Senate The legacy of Fidel Castro (1926-2016), and the future of Cuba

Yeah I feel like when America abused the **** out of the island, they really forfeited any moral superiority over Fidel when you factor in all the human right abuses globally the US has perpetrated + the situation in Batista eta Cuba.

 

Up to a certain extent, yeah. But I mean...to take a more extreme example I guess...is the Kim dynasty in North Korea justified in what it did considering what Japan did to their country in the early 20th century? At a certain point (perhaps we differ as to where that point is) the "bad foreigners" excuse just falls flat

 

That's deceptive Japan was already a felled power, the United States on the other hand under the guise spreading freedom has been on a wanton 60 year violence spree across the planet. You can not chalk up responding to violent colonialism as xenophobic scapegoating. The USA made a big deal how it's new era would be different from the age of European colonialism, but all it did was change the paint job on a lemon (as is a bad used car).

The United States aids any regime no matter how brutal, or how opposed it is to the "will of its people" as long as it is open to US business interests, and will sabotage, attack, overthrow, any nation with the temerity to resist or oppose it.

Look at any US backed or US aligned maniac of Middle Eastern, African, South American, origin and compare them to whom ever public enemy #1 was in that same region...Hell or in different regions.

 

The whole "the US isn't an Empire because we don't have colonies" is all a ruse. We just took the lessons of the Europeans, figured out a more covert way to exercise our imperialist impulses, and have been implementing them since….well since at least the war with Mexico(likely sooner).

Thomas Jefferson didn't coin the phrase "Empire of Liberty" for nothing. Yeah, Empire for white slaveholders and their commericial beneficiaries.

 

So what would you say has to change before America is no longer considered imperialistic?

 

We could start by getting rid of most/all of U.S. military bases overseas. If that's not imperialistic (especially places like Gitmo and Diego Garcia), then what is?

 

How is having military bases overseas "imperialistic"? It's not like we're imposing our military bases against the will of the host countries (with a few exceptions, like Guantanamo, and that you could call imperialistic).

 

If a foreign nation had a significant military detachment stationed in the United States, you don't think that would be a bit imposing regardless of the consent of our government?

Plus, many U.S. bases in the present and recent past have such a terrible legacy. There are those obtained by the United States' own conquest (bases in the Philippines, Cuba, Japan, Germany, Italy, many Pacific islands, South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq), there are those the U.S. inherited from fading colonial powers (e.g., Kuwait, Bahrain, Djibouti), there are some where the entire population was evicted to make way (Diego Garcia), and there are many-- so many-- where the United States makes deals with dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, absolutist monarchies for the right to have a base. Remember when U.S. forces stood by as local military and police brutally suppressed and massacred civilians (because it served the U.S.'s interests to stand by)? It's happened more than once. Freedom.

 

If those countries wanted us out, then we'd leave. That's what happened with the Philippines in the 1990's, and more recently in Iraq as well. It's a trickier issue when the government in question isn't representative of the will of the people...but I would bring up Egypt as a counterpoint. When Egyptians rose up against Mubarak, we told him he had to step down. We didn't try to prop him up against the will of the people, and we couldn't have even if we tried.

 

You also knew that he was ultimately just a figurehead of the real structure in power, which was and is the military command. Mubarak, as expected, got a nice severance package to go chill in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Also, wasn't Obama's handling of that protest really an outlier in US response to these sorts of things? I strongly suspect that most anyone other than him would, at best, stood idly by and paid lip service or, at worst, actively helped the regime in suppressing the protesters. I remember a number of right-wing pundits were openly criticising the President's support for the protests at the time. I can't remember if any actual politicians openly opposed it, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Under Obama the U.S. was selective about which "Arab Spring" revolts to support. Tunisia and Egypt had U.S.-friendly governments, but the movements against those regimes were too big to not support-- and yes, ultimately Egypt's military regained control so nothing really changed in the largest Arab country. Libya and Syria had regimes the U.S. didn't like, so of course they would support ousting the bothersome Qaddafi and Assad. With regards to the rest of the Arab world, the U.S. was completely uninterested in weakening allies and, for example, let Bahraini and Saudi forces suppress protests on the Persian Gulf island because 1. important naval base and 2. IRAN!!!11!!1

 

Are you actually serious, or just trolling?

The US has the capacity to project its force globally. Combined with its cancerous culture, that's been pushed to every corner of the globe (want foreign aid? You'll need to let McDonalds and Coca-Cola set up shop too!), it's an empire in the modern sense of the word.

The only thing required for it not to be is to accept Paul Kennedy's thesis and let America's superpower status die out.

 

Uhm….when we weren't supportive of an oppressive regime of a country it was usually because the Soviets were, not for any virtuous reasons. It was out of pure balance of power statecraft during the Cold War.

 

I'm reasonably sure the people of Okinawa would vastly prefer your cadre of undereducated by lethal rapists got the **** off their island and stopped lusting after their 14-16 year old female demographic, Alpha.

 

Yes, I remember. I wanted to mention that aspect too, and at first I did, but then removed it to not get too long winded. I also do some self-censorship. If I "whine" too much about US foreign policy too often, I will easily get tuned out, 'cause I'm just the bitter Iranian kid. What with my passive-aggressive signature too, it can get a little much.

 

"Too critical" of U.S. foreign policy?

EDIT: "Whine"?

 

Yeah, why?

 

From my point of view it's okay to be persistently and harshly critical of U.S. foreign policy.

 

Well, sure, but people usually get more defensive against criticism from foreigners than with domestic criticism. Also, more importantly, people tend to more easily dismiss your arguments if they know you to be on the receiving end of past slights. The thought process goes "well, of course he's gonna hate everything we do, we screwed him over! He's incapable of being objective".

 

Approved.

 

Okay, well if there were a protest somewhere else that was too big not to support...say, Okinawa...wouldn't the result be the same? We simply wouldn't have any choice other than to respect their wishes.

 

Many countries with a U.S. military presence, including Japan/Okinawa, have had significant protests against that presence and the majority of the population tends to disapprove of our government's benevolence. That's different than the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, and Bahrain, which were aimed at toppling their own governments.

 

**** them. Fire away. I value the perspective, even the whining, of someone who has been on the receiving end of our blunders far more than defensive/dismissive arguments from ignorant Americans who think we can do no wrong. Being irrational, jingoistic morons, they're hardly objective themselves. Idiots who think we should "make glass" need to hear from someone on the receiving end.

 

Significant protests perhaps, but are you sure it amounts to a majority? If it were I'm sure they'd be able to elect a government that would enact their preferences.

 

Yeah, just like we do here.