guess we'd have to let him explain his position. I know from several years ago before I stopped posting back then, that Rich was against any Monotheism as far as I could tell.


Any user who thinks Cameron and May were geniuses who architect the perfect Brexit withdrawal, has a warped state of Patriotism and most of his posts belong back when The British Empire was a thing. Times have changed. Trying to shape the world to the Western image does not work and we should cooperate and not shape the world if we want to maintain the order. Otherwise the world will just align with China because otherwise to align with the West requires interference.


I'm not a huge fan of China, but I think this crisis of power politics between China and the United States could force America to have a more sane working class people attitude.
#15193963
annatar1914 wrote:Right, he's an Anti-Communist/Anti-Socialist, but not as someone coming from the perspective of liberal representative democracy.


I have been reading Rich since our Brexit days. He waffles alot of shit about WW2, Nazis, Rome, and British nationalism in general. I would like to call him a nationalist. Although he was a Remainer. But a Remainer who likes to remind our European friends what we did for them in the war I might add. He is anti vax, but only because he thinks we should vax the 3 world first and he is very critical of Islam. Basically not really a liberal. He is what I consider outdated. Someone who reminiscent of old times and forgets what is the cause of the fall of Western society. Our foes don't hate the West because we are saving them. They hate us because we attack them first.

Not sure where you see @Rich as being antifascist. I guess we'd have to let him explain his position. I know from several years ago before I stopped posting back then, that Rich was against any Monotheism as far as I could tell.


Well I can tell you now he doesn't waste a second on slamming on Nazis, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin and Mao.

I'm not a huge fan of China, but I think this crisis of power politics between China and the United States could force America to have a more sane working class people attitude.


America has already made the changes actually since AUKUS. It is Biden not Xi who is pushing for dialogue at the moment. But even so, I think everyone is realising that Taiwan is a 'when' rather than 'if' question and America need to realise what they are going to do when that 'when' comes into action. America will hope to stall China as long as possible. But I suspect China is waiting to gain better support within Taiwan before doing anythinb. That might take decades but it is better to do that than just invade given you can't win the minds of people if you do that. So what should America do? Well try and get China to talk to Taiwan. This issue can only be resolved if Beijing and Taipei have dialogue. I'm sure Taiwan can have everything it has now and keep China out of their internal politics if they drop any notion of independence. But whilst they talk of independence, they can expect more flyovers and aggressive action. It is after all their airspace they consider flying in given to China Taiwan is a breakaway province.
#15195494
B0ycey wrote:Any user who thinks Cameron and May were geniuses who architect the perfect Brexit withdrawal, has a warped state of Patriotism and most of his posts belong back when The British Empire was a thing.


I can assure you that at least vice versa is not true, i.e. being pro-British Empire does not mean one has to agree Cameron and May "were geniuses who architect the perfect Brexit withdrawal".

In fact, they didn't want Brexit in the first place but are forced to get the job done by Brexit supporters, so they were actually expected to do a bad job.

Johnson is the guy whom Brexiteers could have any sort of "get Brexit done" expectation on, but with the world order so shaken up by China (through the Wuhan pneumonia) even the staunchest Brexit fanatic would have had realistic expectation on at least the short-term changes.
#15195497
B0ycey wrote:I suspect China is waiting to gain better support within Taiwan before doing anything. That might take decades but it is better to do that than just invade given you can't win the minds of people if you do that.


Whether the conquest is to happen does not rely on the acceptance of Taiwanese people.
Instead, it depends on how serious the internal problems of China are, and how dire the CCP needs to vent its stress so as to save its sorry ass.

What the West (or by extension, most of the world minus maybe Russia) need to ensure is not that "China is not to invade", but that "China has to lose whatever conflict it is to inflict".
#15195505
Patrickov wrote:Whether the conquest is to happen does not rely on the acceptance of Taiwanese people.
Instead, it depends on how serious the internal problems of China are, and how dire the CCP needs to vent its stress so as to save its sorry ass.


I don't see internal structures ever changing China's approach to Tiawan. Xi is merely following Deng who followed Maos approach to Tiawan.

But sure, conquest will not be decided by the people of Tiawan, but the time of conquest may. If there is any hope of a peaceful transition, I suspect Xi will take that very much like Deng agreed terms with the British. And China is very patient so whilst sectarianism isn't a factor, I don't see conquest occurring any time soon. But what might speed up an invasion is language coming from either Tiawan or America.

What the West (or by extension, most of the world minus maybe Russia) need to ensure is not that "China is not to invade", but that "China has to lose whatever conflict it is to inflict".


I don't think either are possible due to proximity. Arming Tiawan to the back teeth can't hold back the largest army in the world on the second biggest military budget doing a continuous offensive - if China decides to take that course of action. And the Korean War should be evident of what home advantage is worth in any case. This isn't some form of wishful thinking here. Or pessimism. But simple common sense. To defeat China over Taiwan, you would have to somehow get ground troops to Taiwan and gain air supremacy, like the British had to do in the Falklands. Argentina wasn't the force compared to China who relied solely on Exocets missiles, which they didn't have many of I might add. Despite their handicap, the British was still fortunate to win that war because Argentina didn't rely on air carriers to base their planes on. I doubt America could get their air carriers to Tiawan as it happens without them being sunk, but even if they did somehow get to the China Sea, the aerial assault China could unleash on America would be amazing and frankly deadly.
#15195537
Oh knock it off BOycey. That kind of heated rhetoric might give you a hard on but it is just bullshit.

The US is not going to defend Taiwan in any meaningful way. The US and China are not going to get into a shooting war. China won't have it and neither will the US. China is far to easy to blockade and their internal markets are not large enough support their industrial base. The US retail economy is far to reliant on Chinese goods. Before the US could go to war with China it would have to have the permission of the Waltons, Bezos, Gates, and the lot. They will never give it.

The Chinese cypher on war must revolve around what form it takes. Two nuclear powers have to tread carefully. Neither can risk a fuck up.

If they take Taiwan (and they will) it will be through some sham agreement like they did with Hong Kong as you say. China has always played a long game well and a short game rarely. Now is not the time to risk the whole banana on an embarrassment dealt by the US. And it could happen.

The notion of a US attack on mainland China or a Chinese attack on the USA borders on comical. Not going to happen. As for the sinking of US carriers. Remember the US doctrine for war at sea. There are two kinds of ships. Submarines and targets. The US has a half a hundred attack subs that can operate in Chinese waters. China has 6 that can even make it to Hawaii. I am not going to nerd out on this. I find the entire idea so absurd as to be simply tedious to discuss. Suffice it to say that China is really good and formidable at defense of its home turf but it sucks at expeditionary forces.

If China were so stupid as to outright attack Taiwan it would cost them dearly and even militarily. Though they would inevitably succeed they would take major losses, They might not care that much but Taiwan would not go down without a very public fight.

But at the end of the day, in this adventure, China looses many markets. They are far to smart for that. When was the last time you saw China make a major international blunder?
#15195540
I can only assume from your comment that you think Biden is bluffing @Drlee? As it happens, so do I. Perhaps not directly. But should China force their hand, I do think the US will back away given the cost against them would be significantly more than China given China don't need their air carriers in this fight. And no, I don't think nuclear weapons would be used in the first instance even if they did fight over Tiawan. Nuclear war would only be an option if the losing side can't face defeat. Because ultimately Tiawan would be won in days not months or years.

Also it is telling that China gave a warning to the UK to not over play their role in AUKUS. It would be wise for Truss to listen. It seems China doesn't think Biden is just rhetoric. I can assure you they would also give up the US market overnight if the US over stepped their Tiawan objective in any case. This goes back 85 years if you didn't know.
#15195882
its funny how people get it completely wrong on appeasement. It was totally right not to go to war with Nazi Germany over Austria or the Sudetenland. These were ethnic German territories with almost certainly majority support for annexation. Neville chamberlain, the greatest man of the twentieth century chose wisely in going to war in September 1939, when Nazi aggression and expansionism was so clear. But it was a terrible mistake not to go to war with Communist China over Tibet. We should have demanded immediate withdrawal when the communists invaded, failure to comply should have been met with an all out nuclear attack. Capitulating and grovelling to the Chinese Communist party only puts off the inevitable.
#15195887
B0ycey wrote::lol:

I'm sure the Norwegians agree.

Are you saying that Chamberlain was an idiot for making Churchill First Sea Lord? I mean people rarely seem to hold Asquith responsible for Gallipoli.
#15195888
Rich wrote:Are you saying that Chamberlain was an idiot for making Churchill First Sea Lord? I mean people rarely seem to hold Asquith responsible for Gallipoli.


No. I am saying he wasn't the greatest man in the 20th Century. A century in which you had Churchill - not that I think he was the greatest either. Chamberlain made some very silly mistakes. He didn't even make it to the end of the war. There is a reason history isn't kind to Chamberlain. So if you make these claims, I want to you back them up with why you think he was the greatest man in the 20th century please.
#15195912
B0ycey wrote:No. I am saying he wasn't the greatest man in the 20th Century. A century in which you had Churchill - not that I think he was the greatest either. Chamberlain made some very silly mistakes. He didn't even make it to the end of the war. There is a reason history isn't kind to Chamberlain. So if you make these claims, I want to you back them up with why you think he was the greatest man in the 20th century please.

Part of the problem is that for great events, people demand great causes and preferably great moral lessons as well. The great mistake of Britain and France was their failure to understand anti tank warfare. Its not rocket science and it doesn't even require the expenditure of huge resources. Your main defence against tanks should be anti tank artillery, not your own tanks. Guns are a lot cheaper than tanks, they can be more easily hidden and their supply needs are much lower. The armour on most German tanks in 1940 was very thin, their ranges were short as well. It wasn't even like you needed high calibre anti tank guns in 1940. The second component is defence in depth. If enemy armoured formations make a local break through there is no need to panic. A third component might be tenacity. If your troops that have been bypassed remain operational, armoured formations depend on a large supply trains of un-armoured vehicles that can be picked off even with small arms.

The point is that the strategic position of the allies in 1939 /40 was strong. Germany should have been contained, their defeat should have just been a matter of time. Germany just lacked the resources to sustain a war with the British Commonwealth and France. The catastrophic German breakthroughs in France and the Low Countries should never have happened. if it wasn't for this fatal flaw in army doctrine and application Hitler would almost certainly have been executed by one of his Generals and then Germany would have sued for peace. So its true that Chamberlain failed to grasp the correct methods of anti tank warfare of the period. The allies and the Soviets did all belatedly grasp how to conduct anti tank warfare, but I'm not aware that Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin had anything to do with this. Chamberlain set up the political conditions for containment and eventual victory against Hitler without the costly frontal assaults of the first world war. It was Chamberlain's military experts who let him down.

Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden Finland and the United States stood by and did nothing in the face of Hitler's aggression in 1939. Stalin allied Hitler. Roosevelt wanted to be the arsenal of democracy (although even that was not in 1939) Stalin seemingly wanted to be the gas station of fascism. Those breakthroughs in the West / Norway were dependant on Soviet oil and other raw materials that Germany couldn't access from the world market. Chamberlain led Britain, the Commonwealth and France into war. He was only able to do that, He ws only able to lead our countries back into the meat grinder again a bare two decades after the guns fell silent on the Western front, precisely because he was an appeaser. Because people really trusted that Chamberlain wasn't a war monger. People really trusted that for Chamberlain war with Germany really was a last resort when all other reasonable options had been exhausted.

Yes others may have finished the war with Hitler, but it was Chamberlain that started it, without Chamberlain there might have been no war to finish.
#15195916
Rich wrote:Yes others may have finished the war with Hitler, but it was Chamberlain that started it, without Chamberlain there might have been no war to finish.


That is a lot of words to explain why you think Chamberlain was the greatest man of the 20th century. Problem is, hardly any of it is true. Stalin and Hilter weren't even friends let alone allies and Chamberlain did absolutely anything he could to get out of war. He even flew to Germany to get assurances which in the end was a ruse. Had he acted earlier, there may not even have been a war. In other words Chamberlain helped set the conditions for war by ignoring what Germany was doing when they broke the treaty they signed up to. The start of WW2 was a catalogue of errors, not all down to Chamberlain I guess. But Chamberlain didn't set the foundations for victory and even made the task more difficult by delaying mining Norway by four days.
#15195969
Rich wrote:its funny how people get it completely wrong on appeasement. It was totally right not to go to war with Nazi Germany over Austria or the Sudetenland. These were ethnic German territories with almost certainly majority support for annexation. Neville chamberlain, the greatest man of the twentieth century chose wisely in going to war in September 1939, when Nazi aggression and expansionism was so clear. But it was a terrible mistake not to go to war with Communist China over Tibet. We should have demanded immediate withdrawal when the communists invaded, failure to comply should have been met with an all out nuclear attack. Capitulating and grovelling to the Chinese Communist party only puts off the inevitable.

The Czechoslovakians might disagree.

They were prepared to fight but after the annexation of Poland the Nazis took Czechoslovakia without firing a shot.

Of course my people the Austrian Jews would also disagree, but they were a minority, you could be right on the majority opinion in Austria, but I honestly don't know.
#15196216
Rich wrote:But it was a terrible mistake not to go to war with Communist China over Tibet. We should have demanded immediate withdrawal when the communists invaded, failure to comply should have been met with an all out nuclear attack. Capitulating and grovelling to the Chinese Communist party only puts off the inevitable.

Likewise, now that Mexico has nukes, they should start lobbing them at Texas, California, and other territories that were stolen from them and filled with brainless mercs from Europe.
#15197666
Well ... yes ? ... duh ?

I'm critical of every single administration I know enough about.

Its in the very nature of the matter.

What really creeps me out is people who honestly believe that government X is great and perfect and flawless. They never are.

The worst example for that is that some people act as if China is the next empire (after the US empire has fallen) and thats a good thing and the chinese are great or something. Yeesh. I dont believe that one second. The roman empire, the spanish empire, the british empire, the US empire - they all have been evil.

My only hope for a better world order is that we get a couple superpowers (USA, China, Russia, maybe India soon, maybe later Brasil, maybe someday Europe though at the moment they are completely dependent upon the USA, and of course also Africa in some fashion) and we get a balance between them that assures nobody has an empire.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15199811
Image
"Once I chop off this woman's arms and kill her baby, my family will finally enjoy a bit of independence."

...

These are the most revealing grievances from the USA Declaration of Independence:

20. For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

This refers to how King George gave the Ohio Valley and most of Central Canada to "the Province of Quebec" in order to allow the French and First Nations to continue developing hybrid cultures. This was not acceptable to the 13 colonies who wanted MOAR... even if this lead to genocide (which it did, of course). This is similar to the Nazi cry for Leberraum.

27. He (King George III) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

By "excited insurrections," the document means that King George showed some respect towards the cultures that the British colonists had been killing and ethnic-cleansing up to this point. And the Orientalist description of all those "others" ... puts racism right into the USA's founding documents. This makes it hard to criticize racism without rejecting the Declaration of Independence... thus ensuring that Americans are either racist by conviction, or by aquiescence.

If Hollywood is a racist institution, it's because it has always respected the USA's founding documents.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19

It may play a part but while there may be some anx[…]

I keep thinking that what England needs is Winston[…]

I'm just mocking your hypocritical "misogyny[…]

Indeed. Of course the victim was white and dis[…]