Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › 800 to 3
- This topic has 11 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 18, 2017 at 9:17 am #76241
wvParticipantJust somethin i read, fwiw:
“The U.S. has an estimated 800 foreign military bases in well over 100 countries while Russia has three in two countries. U.S. military budget is at least ten times that of Russia’s and was just increased by 10 percent while the Russians just reduced theirs by 7 percent. Who is the aggressor?”
mintpress:http://www.mintpressnews.com/understanding-the-the-news-behind-the-fake-news-hysteria/233330/October 18, 2017 at 10:05 am #76243
znModeratorJust somethin i read, fwiw:
“The U.S. has an estimated 800 foreign military bases in well over 100 countries while Russia has three in two countries. U.S. military budget is at least ten times that of Russia’s and was just increased by 10 percent while the Russians just reduced theirs by 7 percent. Who is the aggressor?”
mintpress:http://www.mintpressnews.com/understanding-the-the-news-behind-the-fake-news-hysteria/233330/The aggressor in this case is the writer who thinks he can whitewash the fact that both countries are aggressors.
It’s simple. As Marx himself said, there is no such thing as imperialism, there is imperialismS and they compete.
I never see the point in forgetting that.
Then again the source here, mintpress news, is pro-Assad, so there’s that.
….
October 18, 2017 at 5:24 pm #76250wvParticipantJust somethin i read, fwiw:
“The U.S. has an estimated 800 foreign military bases in well over 100 countries while Russia has three in two countries. U.S. military budget is at least ten times that of Russia’s and was just increased by 10 percent while the Russians just reduced theirs by 7 percent. Who is the aggressor?”
mintpress:http://www.mintpressnews.com/understanding-the-the-news-behind-the-fake-news-hysteria/233330/The aggressor in this case is the writer who thinks he can whitewash the fact that both countries are aggressors.
It’s simple. As Marx himself said, there is no such thing as imperialism, there is imperialismS and they compete.
I never see the point in forgetting that.
Then again the source here, mintpress news, is pro-Assad, so there’s that.
….
=================
While i agree with you that Russia (like virtually all powerful nations) is an ‘aggressor’ — the point “I” was making was more of a ‘scorecard’ point: 800 to 3. That is a meaningful difference. To me ignoring that difference would be a form of ‘whitewashing’ too.
w
vOctober 18, 2017 at 8:28 pm #76254znModeratorJust somethin i read, fwiw:
“The U.S. has an estimated 800 foreign military bases in well over 100 countries while Russia has three in two countries. U.S. military budget is at least ten times that of Russia’s and was just increased by 10 percent while the Russians just reduced theirs by 7 percent. Who is the aggressor?”
mintpress:http://www.mintpressnews.com/understanding-the-the-news-behind-the-fake-news-hysteria/233330/The aggressor in this case is the writer who thinks he can whitewash the fact that both countries are aggressors.
It’s simple. As Marx himself said, there is no such thing as imperialism, there is imperialismS and they compete.
I never see the point in forgetting that.
Then again the source here, mintpress news, is pro-Assad, so there’s that.
….
=================
While i agree with you that Russia (like virtually all powerful nations) is an ‘aggressor’ — the point “I” was making was more of a ‘scorecard’ point: 800 to 3. That is a meaningful difference. To me ignoring that difference would be a form of ‘whitewashing’ too.
w
vRussia doesn’t need bases on foreign soil to have military power within reach of other countries. It borders eastern europe, the middle east, and China. It has military capacity in range of Japan. To me overplaying the foreign bases difference is just whitewashing in the other direction. The USA projects power in Asia and Europe. So does Russia. And of course Russia is a nuclear power. All this is especially important in the case of Russia since in fact it does openly make hegemonic claims regarding its neighboring nations, particularly those which belonged to the former Soviet Union.
Honestly. Any argument that downplays Russian aggression ought to be met with extreme skepticism. Any argument that tries to make the USA “the real bad guy” is doing the same thing.As Russian anti-regime leftists I have posted have stated, there are also leftists in Russia who make the same mistake of acting like their own regime is by far the worst and end up being apologists by default for the other regime. That’s in spite of whether or not they claim otherwise. That’s why it’s so rare to see american leftists who downplay Russia reading, quoting, or discussing Russian anti-regime leftists. It’s a blindspot.
….
October 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm #76255znModeratorWhat I would like to see is a ranking system like football power rankings.
Who are the top imperial powers, and what are their imperial tendencies?
Russia is confusing. Some moderates/liberals take them as the great enemy, but they do it in a way that underplays american policy problems. So some leftists attack that but then make the equally mistasken move of trying to exonerate Russia. To me that’s just as much a mistake as the mistake the moderates/liberals make. To me the real move is to condemn both without apologizing for either. And that doesn’t mean SAYING I know Russia is bad but then in actual practice continually harkening to news that exonerates them. It would mean always SHOWING how BOTH are bad. It would also mean paying attention to actual dissident Russian leftists who don’t buy the american leftist “Russia is okay in comparison” argument. Partly because their very lives are in jeopardy being dissidents. So anyway as you know wv I don’t cotton much to the american leftists who through ommission and commission downplay Russia because they’re over-reacting to moderates/liberals who demonsize Russia for the wrong reasons.
October 19, 2017 at 4:46 pm #76278wvParticipantWell, ya know, we just disagree about Russia. So, pistols at dawn, and all that 🙂
To me, the 800 to 3 thing is a meaningful, significant reflection of ‘the big aggressor’ vs the ‘little aggressor’. Yes, both aggressors. But one is a lot more dangerous and deadly than the other. I see a significant difference, and its reflected in the 800 to 3 number.
w
v-
This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by
wv.
October 19, 2017 at 5:16 pm #76281znModeratorWell, ya know, we just disagree about Russia. So, pistols at dawn, and all that
To me, the 800 to 3 thing is a meaningful, significant reflection of ‘the big aggressor’ vs the ‘little aggressor’. Yes, both aggressors. But one is a lot more dangerous and deadly than the other. I see a significant difference, and its reflected in the 800 to 3 number.
w
vBut the writer frames it in such a way that it’s supposed to deflect criticism from Russia. Particularly when it comes to Syria. I am never going to buy that move.
If it were just an article on american foreign policy and its military bases, fine. I could get behind that. But, think better of Russia in Syria because the USA is bigger? Nah no thanks. Wrong motives.
So. An article on american foreign policy and its military bases? Cool.
And another article on Russia’s aggressions and propping up Assad in Syria? Also cool.
An article saying forget Russia, the USA is worse? Strikes me as pointless.
..
October 19, 2017 at 8:16 pm #76286wvParticipantWell, ya know, we just disagree about Russia. So, pistols at dawn, and all that
To me, the 800 to 3 thing is a meaningful, significant reflection of ‘the big aggressor’ vs the ‘little aggressor’. Yes, both aggressors. But one is a lot more dangerous and deadly than the other. I see a significant difference, and its reflected in the 800 to 3 number.
w
vBut the writer frames it in such a way that it’s supposed to deflect criticism from Russia. Particularly when it comes to Syria. I am never going to buy that move.
If it were just an article on american foreign policy and its military bases, fine. I could get behind that. But, think better of Russia in Syria because the USA is bigger? Nah no thanks. Wrong motives.
So. An article on american foreign policy and its military bases? Cool.
And another article on Russia’s aggressions and propping up Assad in Syria? Also cool.
An article saying forget Russia, the USA is worse? Strikes me as pointless.
..
======================
Well i think propping up Assad is probly the best of a lot of bad options. So, i have no problem with Russia doing that. America’s deep-state wants an even worse villain than Assad running things in Syria.
As far as how the writer wrote his article, its not how i would have written it. There’s things i agreed with and things I’m not sure of. Etc, and so forth.
If I’m not mistaken (just to go off on a tangent) someone asked Chomsky what could/should be done in Syria, and he just threw up his hands and said its an impossible mess. No solution. I dont think I’ve ever seen him say anything like that before.
w
vOctober 19, 2017 at 9:49 pm #76288znModeratorWell i think propping up Assad is probly the best of a lot of bad options. So, i have no problem with Russia doing that. America’s deep-state wants an even worse villain than Assad running things in Syria
No there were other options.
Either way, I don’t whitewash Russia just cause the USA is bad too.
I think anyone who makes that argument, like in the article above, is begging a lot of bad questions.
And Chomsky saying “no solution” doesn’t mean “stop shedding bright light on what is bad about Russia.”
As I said the actual leftist dissidents there do not paint a picture of something we should either endorse or ignore. (Same with Israel for that matter.)
Which doesn;t mean the USA is good. Saying that is not an option either.
…
October 20, 2017 at 5:54 am #76295wvParticipantWell i think propping up Assad is probly the best of a lot of bad options. So, i have no problem with Russia doing that. America’s deep-state wants an even worse villain than Assad running things in Syria
No there were other options.
Either way, I don’t whitewash Russia just cause the USA is bad too.
I think anyone who makes that argument, like in the article above, is begging a lot of bad questions.
And Chomsky saying “no solution” doesn’t mean “stop shedding bright light on what is bad about Russia.”
As I said the actual leftist dissidents there do not paint a picture of something we should either endorse or ignore. (Same with Israel for that matter.)
Which doesn;t mean the USA is good. Saying that is not an option either.
…
===================
What other solutions ?
w
vOctober 20, 2017 at 10:33 am #76297znModeratorWhat other solutions ?
w
vThere are anti-Assad factions who are not some kind of monstrosity. He was in jeopardy for a reason.
October 21, 2017 at 8:57 pm #76348znModeratorYou said pistols at dawn.
So I got a pistol (which as you know is easy) and went out at dawn to wait. You didn’t say anything about bullets so I didn’t bother with that. But–you said pistols at dawn, and it was dawn and I waited.
You didn’t show up.
Then it dawned on me (so to speak).
You meant it as a metaphor.
Well you thoroughly tricked me with your little “metaphor.” Yep, I was bamboozled. Misled.
Hope you’re proud.
…
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
