J Edgar Hoover would be proud (cynical spam acceptable in moderation)

[fable]

[QUOTE=winter rose]Im a teacher. Originally from elsewhere, but I can be an expert on the US history nonetheless, so can anyone else for that matter. [/QUOTE]

Cuch's statement was: "I don't think that Fas has blind rage or tremendously anti-US sentiments- he does live here, after all."

So...Fas can't be guilty of blind rage against the US, because he's living here.

My point is that Fas shows an emotional reaction (rage) against the US, and that his US history is very faulty. In other words, just because he lives here, now, doesn't mean he's an expert on US history, or that he's incapable of irrational rage against the US that mixes perfectly legitimate grievances with those that are hearsay, or blown out of proportion compared to other nations due to predisposition.

[winter rose]

[QUOTE=fable]Cuch's statement was: "I don't think that Fas has blind rage or tremendously anti-US sentiments- he does live here, after all."

So...Fas can't be guilty of blind rage against the US, because he's living here.

My point is that Fas shows an emotional reaction (rage) against the US, and that his US history is very faulty. In other words, just because he lives here, now, doesn't mean he's an expert on US history, or that he's incapable of irrational rage against the US that mixes perfectly legitimate grievances with those that are hearsay, or blown out of proportion compared to other nations due to predisposition. [/QUOTE]

Actually your statement was:He lives here, now. I guess that makes him an expert on US history?

You didnt mention that it was possible for him to be angry even if he lived here.Your comment clearly meant that just because he lives here, doesnt mean he is an expert on American history. Which is why I made my comment.

Anyhow all that aside, I believe Fas has brought forth valid facts. Rage does not make facts faulty, they can be brought forth in a more emotional tone- but if they are facts, they are at the end end of it all - still facts.

However if you want more, I am sure Fas will be more than happy to list them for you. Anyway carry on.

[CM]

Emotional not really. I see the US in the light of a country that has invaded roughly 15 countries over the past 50 years and actively helped in the destablization of entire region. Overthrown democractically elected govts and in its stead set up govts that were responsible for great human attrocities. I can't spell today.

I make a difference in what i want to discuss from what fable wants. I want to discuss the international arena and not the domestic one. Once we get an agreement on that it will make the discussion easier.

[fable]

[QUOTE=winter rose]You didnt mention that it was possible for him to be angry even if he lived here.Your comment clearly meant that just because he lives here, doesnt mean he is an expert on American history. Which is why I made my comment.[/quote]

Fair enough. My response didn't sufficiently address the point I wanted to make.

Anyhow all that aside, I believe Fas has brought forth valid facts. Rage does not make facts faulty, they can be brought forth in a more emotional tone- but if they are facts, they are at the end end of it all - still facts.

But some of those facts are demonstrably wrong. "Communist dictatorships do not compare to the extreme use of the US military." -This extraordinary statement glosses over the history of some of the worst dictators the world has seen, quantatively and qualitatively; notably Stalin, but also Ceausescu and other, similar megalomaniacs. And to write that the military actions of Communist dictatorships cannot compare to those of the US military, is completely, irrevocably inaccurate. I can only believe either Fas doesn't know about 20th century history in general--which I'm sure he does--or he's reacting with an intensity derived from emotion, focusing only on the US, and brushing aside far worse atrocities. It's as though a man's house was broken into, his wife raped, all his goods vandalized; and he claims that what has happened to him is worse than that of his neighbors down the street, whose house was burnt down while they were forcibly prevented from leaving. Grisly images, I know, and the worst does not excuse the merely worse. But still: proportion.

It is certainly possible to damn one perpetrator of international crimes, without casting aside the horrors of others--worse still, minimizing to the point of ignoring some of the worst offenders against humanity in history.

[Cuchulain82]

[QUOTE=fable]But that in no way differs from what I'm saying--Cuch, reread my post. [/quote]
[QUOTE=gable]He lives here, now. I guess that makes him an expert on US history?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=fable]You don't have to mediate between us.[/QUOTE]
Fable, you get so defensive sometimes. This is a discussion, remember? If we are saying something similar, then that is a good thing, right? I did explicitly write "nods to fable" and use the exact same phrase you did. I think that you have a very well informed and nuanced position. I agree with the majority of what you said.

I don't think that Fas is enraged. His posts don't seem to be emotional, just one sided.

And by the way, I wasn't mediating; I was adding in my opinion. If you didn't see that, maybe I'm not the only one who needs to reread some posts.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Fable, you get so defensive sometimes. This is a discussion, remember? [/quote]

Nonsense. It's the end of the universe. Tickets, please.

If we are saying something similar, then that is a good thing, right?

But if you state that something I wrote in fact means the opposite of what it did, and I put some effort into being very clear, I might have reason to get a bit frustrated.

I don't think that Fas is enraged. His posts don't seem to be emotional, just one sided.

Fas has posted on this general theme before over the years with what I am not alone in regarding as great emotionally derived intensity; an intensity that disregards everything unrelated to his central theme. You're welcome to read back in the forums and find those posts. -That said, it's my opinion. It needn't be yours. But until I see a good reason to change it, mine stays.

[CM]

Before we proceed further we need to set some guidelines. Firstly when discussing hegemony you only do so in the international arena. There is no such thing as domestic hegemony. I have specifically kept my comments on the international scale. We all know that the Soviet Union was a domestically repressive regime. We all know what happened in 1989 in China. The issue is not attrocities.

The issue is hegemonic power. That can only happen on an international scale. If we are to blur the line between domestic and international we will have no discussion at all as the very definition of hegemony is it is used in politics is negated.

Now i have not compared domestic and international as the US has a very good domestic record after 1963. The soviet union does not nor do other countries. But we are not discussing the domestic record or even attrocities. We are discussing hegemony over the past 60 years, specifically the US.

Lastly the idea is context. All my comments are made in light of my very first premise and statement which is constantly being ignored. Hegemonic power is applied only on the international scene. The international scene is defined as any actions taken between two territorially independent nation states. In this regard Kashmir and India is a domestic issue. Pakistan and India over kashmir is an international dispute. If comment are taken literally out of the international context then of course they sound retard.

The point is everything is seen in the international arena and my comments are linked to them and only them. However i have no problem if someone wants to compare actions taken by the US with dictatorial and repressive regimes. Its an unfair comparision for the US.

[fable]

[QUOTE=CM]Before we proceed further we need to set some guidelines. Firstly when discussing hegemony you only do so in the international arena. There is no such thing as domestic hegemony. I have specifically kept my comments on the international scale. We all know that the Soviet Union was a domestically repressive regime. We all know what happened in 1989 in China. The issue is not attrocities.[/quote]

What's happening in Chechnya, now, is not inside Russia. It is a separate nation. So is Tibet, whatever the Chinese may say otherwise, as they blithely destroy its culture. And you honestly can't claim that the "republics" of the Soviet Union outside Russia were part of a domestic regime. They didn't vote to enter. They were conquered, violently, their leaders executed, each nation subjected to a dicatorship whose like has never been seen in the world on that scale.

This also applies to the way the Soviet Union invaded, at various times, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, when each tried to reestablish its own sovreignty. So the Soviet Union was engaged in a violently repressive international hegemony. And today, Russia is doing the same, in Chechnya.

I think this point needs to be made. International atrocities cannot be set aside by claiming "Oh, the regimes are Communist, their excused," or that they lay claim to the nations they've brutally taken over, and therefore, their brutality is strictly domestic. Were that the case, we would only need to suggest to Dubya that he makes Iraq the 51st state, and poof! -No international atrocities, there. I'm sure you wouldn't countenance this, so why coutenance it in the case of Latvia? Lithuania? Hungary? The Ukraine? The list is very, very long.

Now i have not compared domestic and international as the US has a very good domestic record after 1963. The soviet union does not nor do other countries. But we are not discussing the domestic record or even attrocities. We are discussing hegemony over the past 60 years, specifically the US.

My understanding was that Sytze and I were discussing international hegemonies, period. He maintained the US was the only current one, and I maintained it wasn't. So the discussion wasn't about the US, but defining the term hegemony, and then the number of those on an international level.

Lastly the idea is context. All my comments are made in light of my very first premise and statement which is constantly being ignored. Hegemonic power is applied only on the international scene. The international scene is defined as any actions taken between two territorially independent nation states. In this regard Kashmir and India is a domestic issue. Pakistan and India over kashmir is an international dispute. If comment are taken literally out of the international context then of course they sound retard.

It isn't these remarks that bother me, but rather, such things as: "the US has always been cajoling, bullying and bribing nations into doing what the US wants..." This, and other statements of a similar sort, are demonstrably inaccurate. And that has nothing to with context. The content is either correct, or it isn't. It isn't.

Similarly, please stop defending horrific international hegemonies such as the Soviet Union or Russia, or ignoring others such as Great Britain in the 19th century. Until you know more about the Soviet Union, dismissing the way it executed the leaders of various "republics" under its benevolent rule as mere domestic repression amounts to a complete disregard for reality.

And while you're at it, Fas, please tell the 8,000,000 Ukrainians killed by Stalin that they had no business thinking they were Ukrainians, and that the suspicion that they might consider themselves so, once again ruling their own nation--without proof ever being offered--entitled them to horrific deaths. (EDIT: Okay, this last paragraph sounds like I'm getting carried away. I have studied the subject pretty thoroughly, though and I have insider's knowledge to it, since half my family was killed by Stalin's False Famine of 1932. So I can claim to know a great deal about what Uncle Joe did. )

[CM]

Ok again we have a definition problem. I personally am using areas accepted under international law. The US and the world defacto accepted the Soviet Union as one entity. Thus any action taken within the Soviet union was considered domestic. The 1956 hungarian revolution is a perfect example. Chechnya presently is not a domestic issue. Tibet again is accepted officially as part of China. The issue of Tibet is considered a domestic matter. Taiwan is not, that is a territorially independent nation state.

If we are going to apply todays world map to actions taken decades ago we are looking at two different issues and that of course will cause problems. The US govt from the end of world war 2, never raised the issue of the satellite states and their independence regularly at the international scene. The Soviet Union was accepted defacto was it was until 1989.

I do not deny rather i agree with you when you say the Soviet Regime was repressive domestically. But the issue here is hegemony. In the discussion you and I are having, is the US a tyrannical hegemonic state? Yes it is. Has it internationally caused more strife and trouble than the Chinese and Soviet Union? Yes it has. It has attacked more countries following World War II than any other nation.

Fable when have i actually defended the atrocities? Show me the exact words where i am defending them. I am saying comparing the US to dictatorial regimes is not a fair assessment to the US. It basically implies that the US regime is comparable to the Soviet Regime. It is not. I don't see why this comparision is being made.

[fable]

[QUOTE=CM]Ok again we have a definition problem. I personally am using areas accepted under international law. The US and the world defacto accepted the Soviet Union as one entity. Thus any action taken within the Soviet union was considered domestic. The 1956 hungarian revolution is a perfect example. Chechnya presently is not a domestic issue. Tibet again is accepted officially as part of China. The issue of Tibet is considered a domestic matter. Taiwan is not, that is a territorially independent nation state.

If we are going to apply todays world map to actions taken decades ago we are looking at two different issues and that of course will cause problems. The US govt from the end of world war 2, never raised the issue of the satellite states and their independence regularly at the international scene. The Soviet Union was accepted defacto was it was until 1989.

I do not deny rather i agree with you when you say the Soviet Regime was repressive domestically. But the issue here is hegemony. In the discussion you and I are having, is the US a tyrannical hegemonic state? Yes it is. Has it internationally caused more strife and trouble than the Chinese and Soviet Union? Yes it has. It has attacked more countries following World War II than any other nation.[/quote]

The US *did* dispute that occupation of most of the nations taken over by the Soviet Union. And when the Soviet Union marched troops into more than a dozen Central European nations and carving them into satellite nations, it was strongly disputed by Western leaders. It happened, and nobody was going to do anything physically about it, but it was *never* accepted other than as a fait accompli. Please don't imply otherwise. Too many millions of lives were lost fighting the Soviet Union unsuccessfully to regard their sacrifice as mere domestic repression.

But are we really talking about international diplomatic niceties forced by fear of retribution, or reality? Because if the latter, let's face it: what the Soviet Union did was horrific by any standard, and far the worst hegemony of any nation in the 20th century.

Nor do I accept that invading a separate nation, with its own language, culture, etc, is made "right" by time. If we would castigate the US for its conquering of Native American lands, why shouldn't we castigate China for doing as bad, if not worse? And as for Chechnya: it occupies the summit, if I can use that word, of atrocities on the current world stage. Nothing can approach it. Though if Russia's production capabilities increase and Putin's stranglehold continues to grow, I suspect we will see more Chechnyas in the near future.

Fable when have i actually defended the atrocities? Show me the exact words where i am defending them. I am saying comparing the US to dictatorial regimes is not a fair assessment to the US. It basically implies that the US regime is comparable to the Soviet Regime. It is not. I don't see why this comparision is being made.

By stating that we can't compare the behavior of international hegemonies because some are by nature Communist dictatorships and others claim to be democracies, you state rules that for no apparent reason remove the worst offenders of the last century, in my opinion. The intenational behavior of governments is regarded by the UN as being something measureable, isn't it? Are negative marks against the human rights records of Communist regimes removed because their Communist? No; all should be held to the same standards. I agree that the US has fallen far short, not merely of UN standards, but of its own so-called standards, especially under Dubya (but under numerous other presidencies, too). But as much can be and should be said of any government, whether elected or not, and regardless of ideology. Isn't that so?

[Silur]

Whether or not the US is the *worst* hegemony is hardly relevant, but that it is the most effective (as in most widespread effect on the largest amount of other cultures) is hardly in dispute, is it? Popular music, films, tv series, talk shows, computer games, literature and a number of other cultural expression - especially of the mass market variety - are largely produced and disseminated from the US and have been affecting global culture far more than Shrubs recent attempt at military hegemony. In fact, the latter has somewhat broken the spell of the first. American corporations have been dominant among the multinationals for many years, although I believe it has been overtaken by Japan these days. Since WWII, MacDonalds and CocaCola have been by far the most effective weapons for US imperialism than have the carpet bombings of third world nations.

I doubt anyone is denying or defending the atrocities in Tibet, Chechnya, North Korea, Israel, Sudan, Burma, <fill in arbitrary terrifyingly long list of crimes against humanity> ... It is also pointless to try to rank them in order of vileness since they all share elements such as murder of men, women and children, terrorising the populace, rape, and any number of other unacceptable crimes. There is however a difference in moral and ethical quality when atrocities are commited by a nation that claims to be, and is generally accepted as, being a democracy.

International politics is pretty much schoolyard rules right now... and I agree with Fas that the US is currently the biggest bully on the planet. If you look at China and Russia, they're acting very much like the minions of a bully. Still, they don't have the leverage to lie, cajole, manipulate, intimidate and force most of the other nations of the world to do their bidding. France and Germany stood up and objected to the invasion of Iraq. Much good it did them - they still get to pay for part of the mess and most likely will have to assist in cleaning it up anyway. Just as the rest of the world. The bully just stole our lunch money...

As I have stated previously, I believe a two-party system is roughly twice as good as a one-party system, and it only gets marginally better from there. It is not really the way you choose which one of the corrupt lot that circles the spires of power like vultures that defines how "democratic" your society is; it's how equal and juste your justice system is. I must warn you that looking at the world with that perspective is nothing but depressing, since it's basically been downhill everywhere the last decade. Still, in this aspect, one nation has been achieving "above and beyond" all others; Guantanamo Bay, Patriot act, Homeland security act, Patriot act II, and a number of similar limitations on the rights and liberties of its (and other nation's) citizens. It also uses its hegemony to influence other nations to share the same fears, values and dogma. This is largely due to Shrub and his Neocon buddies.

I say largely, because in political circles everywhere politicians who see something to gain from this jump on the bandwagon. Most notable are Russia and China, but you see it in all the European countries as well, albeit on a more subtle level. I can give countless examples from the nordic countries, France and Germany, and in particular the UK. I saw it in Morocco, where police monitored and discouraged the movement of their own people within the country (except wealthy Moroccans of course) under the pretext that it was to control the terrorist threat. A scared population is so much easier to control. Even our disgusting prime minister tries to intimidate the media into silence, which it rather odd since we have the least confrontative media I know of.

It may have started with Bush, but blaming it all on him or the US is a dangerous sentiment, since it blinds you from what is happening closer to home. What's more, we should wake up and do something! I just don't know what. Instead I get depressed and misanthropic. Besides, any attempt at change that has any hope of success will most likely be classed as a threat to national security. I forgot to mention that I am also becoming more cynical...

[Magrus]

Well put, and I agree.

Besides, any attempt at change that has any hope of success will most likely be classed as a threat to national security.

This, is why the Patriot Act was put into place. The rebel hero trying to save the day becomes "terrorist", all in a legal and efficient manner. When he dissapears, the nation is blind, cheers and says "thank god that terrorist was taken care of!". We all know 'god' enters into this, look at the president.

[Silur]

And in other news...

...it appears that the US Department of justice is looking at getting ISP's to store all email communications from their customers. What next? US postal making photo copies of private correspondence?

For further details, see C-net

[Sytze]

That was one spicy test...

I find it kind of hard to come back in the middle of the discussion after this time, and I tried my best to ‘filter’ a few subjects that fable, Magrus and I were discussing, but which CM carried on. That said, there are still a few points which I want to elaborate.

@Magrus
[QUOTE=Magrus]Bypassing one of the three sections of our government, the checks and balances system, in order to seek out anyone who may be going against the government. In thought, word and action? If it were about terrorists, they'd have included the Judicial branch as before. Making them decide if what was being done fit with the laws in place before acting. If the FBI or CIA needs to stop a Supreme Court hearing, run in and demand the attention of a judge on matters of national security, so be it. Don't nix the Judicial branches involvment altogether in these kinds of things though. That is far more than a little disquieting to me.
---
This, is why the Patriot Act was put into place. The rebel hero trying to save the day becomes "terrorist", all in a legal and efficient manner. When he dissapears, the nation is blind, cheers and says "thank god that terrorist was taken care of!". [/QUOTE]
The points you are making, is that anyone can be picked up from the streets and be thrown in jail, or silenced, if the government doesn’t agree with the things said. That, imo, is quite unrealistic. As I see it, people still have the right to complain and protest. Even the US government must be receptive to, and in the end be controlled by, its own people. If the government would pick people from the streets because they don’t agree with the opinions, then it would likely open Pandora’s Box. Think of the criticism and widespread agitation if would cause. The people in the US have shown their opinion about subjects in the past and have done so for quite some time. Suddenly revoking that right would lead to an outrage. While I agree that the indoctrination is fairly large in the US, I don't think that the largest portion of country would suddenly agree with a police state.
However, that said, it is quite unlikely the government will suddenly (emphasis on this word) do the things you (and I) just mentioned for the reasons I gave. They wouldn’t be that foolish to use martial law so suddenly. I think that, should the US continue with the martial law, patriot act, and turning the country in a police state, they need to do that very gradually, without getting too much in conflict with its own people. And I sincerely doubt Bush has the time for that. Perhaps a few following presidents will follow Bush’ example, but it’s unlike the future will continue on its current path. Democratisation will, in the end, prevail everywhere as long as people realise the better of the two options.


@Fable
[QUOTE=fable]This makes the comparison unreasonable and useless, in my opinion. Unless you're willing to consider the US as part of the OAS, in which case we can throw in a plethora of additional signed treaties, plus individual treaties negotiated by the US individual smaller Caribbean nations. And when we total that, how much more would we know? If you're trying to make a case for it bieng easier for the US to back out of treaties than an EU member, you might want to rethink that. [/QUOTE]
My point, is that OAS and UN treaties differ from EU treaties when it comes to abiding to them. UN and OAS treaties are not legally binding, and supervision is not as strict. It is true that certain EU countries are still backing out of treaties, but that is, for now, inevitable. The EU is still a relatively new institution. State sovereignty is a sore point for countries, especially when it comes to safety and defensive issues. Such things take time. However, the majority of this ‘backing out of treaties’ counts for small issues, such as immigrant problems, economic disputes, etc. For the sake of keeping the EU close and most states happy, disputes over small issues are usually avoided. But, introducing changes resembling a martial law or the patriot act do not count among small issues. A country needs so back out from quite a few important treaties (European Treaty for Human Rights, to name one) and that, in turn, would lead to a lot of criticism among other states, the EU institutions, and probably the civilians of the country itself. Thus, backing out of large and important treaties, is as good as impossible.


[QUOTE=fable]My understanding was that Sytze and I were discussing international hegemonies, period. He maintained the US was the only current one, and I maintained it wasn't. So the discussion wasn't about the US, but defining the term hegemony, and then the number of those on an international level. [/QUOTE]
I think CM and I hold the same views about the term hegemony. We both share the opinion that, in this world, the US is the hegemony. Russia’s influence has sunken enormously since the Cold War. China is, for now, coming close to sharing a hegemony with the US on an economic level. That can be disputed as well, though. China’s economy has some serious problems (inflation, debts to banks, a very low exchange rate, etc) and it’s therefore very instable. It is quite possible China will grow to be the world’s biggest economy in a few years, but it could just as easily collapse under its own weight. When it comes down to international power, the US is still holding the trophy.

[CM]

The US *did* dispute that occupation of most of the nations taken over by the Soviet Union. And when the Soviet Union marched troops into more than a dozen Central European nations and carving them into satellite nations, it was strongly disputed by Western leaders. It happened, and nobody was going to do anything physically about it, but it was *never* accepted other than as a fait accompli. Please don't imply otherwise. Too many millions of lives were lost fighting the Soviet Union unsuccessfully to regard their sacrifice as mere domestic repression.

If it did why did it accept the Soviet Union in its defined form for 40 years? It was not at all disputed strongly. If it was disputed strongly it would not have gotten a Security Council seat as the soviet union in 1945. It was accepted. Nobody recognized any indepedent govts and in 1956 they did nothing. They established diplomatic representation with a matter of months in Moscow and never mentioned the fate of these states. The term soviet union was used closely after the second world war and those states were accepted as part of the Soviet Union by international law.

But are we really talking about international diplomatic niceties forced by fear of retribution, or reality? Because if the latter, let's face it: what the Soviet Union did was horrific by any standard, and far the worst hegemony of any nation in the 20th century.

Of course it did. Who ever denied that? I am discussing the international arena. I have made that the first point of my posts and they have been ignored each time. I am referring only to the international scene.

Nor do I accept that invading a separate nation, with its own language, culture, etc, is made "right" by time. If we would castigate the US for its conquering of Native American lands, why shouldn't we castigate China for doing as bad, if not worse? And as for Chechnya: it occupies the summit, if I can use that word, of atrocities on the current world stage. Nothing can approach it. Though if Russia's production capabilities increase and Putin's stranglehold continues to grow, I suspect we will see more Chechnyas in the near future.

Again i did not deny that. I am muslim, i support the rights of Palestinains, chechnya's and kashmiris. But i am not even arguing this. I am discussing the US on the international scene.

By stating that we can't compare the behavior of international hegemonies because some are by nature Communist dictatorships and others claim to be democracies, you state rules that for no apparent reason remove the worst offenders of the last century, in my opinion. The intenational behavior of governments is regarded by the UN as being something measureable, isn't it? Are negative marks against the human rights records of Communist regimes removed because their Communist? No; all should be held to the same standards. I agree that the US has fallen far short, not merely of UN standards, but of its own so-called standards, especially under Dubya (but under numerous other presidencies, too). But as much can be and should be said of any government, whether elected or not, and regardless of ideology. Isn't that so?

Fable i asked for exact words. I can not be held responsible for you reading meanings into my words. It is your opinion not what i stated. I do not compare the US to china and Russia as they are not comparable. The US is far better than any of these two regimes can ever imagine to be. I state lets compare two entities that have similarities. The Soviet Union or Russia are completely opposite to the US in all manners. Its like comparing a horse to a ferrari. They have nearly nothing in common, save that they are modes of transportation.

And i agree with Sytze's last paragraph. The US is a hegemony today. I just hold the view it has been one since 1945 and history is proof of that. It has bribed (Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan), bullied (Cuba, Panama, Korea) and cajoled (EU, UK) countries since 1945.

[fable]

[QUOTE=CM]If it did why did it accept the Soviet Union in its defined form for 40 years? It was not at all disputed strongly. If it was disputed strongly it would not have gotten a Security Council seat as the soviet union in 1945.[/quote]

So you're saying that Pakistan and India are still pariahs, since they managed to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons? No one's dealing with either nation, correct? I hope you see what I'm saying, here. There is a necessary disconnect between moral horror over actions taken by X, and the necessity of acknowledging in Realpolitik the existence of X, and the importance of dealing with them.

So, no, the US government never legally accepted the control the Soviet Union exercised over the satellite nations it conquered, and neither did many other Western, non-Communist nations. You need proof? US president after president referred to those nations as conquered territories, and Eisenhower actually urged them in a famous speech to rise up in revolt against the Soviet. Do you want me to get copy of their anti-Communist speeches, talking about trampling the rights of everybody fromi the Ukrainians to the Hungarians? How about Churchill's? Or DeGaulle's? Or Adenauer's? It's all there, Fas. The Soviet hegemony was acknowledged because of its obvious power, but never accepted. Maybe you should read up on it? Maybe you can explain how so many tens of millions of people killed by Stalin's Soviet Union in pursuit of hegemony don't matter?

Again i did not deny that. I am muslim, i support the rights of Palestinains, chechnya's and kashmiris. But i am not even arguing this. I am discussing the US on the international scene.

I thought we were discussing intenational hegemonies. If you want to beat on the US instead, I doni't really think this forum is the place for it, nor am I interested in sitting here while you rage on. If you want, on the othe hand, to discuss international hegemonies, then factually, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were far worse in the 20th century than the US on a global scale. All I can suggest is that you read up on what the Soviet did to the nations and peoples it conquered, and Nazi Germany, as well. I have to say that I don't think, based on our previous conversations here, that you really have this knowledge at this point. Otherwise, you would have known that the Soviet Union physically conquered, with much bloodshed, nearly all the republics it took over. You would have known about the vicious crackdowns following the counter-Soviet revolutions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, after WWI, and about the horrific brutality of Stalin that wasn't domestic and limited perforce to Russia, at all.

Fable i asked for exact words. I can not be held responsible for you reading meanings into my words. It is your opinion not what i stated. I do not compare the US to china and Russia as they are not comparable. The US is far better than any of these two regimes can ever imagine to be. I state lets compare two entities that have similarities. The Soviet Union or Russia are completely opposite to the US in all manners. Its like comparing a horse to a ferrari. They have nearly nothing in common, save that they are modes of transportation.

If you had said, "taking only democratic nations, which has had the strongest military hegemony in the 20th century?" I would immediately have replied, "The US, no question." But instead, you've basically asked, "What's the worst international hegemony?" Even if we were to allow for the elimination of pre-20th century hegemonies as a condition for this list, you did not make it a condition that we remove non-democratic countries from it. If you want to add that as a rule, then sure, do so: fine. We automatically have the US as the worst military hegemony among democratic nations in the 20th century. That seems like a deliberate narrowing of the field in such a way as to provide a predetermined villain, however, and I'm really not interested in a dump-on-the-hated-US thread. I already do that enough offline.

And i agree with Sytze's last paragraph. The US is a hegemony today. I just hold the view it has been one since 1945 and history is proof of that. It has bribed (Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan), bullied (Cuba, Panama, Korea) and cajoled (EU, UK) countries since 1945.

You're entitled to do so; so is Sytze. I'm entitled to differ. I don't see absolutes in this as you both do, but rather a scale of values involving military, economic and cultural weight, as well as a second, temporal axis. And as I noted before, I see three hegemonies, and two others waiting in the wing.

[CM]

So you're saying that Pakistan and India are still pariahs, since they managed to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons? No one's dealing with either nation, correct? I hope you see what I'm saying, here. There is a necessary disconnect between moral horror over actions taken by X, and the necessity of acknowledging in Realpolitik the existence of X, and the importance of dealing with them.

If we are to go off on a tangent so be it. The US accepted (not acknowledged, accepted) in realpolitik terms the official international boundaries of the Soviet Union. It did so internationally and domestically. To say otherwise is illogical. The example of India and Pakistan does not apply as we are not dealing with territorial integrity.

So, no, the US government never legally accepted the control the Soviet Union exercised over the satellite nations it conquered, and neither did many other Western, non-Communist nations. You need proof? US president after president referred to those nations as conquered territories, and Eisenhower actually urged them in a famous speech to rise up in revolt against the Soviet. Do you want me to get copy of their anti-Communist speeches, talking about trampling the rights of everybody fromi the Ukrainians to the Hungarians? How about Churchill's? Or DeGaulle's? Or Adenauer's? It's all there, Fas. The Soviet hegemony was acknowledged because of its obvious power, but never accepted. Maybe you should read up on it? Maybe you can explain how so many tens of millions of people killed by Stalin's Soviet Union in pursuit of hegemony don't matter?

Ok now i am highly confused. Now speeches written politically have more weight than actual physical interaction and diplomatic dealings? The US did not bring any international legal measure. Rather it accepted the soviet union as it was even though Poland was a party to the original charter.

I thought we were discussing intenational hegemonies. If you want to beat on the US instead, I doni't really think this forum is the place for it, nor am I interested in sitting here while you rage on.

Ironic considering all you have discussed are domestic issues and i have repeatedly called for us to stick to the definition of hegemonies.

If you want, on the othe hand, to discuss international hegemonies, then factually, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were far worse in the 20th century than the US on a global scale. All I can suggest is that you read up on what the Soviet did to the nations and peoples it conquered, and Nazi Germany, as well. I have to say that I don't think, based on our previous conversations here, that you really have this knowledge at this point. Otherwise, you would have known that the Soviet Union physically conquered, with much bloodshed, nearly all the republics it took over. You would have known about the vicious crackdowns following the counter-Soviet revolutions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, after WWI, and about the horrific brutality of Stalin that wasn't domestic and limited perforce to Russia, at all.

Alas here we go again. Now we have comments on my knowledge on history and then we have comments on Nazi germany and Soviet Russia during world war 2 which have not even been mentioned before. I will repeat for the umpteenth time, i am looking post world war 2. The last 60 years. But again i shall comment on these tangents. I have never explicitly or implicitly said what Nazi Germany or the Soviets did was right or acceptable. They have commited many attorcities all well documented. Anything left to comment on this tangent?

If you had said, "taking only democratic nations, which has had the strongest military hegemony in the 20th century?" I would immediately have replied, "The US, no question." But instead, you've basically asked, "What's the worst international hegemony?" Even if we were to allow for the elimination of pre-20th century hegemonies as a condition for this list, you did not make it a condition that we remove non-democratic countries from it.

Re-read my posts then. I have stated three times (over the past week) that they are different forms of govt and they are not comparable.

If you want to add that as a rule, then sure, do so: fine. We automatically have the US as the worst military hegemony among democratic nations in the 20th century. That seems like a deliberate narrowing of the field in such a way as to provide a predetermined villain, however, and I'm really not interested in a dump-on-the-hated-US thread. I already do that enough offline.

Deliberate? It is reality. There is only one hegemony today. In a bipolar world that was the cold war you had two. The Soviets and the americans. The US is cupable in this respect as it models itself on human rights and basic decent values that it gives to its citizens but violates them for other nationals. The Soviet union domestically was much worse than the US will ever be. However when dealing with International hegemonies (As you want to discuss now) the Soviets did not attack as many countries as did the US. They did not bully or cajol countries as much as the US during the cold war.

You're entitled to do so; so is Sytze. I'm entitled to differ. I don't see absolutes in this as you both do, but rather a scale of values involving military, economic and cultural weight, as well as a second, temporal axis. And as I noted before, I see three hegemonies, and two others waiting in the wing.

Reality is not a concept of absolutes. But actions are. Attacking a country is an absolute. If you want to differ on the facts feel free. But the facts are the facts.

[fable]

[QUOTE=CM]If we are to go off on a tangent so be it. The US accepted (not acknowledged, accepted) in realpolitik terms the official international boundaries of the Soviet Union. It did so internationally and domestically. To say otherwise is illogical. The example of India and Pakistan does not apply as we are not dealing with territorial integrity.[/quote]

I beg to differ, and think you're splitting hairs. You're refusing to acknowledge the fact that no Western nation acknowledged what the Soviet Union did as morally correct. Why did President Eisenhower call upon the Soviet republics to revolt against their masters? And why aren't you addressing the invasion of Yugoslavia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania by Soviet forces, the wholsesale destruction of democratic sympathizers, and the installation of puppet regimes led by Communist aparachiks?

Ok now i am highly confused. Now speeches written politically have more weight than actual physical interaction and diplomatic dealings? The US did not bring any international legal measure. Rather it accepted the soviet union as it was even though Poland was a party to the original charter.

Of course it "didn't bring any international measure," whatever that means. Where would the US bring it to force any action against the so-called Butcher of the East, Uncle Joe Stalin, who was responsible for the death of tens of millions of people in lands he conquered? Can you say, "bad for future international cooperation?" Does this mean the US accepted the borders? Read what I wrote, above. And besides: what does accepting borders have to do with the fact that the Soviet Union invaded, in the 20th century, the largest percentage of land consumed by any nation on the face of the earth, and killed the largest percentage of its peoples? Please answer these questions. Explain to me how allowing a nuclear power to exist somehow clears that same nuclear power of the endless series of atrocities it committed.

As for the Poles: Do you mean the Polish government forcibly installed by the Soviets after WWII? Or do you mean the one the Soviets installed after ruthlessly repressing the Polish attempt to restore their sovreignty in 1956?

Ironic considering all you have discussed are domestic issues and i have repeatedly called for us to stick to the definition of hegemonies.

Fas, will you get a few good, solid histories of Europe in the 20th century, already? Stop insisting that nations that were conquered by the Soviet Union were simply examples of "domestic repression." Yes, I know this contradicts the case you want to make about the US as the Evil Boogeyman of All Time, but if you won't acknowledge the realities of history, how can expect to be taken seriously in a discussion of it?

Alas here we go again. Now we have comments on my knowledge on history and then we have comments on Nazi germany and Soviet Russia during world war 2 which have not even been mentioned before. I will repeat for the umpteenth time, i am looking post world war 2. The last 60 years.

And I will repeat, because you didn't apparently note it when I mentioned it, earlier: looking over the last 60 years, the Soviet Union's actions in its satellite republics and conquered "Eastern Bloc" constitute a far worse international military hegemony than that of the US. But until you read up on Stalin's Soviet Union, you won't accept that. And you won't read up on it, because the US must be The Great Evil. Every factual misstatement you make about it (and about US history), every attempt you make to duck the issue of other hegemonies of a far worse stripe, only confirms this more.

I would also note that you changed the conditions of discussion. Originally, you stated, "There is not a single decade in the past 60 years where the US has not attacked another country only to further its own political agenda." This was the first mention you made of a 60-year deadline; nothing before that. I should have noted the shift, since I was discussing a much broader timeframe with Sytze. But I didn't note it, because your comment seemed so innocuous. In fact, you didn't finish the shift over to hegemonies only in the last 60 years, until another post of yours, later.

I don't know why you want to shift the hegemonies discussion only to the last 60 years--why the magic cutoff date? Personally, since I wasn't consulted when this change was made, I don't care to see it imposed. As far as I'm concerned, I want the discussion to be about hegemonies in the 20th century.

Deliberate? It is reality. There is only one hegemony today.

Here is eliminated the rest of the US-bashing commercial. Sorry, Fas, but ignoring facts because you feel so passionately about what the US has done to the Islamic world doesn't convince me. You have convinced me, however, of one thing, that I hadn't thought I'd ever believe about you: that you regard the US as the most evil nation on the face of the earth, and will acknowledge no facts that bring this opinion into question.

[CM]

I beg to differ, and think you're splitting hairs. You're refusing to acknowledge the fact that no Western nation acknowledged what the Soviet Union did as morally correct. Why did President Eisenhower call upon the Soviet republics to revolt against their masters? And why aren't you addressing the invasion of Yugoslavia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania by Soviet forces, the wholsesale destruction of democratic sympathizers, and the installation of puppet regimes led by Communist aparachiks?

Very well. If you recall my earlier posts i said that the US defacto accepted the Soviet Union's territorial integrity after a short period. Personally the US accepted the Soviet Unions de facto territorial integrity when it accepted the Soviet Union's seat on the UN. Very well lets address that as long as you promise to address the role of the US. Because you have been dodging that since i posted in this thread.

Of course it "didn't bring any international measure," whatever that means. Where would the US bring it to force any action against the so-called Butcher of the East, Uncle Joe Stalin, who was responsible for the death of tens of millions of people in lands he conquered? Can you say, "bad for future international cooperation?"

Odd the US govt knew exactly what that meant when they refused to accept PRC as the rightful authority on the SC and i am surprised you didn't see the relation.

Does this mean the US accepted the borders? Read what I wrote, above.

Where? Could you quote it again, as i can't find it.

And besides: what does accepting borders have to do with the fact that the Soviet Union invaded, in the 20th century, the largest percentage of land consumed by any nation on the face of the earth, and killed the largest percentage of its peoples? Please answer these questions. Explain to me how allowing a nuclear power to exist somehow clears that same nuclear power of the endless series of atrocities it committed .

Tangent and not all on subject. But very well. It has nothing to do with the Soviet Union as that is not the subject of discussion. The fact is as follows. The US accepted the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union as establishing multilateral and bilateral negotiations. That is the basis of any diplomatic connection.

Fable re-read my posts again. I mentioned 1945 and the end of the 2nd world war before the 60 year cut off period remark.

As for the Poles: Do you mean the Polish government forcibly installed by the Soviets after WWII? Or do you mean the one the Soviets installed after ruthlessly repressing the Polish attempt to restore their sovreignty in 1956?

Neither.

Fas, will you get a few good, solid histories of Europe in the 20th century, already? Stop insisting that nations that were conquered by the Soviet Union were simply examples of "domestic repression." Yes, I know this contradicts the case you want to make about the US as the Evil Boogeyman of All Time, but if you won't acknowledge the realities of history, how can expect to be taken seriously in a discussion of it?

Fable please don't troll, it is not becoming.

And I will repeat, because you didn't apparently note it when I mentioned it, earlier: looking over the last 60 years, the Soviet Union's actions in its satellite republics and conquered "Eastern Bloc" constitute a far worse international military hegemony than that of the US. But until you read up on Stalin's Soviet Union, you won't accept that. And you won't read up on it, because the US must be The Great Evil. Every factual misstatement you make about it, every attempt you make to duck the issue of other hegemonies of a far worse stripe, only confirms this more.

Fable i am sorry but i guess you missed these statements I made:

Here is eliminated the rest of the US-bashing commercial. Sorry, Fas, but ignoring facts because you feel so passionately about what the US has done to the Islamic world doesn't convince me. You have convinced me, however, of one thing, that I hadn't thought I'd ever believe about you: that you regard the US as the most evil nation on the face of the earth, and will acknowledge no facts that bring this opinion into question.

Fable again i can not be held responsible for your inaccurate reading my very clear statements. If Sytze says there is one hegemony, its an opinion. If silur says the US is the only hegemony its ok. But if i make that comment now I am being biased? Care to explain that to me fable?

I have spent half of my posts discussing the soviet union and topics you want to discuss. We have to yet discuss indepth any of the US actions.

[Athena]

He's on fire