LOLI lol'd.
+1 :)
"Credit where due: liberal support for intervention in Syria has been nowhere near as common or as angry as that for war on Iraq. I would characterize the median liberal as deeply skeptical towards the Obama administration’s stance on Syria. Even media liberals, who are predisposed for professional and social reasons towards supporting war and towards support of Democrats, are not united in the push towards war. The most strident liberal hawks are the ones that are to be expected — the indefatigable warmongers at the New Republic, say, or MSNBC, now essentially indistinguishable from a media appendage of the Obama administration. Many have refused to settle on an opinion on “the Syria question.” (That question being, more or less, 'Should the United States kill people in Syria?') These has been, instead, wrestling with the question, a state in which prominent politicos are very publicly seen to be having an internal debate. While they debate, professional militarists like William Kristol and Nicholas Kristof are throwing their backs behind war, but conscience can’t be rushed.
"Not that I question their sincerity. Indeed, among liberals calling for the endless projection of American military power, there is almost limitless sincerity. Liberal hawks are bathed in sincerity; it seeps from their pores. That their sincere beliefs converge so perfectly with their professional self-interest is neither coincidence nor conspiracy; such are the consequences of a commitment to Doing Good. The conflicted, for their part, are not dishonest in announcing their interior anguish. What should disturb anyone is what, exactly, is at play in the conflict: knowledge of the reality of warmaking and imperial privilege played against the desperate progressive desire to find a good war, to support a good war."
The titles are brainlessly misleading and are yet another hind brain jab at Obama.
Let me be clear about the situations in Libya and Syria: Its Not about. US. Its about them.
We are NOT in control of the situation. It is not ours. It does not belong to us, much less to the president who gets smeared for his anti oxygen stance simply by exhaling carbon dioxide.
We MIGHT be able to influence a screwed up situation into a slightly less screwed up situation. If your argument for not trying that is that stopping Nazi Germany didn't go as well as it may have then you've lost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The titles are brainlessly misleading and are yet another hind brain jab at Obama.
Let me be clear about the situations in Libya and Syria: Its Not about. US. Its about them.
We are NOT in control of the situation. It is not ours. It does not belong to us, much less to the president who gets smeared for his anti oxygen stance simply by exhaling carbon dioxide.
We MIGHT be able to influence a screwed up situation into a slightly less screwed up situation. If your argument for not trying that is that stopping Nazi Germany didn't go as well as it may have then you've lost.
If it's not about us (and I tend to agree) then what gives the government the right to attack?
I don't recall ever accusing Obama of causing the civil wars in Libya or Syria. If that's what you're accusing me of then your argument is a complete strawman.
I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.
I am a non interventionist. I oppose preemptive war. I'm not sure what you are confused about.
I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.
It's from your first article, BT.
If it's not about us (and I tend to agree) then what gives the government the right to attack?
Its the right thing to do and we can do it. Its all the right I think someone really needs. The problem is establishing those with enough certainty to act upon.
I don't recall ever accusing Obama of causing the civil wars in Libya or Syria. If that's what you're accusing me of then your argument is a complete strawman.
Look at the titles. They're "his" debacle.
I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.
from what you linked...
Though the Holocaust is often invoked by humanitarian interventionists, the results of the American assault on the Nazi regime were hardly a victory for humanity. American bombers not only terminated a substantial portion of the civilian populations in France and Germany, but there is also substantial evidence that the Nazi leadership accelerated the killing of Jews as a result of American entry into the war.
Well, I have to say, Citizen Wolf has narrowed in on the weakest link in the argument (although, it's true, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarian interventionism), but to reduce its argument to "stopping the Nazis didn't go as well as it could have" seems unfairly reductionist to me.
[Shrugs]
Its the right thing to do and we can do it.
I was curious. What is the right thing to do? Bomb Libya? Bomb Syria? Both? Something else?
(Slightly edited)
Well, I have to say, Citizen Wolf has narrowed in on the weakest link in the argument (although, it's true, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarian interventionism), but to reduce its argument to "stopping the Nazis didn't go as well as it could have" seems unfairly reductionist to me.
The argument is we did more harm than good, so we'll always do more harm than good. The argument that we did more harm than good stopping the nazis is nuttier than squirrel poo.
[Shrugs]
Its the right thing to do and we can do it.
I was curious. What is the right thing to do? Bomb Libya? Bomb Syria? Both? Something else?
(Slightly edited)
I think its to bomb syria, pick the least bad of our options with the rebels and help one of them get into power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.It's from your first article, BT.
Cool.
The fact that we committed horrifying evil against civilians in WW2 is not a logical counter to non interventionism. They initiated violence and we responded. That doesn't make it OK to exterminate civilian populations in Germany or Japan.
EDIT: Just because I link an article doesn't mean I embrace every detail of that article. Try to show a little discernment.
If it's not about us (and I tend to agree) then what gives the government the right to attack?
Its the right thing to do and we can do it. Its all the right I think someone really needs. The problem is establishing those with enough certainty to act upon.
I don't recall ever accusing Obama of causing the civil wars in Libya or Syria. If that's what you're accusing me of then your argument is a complete strawman.Look at the titles. They're "his" debacle.
I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.from what you linked...
Though the Holocaust is often invoked by humanitarian interventionists, the results of the American assault on the Nazi regime were hardly a victory for humanity. American bombers not only terminated a substantial portion of the civilian populations in France and Germany, but there is also substantial evidence that the Nazi leadership accelerated the killing of Jews as a result of American entry into the war.
If being "right" is all anybody needs then why haven't we used force to intervene in countless humanitarian disasters?
The fact that Obama has responded stupidly to disasters in Libya and Syria doesn't mean he caused them; it still makes "his" response stupid. His reaction makes it his debacle.
I never argued that we should have ignored Pearl Harbor. I just don't think we should incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in the process.
Well, I have to say, Citizen Wolf has narrowed in on the weakest link in the argument (although, it's true, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarian interventionism), but to reduce its argument to "stopping the Nazis didn't go as well as it could have" seems unfairly reductionist to me.Yeah, but anyone seriously arguing that joining in the war against Nazi Germany wasn't a good thing really loses a lot of credibility.
I don't see me or any non interventionist making that argument after Pearl Harbor. Before Pearl Harbor we might disagree.
Are you saying we should have joined the war before we were attacked?
If being "right" is all anybody needs then why haven't we used force to intervene in countless humanitarian disasters?
Because our country rarely if ever does the right thing, and then usually when it coincides with our best interests on accident.
The fact that Obama has responded stupidly to disasters in Libya and Syria doesn't mean he caused them; it still makes "his" response stupid. His reaction makes it his debacle.
His response is stupid is a "fact"?
His response is not to bomb, but bombing would be stupid, so his response... not to bomb is stupid? How the hell does this Möbius strip of a thought process work?
I never argued that we should have ignored Pearl Harbor. I just don't think we should incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in the process.
I hate to sound like a lanister but at that point i think it was that or watching millions of soildiers die. Doing nothing meant the continued genocide of the chinese by the Japanese so that wasn't an option.
Well, I have to say, Citizen Wolf has narrowed in on the weakest link in the argument (although, it's true, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarian interventionism), but to reduce its argument to "stopping the Nazis didn't go as well as it could have" seems unfairly reductionist to me.The argument is we did more harm than good, so we'll always do more harm than good. The argument that we did more harm than good stopping the nazis is nuttier than squirrel poo.
[Shrugs]
Its the right thing to do and we can do it.I was curious. What is the right thing to do? Bomb Libya? Bomb Syria? Both? Something else?
(Slightly edited)
I think its to bomb syria, pick the least bad of our options with the rebels and help one of them get into power.
Wrong!
The argument is not that we did more harm than good. The argument is that we did vast harm while doing good. There is a huge difference!
We might do more good than harm, but history argues against it. We might have meant to do good from Korea to now, but hundreds of thousands of dead from Viet Nam to Cuba to Iraq argue against this theory.
I don't see anyone arguing in favor of Hitler. They attacked us, and we responded with furious violence.
This doesn't make us the police of the world.
My 2CP
Here's the way I look at it. I wish we could be an isolationist nation. I really do. I don't want to get in anybody's bidness. I wish the UN was functional.
Unfortunately, the idea of actually drawing down our military to a sane level (enough to defend ourselves) is off the table because the people who make the bombs and guns own so much of our legislature and control so much of the debate. At least until we can manage to wrangle some genuinely progressive, anti-war folks who will take a political hit to do what needs to be done.
In the mean time, we have a trillion dollar a year behemoth of a traditional military sitting on cinderblocks and the potential to put it to good use. Like, actual good use, humanitarian intervention. I appreciate the argument that the military will self-perpetuate if utilized, but it's self-perpetuating when unutilized because of an entrenched arms lobby.
None of this seems like a good enough excuse to do nothing because it's, like, 47 yards away.
FWIW I think what is happening with Syria is precisely what should happen, including the continued threat of unilateral action upon noncompliance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big problem with going to war: s!$~ gets f#$%ed up.
Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was largely unnecessary to ending the conflict with Japan. The primary reason it was used was to strengthen US diplomacy after WW2.
As covered earlier in this thread, there were already strong pacifist leaders inside Japan. The series of defeats in the Pacific had actually eroded support for the military, the populace was war weary, families had already sacrificed many of their sons for the cause, they didn't want to sacrifice everything else for a losing effort. I know samurai are cool, and there is some psychology behind people on a losing side digging in, but Japan was much more complicated politically than that.
Add in, the fact that the fire bombing had already killed thousands and reduced the capacity of Japanese industry. The March 9-10 bombing was the most deadly, killing more people during the attack than either Nagasaki or Hiroshima (though additional fatalities due to radiation and burns would make them deadlier). Supposedly, Emperor Hirohito's touring of the area destroyed in the Tokyo bombing was the beginning of him trying to end the war with the US. Roughly 1.5 million people lived in the sections of Tokyo that were burned, low estimates say that 60,000 to 100,000 died with just that one bombing raid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If being "right" is all anybody needs then why haven't we used force to intervene in countless humanitarian disasters?Because our country rarely if ever does the right thing, and then usually when it coincides with our best interests on accident.
The fact that Obama has responded stupidly to disasters in Libya and Syria doesn't mean he caused them; it still makes "his" response stupid. His reaction makes it his debacle.His response is stupid is a "fact"?
His response is not to bomb, but bombing would be stupid, so his response... not to bomb is stupid? How the hell does this Möbius strip of a thought process work?
I never argued that we should have ignored Pearl Harbor. I just don't think we should incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in the process.I hate to sound like a lanister but at that point i think it was that or watching millions of soildiers die. Doing nothing meant the continued genocide of the chinese by the Japanese so that wasn't an option.
How does that make this bombing OK?
------------------------------
How is his response not to bomb OK? He takes credit for any forward motion from his threat to bomb, but he is not threatening bombing?
I never said preemptive bombing was OK, but my logic is circular?
(I still oppose preemptive violence.)
---------------------------------
Genocide has many excuses, but I think there were other options besides mass civilian murder of civilians.
Your position may be morally superior, but I have my doubts.
Apropos of nothing, but some things are worth more than human life (or lives).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I have to say, Citizen Wolf has narrowed in on the weakest link in the argument (although, it's true, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarian interventionism), but to reduce its argument to "stopping the Nazis didn't go as well as it could have" seems unfairly reductionist to me.Yeah, but anyone seriously arguing that joining in the war against Nazi Germany wasn't a good thing really loses a lot of credibility.
Except that's not what the argument says. What the argument says is that humanitarian interventionists point to the Holocaust as a buttress for their argument, when, in fact, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarianism, as can be seen, for example, (my examples, not the article's) in the Allies' refusal to bomb the train tracks to the death camps, but could indiscriminately firebomb Dresden (IIRC, a target with little to no military value).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the way I look at it. I wish we could be an isolationist nation. I really do. I don't want to get in anybody's bidness. I wish the UN was functional.
Unfortunately, the idea of actually drawing down our military to a sane level (enough to defend ourselves) is off the table because the people who make the bombs and guns own so much of our legislature and control so much of the debate. At least until we can manage to wrangle some genuinely progressive, anti-war folks who will take a political hit to do what needs to be done.
In the mean time, we have a trillion dollar a year behemoth of a traditional military sitting on cinderblocks and the potential to put it to good use. Like, actual good use, humanitarian intervention. I appreciate the argument that the military will self-perpetuate if utilized, but it's self-perpetuating when unutilized because of an entrenched arms lobby.
None of this seems like a good enough excuse to do nothing because it's, like, 47 yards away.
FWIW I think what is happening with Syria is precisely what should happen, including the continued threat of unilateral action upon noncompliance.
So, to pick up from where we left off, you don't use the slogan "No war but the class war" because you are opposed to violent revolution, but are in favor of imperialist bombardment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think its to bomb syria, pick the least bad of our options with the rebels and help one of them get into power.
So, you're a warmongering hawk who believes we should get into Syria for regime change, despite international law, international opposition, domestic law and domestic opposition.
Good to know.
Except that's not what the argument says. What the argument says is that humanitarian interventionists point to the Holocaust as a buttress for their argument, when, in fact, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarianism, as can be seen, for example, (my examples, not the article's) in the Allies' refusal to bomb the train tracks to the death camps, but could indiscriminately firebomb Dresden (IIRC, a target with little to no military value).Well, I have to say, Citizen Wolf has narrowed in on the weakest link in the argument (although, it's true, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarian interventionism), but to reduce its argument to "stopping the Nazis didn't go as well as it could have" seems unfairly reductionist to me.Yeah, but anyone seriously arguing that joining in the war against Nazi Germany wasn't a good thing really loses a lot of credibility.
May I favorite this twice?
How does that make this bombing OK?
Kills people to lower the death toll.
How is his response not to bomb OK? He takes credit for any forward motion from his threat to bomb, but he is not threatening bombing?
You can't even figure out what you're mad at him for can you?
I never said preemptive bombing was OK, but my logic is circular?
Its not circular. Circular I understand: its in fact the official shape of conservatives.
What I don't understand is this massive pent up anger at Obama for not bombing by people arguing that bombing is bad. He's doing what you want and he's STILL an incompetent moron.
(I still oppose preemptive violence.)
There's already been 100,000 dead. Its not preemptive anymore.
Genocide has many excuses, but I think there were other options besides mass civilian murder of civilians.
There are always more options but were any of them better?
Your position may be morally superior, but I have my doubts.
I have mine as well, don't worry.
I think its to bomb syria, pick the least bad of our options with the rebels and help one of them get into power.So, you're a warmongering hawk who believes we should get into Syria for regime change, despite international law, international opposition, domestic law and domestic opposition.
Good to know.
I don't really care what my country thinks, why on earth should i care what other countries think?
Other countries are still reacting to another bush going into another iraq. Not sure about the first but pretty sure the second is different here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that's not what the argument says. What the argument says is that humanitarian interventionists point to the Holocaust as a buttress for their argument, when, in fact, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarianism, as can be seen, for example, (my examples, not the article's) in the Allies' refusal to bomb the train tracks to the death camps, but could indiscriminately firebomb Dresden (IIRC, a target with little to no military value).
I have a hard time caring if our motives were pure enough as long as the right thing got done.
I don't really care what my country thinks, why on earth should i care what other countries think?
Other countries are still reacting to another bush going into another iraq. Not sure about the first but pretty sure the second is different here.
Well, some countries were willing to go into that mess with you, until your POTUS got second thoughts and got derailed by russian legerdemain.
Also : even if the syrian chemical weapons get destroyed (maybe, one day), there is still the small matter of a mass murder of civilians to consider.
Have you read the UN report about the auguts chemical attack? Its conclusions say nothing of the culprit (mostly because the UN inspectors weren't mandated to look for one, just to prove that a chemical attack actually happened) but they mention in the body of the text having found scraps from a 140mm chemical rocket (russian made, with cyrillic text). Just my (and their) 2 cp...
Enjoy yourself : UN report. The nicer pictures are in appendix 5, page 21+.
I suppose that it COULD be possible that Al Qaeda is firing russian rockets from a heavy MRL from the suburbs of Damas, without anyone noticing. And that Poutine is a mind flayer too.
I don't really care what my country thinks, why on earth should i care what other countries think?
Other countries are still reacting to another bush going into another iraq. Not sure about the first but pretty sure the second is different here.
My reading still suggests that other countries are reacting to Libya.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a hard time caring if our motives were pure enough as long as the right thing got done.Except that's not what the argument says. What the argument says is that humanitarian interventionists point to the Holocaust as a buttress for their argument, when, in fact, American intervention into World War II had nothing to do with humanitarianism, as can be seen, for example, (my examples, not the article's) in the Allies' refusal to bomb the train tracks to the death camps, but could indiscriminately firebomb Dresden (IIRC, a target with little to no military value).
Fire-bombing civilians is never the right thing.
Though the Holocaust is often invoked by humanitarian interventionists, the results of the American assault on the Nazi regime were hardly a victory for humanity. American bombers not only terminated a substantial portion of the civilian populations in France and Germany, but there is also substantial evidence that the Nazi leadership accelerated the killing of Jews as a result of American entry into the war.Which really does seem to be "We killed a lot of people so it was bad." Along with an odd bit about killing Jews faster, which only makes sense if you can really claim less would have died overall if the US hadn't entered the war.
More generally, wars suck. People get killed, probably lots of people. They are always a bad thing. From a humanitarian perspective though, you can't just count the number of people you kill when...
All right, I'll admit, I projected a bit of my own thoughts on to the paragraph, but I think you guys have, too. And I stand by "World War II had very little to do with humanitarian interventionism."
So, to pick up from where we left off, you don't use the slogan "No war but the class war" because you are opposed to violent revolution, but are in favor of imperialist bombardment.
This is a pointless argument because you think any use of force by the US is an imperialist takeover, because you're a radical ideologue (and a troll). I think there are uses of force that can be seen as imperialist, and ones that can be seen as humanitarian. I think protecting the norm against chemical weapons is worth a little bloodshed.
And, again, as I just got finished saying, I'm extra happy at the prospect of enforcing those norms without the use of force, but you nonetheless need the threat of force to do so. It's like, you don't have to kill anyone to rob a bank, but you can't really rob a bank without a gun, or at least the belief that you have one.
Moreover, though, doesn't your accusation throw a little dirt back your own way? You're in continual vocal support of violent revolution, which would be widespread and messy with lots of civilian casualties...but for some reason you're against "fire bombing civilians" or using military force to do...well anything?
This is a pointless argument because you think any use of force by the US is an imperialist takeover, because you're a radical ideologue (and a troll).
Then why bother, stooge?
I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.It's from your first article, BT.Cool.
The fact that we committed horrifying evil against civilians in WW2 is not a logical counter to non interventionism. They initiated violence and we responded. That doesn't make it OK to exterminate civilian populations in Germany or Japan.
EDIT: Just because I link an article doesn't mean I embrace every detail of that article. Try to show a little discernment.
its the internet, bt. You link it (or on Facebook, like it) and you own it, for the most part.
This is a pointless argument because you think any use of force by the US is an imperialist takeover, because you're a radical ideologue (and a troll).Then why bother, stooge?
Because when someone spits in my face I feel obliged to wipe it off?
What I don't understand is this massive pent up anger at Obama for not bombing by people arguing that bombing is bad. He's doing what you want and he's STILL an incompetent moron.
this seems to be the larger problem, by far.
Because when someone spits in my face I feel obliged to wipe it off?This is a pointless argument because you think any use of force by the US is an imperialist takeover, because you're a radical ideologue (and a troll).Then why bother, stooge?
You were in favor of bombing Libya, you were/are(?) in favor of bombing Syria, you have argued that you would have endorsed Gulf War II if Bush II hadn't lied.
That sounds like being in favor of imperialist bombardment to me.
[Spits some more]
Because when someone spits in my face I feel obliged to wipe it off?This is a pointless argument because you think any use of force by the US is an imperialist takeover, because you're a radical ideologue (and a troll).Then why bother, stooge?You were in favor of bombing Libya, you were/are(?) in favor of bombing Syria, you have argued that you would have endorsed Gulf War II if Bush II hadn't lied.
That sounds like being in favor of imperialist bombardment to me.
[Spits some more]
And you're in favor of violent revolution, a strange position for a peacenik. *shrug*
I have never claimed to be a peacenik, a pacifist, a non-interventionist or any of those things. I am a proletarian internationalist and a socialist revolutionary. I wouldn't expect everyone on here to understand the difference between those two things, but I would expect someone who writes Marxian papers about the cult of Kali to be able to figure it out.
If general strikes erupted, brought society to a standstill, workers councils were elected and the bourgeoisie backed down without a shot fired, I'd love it. Seeing how they reacted to Occupy, I doubt that's likely to happen. In the face of state violence against the revolution, yes, I would be all in favor of the revolution defending itself. *shrug*
I have never claimed to be a peacenik, a pacifist, a non-interventionist or any of those things. I am a proletarian internationalist and a socialist revolutionary. I wouldn't expect everyone on here to understand the difference between those two things, but I would expect someone who writes Marxian papers about the cult of Kali to be able to figure it out.
If general strikes erupted, brought society to a standstill, workers councils were elected and the bourgeoisie backed down, I'd love it. Seeing how they reacted to Occupy, I doubt that's likely to happen. In the face of state violence against the revolution, yes, I would be all in favor of the revolution defending itself. *shrug*
I don't think the proletariat would ever back down far enough for you to not be in favor of possibly violent revolution.
I don't think the proletariat would ever back down far enough for you to not be in favor of possibly violent revolution.
The bourgeoisie are the capitalists. The proletariat is the working class.
You may recall at the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street thread, you asked me to go beyond slogans and state what I wanted. Among other things in my reply you will find:
"I want to see 'the rich'--and here I mean the capitalists, not those lucky enough to make, say, $150,000/year--keep one of their estates and, say, a couple million bucks and shut up and live their lives out to the end. I doubt this will happen. As Frederick Douglass famously put it: 'Power concedes nothing without a struggle,' but, still, it would be nice."
If they backed down that far, I'd be thrilled beyond words.
I don't think the proletariat would ever back down far enough for you to not be in favor of possibly violent revolution.The bourgeoisie are the capitalists. The proletariat is the working class.
....is it too late to act smug and cool and say "I MEANT to say that?" Cuz..uh...I did.
No worries. Marxist terminology isn't exactly common parlance these days. Unfortunately.
I have never claimed to be a peacenik, a pacifist, a non-interventionist or any of those things. I am a proletarian internationalist and a socialist revolutionary.
And I've never claimed to be an imperialist or a stooge, but it doesn't stop you from calling me that.
Can you outline the practical difference between these two categories for me? Can you give me an example of a military action you would support?
its the internet, bt. You link it (or on Facebook, like it) and you own it, for the most part.I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.It's from your first article, BT.Cool.
The fact that we committed horrifying evil against civilians in WW2 is not a logical counter to non interventionism. They initiated violence and we responded. That doesn't make it OK to exterminate civilian populations in Germany or Japan.
EDIT: Just because I link an article doesn't mean I embrace every detail of that article. Try to show a little discernment.
That's inane.
Linking to RT doesn't make me Russian, and linking to counter punch doesn't make me a commie. (regardless of DA's influence)
But when you don't provide CONTEXT for your links, you just slap then down on the table and point to them, what are we to do but comment about the content about those links?
But when you don't provide CONTEXT for your links, you just slap then down on the table and point to them, what are we to do but comment about the content about those links?
One might choose to comment honestly on said article.
I have never claimed to be a peacenik, a pacifist, a non-interventionist or any of those things. I am a proletarian internationalist and a socialist revolutionary.And I've never claimed to be an imperialist or a stooge, but it doesn't stop you from calling me that.
Can you outline the practical difference between these two categories for me? Can you give me an example of a military action you would support?
Where have I called you an imperialist?
The practical differences between which two categories? Imperialist and stooge?
[First pass at definitions, am probably leaving a lot out]
An imperialist is someone who argues for American (or elsewhere--French, Russian, Britishiznoid, etc., but let's stick to the home front for now) dominance over "our" spheres of influence. Their language has gotten a lot trickier over the past century, but I'm sure you've seen enough of Chomsky or whoever going through Foreign Affairs articles and State Department white papers to know what I mean. "Stooge" would be someone who has been tricked into doing their bidding/arguing. So, for example, someone arguing for humanitarian intervention on the part of the world's biggest terrorists (the U.S.) would qualify nicely.
Otoh, of course, people who claim to have a Marxian or socialist worldview and can't recognize that it's the same class exploiting us that is bombing various parts of the world, humanitarian intervention or not, get under my skin. Witness my many flamewars with Comrade le Couard.
Any military action or any American military action?
The former: Nicaragua vs. the contras, Vietnam vs. Japan, France and/or the United States, Soviet intervention into Afghanistan.
The latter: Um....the Union during the Civil War.
Down with US imperialism!
its the internet, bt. You link it (or on Facebook, like it) and you own it, for the most part.I also don't see where I have ever argued the the basis for non interventionism has something to do with Nazis or whatever you are talking about.It's from your first article, BT.Cool.
The fact that we committed horrifying evil against civilians in WW2 is not a logical counter to non interventionism. They initiated violence and we responded. That doesn't make it OK to exterminate civilian populations in Germany or Japan.
EDIT: Just because I link an article doesn't mean I embrace every detail of that article. Try to show a little discernment.
That's inane.
Linking to RT doesn't make me Russian, and linking to counter punch doesn't make me a commie. (regardless of DA's influence)
I would normally agree, but its the way of the world these days-the internet version of bumper sticker politics. Its worse when you don't add a caveat or an opinion beyond the link. Not that I think you are in favor of any of the stomach churning things thst were done to civilians in wartime mind, just an observation about the internet these days.