4 ms·

Yeah, thats the imperialist mentality. The west didnt care as much until recently due to being imperialists themselves, but this is no longer the guiding policy

by dreen 5y ago

Yeah, thats the imperialist mentality. The west didnt care as much until recently due to being imperialists themselves, but this is no longer the guiding policy (though still a sentiment present in politics and societies).

flavius29663 5y ago
well, I for one hope that the world changed forever, and the wars are now economic and cybernetic. Russia with late middle age tactics and 20th century fascism can just be walled off for all I care. When they evolve to present day they should be allowed out.
toyg 5y ago
> this is no longer the guiding policy After 20 years of failed Western imperial warfare over several countries, this statement is really, really incorrect. The problem is, in fact, that imperialism got back on the menu in 2001, and in 2003 it became the main dish. At that point, anyone who had a doubt on what to choose, followed the chef's advice. It would have been silly not to.
- dreen 5y ago
  The US is a country with the strongest Imperial streak in the west, that is true, but youre still comparing apples to oranges. The Russian brand of imperialism is something from colonialist times, and involves eradicating entire populations, nationalities, to replace with their own. They forcibly resettled over 20 million people last century (or maybe that was just Stalin), countries with rich history which simply do not exist anymore. And the Russian society allows this, because the imperialist mentality is so prevalent that the state gets away with it, because they cannot do wrong, and because the mental slavery of a large part of the population is unshakeable. And just because these conflicts existed doesnt mean imperialism guides everything. If it did, and the US practiced full imperialism they would own half of middle east by now, and millions of arabs would be dead.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    American Imperialism: keep the oil flowing (we don't have to sell it ourselves, you guys drill, sell and profit, just keep it flowing), keep the trade as free as possible, have at least some sort of justice system that is not medieval, don't start genocides, don't start senseless wars (by senseless we mean against a country that respects all the points above), don't humiliate us(Cuba, Iran). If you do these, you're gonna be in pretty good terms with the US, in general. IMO this about sums it up, the fierce American Imperialism. You just cannot put American imperialism and Russian Imperialism in the same paragraph without being a Russian troll or apologist. Russian Imperialism: conquer nations through medieval, brutal wars, for no reason other than "they border us, so we must attack them first", displace 30% of the population to Siberia (10% in gulags), move in your Russian colonists to take their place, install your own people at the top of the country, you can only do good trades with Russia and its allies, maybe you'll have your entire resources stolen anyway.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  That is just not true. Just because the US invaded it does not equate imperialism. The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources. The US absolutely wanted Iraq as a puppet regime, not just on its own but as a toehold for a project to transform the region into a set of US economic satellites. Numerous people who went on to senior defense and foreign policy roles in the Bush Administration wrote about that intent before Bush was elected, and agitated to use 9/11 as the pretext for that war immediately after it happened, but were initially drowned out by people that thought we ought to address the people that actually launched the attack first. The US also very much wanted to exploit Iraq’s resources to fund that project and insulate the US against the economic power of other oil producing states to influence domestic economic conditions.
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US? And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
      - toyg 5y ago
        > how come they didn't install a puppet regime Because the definition of "puppet regime" in US terms is "a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set". Only where that fails, like in Egypt or Pakistan, they support overt strongmen. The first 5-10 years or so of post-Saddam Iraq were an attempt at achieving the former. Then Iran brought some stability and it was accepted as the lesser evil, because resources and political support for the occupation were over.
        5y ago

by dreen 5y ago

flavius29663 5y ago

well, I for one hope that the world changed forever, and the wars are now economic and cybernetic. Russia with late middle age tactics and 20th century fascism can just be walled off for all I care. When they evolve to present day they should be allowed out.

toyg 5y ago

> this is no longer the guiding policy After 20 years of failed Western imperial warfare over several countries, this statement is really, really incorrect. The problem is, in fact, that imperialism got back on the menu in 2001, and in 2003 it became the main dish. At that point, anyone who had a doubt on what to choose, followed the chef's advice. It would have been silly not to.

dreen 5y ago
The US is a country with the strongest Imperial streak in the west, that is true, but youre still comparing apples to oranges. The Russian brand of imperialism is something from colonialist times, and involves eradicating entire populations, nationalities, to replace with their own. They forcibly resettled over 20 million people last century (or maybe that was just Stalin), countries with rich history which simply do not exist anymore. And the Russian society allows this, because the imperialist mentality is so prevalent that the state gets away with it, because they cannot do wrong, and because the mental slavery of a large part of the population is unshakeable. And just because these conflicts existed doesnt mean imperialism guides everything. If it did, and the US practiced full imperialism they would own half of middle east by now, and millions of arabs would be dead.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  American Imperialism: keep the oil flowing (we don't have to sell it ourselves, you guys drill, sell and profit, just keep it flowing), keep the trade as free as possible, have at least some sort of justice system that is not medieval, don't start genocides, don't start senseless wars (by senseless we mean against a country that respects all the points above), don't humiliate us(Cuba, Iran). If you do these, you're gonna be in pretty good terms with the US, in general. IMO this about sums it up, the fierce American Imperialism. You just cannot put American imperialism and Russian Imperialism in the same paragraph without being a Russian troll or apologist. Russian Imperialism: conquer nations through medieval, brutal wars, for no reason other than "they border us, so we must attack them first", displace 30% of the population to Siberia (10% in gulags), move in your Russian colonists to take their place, install your own people at the top of the country, you can only do good trades with Russia and its allies, maybe you'll have your entire resources stolen anyway.
flavius29663 5y ago
That is just not true. Just because the US invaded it does not equate imperialism. The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources. The US absolutely wanted Iraq as a puppet regime, not just on its own but as a toehold for a project to transform the region into a set of US economic satellites. Numerous people who went on to senior defense and foreign policy roles in the Bush Administration wrote about that intent before Bush was elected, and agitated to use 9/11 as the pretext for that war immediately after it happened, but were initially drowned out by people that thought we ought to address the people that actually launched the attack first. The US also very much wanted to exploit Iraq’s resources to fund that project and insulate the US against the economic power of other oil producing states to influence domestic economic conditions.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US? And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
    - toyg 5y ago
      > how come they didn't install a puppet regime Because the definition of "puppet regime" in US terms is "a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set". Only where that fails, like in Egypt or Pakistan, they support overt strongmen. The first 5-10 years or so of post-Saddam Iraq were an attempt at achieving the former. Then Iran brought some stability and it was accepted as the lesser evil, because resources and political support for the occupation were over.
      - 5y ago