5 ms·
It's quite sad. I really do broadly think of the US as "the good guys". And where they are not perfect, they tend to be better than most. But things like this,
by rich_sasha 3y ago
It's quite sad. I really do broadly think of the US as "the good guys". And where they are not perfect, they tend to be better than most.
But things like this, and similar heavy handed botch jobs that America then continues to double down on... really sting.
Especially since, if you are a liberal, small "d" democrat, there isn't much alternative for world leadership. The EU is too sleepy to do it, and most of the other players (Russia, China, India etc) are either illiberal or focused on internal problems.
So even when the US decides to continue to dish out collective punishment on a nation with rich culture and history, even then there isn't much alternative to it.
- cpursley 3y ago> they tend to be better than most Domestically, maybe. Internationally, well - ask those on the receiving end of US geopolitical and military shenanigans.
- preciousoo 3y agoEven the word maybe is doing a lot of heavy lifting
- HDThoreaun 3y agoAsk anyone on the receiving end of any geopolitical or military shenanigans how they feel about it. Most nations are far more disrespectful toward other nations they get involved with, they just have less power.
- cpursley 3y agoHow many nations has China bombed in Africa? They’re quite involved there - building infrastructure, laying rail. Can you point to any US funded infrastructure projects there in the last 20 years?
- rich_sasha 3y agoWell, clearly. That's my point: that paired with, IMO, a really decent set of values, pragmatism and a will to lead, there's also some quota for such "geopolitical and military shenanigans". Which is disappointing.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Internationally, well - ask those on the receiving end of US geopolitical and military shenanigans Japan, Korea and Europe, for instance? The Philippines? We're not great. But we're better than our colonial predecessors, or their imperial precursors.
- NikkiA 3y agoAnywhere in the middle east, anywhere in south east asia, Grenada, A dozen or so countries in Africa, anywhere in Central America or South America. But it's ok, they don't teach you these things in US schools.
- cpursley 3y agoThe US treated the Philippines absolutely horribly and its still a basket case today. South Korea for most of its post WW2 life has been a totalitarian dictatorship. Europe was already civilized and fairly democratic before US occupation.
- barelysapient 3y agoThis can be over tomorrow. Release the political dissidents and hold open free elections. Sanctions will be lifted.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoIf those were the conditions to put an embargo on another country, I reckon the US would be quite busy.
- Gud 3y agoOf course the difference between Cuba and most countries is that Cuba is in USAs back yard, while most countries aren’t.
- barelysapient 3y agoThis is a general pattern with the US. The communist coop in '65 illegally seized American property, illegally imprisoned Americans, and to this day the Cuban government oppresses and jails political dissidents. American foreign policy tends to be fairly uniform this way, no? If Iran released prisoners and held open elections, I suspect American would move to lift embargos and normalize relations. Same with Caracas, et al.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoIt seems that the issue is socialism, then?
- barelysapient 3y agoIt might be a role; but I think the pattern is that a strong-man government overthrows a democratically elected government. When that occurs, American sanctions follow. To see this play out in real time, watch Niger. https://www.state.gov/military-coup-detat-in-niger/ https://www.state.gov/military-coup-detat-in-niger/
- basisword 3y agoThe irony of the US having an embargo against Cuba...while also basing their war crime camp there is so ridiculous it's hard to believe.
- hitpointdrew 3y agoYou can’t make this shit up.
- SkyMarshal 3y agoI think one problem right now is that the US policy class tried the strategy of economic engagement and integration with authoritarian China, expecting it to liberalize and democratize as a result. But that backfired horribly, and the CCP used its newfound wealth to become increasingly authoritarian internally, belligerent externally, and to initiate the largest and fastest military buildup since Nazi Germany in the 1930s. As a result there’s even less chance of the US policy class ever agreeing to that strategy again, especially not with Cuba. Unlike China, Cuba is a mere 90 miles away from the US, and just a few minutes flight time for a tactical nuclear missile to Washington DC. The US will never take that risk again. Cuba will have to democratize first for that embargo to ever end.
- rightbyte 3y ago> just a few minutes flight time You realize that it is only for the, what, top 0.001% for which the exact flight time has any relevance, so that they have time to hide and spend the next 200 years underground belittling us for not being war mongers enough.
- SkyMarshal 3y agoI think you missed the broader point. The point is there is a non-zero risk that dropping the embargo might enable Cuba to smuggle or develop weapons that could quickly hit anywhere in the Eastern half of the US or further, DC or elsewhere, with little or no warning or possibility of defense. You don't have to be a warmonger to see that any possibility of that is a non-starter.
- rightbyte 3y agoSure. But there are satellites to watch for that, and I reckon that while the embargo might make manufacturing or importing some long range high explosive missiles somewhat harder, it is probably mainly a matter of will, which friendly ness is way better to counter. I mean Hamas seems to make missiles out of scrap.
- 3y ago
- legitster 3y ago> there isn't much alternative for world leadership. I strongly suggest you glance through the Accidental Superpower. Take what it says with a grain of salt, but it lays out a pretty strong case that the US's role in global politics is going away and that everything will be returning to a pre-Bretton Woods, "every people for themselves" world.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> US's role in global politics is going away and that everything will be returning to a pre-Bretton Woods, "every people for themselves" world We're pretty much there. We don't need to be peaceful hegemony to project power where necessary. It's personally aggravating to see legitimate attempts as peacekeeping cast as colonialism. If a region wants to just buy arms and duke it out on their own, there is no downside to America aside from morality. And that standard is flexible in any civilization.
- barelysapient 3y agoI want this so bad. Can. We. Just. Fucking. Stop. Seriously. Ukraine and Russia? None of our business. Palestine and Israel? None of our business. Defense of Europe and NATO membership? None of our business. Let the world figure out their own shit.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y agoIt’s none of the US’s business until it is. If China takes over Asia you think they will stop there? Kill a monster when it’s small. Defense in depth. Also shipping lanes.
- wing-_-nuts 3y agoIf a nation takes unilateral action that the world wishes to prevent, then maybe it's the world's shared responsibility to respond. I have no problem with the US being an equal partner in that, but right now we're doing nearly everything, and the American tax payer is paying for it.
- UtopiaPunk 3y agoThe world is complicated, but I honestly believe that last 70 years or so of geopolitics makes more sense if I start with the assumption that the USA are "the bad guys." Vietnam, Iraq, Iran in the 50s, Chile in the 70s, Israel/Palestine since the beginning, the list goes on. Hell, even in WWII where the USA was ostensibly on the "right side" of the war, the USA ended it in such an profoundly evil way by dropping two nuclear bombs, killing thousands and thousands of people. There's a good list of US-invovled regime change on Wikipedia, for anyone looking for a starting place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... Besides armed conflict, the way the USA exploits the third world in the name of mining resources and cheap manufacturing is abhorrent. Conditions that are illegal within the USA's borders are common elsewhere, and then the USA turns a blind to that suffering while enjoying cheap food, clothes, and gadgets
- ed_mercer 3y agoNot dropping nukes would have resulted in way more casualties. It was a calculated decision to minimize loss of life, not be an evil enemy.
- api 3y agoI agree in principle but have always wondered if a purely military target could have been chosen, at least for the first demonstration. Something like a military port or base. After that it could have been made clear that arms manufacturing centers may be targeted next, followed by political centers. (They did not know we had only two bombs and would need time to make more.) As far as I know the reasoning was that the Japanese public would have to see it, but I wonder if a suitable military target on the mainland could have been found that would have minimized civilian casualties while being impossible for the regime to hide.
- rich_sasha 3y agoSo here I disagree. You list a number of wars that turned out to be disasters, and in hindsight were possibly a bad idea to get involved in. But I see you missed off Korea - a very bloody war, which however cemented a free(ish) South Korea. I'd imagine present day South Koreans are quite glad to not be under Kim Jong Sun's thumb. Had the Vietnam war succeeded, would we see it similarly? As for Iraq wars, terrible as they turned out to be, I see a kernel of wanting to contain, then remove, a really awful tyrant. That Hussein was terrible seems to be beyond any question. Alas, the medicine was perhaps more bitter than the disease. I think it's just hard to be the world's policeman, and maybe you get even most things wrong. That in itself doesn't mean you're a bad guy. I'm not defending the outcomes, just to be clear. As for America as "the bad guys"... It seems you don't live in a country neighboured by a proper baddie. At worst, I would say that the worst, most terrible, isolated atrocities of the American wars of last 30 years perhaps match the daily reality of what Russia does in Ukraine.
- didntknowya 3y agoif you take a step back, double blind every country's name and judge them based on their history, i doubt most, if any, would rate the US as the good guy. it has a history of starting wars, especially in places far from their territory, and has overthrown/destabilized many governments for their own interest. it's civil rights records isn't the best either, but it constantly criticizes internal politics or other countries. sooner or later they'll have burnt enough bridges people won't forget.
- lenkite 3y agoI used to stupidly think the US were the "good guys" too. Until Libya and then Syria occurred. U.S. media were telling one story about "moderate rebels" and "freedom fighters" while my friends - actual citizens there - told another story. The U.S. political system is merely a puppet of its War Industry which eggs on war year after year to make its oligarchs richer and richer while causing extensive mass slaughter in the name of "democracy".
- peter-m80 3y agoNo, you are not the good guys. Not at all.