That is the point: without US support, Ukraine, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi government, Israel, etc., wouldn’t have lasted too long. US support is crucial. Okay, then we ask: so what? Given this fact, the further question is: Why Korea and Ukraine and Israel or Nicaragua, but not Sudan or East Timor or Nigeria or Haiti?
— Mikie

So what?
What do you have against K-Pop? Of having South Korean electronic gadgets and cars? Of them being wealthy and not on the verge of famine? — ssu

Is this a joke or are you really just incapable of understanding the fairly simple idea?

Nothing wrong with supporting people against aggression. The question is: why these people and not others? — Mikie

We gave assurances to Ukraine when they gave up their nukes. Weakening Russia is in our strategic interest. We have close ties to Europe. We feel for the little guy putting up a heroic defense against the evil aggressor.

None of that applies to Haiti, for example. Plus, America is still pretty racist. There's no broad support for intervening in African affairs.

strategic interest — RogueAI

Exactly.

And they have here the agency. We are just giving them support. What's so wrong with that. — ssu

We've discussed this probably dozens of times.

The moral issue is giving support based on false assurances and propaganda.

The analogy would be "informed consent" for a risky medical procedure. If the doctor lies about the risk and the benefits, then it's not informed consent and completely immoral.

There's not only the direct lies such as "as long as it takes" and "whatever it takes" and so on, but the CIA crafted a propaganda campaign both with Ukrainian intelligence and media as well as Western media and other governments. The main goal of the propaganda campaign was to make everyone believe the Russians were weak and could be not only defeated but easily so, based on completely made up missions, anecdotes and numbers.

Now all sorts of Western officials are saying that was an "oopsie" and we underestimated the Russians. Again just more lies, it was an obvious truth that the Ukrainians were completely outmatched militarily by the Russians.

Then there's all the manipulations that led up to the war, and the fact that Ukraine is extremely corrupt (meaning people with power do bad things against the interests of the population) and that just sending billions of dollars to Ukraine structured in the form of a slush fund (US officials literally stated they have no way of accounting for the money or the arms once they enter Ukraine) is a de facto bribe to the Ukrainian elite to continue the war as long as the spice flows.

All this and more (such as getting rid of opposition parties and media) is called manipulation.

Now that the war turns out to be a total disaster for Ukraine and not a rational plan, hiding behind "Ukrainian agency" to justify Western policy (we are still responsible for what we do, and the extreme costs of Ukraine for likely failure is written right in the RAND corporation report on "unbalancing Russia"; which, notably, does not mean defeating Russian in any meaningful way) is equally morally vacuous.

They can call it quits and there's nothing that the West can do about it, if that happens. The fact is that Russia simply isn't just going to cede back all the territory if Ukraine will be neutral. — ssu

We can actually do plenty to pressure Ukraine into continuing the war, such as continuing with the above policies.

Weakening Russia is in our strategic interest. — RogueAI

I'd say a Ukraine that's not Russia is in most but the Kremlin's interest, including, if not especially, Ukraine's. Been covered already.

but the CIA crafted a propaganda campaign both with Ukrainian intelligence and media as well as Western media and other governments. — boethius

Tell us more. Say, do you have some (good/solid) examples?

Is this a joke or are you really just incapable of understanding the fairly simple idea? — Mikie

All those interventions, including the theoretical ones aren't fairly simple.

All are quite unique. And so are the "interventions". Giving just weapons to a country fighting a war or invading it are two totally different things with different consequences. Secondly, it's not a world where first the US acts and then everybody else responds. The US is just one player among others, even if it is a big player. And other countries do have agency. Also the domestic groups inside a country have agency. This all is simply ignored with an American narrative, either "the US fighting the Cold War against Soviet Union", "the US fighting the Global War on Terror" or the favorite Chomskyite "US being a bully to everybody else".

With all the above narratives the world looks simple and the US central. Not so if you start from the viewpoint from others.

Is this a joke or are you really just incapable of understanding the fairly simple idea?
— Mikie
All those interventions, including the theoretical ones aren't fairly simple. — ssu

That’s not the idea I’m referring to.

Secondly, it's not a world where first the US acts and then everybody else responds. The US is just one player among others, even if it is a big player. — ssu

You really have no idea how the world works, in that case.

Yeah, it’s nice to pretend to have special knowledge about international affairs, that everybody is being too “simplistic” and you alone see the true complexity — but leaving stupid bullshit aside for a moment: the United States is by far the world’s superpower and has been for decades, beginning only now to be rivaled by China. Their influence militarily, economically, and politically (in the UN and otherwise) is enormous. Any scholar worth a damn will know this.

So yes, the US is one player, and a major one, shaping world affairs. That’s not being “US-centric,” it’s being realistic. Moreover, nearly any country in the world — including Russia and China — know this to be true, and their leaders have said so.

Is the US a “bully”? If this fails under “a narrative” in your mind, then you can be easily ignored.

You really have no idea how the world works, in that case. — Mikie

Then educate me. :confused:

but leaving stupid bullshit aside for a moment: the United States is by far the world’s superpower and has been for decades, beginning only now to be rivaled by China. — Mikie

So?

Hence when it's only Superpower and so superior in everything, why was it then defeated by the Taleban, the same Taleban George Bush vowed to do away with?

If it's so powerful, why does it feel that Israel is calling the shots and the US simply follows?

So yes, the US is one player, and a major one, shaping world affairs. — Mikie

And that's simply my point. US one actor, the largest, and Russia is another, China another and the local countries are also. If you don't take this account, then it might seem to you quite arbitrary just why someplace the US prevails and somewhere it doesn't.

Is the US a “bully”? If this fails under “a narrative” in your mind, then you can be easily ignored. — Mikie

No, it's not in my mind. If you do read my posts.

I think the US had done a lot of good and it has gained it's position with very skillful foreign policy, especially in Europe. Sometimes it hasn't been so good. Yet many indeed think it's very bad, like Noam Chomsky.But that's what he think he ought to do. And that the case with many want to be critical about the US. I think here below Chomsky tells it quite clearly why this criticism against the US.



And btw I don't agree with this: you don't have to be a dissident, you can support your country when it does something good.

If it's so powerful, why does it feel that Israel is calling the shots and the US simply follows? — ssu

You know very well why that is: the Israeli lobby and Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East.

Who is saying that the US is “all powerful”? Why must every statement be caricatured?

And that's simply my point. US one actor, the largest, and Russia is another, China another and the local countries are also. — ssu

They’re of differing power and influence. So “ one actor” is true, but not “Just” one actor.

Yet many indeed think it's very bad, like Noam Chomsky. — ssu

Often very bad, yes.

you don't have to be a dissident, you can support your country when it does something good. — ssu

Do you really think being a dissent means never supporting something your country does that’s good?

What is going on with you? What’s with these odd strawmen?

What I find baffling is how certain people cling on the charicatural idea that
- the US is the world’s superpower and that is a major player in shaping world affairs, yet at the same time they keep reminding all foreign failures: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine, etc.
- the US is the evil mastermind conspiring against states and people around the world through lies and bribes (which everybody non-brainwashed is aware of), and yet systematically failing to achieve strategic goals other than the self-defeating ones by wasting resources and reputation in failed (proxy) wars
- the US is driven by hypocritical and greedy people supported by a gullible majority (still?), lacking basic humanity principles, and which the entire world has to condemn (especially if Westerner) and to hold as the number one responsible for everything wrong there is in this world (including climate change)

I think here below Chomsky tells it quite clearly why this criticism against the US. — ssu

I find it rather perplexing:
1. He claims that credit is given to those who criticize their own government's foreign policies not other people's government foreign policies: so how about Palestinians criticizing Israel? Ukrainians criticizing Russia? The Rest's grievances against the West?
2. He claims at min 1:13 "to an extent I can do something about it especially in a pretty free country like this one now we understand" so despite all duping propaganda, no matter how massive, CIA conspiring, hypocritical, etc. but without considering any links between freedom and power. If authoritarian countries are insulated from internal criticism, people can't do much to change it so it will remain authoritarian. So an overwhelming foreign power is needed to contain hegemonic authoritarian regimes. While free countries are NOT insulated from internal criticism, so people can do something to change it which also includes the possibility of turning the free regime into an authoritarian regime. Besides, the free world can be infiltrated and intoxicated by foreign propaganda of authoritarian regimes to weaken the overwhelming foreign power that contains them .

I find it rather perplexing: — neomac

It is perplexing. Yet the name of the first political book of the linguist, The Responsibility of Intellectuals, tells it all. Chomsky and others see as their role to criticize the US while to critique other countries "isn't their role". Yet when you just criticize one actor and be totally silent on everything else, people can draw conclusions.

If authoritarian countries are insulated from internal criticism, people can't do much to change it so it will remain authoritarian. — neomac

Or simple be ignorant of how authoritarian they are.

Besides, the free world can be infiltrated and intoxicated by foreign propaganda of authoritarian regimes to weaken the overwhelming foreign power that contains them . — neomac

The smartest propaganda doesn't outright lie. It just picks part of the story and forgets the part that would talk against the agenda at.

And people want simple straightforward stories. Not a story like "Country does a bad stuff X, yet it has done good things like Y and supported very good proposals Z". You have to be for or against!!!

Chomsky and others see as their role to criticize the US while to critique other countries "isn't their role". — ssu

Nope. Not what was said.

It’s very simple: criticize countries all you like. Iran citizens can criticize Israel, etc. But that’s not what we admire dissents for— we admire them for speaking truth to power in their own country, where they can have an impact. Did you even watch the video?

That such a simple point is confusing just shows how clouded one’s judgement must be with projection. At least try hearing what’s being said first and THEN find a way to distort it.

totally silent on everything else — ssu

:lol:

Yeah, that definitely describes Noam Chomsky. Totally silent about “everything else” for the last 70 years. A world renowned genius like you — some internet dude — is surely the man for the job of setting him straight.

But yes, keep portraying yourself as the one person who truly “gets it” about international relations in its true complexity.

You have to be for or against!!! — ssu

What a stupid way of characterizing things. It’s like being in middle school. Embarrassing.

Right, simple minded people admire dissidents for speaking truth against power in their own country where they have an impact, that's why rival powers support dissidents in other countries not in theirs.

Noam Chomsky, a leading American intellectual highly critical of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, meets Hezbollah mentor Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah in Beirut, in 2010 (credit: REUTERS)

Criticizing one's own society is all cool, and important, except when it tends to tunnel vision (or Kremlin-blindness, apropos).
Fault-finding in this area (politics social people history whatever) is easy, hence picking the right battles is also important.

^{(I thought this stuff was fairly trivial, but maybe not?)}

Nope. Not what was said. — Mikie

That's exactly what he says.

Listen carefully, at (1:00):

"I'm here, I have a shared responsibility what the US government does...and to an extent, I can do something about it".

And later, when talking about Iranian dissidents (at 1:30):

"Nobody asks them, is there something good about Iranian foreign policy, it's not their job to say what is good in Iranian foreign policy["

And later states that if Iranian dissidents say something about Israel, we don't "respect them for that", but for being Iranian dissidents. So it's obvious that the "role" is to criticize your own country for Chomsky.

That's exactly my point here. And actually, since I am not more informed than others (as you portray me to think of myself here), for example @jorndoe says eloquently the obvious outcome that this can lead:

Criticizing one's own society is all cool, and important, except when it tends to tunnel vision (or Kremlin-blindness, apropos). — jorndoe

While checking

Undersea ‘hybrid warfare’ threatens security of 1bn, Nato commander warns
^{— Miranda Bryant · The Guardian · Apr 16, 2024}

an old report came to mind

Russia targets Netherlands' North Sea infrastructure, says Dutch intelligence agency
^{— Anthony Deutsch, Bart Meijer, Hugh Lawson, Susan Fenton · Reuters · Feb 20, 2023} — Feb 20, 2023

A Russian ship has been detected at an offshore wind farm in the North Sea as it tried to map out energy infrastructure, MIVD head General Jan Swillens said at a news conference. — Jan Swillens

Is a defense posture warranted?

What a stupid way of characterizing things. It’s like being in middle school. Embarrassing. — Mikie

Well, just look at the discussion of some here in PF about a) The Isreali Palestinians conflict or heck, even about the US Elections / Trump / Biden.

How many come out and say Trump did something good and bad. People would be confused on which side you are on. That's important for Americans.

Right, simple minded people admire dissidents for speaking truth against power in their own country where they have an impact, that's why rival powers support dissidents in other countries not in theirs. — neomac

Indeed.

At least academic professors in the West can act like "dissidents" because they have a tenure and there is an Overton window for free speech.

Unfortunately for media people, there isn't that free lunch. And for some of them, if the doors have been closed in their own country, have no other place than to get the support from rival countries.

Chomsky and others see as their role to criticize the US while to critique other countries "isn't their role".
— ssu

Nope. Not what was said. — Mikie

That's exactly what he says. — ssu

No, it isn’t:

It’s very simple: criticize countries all you like. Iran citizens can criticize Israel, etc. But that’s not what we admire dissents for— we admire them for speaking truth to power in their own country, where they can have an impact. — Mikie

Dissidents, almost by definition, criticize their country’s actions. We praise others for it, but they’re not treated well in their countries. Chomsky often uses the prophets or Socrates as examples.

Critiquing other countries is something Chomsky often does. There’s plenty to criticize all over. He’s been a fairly staunch critic of Israel, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. Despite your bogus suggestion, he’s done so for decades.

When speaking specifically about dissidents — those critical of their own countries — it’s kind of silly to ask “is there anything good about the US foreign policy?” The response, “All the countries we haven’t invaded — I like that,” and his explanation of why it’s silly is pretty obvious. In that context, it’s “not the job” of a dissident to discuss things he likes is clear.

“Their task is to condemn the crimes of their state.” (Referring to Iranian dissidents.)

You somehow get out of this that Chomsky “sees his role” as not criticizing other countries, which in fact he’s done for decades. The emphasis should be, however, on where you have the most impact. “The reason I’m particularly interested in the US [apart from being a superpower] is because I’m here.” Which is exactly right.

So this:

Yet when you just criticize one actor and be totally silent on everything else — ssu

is complete bullshit. Another ridiculous misrepresentation.

Worry less about critics and more about the “tunnel vision” of brain-dead jingoists.

When speaking specifically about dissidents — those critical of their own countries — it’s kind of silly to ask “is there anything good about the US foreign policy?” The response, “All the countries we haven’t invaded — I like that,” and his explanation of why it’s silly is pretty obvious. In that context, it’s “not the job” of a dissident to discuss things he likes is clear. — Mikie

If that's the task of a dissident, then he can still be very misleading (because a balanced view should consider pros and cons of one country's policies and regime among existing alternatives) and exploitable by hostile and authoritarian foreign powers. But I guess it's not the job of a dissident to warn you about it, right?

and the fact that Ukraine is extremely corrupt (meaning people with power do bad things against the interests of the population) — boethius

Evidently, shedding the shackles of the dominating neighbor is no small task; they're trying though, and have shown willingness to reform in the middle of bombs exploding. The Kremlin wouldn't afford them much chance; some others apparently hardly would either.

is complete bullshit. Another ridiculous misrepresentation. — Mikie

Chomsky aside, this sort of thing sure is represented around here. :D

There were some rumors on the street that Russia is accruing much debt to China. Details are scarce, though. Anyone?

Drones + missiles one way, planes + missiles the other:

Exclusive: Iran sends Russia hundreds of ballistic missiles
^{— Parisa Hafezi, John Irish, Tom Balmforth, Jonathan Landay, Steve Holland, Phil Stewart, Daniel Flynn · Reuters · Feb 21, 2024}
Russia Uses Iranian Drones In Intense Air Campaign Against Ukraine
^{— Iran International · Mar 30, 2024}

Russian weapons help Iran harden defenses against Israeli airstrike
^{— Joby Warrick · The Washington Post · Apr 15, 2024}
Russia's arms pact with Iran: Moscow pledges fighter jets and air defenses to Tehran including advanced missiles capable of shooting down US and Israeli stealth planes
^{— Will Potter · Daily Mail Online · Apr 16, 2024}

And some weapons "rerouted":

U.S. Government Transfers Captured [Iranian] Weapons [to Ukraine]
^{— U.S. Central Command · Apr 9, 2024}

So, anyway, the war seems to roughly have drawn up ...
▸ Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Iran, China
—versus—
▸ Ukraine, Europe, North America, South Korea, Australasia, Japan
... or something along those lines. So far at least. Much like certain someones' idea of a bipolar :smile: world. Whatever happens, might then see future changes accordingly. As of typing, North Korea seems a bit like a loose cannon or wildcard. Could they trigger something?

Chomsky aside, this sort of thing sure is represented around here. :D — jorndoe

Yeah, maybe. But not by me, and certainly not by Chomsky (of which there’s 70 years of printed evidence).

Republicans denounce Russian propaganda within their own party:
https://www.aol.com/news/luxury-yachts-other-myths-republican-090000423.html

Republicans denounce Russia propaganda within their own party:
https://www.aol.com/news/luxury-yachts-other-myths-republican-090000423.html — neomac

Yeah. Though I think it's been known for some time. (*cough* this thread has examples)

Then again, there's an elected official that believes planet Earth, and the universe, is a few thousand years old, incidentally a colleague of Vance mentioned in the article. Real life beats dramatized comedy.

Was just going over some analyses of seemingly influential dis/mal/misinformation campaigns, maybe I'll post something later. Will likely remain applicable for the foreseeable future. — Mar 8, 2024

↑ Tedious. Linvill, Warren and team has done some, as mentioned in the article.

Critiquing other countries is something Chomsky often does. There’s plenty to criticize all over. He’s been a fairly staunch critic of Israel, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. Despite your bogus suggestion, he’s done so for decades. — Mikie

I admit he's been a critique of Israel. But he mainly focuses on US actions because of the reasons he has given. That's simply a fact.

He says it all there in the video, so no reason you denying what the facts. And anyway, this is quite fruitless when you deny what Chomsky is literally saying in the video. Moving on...

So, anyway, the war seems to roughly have drawn up ...
▸ Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Iran, China
—versus—
▸ Ukraine, Europe, North America, South Korea, Australasia, Japan
... or something along those lines. So far at least. Much like certain someones' idea of a bipolar :smile: world. — jorndoe

Don't forget the unlikely battlefield of the Sudanese civil war:

He’s been a fairly staunch critic of Israel, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. Despite your bogus suggestion, he’s done so for decades.
— Mikie

I admit he's been a critique of Israel. But he mainly focuses on US actions because of the reasons he has given. — ssu

He’s been a staunch critic of Israel…and Brazil (especially under Bolsonaro but even beforehand with the treatment of Lula— in fact visited Lula while in prison), Indonesia (the Suharto regime, etc), the Philippines, China (“hardly saintly by any means”), the USSR (“a dungeon”)/ Russia, Germany, the UK, Canada (especially the policies regarding tar sands), and so on.

Yes, his particular interest is on the US, because not only is it a superpower, it’s also here he lives. That’s very different from “the only job is criticizing the US and never criticizing other countries,” or any such nonsense even implying that.

W93 ← well, I saw this response coming, however unfortunate the circumstances :/