The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
NATO, Terrorism, and the CPD
Posts
Probably not.
The issue with Albania and Yugoslavia were specifically because the USSR, under Brezhnev, directed all economies of satellite states to benefit the the Russian SFSR. This was one of the issues with Hungary, the CSSR, etc.
Yeah, you could pull the same "no true liberal" or "no true capitalist" game with Taiwan--substantially wealthier in the 1930s (and probably right up to the US Bombing Campaigns in the 1940s) then it was at 1945, when it was transferred back to the Republic of China.
Eh...no, probably not. I mean, you could speculate that the Brezhnev "stagnation" ultimately led to this as a trend, but as far as state planning went, for those nearly two decades of Brezhnev's administration, the trend would have been seriously in the other direction. In some cases (say, Uzbekistan), it became so pervasive that one of the major arguments for the political transformations of the 1990s were that Russian citizens perceived themselves as paying the costs for the high standard of living in other republics (in the form of advanced manufacturing or, in Uzbekistan's case, upkeep on some of the world's biggest aircraft factories) with insufficient benefits in return. Additionally, almost all of the Central Asian republics voted overwhelmingly in favor of the New Union Treaty Referendum, and even their local leadership was reluctant to declare independence--Kazakhstan declared independence at literally the eleventh hour). Some modern political scientists have even speculated this is why wages in the Russian Federation have risen several times faster than the other republics--profits from wealth, particularly petrochemicals, are staying in country. Azerbijan being the exception.
Of course, state planning only goes so far anywhere, including the USSR. And a defender of Belarus would have told the critic that it wasn't "wealth transfer", it was "investment" or something of the like.
(It's possible I'm misunderstanding you Sheep, too.)
Good question. It reminds me (this is very telling of my childhood) of what Masamune Shiro (the mangaka) wrote about Japans politics in the 1980s "...a complex distribution system that might seem wasteful but keeps everyone gainfully employed. A kind of socialism really, but if they streamlined it too much, watch out!" Granted, he was just a manga artist, but that always stuck with me (I only lived in Japan during the mid-90s), because it became applicable to Taiwan a decade later, when the big social welfare programs were first enacted after White Terror ended when martial law ended.
I mean, those were the years universal healthcare was put into place (1995, I think?), along with formalized stuff like unemployment assistance and state-funded jobs. Before that, when I was a still young, I know there were a lot fewer programs. I think during the actual white terror, i.e. the late 40s to the late 80s, social welfare programs were largely nonexistent, even when the country became one of the "Asian Dragons". I remember reading about how corruption actually resembled the complaints in the United States--that money was efficiently delivered to its lawful owners, who happened to all be the top leaders in the Kuomintang. Which is why the KMT, ruling over some tiny island in east Asia, apparently becomes the richest political party in the world. If the Republicans in the USA or the Communist Party in the USSR actually formally owned a chunk of the country's assets, they'd be richer than God too, right?
You could make the case that all of that was pretty capitalist. I mean, I call it "capitalist dictatorship", because that's what it was--a one-party dictatorship with an increasingly developed, business-oriented market economy (not that uncommon, South Korea was one too, right?).
The comparison is China, which was undergoing pretty radical economic reforms, but not until the 80s. But the rise of the guanxi-qiye happening in Taiwan well before that, going back to the 1960s and 1970s, when people were still poor. A lot of native Taiwanese got extremely rich this way (since they were still barred from the highest military and civil government until the 80s), but everyone else remained mostly dirt poor. I think you could actually compare it with China in the last decade, to some extent.
So, yeah, I think White Terror Taiwan was actually pretty authentically capitalist, at least when the government moved from "mass shootings/arrests/anarchy/state of emergency" to "martial law", which was 90% of the period. Probably much more capitalist than it is now, even with the KMT dominating over the DPP. There was far less in the way of workplace regulations and financial law (since most of the higher legal code was aimed towards political control, I guess). It was the period that all the tycoons rose up with corporations like Evergreen, which I grew up thinking owned at least one third of Taiwan.
Hard to say, really. I really haven't read on the topic nearly as much as I should have.
But yeah, the actual American Maoists I know would probably make that case (in a very "No True Communist" manner, hah) of the DPRK vs ROK. I've never really thought of it, besides that I'm pretty certain, between the ROC, Japan, DPRK and ROK, income disparity between genders is probably highest in the ROK and lowest in the DPRK. Not exactly a great comparison though.
It's not an unknown concept. We continually propped them up in the Middle East and South America.
I got my dates/leaders mixed up. Largely the end of/beginning of the Kruschev era was the "subjugation" so to speak of the satellite states.
Singapore is the poster child. It's got all the trappings of a democracy - parliament and elections and free speech in that one park filled with CTV cameras - and is rich and shiny, while still managing to be a repressive police state controlled by a single family.
I follow you. I know Khrushchev was famous for his "rolling back" of the powers in the autonomous districts, but I'm not sure how that meant for wealth distribution at this moment.
If I'm remembering correctly, Singapore rates quite close to the United States in income inequality--which may not sound impressive, until you realize it's only become "wealthy" in the last 50 years (much less, even) as well as being an extremely urbanized one-party state (the level of urbanization is probably one of the reasons it's not as high as it might otherwise be.)
We need some counter black bloc people. Like Rainbow Bloc.
Yes. Yes. I want this. Instead of breaking windows they throw glitter on them.
Troll the destructive anarchists with glitter bombs you say?...you know...that just might work! They tend to be so pissed off that they'd probably chase whoever threw them down rather than go back to destroying property...and if they did, moar glitter! Now to turn the irony up to 11, let's be sure this Rainbow Bloc has segways.
By and large many of the reasons Mao, Tito, and Hoxha opposed the USSR was due to Kruschev's attempts to coerce them into tailoring their economies to Russian needs. "Social Imperialism". In the beginning of Kruschev and Mao's falling out, Kruschev erred in requesting China allow him to station bases on Chinese soil. Some of Hungary's economical problems in the early 50s were largely related to exportations to the USSR.
This could probably fall underneath the big complaint tents of "Russian chauvinism", the complaint rendered at the USSR by practically everyone who wasn't a self-declared capitalist, and really came in on its own in the late 50s (even though it probably existed way before that).
It's not on topic, but yeah, there are huge numbers of "big project" examples of "metropole" (right word?) investment in the "periphery". Radio telescopes in the Baltics, aircraft factories in Uzbekistan, industrial and power production in Kazakhstan. Practically all of the most famous infrastructure projects that still exist date to the period (the alternative be like Virginia building a world-class hydroelectric station on its own). Even today, they still count on investment/money/parts from the Russian Fed.
Of course, the counter argument--which is not invalid--is that to make up for it, Moscow (or at least "the center") squeezed the outer republics in a pervasive, subtle manner to develop that wealth in the first place. Really that argument is most famously applied to Ukraine, the one outer republic that could have been considered "rich" before the Civil War (to endless hilarity in Hetalia of all places) and suffered enormously during the famines, collectivization and urbanization--suffering which, in all likelihood, probably saved millions of newly-urbanized lives, at the cost of millions of Ukrainian lives). But when you're talking about Kazakhstan, or Tajikistan, or Turkmenistan, which were only known in the west (and a lot of shortsided people in the east) as being remote, nomadic, or otherwise empty, "modern wealth" is generally considered very new.
Why is this the place for such an outcry? I realize that NATO is a military alliance, I realize that it may be a symbol of the status quo to some people. But the last two times that NATO was involved in a war (where it wasn't us dragging NATO into said war) were humanitarian interventions to stop mass murder: namely Serbia and Libya. And while I get that there are leftists who have some sort of strange sympathy with anti-American dictators, I still need to reask the question: why NATO of all things, which has generally been a helpful force (even in Afghanistan, where NATO [yet again, as opposed to American] military forces have acted mostly in a security function rather than an offensive function). Is it because hating the American military is too outdated?
Well, the thing is that humanitarian interventions are still war. Getting rid of Gaddafi was blessing. But NATO took sides in a very bloody civil war. The side they took undoubtedly has far less blood on its hands than the regime, but the rebels were quite willing to "purge" their enemies as well such as when they destroyed Sirte. We'll see how the rebels govern. And in Afghanistan, well, security is an occupation; thats the only kind of war there's been in Afghanistan for more than 10 years, and thats where most of the deaths from both sides have come from.
I personally find blaming NATO for any of these things a bit odd. Better to blame the countries that push for it. The US invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Europe, especially the UK and France were pushing the the intervention in Libya. The alliance itself bears some responsibility for, say, the few civilians killed by NATO airstrikes in Libya (I don't know the numbers, but I doubt they were very high). However the alliance itself didn't precipitate these interventions, it was just helping out its buddies.
As you suggest, opposing NATO is basically the same thing as opposing the imperial habits of the US. The US is the biggest power in the world, and NATO is an alliance that helps protect that power. But NATO doesn't always do what the US says, for example in Iraq. So I say keep the criticisms to individual countries if you care to do so. The alliance as an independent political body has virtually zero power.
NATO acts in NATO's own interest, as well as America's. The 08-08 War (South Ossetia) could be considered an example. In an (incredibly unlikely) example, say Poland's leadership went insane and decided they wanted to rule over West Belarus again, like they did before the Second World War II and through many points in history, and invaded Belarus. Belarus has a cooperative defense treaty with Russia (same as Armenia), so Russia would intervene. I don't think NATO would come to aid on the part of one of its major members in this particular situation.
Of course, that particular situation will probably never happen anyway.
It isn't. People are stupid.
Hurf durf.
I think it probably has more to do with the logical fallacy that the best way to end a civil war (and make life better) that claims innocent lives on both "sides" is for a benevolent third party to indiscriminately bomb the shit out of the side it disagrees with because the new guys are more likely to hook us up with some sweet sweet oil.
In Libya's case, we sided with the guys that, immediately upon the end of the "civil war" instituted pogroms against Jews and rounded up and executed people because of their skin color. And then there's the very real chance that the revolution falls into the hands of Islamist parties who will probably do worse for the country in the long run.
NATO reasons for getting involved were completely selfish and not humanitarian in the slightest (how could they be?) The question of oil loomed and, in a specific example, Italy merely did not want to shoulder the increased number of refugees that were flocking to the country. Bombing runs on a country because you don't want to deal with their riff raff is no more noble an outcome than what Gadaffi was doing. Similar sentiments are probably the catalyst for the actions of both.
That'd be a great point if it lined up with reality at all. We didn't bomb indiscriminately. It's not like we were going, hmm Gadaffi holds Tripoli, time to roll out the B-52s and lay down some arc-light strikes.
Human Rights Watch pegs the figure of Civilian deaths at 72. Amnesty Int has it at 55. Out of 9600 strike missions and 6000 destroyed targets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/14/nato-killed-72-libya-hrw
You must see the irony of your logical fallacy claim?
I'm not sure I follow.
Regardless, there's plenty of non NATO allied governments and organizations (India, Al Jazeera) that pointed out that our bombing of Tripoli was not a targetted bombing. Religious centers were bombed, farms and small villages were bombed, the University in Tripoli was bombed, etc. Those were either indiscriminate, or specific, and I haven't figured out which one of the two is actually worse.
What's ironic by not finding war as a solution to end war?
Forces on both sides of the war inflicted mass causalties of both civilians and combatants and your pretentious response hasn't answered the question that I asked. "How is picking a side and then bombing the opposition supposed to prevent death"?
You are seriously suggesting that "leave Gaddafi in power to begin slaughtering civilians" was preferable to the alternatives that were foreseeable at the time?
Are you seriously suggesting that "put the unmanageable opposition in power to begin executing people based on skin color" was preferable to the alternatives that were foreseeable at the time?
Seriously. Can you not fathom a foreign policy that would provide political and material support that doesn't involve bombing an urban center with a population in the millions? Do you not think a revolution/civil war can be successful without overt US military action?
I don't know about ironic but it's certainly a naive point of view.
Yes. How can't you? What, you think Gaddafi was just gonna go around cuddling people?
I certainly can contemplate that. It's rather easy when that's what actually happened.
And in this case, it very much looked like this revolution wouldn't succeed based on the information we had publicly available at the time.
You keep acting like inaction has no consequences.
And replacing one murderous regime for another under the guise of "human rights" because it benefits us materially is a wise, learned, pov?
Give me a break.
The people we put in power are committing atrocities. There are plenty of independent reports of NTC militants executing supporters of the regime after the war "ended". The Islamists have turned their weapons against the NTC and the country is devolving into warlordism. The NTC has been reduced to hiring PMC mercenaries to sustain the central governments security (something also practiced by Gadaffi).
I don't know what planet you live on where the Libyans waged war without military action from the US and Europe, but it ain't this one.
Who said anything about inaction?
The US could have supported the NTC diplomatically and materialistically and not bombed. That's definitely a thing that we can do.
In the scheme of an entire civil war, 72 people are inconsequential. More over you would have to weigh them against the greater number that non-action would have cause, or that all other actions would have caused.
All that bombing, and yet so few people apparently died of it. Almost like it never happened. My Google of "university of Tripoli bombed" gets me 4 hits from http://www.globalresearch.ca -"A Centre for research on Globalization", then infowars and prisonplanent hits. No CNN/BBC/AlJazera, nor HRW/Amenesty nothing but loon sites.
except for this one NPR article. http://www.npr.org/2011/04/15/135431489/nato-steps-up-bombing-campaign-in-tripoli
The irony is you are claiming a logical fallacy while taking part in one yourself. You are disagree with a position no one holds, and an event that didn't happen(there is no pro-indiscriminate bombing faction for you to argue against).
Actually that wasn't the question you asked, you didn't ask any question.
As far as how that works. It's pretty simple, the number of civilian deaths NATO causes to take out 6000 military targets, is infintestimly small compared to the number the rebels would have required. It took less than a month of bombing to cripple Gadaffi's military and end the war part of the civil war. Do you think making that part longer would yield better results? Letting the rebels and Gadafi just slug it out with dumb-bombs and tube artillery? Hell, using our planes and bombs to wipe the Gaddafi forces out probably lowered military casualties as well. No one wins in an even fight.
It would have yielded better results because the results would have been purely by the hands of the Libyans.
The only way the continued sectarian, religious, and racial violence that we're seeing in Libya now is "better" than the violence that would have maintained under Qadaffi is if you can reduce yourself to playing "us versus them" and arbitrarily assigning little to no value in human life for "them".
Qadaffi was bad. The people in power currently are bad. Our actions didn't improve the situation. My consensus that "bombing raids in the name of peace" is a logical fallacy, especially in the situation of Libya. Even with our involvement, the country remains in shambles and people are still being murdered.
It makes as much as "punching someone to stop violence" or "calling someone a racial epithet to stop racism". It's shallow and nearsighted.
Also, it's epithet
I have zero problem with our intervention in Libya. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be, but we did it at a cost of zero American lives and minimal tech support.
does not mean the same thing as this sentence:
Decide what it is you want to argue against and stick with it for more than one post, m'kay?
It could have gone either way. But the situation as it stands is pretty bad itself and very similar to the environment prior to the uprising. If the Islamists wrest control of the country it could be worse than under Qadaffi. There's lots of possibilities involved.
Know what the really cool thing about discussion on an internet forum is? You can manage multiple threads of a conversation! Multiple tangents, arguments, points, etc. It's easy.
And yes, of course they don't mean the same thing. The first is pointing out that the excuse for our actions were that they made the situation better is false. The second is a reaffirmation that bombing runs to end war is logically stupid.
Rwanda: At least it was purely in Rwandan Hands(till they were chopped of with machetes). This is completely illogical. There is no Divine Trial by Combat in civil wars. Nothing assures the good people live and the bad people die, because only the 2 warring parties are involved. NATO didn't some how lead god's plans for Utopia Libya astray by interfering. A slow grinding civil war with magnitudes more casualties civilian and military, is better than the current situation because...? No evil western involvement? You're reasoning is completely circular, It would have been better without Western involvement(ignoring all the quantifiable ways it would have likely been worse) because then there'd be no western involvement.
You're the one failing to place value on human life. Arguing that any amount of Libyan blood is fine, as long as its not spilled by NATO hands.
Also, you are an idiot if you think a city getting shelled would be in anyway comparable to the current situation. Here's Hama a city in Syria that was shelled by Assad in 82(20k-40k deaths).
After:
Before:
After:
Before:
After:
Here's Sarajevo(10k killed, 56k wounded)
Before:
After:
But let's talk about that indiscriminate bombing of the AA gun near the Tripoli University some more, you know the one that broke some windows?
No, you're exactly right. Which is why a third party getting involved militarily offers no solution. The Libyan Civil War doesn't have a "good guy" and a "bad guy" as evidence by how both regimes behave(d). There is no "Libyan Utopia" that Europeans could bring to Libya just like it isn't inevitable if the Libyan people themselves managed to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. Your position only holds water if, after NATO involvement, the sectarian violence and segregation that prompted the revolution ended.
It didn't. People are still being targeted and murdered. The only difference is that Gaddafi isn't the one doing it.
Explicit images
Don't worry. I'm sure those dead bodies belong to bad guys.
Fucking LA Times. Lying for Qaddafi.
There's plenty of obvious reason to keep NATO out of Syria. I mean, I guess it's a good idea if you want to play Iraq the Sequel.
Then the LA Times says "some witnesses said" they heard aircraft before the building exploded?
Man I don't even have a side here but c'mon. That's what you're bringing to the table?
God damn you're a silly goose. One of the links on there is about the recent Houla massacre in Syria, claiming it's "phony" and "made-up journalism". The scroll bar at the top literally says "Say No to the US NATO World Order". Your source is the website for a bunch of fruitcakes.
And second, the intervention in Libya saved lives. If NATO didn't go in, Qaddafi would've killed more people and the civil war would've been crushed and then he would've killed more people. If NATO didn't help out more people would've died. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, etc.
And third, Syria is a tragedy, but the real reason we're out is because Ivan has a naval base there. Because the Russkies apparently like to be evil for laughs, they're supporting Assad and warning everyone else to not intervene.
It's the better option compared to leaving a guaranteed murdering insane dictator in charge.
Uh huh. Now how is this worse then what Gaddafi was guaranteed to do if he remained in power?
Oh, I see. So you only care that we used bombs to support the rebels you, in this very post, condemned for atrocities.
What the fuck are you even going on about? This is just silly gooseyness.
I'm not sure why that's not a perfectly valid reason not to interfere.