Yes, I have. Or maybe your legendary myopia missed the part where I cited a book that is the direct product of documents smuggled from Russia by defector Vasili Mitrokhin? The passages I quoted clearly showed the Soviets ramping up their effort in the Third World and intentionally getting involved in nations and politics they previously hadn't. It's a fact. Their words. Not mine. So try again. "Seriously" needs to be defined, because all countries are involved in other countries to a certain degree. What I am really arguing is that places like Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and so on weren't flash points of particular interest until Soviet tomfoolery, that is overt and covert Soviet "active measures," made them so. I mean, a few choice years aside, it's not as if these countries were the sexy desks at State and CIA, is it? If you doubt me consider how all the random hot spots during the Cold War are almost totally ignored and irrelevant to American Foreign Policy today... Cuba is an imperfect example, but let's consider it anyway. Ever since it was granted its independence by Roosevelt, it was in the throes of violence and revolution off an on for 40 years, during which America was engaged in various levels. However, the internecine conflicts on that little island did not truly become important, did not truly become a centerpiece of foreign policy and a presidential campaign issue until the late 1950s, when the US saw the stain of Marxism in Fidel and the obvious hand of the Soviets behind him. Then it became a battleground. When the Soviets went away, so too did the Americans. (As a side note, consider all the countries Cuba exported revolution to: Are we to assume America really chomps at the bit about places like Angola?). I argued as much to Tiassa, either in this thread or elsewhere. According to Mead in God and Gold, it's an Anglo-American trait to believe that one's policy, foreign or otherwise is inherently morally superior. And while this is not always the case, logically speaking, I can fully understand why the US was so panicked about having the Reds at the back door in Latin America, both strategically and economically. I also have no problem at looking at the USSR and the USA and picking the latter as the morally superior. The question is can you say the same?
Which had nothing to do with what I said. No one is objecting to your claim that the Soviets launched major meddling operations in many places. And that is exactly what I am calling ridiculous. Cuba was the example: The manipulations and meddling around admitting Cuba as a State, creating a lawless zone for the Mafia, etc, were nothing if not serious and significant. The blowign up of the Maine was nothing if not a "flash". There weren't "flash points" of the Cold War until the Soviets moved in, but there certainly were flash points of nationalism and violence and US corporate, military, and political involvement - Jose Marti's Florida-based attempted coup in Cuba merely one incident in many, throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. And at that time, there was already a US military base on Cuba, the US had already fought one serious war with dramatic international consequences that was started in Cuba and partly over Cuba, the US government and military had been meddling and fighting in Cuba for more than fifty years. And then, you say, it "became" a battleground. Was that before or after Castro was invited to the US and given a warm official welcome with a tour of the sights ? In its dealings with small and vulnerable foreign countries, its defense of its interests in far flung places out of the citizenry's sight or alien to the citizenry's understandings, the US has had little, if any, net moral superiority over the Soviet Union. In other areas, especially areas overseen by and knowledgably accountable to the American people, moral superiority is often evident. Moral superiority in a government seems directly related to real accountability. It is not an intrinsic property of US government action, possessed in all circumstances or by default unless proven otherwise. As the self-immolation and degeneracy of the Republican Party upon gaining unchallenged power demonstrates once again.
Yes indeed, despite their moral integrity backers, they quickly went down in flames. I guess when your moral supporters demonstrate a lack of integrity (Jerry Falwell), it is probably a good sign of your moral character.
So we agree on this point? That's fine. I was mistakeningly laboring because I understood you to be arguing that the US was the aggressor. Beyond your Mafia allusion, everything you just wrote about happened prior to the independence granted by Roosevelt. As for the Mafia bit, that was the Cuban government's decision. You're overstating things. My point is that Cuba was not on the frontburner of US foreign policy from the early 1900s until the mid to late 1950s. In some fashion was the US involved with Cuba during this time? Certainly. But I am not sure what being "there" in some capacity proves. Lots of people were "there." Being "there" didn't matter until the Soviets and the revolution they supported made "there" an idealogical issue. So now palm-pressing and overt diplomacy equals revolution, covert action, overt militarism and various other foreign policy entanglements? When in doubt, rephrase the question or answer a different question, right? But seriously, thanks for showing your true colors. There is "little, if any" difference between the US and the Soviets in their dealings in the Third World? What a statement that is...
Being "there" in the sense of having established a cooperative local strongman, a military base on the premises, and the fundamentals of economic control in the area (the Mafia no small part of that). Being "there" means that Roosevelt, the American President, "grants" Cuba its independence - with certain considerations, naturally. Being "there" means that when the Soviets show up, they find US organized crime, commercial interests, political factions, and military forces based in Cuba; with great - even dominant - influence over its governance. No. You cannot paraphrase accurately, and should always quote. There is little, if any, net moral superiority in the US dealings with the Third World, outside of the occasional arena of accountability. And what a statement that is, indeed. Goes straight to the center of what has happened to the Republican Party, if I'm not mistaken.
So what's your point? I've acknowledged we were there in some capacity. You are mistaken. Or at least you seem to be bogged down in methodology, and having become entangled in such weeds, decided to ignore the overall moral thrust of why the US was doing what it did as opposed to why the Soviets were. You also seem incapable of acknowledging the vast differences between how poorly non-Soviet dominated states fared —and currently fare — as opposed to the opposite. As usual, myopia and equivocation reigns supreme.
The degradation of your post toward the end was the giveaway Yawn. Tell you what, Counte, why don't you just write down the litany of pabulum disclaimers people need to regurgitate over and over and over again in lieu of any real discussion in order to satisfy you. There is a difference between exaggerating what's there—which is what I've asserted—and pretending there's nothing there (what you've asked if I have said). This is one of those things about honesty, Counte. Just like you leapt to justification and rationalization with Patel, you're ignoring what I'm actually saying so that we might waste time and words on that dispute. The danger posed by Communism is certainly not the danger we fought. Given that it's a figment of your malice, that doesn't surprise me. Okay. Right, and ...? Oh, right: Would you, then, assert that it doesn't matter if the leaders lie to the people as long as everything works out in the end? Given all our paranoia about the Soviets, was brinkmanship really a wise idea? I mean, what if some of that paranoia was true? What if the Soviets nuked us? Would you watch the bombs coming in and say, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time, and, well, we were wrong, but still, it was the right thing to do." My point is that getting lucky does not make a decision wise. Right. Okay. I'm not sure the comparison is quite so straight. In January, 1968, we were a bit busy. Additionally, Korea was already known to be a pain in the ass for American military efforts. It would have been very difficult to win support for another go-round in Korea. And perhaps that's what you mean by "the incidents almost become unimportant". But if so, it sounds like you're making my point. It really is a convenient response, isn't it? Which part of that "reality" is important to you? The immediate, superficial manifestations? The reasons why? The reality of the world we live in is heavily influenced by the decisions made in response to incidents as described by the so-called half-emperors. Think of the beleaguered fiscal conservatives. They're losing their party, but in part because they have been willing to deal with the Devil. Neocons might have certain ideological differences, and evangelical Christians might have certain ideological differences, but all three groups could be convinced to march in lock-step, which is what made the GOP so powerful during these recent decades. And part of what we're dealing with now is the produce of an existential juggling act played out as political theater. There were too many ideological prisms to accommodate. The result was an often-conflicting representation of what was, ultimately, a confused idea that, when viewed by the disparate factions, had only this in common: greed. Actually, there is something different about that ideology. Not every ideology deals so heavily in outright fantasy. "They're really, really dangerous" may be a crafting of reality to fit a certain template, but "The most convincing evidence is that we have no evidence" is pure bullshit. I mean, I might disagree over how dangerous this or that potential enemy is, but this whole "We need to go to war, and we have no evidence to justify ourselves, but our lack of evidence should be the most convincing argument!" routine is just malicious. There is something truly amiss about people when they reach that stage. So what happens when the question arises again? Personally, I keep believing that at some point, people will wake up. But for some reason, they don't. Possibly because of the appeals to greed and fear. They keep working, keep distracting people. This is another reason why the GOP is falling apart right now: things have gotten so bad that people can't help but notice. You're presuming them rational, which is certainly a nice gesture, but also unwise given their repeated demonstrations to the other. These people are wrapped up in a myth of good and evil. It is a religious fervor they seem to be suffering. Self-preservation often includes destruction in service of the cause. Neocons are making a vital mistake that Communists made. While the Communists tried to build a complex platform out of something simple—note the complexity, on the one hand, of Marx's explanations and descriptions of economy, and, to the other the simplicity of the Communist Manifesto that bears his name—and tried to raise an observed result into a political cause, so, too, have the neocons taken one of Strauss' observations and run with it. I have a growing suspicion that when I finally slog through Strauss' record, I'll find the neocons have blown that one nearly as badly as they did Marx. That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. To the other, Clinton's involvement in Central Europe was not the beginning of a century-long plan for regional domination. Part of me agrees with you, although the other part doubts your relationship to the idea that reality is in the eye of the beholder. Everything has its context, and your context is something I have, through our many encounters, come to doubt severely. For instance: You know, Marx wrote the damn book, and he still wasn't ready to be a Marxist. What he's right and wrong about is often a matter of context. Additionally, given that you would dismiss the things you think he got so horribly wrong is interesting. One of the reasons Communism wins such political sympathy from me is, essentially, that people have blown such a simple idea so badly. But it really does help. Something we need to stop and consider for a moment, though: What you think, while it certainly serves a purpose in our discussion, does not establish any sense of reality. Case in point: I agree that nations and people are perfectly capable of raising their own demons without help from the politicians. But that doesn't change the fact that politicians have long been instrumental in the process. The foundation of the myth ought to be enough. That seed of knowledge, sliver of reality, should suffice. That it doesn't says more about the politicians and myth-makers than it does about the myth or its subject. Oh, I know. Communism was a threat to the American way of life that includes exploitation and human suffering in order to concentrate wealth and property into as few hands as possible. In other words, it threatened the idea that it is good to make other people suffer in order that some can be as wealthy as they might become. Yeah. We're greedy bastards. It's part of our cultural heritage. Nice pop-culture reference. You must be hip with the young'n's. Probably. Then again, that might be expected since I was taught to give it far too much. Like you. Certainly, you give Western culture far too much credit. And yet the myth, then and now, defers to the hawks—in the continuing efficacy of denouncing doves as traitors and sympathizers—and, not exactly coincidentally, the grotesque exaggerations that support warmongering. It's part of our cultural heritage. That's not nearly as effective a point as some might think it to be. After all, especially in the case of the United States, the "center" is a roving standard. And, besides, the fact that a set of political ideas can be described as the "center" does not make them effective, noble, or even logical. I'm sure we could find a point in the last couple centuries where the "center" described that men shouldn't beat their wives unnecessarily, but this whole thing that women aren't property of their husbands is going just a bit too far. It would be a particularly American definition of "reactionary". And a particularly American telling of history. We'll start with your point, though: Clive Barker once wrote that nothing ever begins. And this is one of the few truths of the human experience: The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making. (Weaveworld) I would mark part of that with boldface, except it's a bit arbitrary to choose which. The seemingly obvious is the last, about each age wanting the tale told, but also the part that precedes that, about the voice of the narrator and connections becoming tenuous. To start with Afghanistan is, as Barker would have it, appropriately arbitrary. The starting point we choose in telling any story certainly defines its context. One might point out, of course, that by the time we got to Afghanistan, the story was already its own. After all, one could say that the tenor of Soviet Communism was ... (A) ... reactionary to capitalist hostility toward labor movements. (B) ... reactionary to its cold and disingenuous reception by its eventual opponents. (C) ... reactionary to its own internal strife. It's just that, whatever else we might say about the Cold War, it's hard to call Americans "reactionary" when we led off by invading another nation. It's not quite so absurd as the Iraqi adventure, to be sure, but at no time has the American experience dealt well or honestly with Communism and other leftist ideologies. There are plenty of reasons for this, and fewer of them speak well of Americans than otherwise. Where to start? The insubstantial nature of morality? The difference between a noble idea gone seriously awry and the great American lie? Or maybe just point to the fact that we executed John Brown and the Haymarket Martyrs. Perhaps. But, tracking that part of the conversation back to your amusement, we find that what actually amuses you is your own ignorance. Certainly, my assessment of history deviates from the common myth, but your assessment of me generally deviates from reality. Whatever else may or may not be true, you're tilting windmills and boxing shadows. Context should help your effort to communicate. Which is, to a point, fair. I do notice, though, that the difference between whether positing in terms of Anglo heritage is acceptable or not is whether or not one is perceived as praising that heritage. I make this note because all of those counterpoints about diversity intended to forgive WASP greed and its effects apply here, as well. Where Strauss comes in is that liberal society was apparently attempting to transcend such notions. Indeed. And it is a controversial point to remind that the Nazis excelled at this sort of thing. But there's a point that goes with it: The questions of whether it is possible or advisable, and also of how to build a society around something more cohesive than an exploitative myth remain unanswered. Strauss appears to have looked at a potential evolution of the human social experience and panicked. Perhaps he had good reason for thinking of a world without blind myth as a dead end. Well enough. For the record, though, you need not say something explicitly in order to say it. For instance: (1) I have more faith in the people than you do. (2) I have more faith in the people than you think is reasonably possible. (3) To put it another way, the vast majority of the people are fat and happy. (4) On that point, you think of how Jimmy Carter, in a speech, made a point. (5) He called them rich, which drew a rather loud snicker. (6) Carter is right, of course; he explained it to them. Unless "fat and happy" is synonymous for "admirably functional and well-informed"—which it usually isn't—you certainly wrote the factory workers into a doltish role. From a narrative perspective, this serves a couple of purposes at least. Unfortunately, on this occasion, those purposes aren't exactly what we would call noble. I mean, you did go on to reiterate their stupidity; apparently, it is impossible that some of those snickers could have been a nod to irony. After all, when you pay attention to labor struggles around the world, a weird thing happens when you get to the United States: "Hmm ... Asia, sweatshops? Ban them! Central America, wages? Raise them!. Africa, worker safety? Improve them! United States: vacation time, retirement, and health care? Fuck the workers!" Even leftists are aware of the difficulty proposed by an American labor action. 'Tis true we have it damn good in this country, but when has where we've come to ever been an excuse to not go farther? Strangely, it mostly has to do with putting effort into treating people well. This is, of course, a larger discussion than the present topic, but I'll bet you more than a few factory workers are capable of having it. Your point? If you say so. The Revolution will come with or without us, unless we openly oppose it. But, yeah, it will be a while. We haven't yet caught up to the Luddites. Well, shit, Counte. I really don't know where to start with that. Freakin' Boy Scouts, for heaven's sake. I don't think their motto has changed recently. The thing that gets me, though, is that "personal accountability" was part of the whole anti-Communist pitch. Planning for the unexpected, preparing for the future, being ready for anything. And the people at the top pushing such ideas apparently weren't paying any attention to what they were saying. I mean, yeah, I sympathize with some of the people responsible. On other days, we might argue over Clinton's base closures versus Poppy's bad budget of 1990, but when we stop to think about it, there was a tremendous row in the 1990s that pitted fiscal responsibility against future needs, but none of those future needs were realistically expressed. Somehow, in the middle of all of that, the one part of the future we didn't look at was the one that came true. Now, just from a superstitious point of view to start with, doesn't that appearance get old after a while? It's the kind of thing that could make people—or a people, at that—paranoid. Are we calling a generation twenty or forty years? The Cold War ran about seventy years. It's kind of like three-card monte, at that. We certainly made it easier by being as gullible as hell. And why would it be good to be gullible? Because it allows the conflict to continue. It's part of the art of storytelling. On the one hand, the audience needs something tactile. To the other, how many pages do you really want Heinlen to spend explaining how India, China, and Brazil come to rule humanity in the distant future? The arms race was part of that rush. The Soviet system was failing long before it finally busted outright. I don't inherently protest that way of looking at it, although it's a superficial outlook. What, out of sight, out of mind? As long as they keep it to themselves and away from our airlines? Well, warmaking is a job with a high turnover rate. Nonetheless, the connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is al Zawahiri himself. Your underlying suggestion on this point seems either naîve or an attempt to change the subject. Yeah. I ... guess so. One could, indeed, argue as such. Yeah, but could Al Qaeda have propped up the Taliban alone? Not really. Yes. Apparently this is because our American cultural heritage requires it be so. Okay, look, I don't think you can ever defeat such spirits among humanity, but we failed so badly to secure our war theaters in the Bush Adventures that it looks deliberate. One of the reasons Al Qaeda is so effective in Afghanistan is because we've been too busy in Iraq. Will you say the same if you're around when the American system goes bust? Don't get me wrong, at some point it will be worth suggesting the idea that all the borrowed money is just a fiction, and that way everyone can borrow ridiculous sums and never actually pay it all back. But we're on a track to failure, and we'll do a hell of a lot more damage before we're done. Which only really goes to say that it's not a stretch to agree with you: "It's the process on the way to the inevitable that worries me." If you want to insert religion as a basis, we might be able to do so in identifying its influence over the reaction to other bases. The basis of political complaint in Iran, for instance, is much the same as it is in other places. Marx would have called it class struggle. Americans often call it envy. In our more noble moments, we call it, "Working for a better life". The needs, the obstacles to those needs, and how one reacts and responds to those factors are the basis of complaint. It's worth noting, though, that if we want them to set aside a certain perversion much as the Christians did, we're going to have to find a way to convince them that it's okay to acknowledge—tacitly, at least—that money is more important than God. A fine book. Are you able to sympathize with any of it? Maybe. Maybe they would have come through by a hairsbreadth. Maybe they would have failed miserably all the same. Maybe they would have failed sooner. But we don't know because a bunch of angry rich Americans were frightened senseless by an idea that can be found in their godforsaken Bibles. It's a sad irony. Yeah, and numbnuts who cling to anti-identifications would amuse the hell out of me, if only they weren't so goddamn dangerous to their fellow human beings. Seriously, Counte, if you tried looking at Communism and Marxism in its historical—as opposed to its mythical—context, you'd find a completely different tale. For instance, one of the things about American Marxists that I find annoying is that so many of them are still responding to Cold War-era distortions. And being that my awareness of Marxism came about in the first place amid that steaming pile of jingoistic horseshit, I am sympathetic to their errors. Nonetheless, it has to stop. They're kind of like Anarchists whose source material was a Sex Pistols song. Nothing about where we are today would likely surprise Marx. He would probably get a good laugh out of how far we've taken it. The history of results is still a history. You provide an example: As if it has only brought them happiness and love and peace. Right. It's a tempting offer. I don't blame people for taking it. Because the difference you're referring to is predetermined by a juxtaposition of myths. There's nothing objective about the comparison you suggest. Assessing history depends on what we choose to measure. If we make the range of measurement narrow enough, we can get any result we want. Among our international neighbors, the people you're attempting to exploit with that argument are those who believe in a concept. Quite clearly, we're not delivering on that concept. They're hopeful because we've given them the best shot, but they're also aware that their gains were convenient to us, and that we're also one of the biggest obstacles facing the future of that concept. That's the best you could do? Indeed, Americans do strive for different values. But I figured life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, justice, compassion, prosperity ... you know, the values that we pitch to the world, have written into our foundations, and appealed to among our own people. The things we teach and preach from the cradle to the grave. They should be more than just lip service. Consider the point from which this springs: Counte: I think the problem arises from the fact that ideologues like yourself tend to view one side as somehow "better" than the other, in terms of motivation, execution and results. Tiassa: There is a side to be on that aims toward all the good things we claim to aspire to. Oh, quit complaining. If you hadn't such a track record of absolutely missing the point in order to press your attack, I wouldn't bother with such disclaimers. You're just reiterating that you're never satisfied, that all you want is strife. Depends on the beholder, don't you think? If we focus on certain, occasional explicit phrases, the answer is clear that you would side with those who are disgusted by LBJ's treatment of Tonkin. If, however, we consider the answer in the broader terms of your general philosophy and tendencies toward paranoia and hostility, it becomes arguable at least that you would side with the people who thought LBJ's treatment of Tonkin a really good idea. If you were more reliable, it would be an easy call: go with the explicit and figure out the conflict as the elements present themselves. But you're not reliable. It is more consistent with your prior behavior to view the occasional explicit declarations as either outright bullshit or else symptomatic of some other distortion. As such, you might try giving an honest answer once in a while.
I dont know if you're a mod or not Tiassa, but do you have any idea how obnoxious a post like that is? I never saw the point of parsing someones post line by line like that (especially when you just make sarcastic comments like you did e.g. 'yeah. right.')
It is pretty obnoxious, isn't it? It took me several seconds just to scroll past it. Tissa, I'm glad you have no life and therefore nothing to do but write ridiculously long posts that nobody reads. Oh, yes. That's right. I didn't read it. And won't be, either. You are, to pick a common metaphor, the tree that falls in the woods that nobody hears. Only you fall over and over again... The last line of your fruitless opus, which I can see above Dub's name, is enough for me to realize I made the right choice in ignoring it, because you did little more than post another entry in your bulky catalog of prosaic worthlessness. I'm being dishonest again because I don't agree with you, right? Oh, God, how many times have I heard this tired crap, trumped up as an argument? Dozens? Just skip to the part on the record where you start calling me names and pitching a fit about moderators so we can move on from this thread, OK?
You could just copy and paste that as your response to almost everything you respond to. Especially the responses that reveal, either explicitly or by inference, that you haven't read the motivating post carefully if at all. Tiassa is willing to go through your shit in detail. That's a fine courtesy, actually - the behavior of a gentleman. But gratitude is not your style. It is long, and your abilities limited even when honestly employed, but this at least you should not miss:
I said I didn't read it. The post was ridiculous in length, and it's final remark, which I did read, is the typical retort we get from your chum (and isn't cute, you taking up for him and all). Nobody else is being honest, nobody else is understanding things correctly, etc. It all boils down to a smug lecture from someone completely incapable of recognizing the possibility of differing opinions. Why deal with it? I have better things to do...
Lots of people are. Just not you. I doubt that. Certainly making more posts of the kind you've been making is not one of them. Your posts have wasted far more of my time, and that of many others, than anything Tiassa has posted, even though I have read some of it. And I do believe you are unaware of why and how. So opportunity knocks - - -
Well, if you're looking for dishonesty — or at least chicanery, which is close to the same thing in my book — hunt down a mirror and peer at your curious reflection. The amount of parsing and rhetorical game-playing you engage in, the amount of arguing for arguing's sake and denying words you've actually written, is legendary, per my perspective. Incapable of humility, unwilling to concede much of anything, you spend most of your time here writing obtuse posts that you mistakeningly believe prove your intellectual superiority. That you should, rhetorically speaking, chum around with Tiassa shouldn't surprise anyone that knows the pair of you. Like minds and all... I would say I am sorry I wasted your time, but you've spent so much of it crafting your opaque brand of literature in response that I can only assume you actually enjoy doing so — or don't value your time at all. Plus, I don't do gratitude, right?
Second-rate, guys. You can do better. Oh, right. I can imagine it would be to some people. There are plenty of reasons. Would you actually like to go through them? • • • No, you're dishonest because the bulk of your argumentation relies entirely on your own distortions of what people say. What they say is inconvenient to your argument, so you just rewrite their points into something more accommodating toward your unceasing contempt. For instance, I can repeat to you over and over again that you're dishonest because you argue dishonestly, and point to the fact that there are plenty of people around here I can disagree with and not expect it to turn into one of their life's obsessions. You provide a great example: If you don't like it, you should stop serving it. I would explain the irony of that point to you, except you'd just complain that I was wasting words.
This is particularly amusing, in that it comes from a member who creates bloviations that run for pages and take dozens of minutes to read. Seriously, little man: Who has too much time on their hands?
Until you have proven, by doing it, that you can paraphrase or describe accurately anything I have written, your perspective on what I have "denied" etc isn't worth much. Unlike Tiassa, and against my first impressions of your characteristic approach, I don't think you are deliberately dishonest. I think you can't tell the difference. You honestly believe, for example, that I am denying my own words when I deny your BS representations. But it is a shame you don't take the time to read Tiassa's detailed commentary. I doubt anyone else on the planet will do you the favor of slogging through your convolutions and dissemblages as usefully to you. On topic: McCain is not looking too good, in what should be a moment of advantage for him. He seems to have been too old to take coaching - something else he shares with Hillary, to a degree. Barack, on the other hand - - - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_practices_looking_off_into
