5 ms·

honest question that seems more pointed than it is: how many anti-CCP/China posts did the CIA sponsor last year?

by bjshepard 10y ago

CountSessine 10y ago
None?
- bjshepard 10y ago
  The history of the American Intelligence State from the cold war onward suggests that "none" is an unlikely possibility.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
If you mean the Chinese Intelligence Agency, they aren't anti-CCP. If you mean the Central Intelligence Agency, then we have no evidence that they are, and it is highly likely that they wouldn't bother. What is in it for the USA to destabilize China and/or overthrow the CPP? A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache.
- bjshepard 10y ago
  Strategic anticipation of long-term conflict over control of the pacific -- presumably they wouldn't want a failed state, they would want a parliamentary democracy ruled by a "liberal" party subservient to American hegemony.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    The narrative that America wants to democratize the world only really exists in places like Russia, Middle East, some of leftist Europe. But really, if you think about it just a little bit, there is nothing in it for us. A democratic China would be even more difficult for the US to deal with, given that the politicians would be subject to populist whims. It might be good for China as it creates some additional pressure valves, but we don't care about that, we are pretty happy to let China plod along wherever its going (just please stop pushing up housing prices on the west coast). There aren't any huge ideological battles going on these days, the cold war is over, and the big baddies for us to face are failed states and terrorism, both of which would thrive in a more unstable China. Heck, our worst nightmare is Russia imploding. I bet they lift up on sanctions soon just because of that.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      Modern Russia has rotten core anyway. Too many questions that are left without answers but just pushed away and piled on and on. So sanctions don't help but also don't hurt. When Putin ends or nukes the fridge is when all the fun will start.
    - wangii 10y ago
      Of course USA govt. has a strong interest to `democratize` the world: a world with same ideology would greatly reduce the risk of unknown/uncontrollable frictions and the cost of communication. just think how many think tanks, scholars have nice payrolls, and ultimately it's the USA govt. who pays. Operations like spying, funding social unrested in other countries are not necessarily under the mission of regime change. they are more like insurance. take China for example, what if its economy suddenly sinked and President Xi had no choice but to start a war against Japan/Taiwan/...? In these nightmare scenarios, groups of unrest with strong connections to USA govt. would become handy, if not crucial. I bet every major powers have hundreds of nightmare scenarios, and each of them has various `assets` requirements presented to the congress/presidents/chairmen, with a dotted bottom line: "hope for the best and prepare for the worst."
      - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
        This hasn't born out in practice. Elections do not garauntee stability, at least before a certain point in the development spectrum. If China democratizes on its own, great, but meddling by us won't lead to a good outcome. I'm not sure how making a destabilized China even less stable would improve the situation, nor do I think this insane theory is a part of the USA's security doctrine. The USA's biggest form of security is its huge unmatchable military, if things get bad with an established country, they just blow things up for awhile. The danger is if that country falls apart into a bunch of factions that cannot be targeted via conventional warfare. Put this way: gulf war 1, Iraq invaded Kuwait, we easily take them out. But we don't dismantle their government because...that would make the problem much worse and our military much less effective (good at taking out countries, not so much in taking out terrorists, Isis, etc...). Gulf war 2: the son is not as smart as the father, goes too far, screws us for a decade+ in an unwinnable war. Sadam Hussein as an intact power was much easier to deal with than the vacuum that now exists. So if something bad happens with China, there will probably be a good gulf-war-1 style spanking involved, but not with the goal to destroy China, depose its government, and make the situation much much worse. No one in the USA gov hated Gaddaffi enough to want him out at the cost of a destabilized Lybia (it was the lybians themselves who wanted him out). The enemy you know (and can easily bomb) is much better than the enemy you don't know.
- jjcc 10y ago
  > A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache. Here's one of the most interesting deceptive phenomenon that almost all the modern human failed to detect. That's why the states have so many headaches and will continue to have more headaches. A rational politician should control his/her own strong desire from ideology(i.e. eager to spread the value of democracy/universal human rights all over the world) to avoid the "huge headache". But the reality is irrational politicians driven by their strong belief pretend to be rational so others think their decision is based on reasoning. A famous example as I mentioned in another post is Mr.Obama blamed G.W.Bush, who created headache of Iraq with a naive view that he was doing good thing to Iraqis, but Obama created Libya headache by himself. What he criticized Bush in words is just a way of showing he had a better judgement and more reasonable than Bush so he can win in election. His behavior shows there's little difference. Another example is Politicians like to talk "US interests". Most people might not think of the WORD is just a way to show other people they are rational. Their behavior not always really align with US interest. Next time when you hear a politician saying "A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache and against US interest", don't be so confident they are the same as you. Politicians are special specie extremely good at creating wrong impression to other people.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    I don't think Obama created the Lybia headache, they were already breaking up (failing) with the Arab Spring way before the USA intervened. The USA also didn't kill Gaddafi, there was no oil to procure, and it was a NATO action anyways. Contrast to Iraq, that was all on the USA. The people weren't revolting, no civil war, there was just no reason for us to go there. Obama is very different from GW Bush.
    - rjsw 10y ago
      The push to do something in Libya was from Europe, it does have plenty of oil though.
  - dmode 10y ago
    Your overall point is accurate, but the example is bad. Obama did not deliberately intervene in multiple middle eastern countries to "spread democracy". Remember the Iran demonstrations and there were calls for US intervention and we got silence from Obama. Or when Mubarak was facing the heat, still no intervention. Same for Syria or Sudan or Somalia or any of the other countries that were failing.
Luc 10y ago
I can't remember where I read it, but I think the CIA is prohibited from generating propaganda that could influence people in the US, e.g. English-language internet posts.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure the CIA / FBI / DIA / NSA / DHS / other alphabet-soup agencies do whatever-the-fuck they want, regardless of what they are "prohibited" from doing.

honest question that seems more pointed than it is: how many anti-CCP/China posts did the CIA sponsor last year?

CountSessine 10y ago

None?

bjshepard 10y ago
The history of the American Intelligence State from the cold war onward suggests that "none" is an unlikely possibility.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

If you mean the Chinese Intelligence Agency, they aren't anti-CCP. If you mean the Central Intelligence Agency, then we have no evidence that they are, and it is highly likely that they wouldn't bother. What is in it for the USA to destabilize China and/or overthrow the CPP? A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache.

bjshepard 10y ago
Strategic anticipation of long-term conflict over control of the pacific -- presumably they wouldn't want a failed state, they would want a parliamentary democracy ruled by a "liberal" party subservient to American hegemony.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  The narrative that America wants to democratize the world only really exists in places like Russia, Middle East, some of leftist Europe. But really, if you think about it just a little bit, there is nothing in it for us. A democratic China would be even more difficult for the US to deal with, given that the politicians would be subject to populist whims. It might be good for China as it creates some additional pressure valves, but we don't care about that, we are pretty happy to let China plod along wherever its going (just please stop pushing up housing prices on the west coast). There aren't any huge ideological battles going on these days, the cold war is over, and the big baddies for us to face are failed states and terrorism, both of which would thrive in a more unstable China. Heck, our worst nightmare is Russia imploding. I bet they lift up on sanctions soon just because of that.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Modern Russia has rotten core anyway. Too many questions that are left without answers but just pushed away and piled on and on. So sanctions don't help but also don't hurt. When Putin ends or nukes the fridge is when all the fun will start.
  - wangii 10y ago
    Of course USA govt. has a strong interest to `democratize` the world: a world with same ideology would greatly reduce the risk of unknown/uncontrollable frictions and the cost of communication. just think how many think tanks, scholars have nice payrolls, and ultimately it's the USA govt. who pays. Operations like spying, funding social unrested in other countries are not necessarily under the mission of regime change. they are more like insurance. take China for example, what if its economy suddenly sinked and President Xi had no choice but to start a war against Japan/Taiwan/...? In these nightmare scenarios, groups of unrest with strong connections to USA govt. would become handy, if not crucial. I bet every major powers have hundreds of nightmare scenarios, and each of them has various `assets` requirements presented to the congress/presidents/chairmen, with a dotted bottom line: "hope for the best and prepare for the worst."
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      This hasn't born out in practice. Elections do not garauntee stability, at least before a certain point in the development spectrum. If China democratizes on its own, great, but meddling by us won't lead to a good outcome. I'm not sure how making a destabilized China even less stable would improve the situation, nor do I think this insane theory is a part of the USA's security doctrine. The USA's biggest form of security is its huge unmatchable military, if things get bad with an established country, they just blow things up for awhile. The danger is if that country falls apart into a bunch of factions that cannot be targeted via conventional warfare. Put this way: gulf war 1, Iraq invaded Kuwait, we easily take them out. But we don't dismantle their government because...that would make the problem much worse and our military much less effective (good at taking out countries, not so much in taking out terrorists, Isis, etc...). Gulf war 2: the son is not as smart as the father, goes too far, screws us for a decade+ in an unwinnable war. Sadam Hussein as an intact power was much easier to deal with than the vacuum that now exists. So if something bad happens with China, there will probably be a good gulf-war-1 style spanking involved, but not with the goal to destroy China, depose its government, and make the situation much much worse. No one in the USA gov hated Gaddaffi enough to want him out at the cost of a destabilized Lybia (it was the lybians themselves who wanted him out). The enemy you know (and can easily bomb) is much better than the enemy you don't know.
jjcc 10y ago
> A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache. Here's one of the most interesting deceptive phenomenon that almost all the modern human failed to detect. That's why the states have so many headaches and will continue to have more headaches. A rational politician should control his/her own strong desire from ideology(i.e. eager to spread the value of democracy/universal human rights all over the world) to avoid the "huge headache". But the reality is irrational politicians driven by their strong belief pretend to be rational so others think their decision is based on reasoning. A famous example as I mentioned in another post is Mr.Obama blamed G.W.Bush, who created headache of Iraq with a naive view that he was doing good thing to Iraqis, but Obama created Libya headache by himself. What he criticized Bush in words is just a way of showing he had a better judgement and more reasonable than Bush so he can win in election. His behavior shows there's little difference. Another example is Politicians like to talk "US interests". Most people might not think of the WORD is just a way to show other people they are rational. Their behavior not always really align with US interest. Next time when you hear a politician saying "A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache and against US interest", don't be so confident they are the same as you. Politicians are special specie extremely good at creating wrong impression to other people.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  I don't think Obama created the Lybia headache, they were already breaking up (failing) with the Arab Spring way before the USA intervened. The USA also didn't kill Gaddafi, there was no oil to procure, and it was a NATO action anyways. Contrast to Iraq, that was all on the USA. The people weren't revolting, no civil war, there was just no reason for us to go there. Obama is very different from GW Bush.
  - rjsw 10y ago
    The push to do something in Libya was from Europe, it does have plenty of oil though.
- dmode 10y ago
  Your overall point is accurate, but the example is bad. Obama did not deliberately intervene in multiple middle eastern countries to "spread democracy". Remember the Iran demonstrations and there were calls for US intervention and we got silence from Obama. Or when Mubarak was facing the heat, still no intervention. Same for Syria or Sudan or Somalia or any of the other countries that were failing.

Luc 10y ago

I can't remember where I read it, but I think the CIA is prohibited from generating propaganda that could influence people in the US, e.g. English-language internet posts.

mindcrime 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the CIA / FBI / DIA / NSA / DHS / other alphabet-soup agencies do whatever-the-fuck they want, regardless of what they are "prohibited" from doing.