4 ms·

All I meant to say is that it is not an either/or situation. I acknowledge the United States engages in plenty of realpolitik that is hypocritical and runs coun

All I meant to say is that it is not an either/or situation. I acknowledge the United States engages in plenty of realpolitik that is hypocritical and runs counter to its supposed ideals. I think we should acknowledge that it is a topic whose breadth and complexity cannot be captured by a couple of forum posts. I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals. I feel that it is a disservice to them and those ideals to write them off or discount their existence because of instances of hypocrisy in US policy. That is all I wished to communicate.

random314 4y ago
Like I said, I don't know of a single instance where US lent support to a faction that would not increase alignment with NATO corporations, post FDR. I am all ears, if there are any counter examples. My tool of choice is Occams razor and it has served me well so far. I, personally, am not aware of a single counter example. FDR had started to deviate by establishing friendly relations with Stalin's Russia. The possibility of a president deviating from the agenda was put firmly to death by making it illegal for a president to have more than 2 terms, after FDRs death. As much as I hate Trump and Putin, Trump was the only President to deviate from the NATO consensus on various issues. It was a bad idea and grift by Trump and I didn't support it. > I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals. I 100% believe that. I believe Obama was well intentioned as well. For example, he tried to reduce tensions with non NATO countries like Cuba and Iran. However, when push came to shove- he supported ISIS in Syria. Even Bidens price cap on insulin was written so that insurance Corporations profits are completely unaffected, the costs will simply be spread out to all insurance customers. As for the folks you know, they could be working with the US Government on providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians and Syrian refugees, while another arm of the government is fucking them over. The point is - the overall structure of the US government is built to primarily advance the objectives of NATO corporations. There will be thousands of individuals doing good work within the government. I know several of them myself. However, these are secondary- not primary objectives of the state Another example, George Bush removing democracy in Haiti and installing a dictator https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-02-fg-usrole2-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-02-fg-usrol... If it was Obama, he probably would have left Haiti alone. Haiti is strategically meaningless to USA. But Bush had to execute a coup.So, yes, the people in the government matter. But the singular thrust of US Foreign policy is alignment with NATO. It's as clear as daylight.
- zeraynor 4y ago
  Based on your criteria I would consider the US support for a post-Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt perhaps counter-productive for US interests for the sake of democracy. https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-funded-military-work-with-islamists-morsi-mubarak https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian-leader-mohamed-morsi-spells-out-terms-for-us-arab-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian... I would also consider the continued humanitarian support of Afghanistan as not aligned with NATO corporate interests, broadly speaking. EDIT: As compared with the continued occupation of the country. https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-28-2022-united-states-provides-nearly-55-million-additional-funding-afghanistan https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-28... Double edit: Also as far as know European members of NATO hated the backtracking of American policy on Iran due to business interests. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-france-business/france-to-do-utmost-to-protect-business-interests-in-iran-idUSKBN1IA140 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-france-busin...
  - random314 4y ago
    Funnily enough, Morsi is now dead. And the United states was active against Morsi, irrespective of the public posture. The optics of being seen as reversing the Arab spring was not good, as was supporting Al Qaeda in Syria. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/10/exclusive-us-bankrolled-anti-morsi-activists https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/10/exclusive-us-ba... As for humanitarian support, I have already stated with examples of Syria and Palestine that these secondary activities happen- however, they do not change the primary thrust of US foreign policy. Afghanistan is no different. When I say that primary objective of the United states is supporting the goals of NATO corporations it does not mean that secondary goals such as social security, unemployment reduction and Medicare don't exist. As for Iran, I already stated that Obama moved to normalize relationship with non NATO Iran and Cuba by allowing other countries to trade with them etc. I also explained how Trump is the only president who went off-script by engaging with Russia, ruining the TPP and also harming French/NATO business interests that were developing in Iran. Your edit refers to actions by Trump. The previous president to do that was FDR. This led to the 2 term limit on presidency as he 1. Introduced social security 2. Normalized relationships with Russia 3. Raised taxes There was a plot to assassinate fdr as soon as he was elected. Surprisingly enough, nobody was prosecuted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot "Roosevelt's election was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, as his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the perverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending "

random314 4y ago

Like I said, I don't know of a single instance where US lent support to a faction that would not increase alignment with NATO corporations, post FDR. I am all ears, if there are any counter examples. My tool of choice is Occams razor and it has served me well so far. I, personally, am not aware of a single counter example. FDR had started to deviate by establishing friendly relations with Stalin's Russia. The possibility of a president deviating from the agenda was put firmly to death by making it illegal for a president to have more than 2 terms, after FDRs death. As much as I hate Trump and Putin, Trump was the only President to deviate from the NATO consensus on various issues. It was a bad idea and grift by Trump and I didn't support it. > I know great people, far better than myself, that have dedicated themselves to these ideals. I 100% believe that. I believe Obama was well intentioned as well. For example, he tried to reduce tensions with non NATO countries like Cuba and Iran. However, when push came to shove- he supported ISIS in Syria. Even Bidens price cap on insulin was written so that insurance Corporations profits are completely unaffected, the costs will simply be spread out to all insurance customers. As for the folks you know, they could be working with the US Government on providing humanitarian relief to Palestinians and Syrian refugees, while another arm of the government is fucking them over. The point is - the overall structure of the US government is built to primarily advance the objectives of NATO corporations. There will be thousands of individuals doing good work within the government. I know several of them myself. However, these are secondary- not primary objectives of the state Another example, George Bush removing democracy in Haiti and installing a dictator https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-02-fg-usrole2-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-mar-02-fg-usrol... If it was Obama, he probably would have left Haiti alone. Haiti is strategically meaningless to USA. But Bush had to execute a coup.So, yes, the people in the government matter. But the singular thrust of US Foreign policy is alignment with NATO. It's as clear as daylight.

zeraynor 4y ago
Based on your criteria I would consider the US support for a post-Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt perhaps counter-productive for US interests for the sake of democracy. https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-funded-military-work-with-islamists-morsi-mubarak https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian-leader-mohamed-morsi-spells-out-terms-for-us-arab-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian... I would also consider the continued humanitarian support of Afghanistan as not aligned with NATO corporate interests, broadly speaking. EDIT: As compared with the continued occupation of the country. https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-28-2022-united-states-provides-nearly-55-million-additional-funding-afghanistan https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jun-28... Double edit: Also as far as know European members of NATO hated the backtracking of American policy on Iran due to business interests. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-france-business/france-to-do-utmost-to-protect-business-interests-in-iran-idUSKBN1IA140 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-france-busin...
- random314 4y ago
  Funnily enough, Morsi is now dead. And the United states was active against Morsi, irrespective of the public posture. The optics of being seen as reversing the Arab spring was not good, as was supporting Al Qaeda in Syria. https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/10/exclusive-us-bankrolled-anti-morsi-activists https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/10/exclusive-us-ba... As for humanitarian support, I have already stated with examples of Syria and Palestine that these secondary activities happen- however, they do not change the primary thrust of US foreign policy. Afghanistan is no different. When I say that primary objective of the United states is supporting the goals of NATO corporations it does not mean that secondary goals such as social security, unemployment reduction and Medicare don't exist. As for Iran, I already stated that Obama moved to normalize relationship with non NATO Iran and Cuba by allowing other countries to trade with them etc. I also explained how Trump is the only president who went off-script by engaging with Russia, ruining the TPP and also harming French/NATO business interests that were developing in Iran. Your edit refers to actions by Trump. The previous president to do that was FDR. This led to the 2 term limit on presidency as he 1. Introduced social security 2. Normalized relationships with Russia 3. Raised taxes There was a plot to assassinate fdr as soon as he was elected. Surprisingly enough, nobody was prosecuted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot "Roosevelt's election was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, as his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the perverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending "