81–90 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.
Because getting what you want through persuasion is cheaper and less bloody than through coercion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.
This is a basic high school question. It serves no purpose other than to deflect the discussion. If you genuinely don't understand soft power, Google is your friend.
So no I don’t think I’m asking a leading question and no it’s not obvious. That’s a reply that’s used when you don’t want to test your answer.
And why would we be so naive to think that Google would discern the intent of American political propaganda for us?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> VoA does not broadcast propaganda, they hold themselves to a very high standard of reporting only the truth. Seriously?
Do you have any specific counter examples? FWIW I am not American.
Also you seem to think propaganda means “not true” when it more often is true things that promote your interests. What matters is someone is paying to highlight information over other perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All countries are in continual struggle for influence, to further their own interests. Doing this through soft power means (student exchanges, radio programs, films, music, building roads, blue jeans etc) is surely preferable to doing it through violent means. If the US reduces it's soft power, then no doubt it's influence will wane compared to other countries.
I don’t follow the argument that if we don’t do this then we must have boots on the ground. We don’t have to do either one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?
Propaganda is a message. Soft power is a means. For example, Voice of America publishes "Learning English" radio/tv broadcasts, podcasts, and news articles. They are produced with a limited vocabulary (I think a few thousand words), shorter sentences, and are spoken slower. They often match up with native language reporting of current events so you can listen to both for context clues. Having people all over the worl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Article II of the Constitution exists and you can read it anytime: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/ In short: Job protection for executive employees defeats the entire point of an executive that is accountable to the people. Major magistrate positions are subject to Senate approval before being vested authority, but they are appointed and serve at the behest of the president, who literally em…
I am having trouble understanding the document. Where is it stated? I can not exactly follow your argument. I am not sure why being accountable to the people necessitates having not any job protection? I would have expected this to be codified (What is accountability for a federal employee). I mean regulatory bodies should also be accountable but also shielded from political influence, right?
For the second part: no, US government regulatory bodies are expressly political, down to their very existence. You likely intended “partisan”, but, one party is against them existing at all, so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of those money went to pushing US cultural wars themes worldwide. And many parts of the world don’t exactly share modern US (or democrats party voters) values. Then US soft power is closer to waging cultural war. Not exactly USAID, but similar topic. In my country US ambassador openly pushed for law that more than half of population is against for cultural reasons. That feels more like attempt of soft coloniali…
Afghanistan (as an example) should have been civilized, whatever effort necessary for it. If a peoples or country doesn't support human rights, capitalism, etc then what justification does it have to tell you to stop if you oppress and torture them? Human rights? Pish they don't believe that crap.
Trump is not doing things that different than Biden in foreign policy - how much more damage can Trump do the Palestinians in Gaza that Biden didn't do? Trump is just more honest, and this embarrasses the professional-managerial liberals who support US imperialism. He's just saying what's happening as opposed to some nonsense about how he is neutral between Palestinians and Israelis while Biden was helping slaughteri…
Trump is starting trade wars with close economic allies, threatening to annex territory from other NATO members, and closing down century-old institutions overnight.
There is a difference between seeing Israel killing Palestinians and doing nothing, and actually threatening overt action against what were once allies.
Trump is not doing things that different than Biden in foreign policy - how much more damage can Trump do the Palestinians in Gaza that Biden didn't do? Trump is just more honest, and this embarrasses the professional-managerial liberals who support US imperialism. He's just saying what's happening as opposed to some nonsense about how he is neutral between Palestinians and Israelis while Biden was helping slaughteri…
Biden had the same attitudes towards enemies like Palestine and unaligned powers in the Middle East and Africa, where the main issue is inaction. Trump is starting trade wars with close economic allies, threatening to annex territory from other NATO members, and closing down century-old institutions overnight. There is a difference between seeing Israel killing Palestinians and doing nothing, and actually threatening…
He got the nickname "Genocide Joe" because of how enthusiastic he almost seemed to be about it. Utter disregard and contempt for Palestinian lives is one area where very little daylight exists between Biden and Trump. Even Kamala Harris didn't deviate from that norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden had the same attitudes towards enemies like Palestine and unaligned powers in the Middle East and Africa, where the main issue is inaction. Trump is starting trade wars with close economic allies, threatening to annex territory from other NATO members, and closing down century-old institutions overnight. There is a difference between seeing Israel killing Palestinians and doing nothing, and actually threatening…
Biden didn't do nothing. He stated firm support for Israel, to the point of declaring himself a Zionist, he sent billions of dollars in arms and aid to Israel, and the US under his leadership vetoed numerous UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire, as well as witheld funding to Palestinian relief organizations. He got the nickname "Genocide Joe" because of how enthusiastic he almost seemed to be about it. Utter disreg…