101–110 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this scenario, the CIA is not protecting against greater evil for the people of the country. They are just protecting the interests of the US. Now, the CIA's mission is to protect the US interests, there is nothing wrong. However, the means they use to do so may have something wrong with that. Installing and protecting dictators that are favorable to the US is unethical. Also the CIA does not furter "American valu…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this scenario, the CIA is not protecting against greater evil for the people of the country. They are just protecting the interests of the US. Now, the CIA's mission is to protect the US interests, there is nothing wrong. However, the means they use to do so may have something wrong with that. Installing and protecting dictators that are favorable to the US is unethical. Also the CIA does not furter "American valu…
To play devils advocate, I would posit that so-called "American values" don't actually matter much to real Americans (source: red-blooded American here). What matters is living in comfort, and wielding fiscal power. When you speak of our "values" then you start sounding like the propaganda that quite frankly, American's are tired of hearing about. We aren't all one-trick ponies here, just like any other place, we hav…
It’s a big problem and the only solutions I’ve come across are inherently unpopular.
I've been thinking a lot about these kind of scenarios lately: Autocratic regime holds power over a territory with a long history of violent instability. The regime is guilty of corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, suppressing dissidents, etc. This is I think a requirement for it to hold power given the conditions. If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens. There are p…
> If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens. There might be violence, but in general you can't know this. And in the end you end up arguing against democracy itself; the opposition cannot be allowed to win, even if they have the votes, because of the risk of rioting by pro-regime supporters. And in order to suppress them winning, you have to commit more crimes.
Well, in general we do know this because that's what regularly has been observed to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders. And I’m not even counting the invade-and-install-a-puppet kind of wars.
> Propaganda’s working very well if you actually believe this is the first war since WWII to redraw land borders. I was talking about annexation wars. Not about countries fighting for independence / collapse aftermaths (like the former Yugoslavian countries or the Vietnam war). But yes, you're correct, I forgot about the first Iraq war where Iraq tried to annex Kuwait and the US (and others) responded under UNSC auth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this scenario, the CIA is not protecting against greater evil for the people of the country. They are just protecting the interests of the US. Now, the CIA's mission is to protect the US interests, there is nothing wrong. However, the means they use to do so may have something wrong with that. Installing and protecting dictators that are favorable to the US is unethical. Also the CIA does not furter "American valu…
uh,,, gaddafi, saddam come to the top of my mind.
And gaddafi was toppled over french/sarcozy interest.
One who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it. Post hoc justification of own atrocities is exactly the sort of cognitive failure that patriotic delusion (and thus the future of such) can cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People get silenced in the US every day because they have a different opinions on current events, for example the US proxy war with Russia. Uh, sorry what? It was Russia that decided to invade a sovereign country for annexation. Not the other way around. And of course everyone is free to disagree with your take. You are not being "silenced" or "canceled", you are being told your opinion is completely contrary to fa…
Yes Russia did invade Ukraine, but wouldn't the US invade Canada if Russia had organized a coup there to get rid of Trudeau then put a Russian puppet there? Of course the US would... Or would you argue that the 2014 Ukrainian coup wasn't supported by the US? The thing we never mention is how agressive Nato (the US since it has military bases in Turkey for example, while Turkey doesn't have military bases in the US) h…
Russia likes to rattle there nuclear sabre about everything regarding Ukraine (and beyond) because that is all Russia is capable of doing with there nuclear weapons without causing the quick, fast and hard collapse of there entire country.
7,000 nukes doesn't make a country win a war instantly, Russia lost in the first Chechen war even with all there nukes, they lost in Afghanistan with all the nukes, the US lost in a whole number of wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc) whilst having shit loads of nukes.
Russia is throwing everything they have at Ukraine including mad max inspired franken vehicles and T-54 tanks, to pretend they are fighting with one hand behind their back is disingenuous.
It may look like Russia is fighting with one hand behind their back, but the reality is, that this is all Russia has.
> The arguments used today are the same as ever (we're freeing the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, etc.), if you look at it as it really is, less dead people is better than more dead people, eventually Ukraine will be destroyed and the US will not even help to rebuild it, if you think they will then look at Iraq.
The only one who has the power to decide the number of dead people is Russia, when Russia leaves the killing stops, until then the Ukrainians have to kill Russians until enough die and they decide to go home.
I've been thinking a lot about these kind of scenarios lately: Autocratic regime holds power over a territory with a long history of violent instability. The regime is guilty of corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, suppressing dissidents, etc. This is I think a requirement for it to hold power given the conditions. If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens. There are p…
Sometimes it takes the subjects of a dictatorship multiple generations to realize that dictatorships suck, especially if they are partisans and their dictator is a “hero” fighting their boogeyman (secular dictator fighting religious boogeyman, religious dictator fighting secular boogeyman, chauvinist dictator pretending to fight some other country like in 1984 but really the biggest enemy is him, a minority dictator pretending to protect the minorities as an excuse for carpet bombing and torturing members of the majority to hold onto power, etc…).
Keep in mind that for long lasting dictatorships, half the population or more was raised on their propaganda. They’re literally brainwashed, and the dictator ensures that no one becomes independently successful enough to challenge their authority, so people often have nothing better to do that sit around, smoke, and talk about the regime’s enemies as if they’re the proximate threat. So don’t blindly accept when someone from a country with a dictatorship says their dictatorship is good. Trust me, you have it beyond good in America , you truly have no idea how bad a bad government is.
"The nobel-prize winning novel that the CIA doesn't want you to read!"
[flagged]
Sorry for the offtopicness but could you please remove "All of my posts are GPT-generated" from your profile? Based on your comments I assume it's not true (but rather some kind of witticism). But it's having the effect of trolling the threads - e.g. the sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36055724 , and I think I've seen similar cases elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed] on Allende. This is what the CIA ended up supporting: disappearances (i.e. secret mass murder) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/17/chile-families...
[flagged]
And on a scale from 0 to Cuba, how bad was Allende exactly?
(Rhetorical question, im not interested in your answer.)