9 11

[Berzerker]

So the US pushes for increased trade, and a group of big countries makes a group to try and improve trade among them. I would guess the US has been very effective if they have that much influence.

Brics didn't rise in response to US pushing for increased trade, just the bullying of neocons.

[-Jrabbit]

There's no way you have the factual knowledge to make such a distinction. This post is the equivalent of hearsay and innuendo.

[Berzerker]

Of course...they have no interest in things like nine-dashed (or now 10 dashed?) lines and "spheres of influence". If it wasn't for us they would be sooooo peace loving.

You really do have a myopic view of things Berz. The U.S. may be a power seeker, but it is hardly alone in that. Not to mention that both Russia and China are very famous for seriously abusing their own people. They are not "nice guys" who are only reacting to us. Far from it imo...without us, they would be very much expanding their oppressive regimes.

We murdered millions so Russia and China wouldn't expand? Russia has been shrinking while we terrorized the world. Maybe some of that oppression is the result of the US surrounding them with graveyards from proxy wars. We'd have to go back to the cold war for that policy but wasn't it the west that decided to cut Russia out of Europe? I think we were intent on "us & them" following wwii...

[Berzerker]

Let me nominate a few:

1.) Syria...where the regime uses power drills to drill into civilians skulls as a form of interrogation
2.) China...where forced sterilization and internment of an entire people is happening before the worlds eyes.
3.) Russia...where summary execution, rape and torture are a means of occupation
4.) Afghanistan...where women are executed for going out without wearing burkahs or if not accompanied by a male
5.) North Korea...where millions have been starved to death because the country wants the money to feed them to be used on weapons of mass destruction

Interesting how all of these candidates for a "greater evil" are who the U.S. considers adversaries...but YOU say we are the bad guys. You really should take another look at your world view.

6) Ukraine... where the USA armed Nazis to murder Ukrainians protesting their coup to provoke a war with Russia

Glad to see you're finally citing the evil done by governments to their own populations, but wouldn't all these regimes just point back at us? Our country was built on genocide, slavery, and wars of expansion. The post cold war was the result of Wall St and Washington choosing the policy of division and isolation and our targets responded by becoming more oppressive. Somebody posted a video of Chinese children being taught how to use and maintain weapons as a sign of things to come. No kidding, we have China surrounded and our politicians are constantly beating the drums of war profits.

I dont consider any of those countries adversaries. Obama armed terrorists to destroy Syria and Carter/Reagan armed terrorists to destroy Afghanistan. NK is a time capsule of the cold war we declared and I blame all 3 super powers for its current situation. I argue for no standing army and you cite evil regimes created in response to our standing army. I did take another view of the world, from the perspective of peoples terrorized by our drones and proxy wars and impoverished by economic coercion. How do you explain brics if the USA is so beloved?

[Dauphin]

Despotic murderous regimes existed long before the U.S. Such regimes have no need of the US to push them to such behaviours. It's like claim a swimming pool is wet because a kid pissed in it.

[N35t0r]

Brics didn't rise in response to US pushing for increased trade, just the bullying of neocons.

'BRIC' was invented by wall street in order to better sell products coming from certain emerging markets.

It wasn't until a lot later that these countries decided to get together to discuss issues, which for most of their existence was pretty much only trade and the economy.

[PLATO]

6) Ukraine... where the USA armed Nazis to murder Ukrainians protesting their coup to provoke a war with Russia

Glad to see you're finally citing the evil done by governments to their own populations, but wouldn't all these regimes just point back at us? Our country was built on genocide, slavery, and wars of expansion. The post cold war was the result of Wall St and Washington choosing the policy of division and isolation and our targets responded by becoming more oppressive. Somebody posted a video of Chinese children being taught how to use and maintain weapons as a sign of things to come. No kidding, we have China surrounded and our politicians are constantly beating the drums of war profits.

I dont consider any of those countries adversaries. Obama armed terrorists to destroy Syria and Carter/Reagan armed terrorists to destroy Afghanistan. NK is a time capsule of the cold war we declared and I blame all 3 super powers for its current situation. I argue for no standing army and you cite evil regimes created in response to our standing army. I did take another view of the world, from the perspective of peoples terrorized by our drones and proxy wars and impoverished by economic coercion. How do you explain brics if the USA is so beloved?

I have always seen the evil of governments. I, as any rational person would, just don't see the U.S. as being the worldwide cause of all things bad. Your point on how the USA rose as a nation in the 1800s is not relevant in any way to today's world. How did the Russian empire come into being? How did the British empire come into being? What about Charlamagne? History is literally littered with genocide, slavery, and wars of expansion for most major countries. Yours is a non-argument that is meaningless in the context of this discussion. Your thoughts on China are nothing short of laughable. China, like Russia, hopes to regain and consolidate things they controlled in the past. They have no regard for international law or boarders. Tibet is a good case here. The South China Sea is another.

You may not consider any of those countries adversaries, but they would happily murder you and your family to obtain their goals. Interestingly, I know of no where the USA is seeking the territory of another country, yet in your eyes we are the "aggressor" and those that openly talk of taking over others are the "oppressed". Clearly you are tainted by a hatred of the USA that is inexplicable in rational terms. Perhaps this is why so much of what you say is irrational. There is no rational justification for most of your conspiracy theories. WRT to Syria...no one was arming the citizens who rose up and were slaughtered in the streets. We can clearly see what happens when the USA does arm someone in Ukraine...the UAF brought the Russians to a halt and are now pushing them back. Yet, in Syria, it only took some airstrikes by Russia to turn the tide to effectively defeat a rebellion with an antiquated Syrian armed force...hardly evidence that we were trying to overthrow Syria by supplying arms. The type of arms supplied barely gave the people a chance of defending themselves against slaughter. I have zero doubt that if we were committed to overthrowing Assad that he would be long gone by now. Afghanistan is a bit different. When the people there rebelled against tyranny and oppression, the Russians invaded. We supplied a lot of arms there to get them to leave...and they did. The failure there was the post Soviet time period where we did not effectively engage the Afghan people to help them establish some stability. It was a LACK of involvement that was the problem and that did lead to a different kind of tyranny. It seems we did not learn from history given our latest foray into that country. DPRK is interesting in that the brutal regime there exists ONLY because of the Chinese. ROK is a highly developed, free country with a high standard of living. All of Korea would be that example without CHINESE intervention. Because of that, literally millions have starved to death to keep a brutal regime in place. That would would have been a great outcome for the UN if China had not gotten involved.

You state that you advocate no standing army and in other posts state we should rely solely on a nuclear deterrent. This is a ludicrous idea. If you had a howitzer as your only means of defense in your home, would you use it to shoot flies? If not, how long tell you were living with maggots. Neither are acceptable outcomes. Further, the idea that the USA having a standing army CAUSED evil regimes has so little basis in reality that the concept is hard to reconcile with any set of facts. However, facts do seem to be an item you regularly disregard. Prior to WWI, the USA had a very small standing army, but that didn't stop a world war. Same is true for WWII. Since WWII, the USA has maintained a large army and no world war. Even empirically your argument has no weight.

Finally, let's do talk about BRICS. Every country in BRICS has a robust trading relationship with the USA. The relationships with Brazil, India, and South Africa are growing. Even the relationship with China is nominally growing. Defense co-operation between India and the USA is growing and India is pulling away from Russia. India's issues with China are also well understood. Brazil and the USA have a robust defense relationship. They have minimal relationships with either China or Russia on these fronts. So, NO...BRICS is not a counterweight to anything (Most particularly not the G7 as Serb has suggested). BRICS is exactly what it seems to be on the surface...Countries exploring ways to increase their economic output by discussing issues with people who either share their economic position or have been there not to long ago. If anything, the expansion of BRICS is an attempt by China to shore up the Russian economy far more than it is any real attempt to provide an alternative to the West.

So, in summary, you are yet again wrong on nearly every point you try to make. Your views are very myopic and limited in scope given the larger set of facts that are available to you.

[Berzerker]

The Monroe Doctrine didn't die in 1900 and we've become even more aggressive with our tentacles around the world. We have the S China Sea surrounded and you think China is the aggressor? We have an army in Syria occupying their oil and food crops along with punishing sanctions compounding the damage from earthquakes. Is that a violation of int'l law? We're in Syria for regime change, not installing ISIS. They're just the means of terrifying the population into supporting our replacement for Assad. We couldn't just assassinate him, he and the power structure in place is allied with Russia. We want 'popular uprisings' to remove leaders we dont like, world opinion matters. So criticizing US foreign policy = hating the USA? Sounds kinda fascistic, I dont equate Joe Biden or George Bush with "America".

And I dont advocate only nukes... drones, missiles etc, and delivery systems are fine. Just get rid of the standing army and navy. I'd get Bug-A-Salt if I wanted to shoot flies. If you dont think our military stance in the world doesn't induce military responses how do you explain the size of Russia's nuclear arsenal? WWI was fought between nations with large standing armies, you make my point... We haven't seen a 3rd world war because of nukes, that hasn't stopped the USA from routinely destroying other countries with our military. They dont have nukes to deter us.

[Ming]

Since you hate America so much, why don't you move to some small nation with no standing army... oh, and then stop watching video's online

[N35t0r]

I mean, I would live in Costa Rica over the USA any day

[Berzerker]

I was thinking Belize but I'm not sure outside the US is safer than inside the US

[Berzerker]

there's the other version of "you hate America", "love it or leave it"

[Berzerker]

anybody else noticing the same language was used by right wingers during Vietnam? Seems like the go to for people who want wars

[Ming]

You only seem to see the country through your internet video imposed glasses.
Don't believe everything simply because you saw somebody rant on a video.

[PLATO]

The Monroe Doctrine didn't die in 1900 and we've become even more aggressive with our tentacles around the world.

The Monroe Doctrine was put in place to keep developing countries in the Western Hemisphere from being exploited by established European powers. Are you are saying that being aggressive around the world to stop exploitation is a bad thing??

We have the S China Sea surrounded and you think China is the aggressor?

We have threatened allies around the South China Sea that we have agreed to protect from aggression. It appears that they need it since China is illegally claiming territory against international law. Or should we just abandon our allies and let China take what they seem to think is theirs?

We have an army in Syria occupying their oil and food crops along with punishing sanctions compounding the damage from earthquakes. Is that a violation of int'l law? We're in Syria for regime change, not installing ISIS. They're just the means of terrifying the population into supporting our replacement for Assad. We couldn't just assassinate him, he and the power structure in place is allied with Russia.

Syria is simply an evil regime. That said, the reason the U.S. is there is to suppress ISIS. UN Security Council resolution 2249 authorizes this...hence no violation of international law. Assad's alliance with Russia is not what stays the U.S. hand in this.

We want 'popular uprisings' to remove leaders we dont like, world opinion matters. So criticizing US foreign policy = hating the USA? Sounds kinda fascistic, I dont equate Joe Biden or George Bush with "America".

We do want popular uprisings to overthrow evil and oppressive regimes. Remember, Syria believes that using a power drill to drill into someone's skull is an acceptable means of interrogation. Not to mention the thousands of civilians that have "vanished" without a trace. Why would you not want people to take control of their governments? This seems to be a pattern with you (Ukraine is a good example of the MAJORITY of people wanting to determine their own way and you are obviously against that also). As far as not "equating" Presidents with "America", then who speaks for the country if not its elected leader?

And I dont advocate only nukes... drones, missiles etc, and delivery systems are fine.

That is what an army is...the people who run these systems. You need layered defenses for them as well. Who protects the drone operator in the field? It is the infantry and the armor. If you are saying that we just need the systems but not the people to man them then that is ludicrous. An army is an integrated machine. You take one part away and another becomes vulnerable.

Just get rid of the standing army and navy.

Addressed the army above, but what exactly is a navy? It is a mechanism that allows the systems you seem to want to be delivered into a conflict zone. Are you suggesting that the best strategy is to wait to be attacked on our own land?

I'd get Bug-A-Salt if I wanted to shoot flies.

And who will operate it? Who will maintain it? Who will resupply it? Who will protect it from other threats? The bug defending army that supports the weapon...that's who.

If you dont think our military stance in the world doesn't induce military responses how do you explain the size of Russia's nuclear arsenal?

I think Khrushchev banging his shoe does more to explain why Russia has nuclear weapons than I could ever do. They have been an aggressor state for quite a long time. If WE didn't have nukes, then Russia would surely have used theirs by now.

WWI was fought between nations with large standing armies, you make my point...

Your point was that THE USA having a large standing army caused wars. We did not have a large standing army at the start of WWI or WWII. The US dismantling its army would not stop anyone from having their own...so own goal on that one.

We haven't seen a 3rd world war because of nukes, that hasn't stopped the USA from routinely destroying other countries with our military. They dont have nukes to deter us.

There is probably some truth in this statement. MAD probably did a lot to contain Soviet ambitions. I don't see anything credible that it stopped anything the US was trying to do. Then again, we don't go to war to gain territory.


Finally, I want to give you the benefit of some very basic research. According to Wiki, there have been 105 invasions of territory since 1945. 10 of them have been by the US...that is 9.5%. It seems there must be some other "boogeymen" out there as well.

[Berzerker]

When AQ attacked the US on 11-09-2001 it was part of their appalling plan to provoke the US into a war that AQ would exploit to establish a new caliphate leading a vast jihad against the infidel. Bush certainly obliged them but their muslim brothers did not. It is apt indeed to say that in that case at least our adversaries wanted us as adversaries indeed.

Both attacks on the WTC were in response to incoming presidents refusing to remove our military and ending the mass murder of Muslims. Or maybe a group of Muslims half way around the world woke up one day hating our 'freedom'. Now I wont accuse neocons of wanting Muslims to attack the WTC but they certainly learned in '93 it was a target of people objecting to their aggressive, nay, fascistic foreign policy. I imagine quite a few neocons got over their shock and awe on 9/11 quickly enough to relish their coming invasion of the MIddle East.

[Berzerker]

The Monroe Doctrine was put in place to keep developing countries in the Western Hemisphere from being exploited by established European powers. Are you are saying that being aggressive around the world to stop exploitation is a bad thing??

Funny doctrine from slavers. Most of the western hemisphere was already under European powers and slavery was on the outs with them, we were headed west and when those powers relinquished control we took over the rest. Brics threatens our control.

We have threatened allies around the South China Sea that we have agreed to protect from aggression. It appears that they need it since China is illegally claiming territory against international law. Or should we just abandon our allies and let China take what they seem to think is theirs?

We've been in the region for over a century and supported the losing side (shocking, huh?) in China's civil war and waged wars on its border for decades. This was all the result of our cold war, we told Russia and China FU we got the bomb and we need 'adversaries' so war profiteers can loot the US treasury. Now Americans point to China's efforts to defend itself and complain about aggression.

Syria is simply an evil regime. That said, the reason the U.S. is there is to suppress ISIS. UN Security Council resolution 2249 authorizes this...hence no violation of international law. Assad's alliance with Russia is not what stays the U.S. hand in this.

Damn near every regime is evil. I thought the UN's power was limited to international disputes. How did Russia agree to such a resolution or did the US just interpret it to justify our invasion? I dont think int'l law says we can arm ISIS to destroy Syria and then invade to deny Syria its oil and food. Can you cite this law? If you can, shall we bet on who wrote it? lol int'l law. Are these the same people who covered up for terrorists using gas on civilians to blame Assad?

We do want popular uprisings to overthrow evil and oppressive regimes. Remember, Syria believes that using a power drill to drill into someone's skull is an acceptable means of interrogation. Not to mention the thousands of civilians that have "vanished" without a trace. Why would you not want people to take control of their governments? This seems to be a pattern with you (Ukraine is a good example of the MAJORITY of people wanting to determine their own way and you are obviously against that also). As far as not "equating" Presidents with "America", then who speaks for the country if not its elected leader?

Is that why we're arming a Saudi genocide in Yemen? A large majority of Ukrainians wanted to end the war in the Donbas years ago, Zelensky got 3/4ths of the vote promising to end the war. The only part of Ukraine he lost was the western Bandera strongholds who supported the war. Dont know how they feel now. What will you say if the people of the Donbas and Crimea dont want to be ruled by Kiev? If you had your way the same fine people attacking them for a decade will be put back in charge. In a fascist country dear leader is in charge, in ours we have a separation of powers and Bill of Rights with everyone getting a say regardless of any political consensus.