If I could just chime in here with regards to the upcoming election and the choice for the civil libertarian, I see the three candidates as equally bad on that front. McCain will probably continue to shred the constitution to protect you from the outsiders who wish to harm you. Clinton or Obama would just as likely continue to run the shredder, only to keep you from harming yourself. The way I see it, either way I'm getting screwed. Both parties are wildly successful at perpetuating the culture of fear that allows them to do whatever they want under the guise of protecting you from the boogeyman that lurks around every corner. How many days do we have left until Skynet becomes self-aware?
In Diebold, we trust! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Never underestimate the willingness of the people in power. Kerry was supposed to easily defeat W and look what we got....
Well, ya.... that's always a possibility. One that I'd rather not consider at the moment though. :shrug:
McCain is not that bad, he an improvement over bush (half-dead cat is also an improvement over bush) I'm ready for his inevitable victory. Obama will never make it, it has been proven that you can attack him without being shamed as a racists, and you can even vote against him with racist intentions and get away with it.
Yes, I am. But I don't think Reagan is "half an emperor" of anything I understand the Neo Cons to embody, whereas it seems that you prefer to see conservatives all being cut from the same cloth. There is some truth in that, but the same argument works for socialists and Marxists and other Leftists, and this shows that the argument doesn't really tell us much, seeing that degree and nuance are everything in something as complex as this. There was a time, for example, when presidents who were labeled conservatives, men like Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, were avowed conservationists and environmentalists. Squaring their beliefs with today's conservatives is difficult, and being such, shows how empty the whole cloth-cutting argument, which essentially boils down to guilt by intellectual association, really is. You apparently fail to see that implementation of certain ideas based on a certain ideology doesn't necessarily reveal the persuasiveness of that ideology in an administration. Again, I don't think Reagan was a Neo Con, and the fact he might have implemented some Neo Con-ish ideas doesn't bother me at all. Given that Neo-conservatism is a philosophy of sorts, I'm sure one can find times when numerous presidents implemented programs that could be viewed as Neo-Con. Perhaps a famous example would be Bill Clinton embracing the idea of regime change in Iraq? Of making that the US government's official policy? Regardless, I'm not saying the Neo Cons didn't influence Reagan. I'm saying they seem not to have influenced him all that much. And one could argue that when they did, it's possible the president agreed with them because it was the right thing to do or he thought it was the right thing to do. No ideology is wrong about everything. Most have something that is useful. As for some overarching plan to "get a president," to be in a position where their views were being expressed by a so-called "whole emperor," well I don't doubt they wanted that above all things. All ideologues do, else why would they be in politics in the first place? So does it matter, per your thinking, that this "myth" was embraced by people with ideologies diametrically opposed to the Neo Cons? Your continued attempts to soft-pitch the USSR, the only power capable of wiping the US off the map, the major power exporting violent revolution around the world at that time, the power that had a million men in Europe, that brutally crushed several internal rebellions and had a leader stand in an international forum, remove his shoe and pound the table while he screamed about burying his enemies -- frankly, it amuses me... I'm well acquainted with Cromwell, but the author doesn't stop there. He merely starts. Reagan, Pitt the Younger, James, Charles II, Lloyd George and a host of other British and American pols are trotted out and shown to use the sort of language I mentioned. According to Mead, who wrote the book, it simply is the Anglo-American thing to do. It's a part of our national and cultural heritage. And I suspect other nations have something similar. People tend not to do "evil" things... Being a Marxist, you have much more faith in the "people" than I do, much more certainty (or perhaps hope) than I think is reasonably possible. Or to put it another way, the vast majority of Americans are still very fat and very happy. Here I think of how Jimmy Carter, in a speech I heard last year, talked about the country not even being able to grasp the concept of its own wealth. He was speaking to a group of factory workers, and he called them "rich people," which drew a rather loud snicker. In global terms, Carter is right, of course. And that's what he explained to them. Laundry machines and cable TV don't exist in the 3rd world. Elsewhere, I recall the Village Voice piece I recently read in which a liberal denounced his liberalism for no other reason but for the fact that he was TIRED of hearing how bad things in America are when everywhere he looked in his life and the lives of his immediate circle things seems more than just OK... Another thread, another topic. But human rights would probably be the biggest. The Cold War didn't get around to caring about them until the Helsinki Accords, and even then, it did so somewhat half-heartily... I don't think so. Non-state actors had very little room to maneuver in the Cold War. All the major literature about foreign affairs today is talking about how powerful they have become since the end of that war and the decline on the US's uni-polarity. In other words, the moment is ripe for terrorism, and the fact there seems to be a swell shouldn't surprise anyone. Here, too, it is important to consider that terrorism is, ironically, one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalization, in that without the speed and anonymity of communication, mosques in Finsbury Park couldn't raise money for guns in Chechnya. Cause de jours couldn't be disseminated through cheap DVDs, heads couldn't be lopped off on the Internet and people couldn't purchase US army manuals on how to make explosives. And while it may be possible that the Media is making too much of the threat, I think it's equally responsible to say that it's never been a better time to be a terrorist. Previous eras, terrorists needed sponsors and sanctuary, neither of which is essential now. A credit card, a cell phone and a computer can hatch a plot nowadays... And without the US pushing the Soviets, without the US showing up in every nation and making the Soviets SPEND for the active measures and the revolution, how many MORE years would this doomed empire have stood? This, I think, is important to consider... Some believed that, some didn't. Again, you should read Robert Gates' book to get the gamut of opinions from the relevant people. It is worth noting, however, that nobody thought the USSR on the verge of collapse. And that includes its allies. Also, as I have already noted, overtly the USSR was as strong in 1985 or 1986 on a number of measurable fronts as it ever had been. It was exporting revolution and weapons, building up its armies and violating arms treaties left and right. 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. This is made worse by the fact you ascribe little or no positives to the team you don't support, going so far as to cast the other as evil spawn sprung from the loins of Satan. It's difficult to take such attitudes seriously, especially when there is so much "sin" to spread around. So LBJ lying about or distorting the Gulf of Tonkin based on his flawed and manipulated intelligence incident is different than Bush lying or distorting the reasons for war with Iraq based on his flawed and manipulated intelligence how exactly? Nuance and context? I get it. The problem is that when it comes to history and politics, these are not so easy to agree on as the examples you cite...
Just because the party has lost popularity doesn't mean it is dead. There was only one Democratic president between 1860 and 1913 (Grover Cleveland) but the party didn't die. If the situation gets really serious then the Republican Party will adapt to the public.
Only if you misuse "conservative". Properly used to describe, say, Bill Clinton, you have no such problems. Your own propaganda has confused your vocabulary, and rendered you unable to communicate or analyse in words. Orwell predicted that. But widespread and multiple implementations, with justification by reference to the concepts and approaches of such ideology, does. They aren't happy. And their wealth has been in decline for thirty years now. That's hard on morale. Is it wrong, somehow, to view the ideology and actions of Reagan through W&Co as "worse", by reasonable standards, than any of several others, in terms of motivation, execution, and results ? What is the worth of an approach to analysis that can't label this criminal clusterfuck as a scene of poor motivation, execution, and results ? Scale and flagrancy. Also motive and competence, IMHO.
I'm not having this discussion with you again. It's a waste of time. You keep tending your secret flame, where ideology, and the terms that describe it, never move. I'll play in the real world, OK? Probably. But it's too bad that didn't happen in the Reagan era, so I fail to see what your point is... You can paint whatever grim picture you like, but Americans by and large are happy, in some manner of speaking. Oh sure, they can be whipped into a frenzy and complain in polls and such. The price of gas certainly irritates, but by and large, they lead comfortable lives, full of "stuff." One has to only look at their standard of living and the amount of crap and gadgets they have to see that they are well distracted, and therefore, not ripe for Tiassa's rebellion anytime soon. Sorry, Ice... You can view them however you like. All I am asserting is that I do not think there is an overarching pattern between the two that traces back to a shared ideology. You're right. Vietnam was a bigger disaster than Iraq and it was managed with more incompetence...
You were the one having trouble "squaring their beliefs". I'm just pointing out that in the real world, calling frogs "birds" won't give them wings. And so if you are discussing flight characteristics, your new vocabulary is going to cause problems. S&L deregulation, various foreign policy initiatives and schemes like the Contras, ideological loyalists and corporation reps heading federal agencies, the career launchings of Cheney and Rove and so forth, the establishment of the military industrial complex in its modern incarnation via Star Wars, the initial serious forays into SS and welfare "reform", the principle of tax cuts for rich people as the first response to all problems and the rollback of progressive taxation - - - all Reagan needed was a more compliant Congress, and he could have achieved most of what W has managed twenty years earlier. And of course your opinions, unlike the opinions based on observation of continuity in people, practice, and justification, are objective. Understood. We were talking about the enabling lies, not the wars. But you are still being silly. Vietnam just killed more Americans. Other than that it was far more competently managed. Can you imagine what Iraq would have been like with enemy organization equivalent to Ho Chi Minh's ? And the main objective - exemplary punishment of any country that defied the economic powers that wanted to be - was achieved.
(Insert title here) By this analogy, Reagan would be the emperor. That is, the emperor in this case is the executive. The "half an emperor" would be embodied in people close to the president, who have access to certain information, and also the president's ear. Nor was Reagan cut from the same cloth as the neocons. After all, he did not share their acceptance of deficit economics and social safety nets. But he certainly was predisposed toward their myth of the Soviet Union in lieu of something more objective. Interesting, but it's relevance is strongest only through the prism of your outlook. Would you go so far as to say that the fact that Reagan might have implemented policies based on bogus presuppositions doesn't bother you at all? There is a difference between a policy intended to achieve a specific effect and one that serves a different general outlook. Clinton's intent and method, however flawed one might consider it, was intended to effect a positive change in Iraq and stabilize the Middle East. The neocon outlook, however, uses regime change in Iraq as a tool for creating a larger conflict to destabilize the region and create a mythical basis for common identity among the American people. There is a difference between such ideas. After all, Clinton rejected the neocon security outlook as barbaric. The only notes I would add would be that "no prominent ideology is wrong about everything", and also to wonder what that something is useful for. It matters to me because it is a measure of how effective the ruse actually is. Part of the point is to inspire fear and loathing to unite philosophically disparate people under a common myth. While Mutually Assured Destruction, as loathsome as its testimony to human nature might be, seemed sufficient to keep things in check, there is a certain danger inherent in pushing the concept as far as we can. The other major power exporting violence. The United States did its part, too. The United States has brutally crushed an internal rebellion. And, certainly, we've executed people for mere political labels. It's part of our heritage, but we don't pay as much attention to it because that would corrode the prevailing myth. There is an inherent problem with the Straussian outlook on this point. It presumes, on the one hand, that people are incapable of enduring objective considerations without coming apart while, to the other, it presumes the society itself without any objective merit to warrant its cohesion. That the idea that one should find amusement in the notion that the history of one of humanity's greatest tragedy should be examined objectively is the stuff of sadness. So does the comparison elevate Cromwell or discredit Reagan and the others? The Anglo-American thing to do? Part of our national and cultural heritage? I could easily say you're helping make an important point here that reflects why I view history as I do. But I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intent. Just do me a favor, then, and don't ever complain about my liberal elitism. And this is symptomatic of the myths that bind them. You know, our national and cultural heritage? People tend to not do "evil" things? And some of that snicker, to be sure, was sympathetic to his point. Factory workers aren't necessarily stupid. After all, when they're riveting together a plane (e.g. Boeing 777) by hand with 1/1000" tolerance, and one error wrecks an entire panel that costs thousands of dollars, it would be terrible to think the work was being performed by some dolt. Now, maybe I'm spoiled coming from the northwest, where Boeing is so apparent, but stupidity isn't a prerequisite for our meat-packers, either. And people experience the occasional temptation to surrender. Political awareness is wearying. Consciences are often heavy burdens. Consider America's drug habit, prescribed, legal, and illicit. Throw in things like video games as escapism if you're so inclined. It is easier to alter one's perception of reality than to fashion a better reality, and it's not like this is news to you. Fair enough. Whenever you, or we, get around to it, as such. I'm not in any specific hurry, since we've enough to deal with in this particular discussion. One of the reasons the moment is ripe for terrorism is that we did not think ahead. This doesn't speak specifically to the cheap DVDs in the sense that they can be produced, but rather to the idea that in having and then rushing the Cold War, we created a power vacuum that, apparently, escaped the range of necessary considerations. Where the Soviets had influence, for instance, in the Arab world, extremism often filled the gap. And, as the ephemeral triumph of capitalism accentuated the injustice upon which it relies, the terrorist movements took advantage of their opportunity. And, for the most part, they failed. Where has the worldwide jihad actually succeeded? Certainly it has influence and the power to scare the shit out of people, but Pakistan, despite its problems, is holding out. Egypt, despite its problems, is holding out. Algeria was a disaster for the radicals. Curtis suggests that al Zawahiri and bin Laden went to Afghanistan because it was about the only place they had left, and there is some merit to this notion, at least. The media is a curious question, symptomatic as it is, in this case, of our capitalistic nature. I wouldn't say you're necessarily wrong that there's never been a better time to be a terrorist. But the superficial examination you offer is striking, as it seems to avoid a central question. Random terrorism would be something akin to psychopathy. And while you can certainly find me asserting a neurosis about monotheists in general from time to time, we might be able to agree that it would be irresponsible to accuse a general psychopathy about Muslims. One of the things that makes it a fine time to be a terrorist is that, in addition to credit cards, cell phones, and computers, otherwise-legitimate causes are also a dime a dozen. And unlike nearly everything else, that cost won't increase with the price of oil. The doomsayers would have predicted centuries. Others theorized it would be nearly over by today. Of course, one of the problems with the Soviet revolution was that it was, essentially, the first, and prone to all manner of errors. And these mistakes did plenty to stunt its progress. So, however, did the United States. From the outset. Nobody can tell how the revolution would have played out unmolested by frightened capitalists. Depends on when. By the early '80s, a small religious magazine called The Plain Truth could tell. You know, it used to be free at the supermarket? I so wish I had held onto that one. O ... kay. "Exporting revolution". That's one of your favorite phrases these last couple weeks, isn't it? Given that the Cold War consisted of truculence dressed up as diplomacy and a host of smaller, hot proxy wars, I'm not sure the export of revolution and weapons is being treated fairly here. Violating treaties? It's not like the U.S. was acting in good faith. Our very history is littered with broken treaties and empty promises. It's part of our national and cultural heritage. This doesn't excuse the Soviets, but there is the rule of law and the rules of the game, and pointing out that the Soviets were playing the game according to its rules doesn't have any significant impact. It would be nice to play the game according to the rule of law with all those considerations about human rights and such, but the United States is, today, the foremost empire on the planet, and we refuse to do so. Openly refuse. The only reason we're not supposed to be as hard on the Americans as we are the Soviets is that we are Americans. There is a side to be on that aims toward all the good things we claim to aspire to. The problem is that we don't have a country or party to call our own. In the meantime a simple analogy: For reasons too ridiculous to explain here, my brother and I were put through certain Christian processes, the most prominent of which was Lutheran confirmation. Among Lutherans, at least, there is a saying: God first, others second, self third. At the same time, my father was an ardent Reaganist—a position which he has since abandoned—who said (literally), "What, do you want to be able to just worry about yourself when you grow up? Or do you want to have to take care of everyone else?" Hmm ... God? Dad? God? Dad? I think we're supposed to go with God on this one. By the time I came to terms with what religion and God really are, the sentiment was already set. And it was, on a small scale, demonstrable, too. Things were better, and more got done, in the cooperative. Now, perhaps the specific scenario is my own, but the general conflict is indeed general. Many people in the world go through it. A related question is whether we teach children to cooperate and get along with one another because it's what we want them to believe, or because we think it is more convenient for the caregivers. Which leads to the inevitable suggestion: We should stop teaching children such warm-fuzzy values, since they don't apply in the "real world". All of this leads back to your consideration of "better". If on one side I have a well-intended idea poorly represented, while on the other is the sinister antithesis of what our culture teaches, I'm going to go with the well-intended and endure the tragic distortions, and hope someday to find a way to contribute to the well-intended and forward-looking. It's not actually a tough decision. In fact, one of the problems of our national and cultural heritage is that we've abandoned some of the core values so many people claim for that heritage. Part of our study for Lutheran confirmation was the Book of Acts. We skipped any substantial discussion of Acts 4.32-35: The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (NAB) Ironically, this part of my education occurred during the Reagan years, which relied in no insignificant way on evangelical Christians to help in the fight against Communism. So what do we do, then, Counte? Do we abandon the values we claim to strive for? Or do we make a good-faith effort to pursue them? People are human, and therefore they fuck up. At the end of the day, I'm going to side with the fuckups who are trying to create a better world for humanity instead of the fuckups who exploit that idea in order to consolidate wealth and power for themselves and their friends. And before you start in about the Democrats, consider that I'm coming quite a bit to the right in order to support them. And that's only because, for now, they're the best chance I've got. One must be realistic, and my American neighbors aren't going to wake up tomorrow, or in November, or anytime in the near future, and seriously engage vital questions about where we stand in relation to our purported values. Revolution? Hell, I'll take a public discourse that doesn't pander to greed or surrender to the inevitable failure of good intentions. Nuance and context, indeed. LBJ demanded and achieved some important Civil Rights legislation. It is my understanding that beyond that, he was an arrogant prick. The only real difference is that, having the Tonkin experience as part of our national and cultural heritage, we should have known better. Bush should have known better than to try. And the people should have known better than to swallow. And yet, in trying to figure the reason for that, I come back to certain people with greedy intentions trying to scare people into believing grotesque exaggerations, and succeeding well enough to get their way. In general, you are correct. But there is a difference between exaggerating what is and inventing something to exaggerate. Some of us would be disgusted by LBJ's treatment of the Tonkin incidents. Others, however, decided it was a really good idea. If you had to choose between one or the other, which would you choose?
I wonder how far you take this "myth" business? I mean, are you really and truly asserting that the Soviet Union was not a threat to the US and the West? That the "danger" it posed was all invented to give Americans a common cause to rally behind? This seems so theoretical that it loses sight of the reality outside the windows... I think all presidents occasionally implement policies based on fraudulent or biased information, so bogus presuppositions aren't too much of a stretch for me, either. It's important to realize how isolated these men are. You already wrote an impassioned bit about access and such, and in many cases, key decisions are made based on who has this access and the advice they give. And while the source of the decision-making is interesting to puzzle over, in the end I can't help but think that it's the decision and its effects that really matters over time. Returning, for example, to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, one can assume that even if the attack really happened the way they say it happened, that doesn't somehow excuse the error that was the Vietnam. I mean, we didn't invade N. Korea when it captured the Pueblo, did we? In this sense, the incidents almost become unimportant... That's your claim. I'm not buying it. It might work if you said War on Terror, but even that wasn't dreamed up by the Neo's. It's the reality of the world we live in. That they crafted that reality to fit into their ideological prisms and then used it to develop policy is nothing different than what any other ideology does. Of course, the results, as I mentioned above, are what really matter -- and we all can see those for ourselves. US foreign policy is a mess. If for no other reason than self-preservation, your grand scheme, or rather the one you attribute to them, seems foolish and the stuff of dislike and paranoia. Sorry. Not everywhere. He embraced it in places like Central Europe, where he used American power to effect a moral end. That's a very Neo-Conish thing to do... It's useful for crafting an outlook, forming a world view recognizing reality or recognizing what the ideology fails to appreciate about reality. I think Marx's philosophical writings are wonderful critiques of capitalism, for example. That doesn't mean I'm ready to slog my way through Das Kapital, join the picket lines and call myself a Marxist, but I recognize what he's right about, incorporate it into my own thinking, and shake me head and dismiss the things he gets so horribly wrong about people and political possibilities. This, it would seem to me, is the closest one can come to "objectivity." I think nations and people are perfectly capable of crafting "others" for themselves. They don't need politicians to do it for them. Here I think of the T-shirt from the Onion that says: "The sports team from my area is better than the sports team from yours," or something like that. But do politicians take advantage of this natural instinct? Sure, they do. In taking advantage of it, does that mean the "myth," as you call it, has no real foundation? God no. The Soviet Union was a bad thing. It was a very bad thing. That the West stood up to it seems natural. The West has stood up to what I loosely call authoritarian states since Sparta sent 300 men to face an army of Persians. You don't give the West enough credit. For every hawk screaming about being more militant during the Cold War, there was the Dove arguing that the we should be softer. Thanks to the two, most Cold War leaders in the West had to find a middle path when dealing with the USSR. In the case of the US, its close relationship with European powers assured it never lurched too far from the center. Yes, it did. And much of it was shameful. However, there is an important difference to note, and here I think you will disagree with me: The US was largely a reactionary force during the Cold War. In other words, it did not pick the battles. Rather, it reacted to the Soviet presence and reacted to wherever the Soviets went and setup shop. Take Afghanistan, for example. To think the US wanted to go there and throw money into that shit hole is ridiculous, but it did, because the Soviet was there first. I pay attention to it, but I note the differences between the American goal and the Soviet and the relative of the morality of the two powers. You, on the other hand, seem to equivocate the two... What amuses me is your quirky assessment of the history, not the history itself. You like to talk concepts and context, so I gave you some. Only I posited my in terms of Anglo-nationhood. My point -- and it might be Straussian, again I don't know the man's writings -- was to show that nation's tend to view what they do as moral. To me this is more Nietzschian than anything else. It's the whole good and evil being defined by the social elites with all the power. There's a very basic element in which all humans do this. Presumably, the KGB thought they were fighting a moral fight, too. In fact, they did. Many have written memoirs that I have read. A few seem to realize the sham they perpetuated, but most, like Putin, still subscribe to the dream. I didn't say they were stupid. And the snicker came from the fact that these were working class people who clearly didn't view themselves as wealthy, because, according to Carter, they hadn't stopped to think about the level of existence their country afforded them. Doesn't this bolster my point that the revolution ain't coming soon? Everyone's working for the weekend, saving up for the plasma TV, worried about American Idol, focused on collecting DVDs and achieving higher scores on Grand Theft Auto... No, we didn't. But who could blame us? The Cold War seemed so permanent. It last, what? Three or four generations? And the Soviets, ever the masters of the facade kept playing, and kept us confused, right up to the very end. Here I am remembering my favorite Heinlein novel, and how he puts the Russians on the Moon just like Clarke put them on the space station in 2001 or Card had them a world power in Ender's Game far into the future. These are visionary people, and even they suffered from this myopia... I don't think the US rushed anything. It was Gorby and the Europeans who clamored for the walls to come down, and when they did, there was no turning back. For most of the world, Russia included, this has been a good thing. It's only the Arab world and parts of the Third World that are suffering now that they are no longer on the chessboard, so to speak. They did, but let's not pretend the terrorist groups doing the most damage today are largely the same ones that have been around for more than 30 years. Even Al Qaeda has its roots in the Afghan jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood. One could argue it succeeded in the Sudan. Through the Taliban, it briefly controlled Afghanistan. Today, it still causes significant problems there. Elsewhere, we have chaos in Lebanon and troubles in Pakistan. Succeeded? Maybe not. But the Soviets didn't succeed, either -- and look at the damage wrought by the Cold War. In other words, something doesn't have to succeed to cause serious strife in the world (see Fascism, too). It's the process on the way to the inevitable that worries me. No, but it's wrong to ignore the inherent issues driving Islamic terrorism. Sure there is the political complaints, but what are many of those based on? A very obvious perversion of religion, a perversion that Christians seem to have set aside ages ago. I'm currently reading Kapuscinski's Shah of Shahs, and when he talks about the Iran he talks about the primacy of the beliefs of the people and their inability to break with a past that never is made over with fresh ideas. This seems both sociological and psychological. Right. It would have worked if only we left it alone... People who tend the flame of Marxism, arguing its wonders in spite of the horror they can see for themselves, if they care to look, would amuse me, if they weren't so ideologically scary. Ha! As if the history of results has nothing to do with this. Explain why other countries, specifically those previously under Soviet dominance, have chosen the Western model and celebrate what it has brought to their lands? Why do they see a moral difference and a tangible difference where you see none? These countries would seem to suggest that belief in America is not all about American ethnocentrism. As Marxists? Communists? Look, you need to establish what values you're talking about, too. I doubt all Americans agree on your definition of "American values." No, shit. It's obvious... The answer to that is just as obvious.
Afghanistan was unusual in that respect. The US was already in most of the battle zones - the Soviets ran into the US when they showed up, was the common scene. Being reactionary because you are defending your turf, is not the same thing as going out to fight the good fight in new places.
The point is that while the USSR was indeed a threat to the USA, they were the greatest threat in the sense that they were a competitor of the USA. Therefore certain facts and figures had to be manipulated and distorted in the cases where the facts didn't fit in order to exaggerate the myth and make sure the fear of this myth resided firmly in the HOMES of the American populace. Foreign proxy wars are one thing, but the direct threat of Reds under your bed and in your backyard is another thing altogether. So for example while the USSR was involved in thier proxy wars across the globe, and indeed supported certain revolutionary fighters/terrorists (call them what you like depending on your point of view), this was exaggerated into an Evil Empire (or Axis of Evil if you like) who's tentacles stretched across the globe, with an involvement in every anti-american terrorist organisation worldwide, with sleeper cells in every city, ready to be awakened and strike at the very heart of American civil society. (sound familiar?) Where the facts didn't fit at all, stuff was simply made up - like the Team B sub detection system example. Do you see the distinction here? Paranoid that this is some grand machiavellian conspiracy? quite possibly me old son Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! although Curtis himself argues that this isn't one, moreso that the politics of fear are something that our leaders stumbled upon as an effective tool to regain lost power and authority. Paranoid that the threat of international terrorism is at best an exaggeration and at worst a complete fabrication? - not in the slightest old chap. Indeed - many neocons see what they are doing as a moral crusade
That's completely and utterly wrong. The Soviets were exporting revolution, and in doing so, moved into parts of the world that were virtually unimportant backwaters until they showed up, established agents and began funding various groups. Cuba and Latin America are prime examples of this. So is the Sudan, Congo, India and Syria.
So it is your contention that the US had no "established agents" or "funded groups" in, say, Cuba, until after the arrival of the Soviets ? And my contention that places like Latin America have been US "turf" since, say , the time of President James Monroe, is absolutely wrong ? Brings up the question: "Exporting revolution" against what ?
Oh, yes. Thank you for the history lesson. The Monroe Doctrine. I think I've heard of it. What were they fighting against? Capitalism. What they called Imperialism. Duh... I mean, do I really have to explain something like comintern to you? Let me quote you a young KGB agent named Nikolai Leonov, long before he was head of that lofty organization: "Basically, of course, we were guided by the idea that the destiny of world confrontation between the (US) and (USSR), between Capitalism and Socialism, would be resolved in the Third World." In 1956, Khrushchev made it part of the party platform to get involved with former colonies of the West and shape their destiny. This was all pre-war comintern stuff made new. KGB records show the next decade saw more than 6,000 projects in the Third World. Records also show that by 1961 there was a plan to push forward the frontiers of communism through revolution. Cuba was the "bridgehead" into the "Yankee back door." (The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World). Sure, the US had interests in Cuba, but do you really think it became a flash point just because Batista was thrown out on his ear? I tend to think all the anti-American rhetoric, paired with theft of American property and shipment of arms and supplies from the USSR made the US start to pay a little more attention to the Mr. Castro. Various histories of the CIA show no major operations until the above happened. But what do I know? You talk of "established agents," right? And it sounds so sinister... Until you realize the US has "established agents" all over the world, in both friendly and unfriendly countries. This, I believe, is called intelligence gathering. To my knowledge there are only two countries, Great Britain and Canada, that the US doesn't have agents, per an agreement it has with those intelligence services, so the fact it has people on the ground, so to speak, means little or nothing in this context. "Funded groups?" I can't even begin to understand this term. The US funds groups all over the world. There are cultural committees, trade committees and so on and so forth. Presumably, you're talking about political or paramilitary groups, given that I was referring to Russia exporting, or perhaps I should modify to say encouraging and enabling, revolution? That I would have to loon into. But it's my understanding the only group the US got involved with there is the ninnies who mucked up the Bay of Pigs.
I was using your language. Note the quotes. Your level of familiarity with US/Cuba relations after the Spanish American War is noted. Your assertion that I am "completely and utterly wrong" when I claim that the Soviets found defended American interests waiting for them almost everywhere they went "exporting revolution" to "third world backwaters" is what, then - hyperbole ? Ordinary nonsense ?
Post something substantive. Your opinions of what I know and don't know don't advance the discussion any. I've backed my argument with details and facts. What do we get from you? The usual. Nothing. Words and more words, signifying little. Seriously, I give you a lengthy post with matter to chew on and this is is the response I get? Pathetic. To some degree, I suppose this is a chicken and an egg argument: Who was where first. But your argument falls apart on its face. You can't say the Soviets weren't interested in expanding and then say they bumped up against Americans who were already in certain countries. If the Americans were already there, then the Soviets couldn't have been. Consider again what I posted earlier about the Soviets deciding to try to elbow their way into the Third World. Consider the "bridgehead" language. Is it a bridgehead if the Soviets are already there? No, it's not. The USSR was trying to expand the influence of its ideology. The West, for the large part, was trying to maintain the status quo. Leninism or Marxism or Communism or whatever you call it was roughly 100 years old in 1960 so it stands to reason that it wasn't the status quo in places like Greece, Cuba, Latin America, Yemen, Afghanistan, Chile, etc.
You have not. You are claiming that the US was not seriously involved, as a government and a country and including military/political efforts, in the "third world backwaters" that nobody was paying much attention to (in which category you seem to include India and China ?!), until after the Soviets began "exporting revolution" to them. You claimed that my assertion of US involvement in these countries prior to Soviet meddling, that almost everywhere the Soviets went meddling they found defended US interests in place, was "utterly and completely wrong". For that, you have no "details and facts" in support, and I can't really imagine what you would hope to find along those lines. The US had been engaged in a serious debate, coupled with political and military maneuvering and meddling in Cuba and the entire Caribbean basin, over the incorporation of Cuba as a State of the Union, or annexing it like Hawaii, since before the Soviet Union existed, for example. The idea that the US simply "reacted" to Soviet involvements with Cuba, where before it had been paying no attention to the third world backwater, is ridiculous. Similarly, if less blatantly, elsewhere. But I think you actually intended another argument - that the US was dealing from a position of moral superiority in its conflicts with the Soviets, as it is in its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its conflicts with Islamic jihad. That's possible, in a sense, but the odd patterns in the revisions of history that always accompany such claims tend ot undermine them, IMHO. And these claims, presented as assumptions questionable only by the self-hating and anti-American and "liberal", seem deeply connected with the self-destruction and incompetence of the current US government, led by the Republican Party. Delusion can be quite costly, when those in its grip or deriving their support from its influence obtain power in significant arenas.
