So how are y'all preparing for the Apocalypse?

[Matthew Hughes]

The US did not "colonize" foreign lands to extract their natural resources and subjugate their peoples.

I understand what you're saying. I'm saying you're wrong. Not everything America needs can be found in America. At the dawn of the twentieth century, America needed rubber and couldn't grow rubber trees. So they got it from the Philippines.

That was colonization to extract natural resources. The Filipinos, who had been fighting the Spanish for independence, were subjugated. Read "Little Brown Brother," the classic text on the "pacification"" of the Philippines.

America wanted bananas they couldn't grow, so the United Fruit Company suborned the elites of Central and South American "banana republics" to get them to rejig their economies in favor of the cash crop sold for prices set by the company. That came at the expense of subsistence farming, so the farmers had to be subjugated by troops and police trained and armed by Americans.

They called it neocolonialism, but it wasn't all that new. Most of the troops who subjugated the population of India were Indian sepoys.

Colonization does not have to mean simple looting. Integrating the colony into the home country's economic infrastructure is an important aspect of colonization.

The US grew rich by making things at home with US based labor. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

Britain grew rich by making cotton textiles in Lancashire, using British labor. They made sure they had a good supply of cotton at a reasonable price by ruling India. Was there anything wrong with that? India got railroads out of it, a transplanted tea industry, and a British-style system of governance, so historians can argue about whether it was a "good thing" or not.

 

[Fish Owl]

and a British-style system of governance, so historians can argue about whether it was a "good thing" or not.

As long as people see historical events as "bad" or "good" and divide whole nations in similar manner humanity will continue to repeat same mistakes and learn nothing from history.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

As long as people see historical events as "bad" or "good"

Sorry, you won't have caught the reference to 1066 and All That, a famous and funny British book which purports to reproduce British history as it would be remembered by your average upper-class alumnus of Eton or Harrow. It frequently describes events like the Norman Conquest or the English Civil War as a "good thing" or a "bad thing."

 

[RX-79G]

Britain grew rich by making cotton textiles in Lancashire, using British labor. They made sure they had a good supply of cotton at a reasonable price by ruling India. Was there anything wrong with that? India got railroads out of it, a transplanted tea industry, and a British-style system of governance, so historians can argue about whether it was a "good thing" or not.

As I've previously pointed out, much of this is a matter of scale. The British Empire was the largest empire of all time. You're comparing that to the Philippines and some fruit plantation countries the US was in.

1920 British holdings:

This is what I mean when I say that people like to equivocate everything. The US does something "evil" that involves tens of thousands of deaths, and that is somehow "the same as" the actions of countries that have killed multiple millions. The US takes over the Philippines from Spain and prepares the country for independence, and that's somehow the same as UK control of important nations on 5 continents.

And this perspective is used to denounce the effect that a large, self sufficient and (formerly) neutral country has had in a world that easily could have become entirely despotic in the last century.

I just think it is short sighted and disproportionate. It isn't about "fairness" or anyone owing the US - I just think it lacks perspective in what was really happening to the world and how bad things could have gone otherwise. The North and maybe South America might have been spared for awhile, but most everywhere else would have become Fascist, Communist or Japanese after too long, because all the non-North American manufacturing was concentrated in Europe, the USSR and the Far East. Such a world would have little need for islands of neutrality, so the Swiss would cease to be, followed by the Finns. Once Britain fell South Africa and India would have new masters. Turkey may have fought briefly, but the middle east would have been swallowed up by the oil seeking Germans, trading fuel to the Japanese to keep the Soviets at bay to the north, except for maybe Iran that the Soviets already had invaded.

I think the fighting would have been largely over by 1950. The Chinese would collapse without US support, Australia and New Zealand would have become Japanese lands. There would still be plenty of revolutionary resistance all over, but that doesn't topple dynasties. The German army would begin to incorporate genetically acceptable French, British and Scandinavian divisions to keep the peace. The three remaining powers may have continued to skirmish with each other, but the Soviets and Nazis had happily made treaties in the past, and without the Allies, Soviet ideas about European conquest would have been limited. I imagine they would have become more interested in China and the Middle East after receiving permission to take over Finland.

Or maybe England and the Soviets could have beat the Germans eventually due to radar and code breaking, and the USSR would have swallowed Europe by 1960 while Japan expanded in the East.

 

[Fish Owl]

much of this is a matter of scale.

Of course. For example, when you say that "China killed 1-5-10-50 millions of its own citizens" you must consider the scale of a country when even one mistake in politics or economy can cause so many deaths.

The US does something "evil" that involves tens of thousands of deaths, and that is somehow "the same as" the actions of countries that have killed multiple millions.

USA get a lot of bad response because of double standards policy. It was the same with British Empire. You can’t take two violations of international law and say one is acceptable because its “good” or lead to “better consiquences” (how the hell anyone can confirm that?). For example invasion of Iraq is “prepearing Iraq people for democracy and independence” while same invasion of Afghanistan by USSR is an “act of aggression and occupation”. Kosovars and Chechens are “freedom fighters fighting tyranny to protect themselves” while Ossetians, Abkhazians or ethnic Russian separatists are “mindless criminals, brutes and enemies of free world”. You can’t advocate Kosovo and at the same time condemn South Osetia or Donetsk as a direct violation of international law. That’s hypocrisy and double standards.

Another thing is – Americans do not understand or care about how sensitive some political or national topic can be in Europe or Asia. For example let’s take a random quote of yours: “Russia killed 20 ml. Soviet people”. The quote itself is absurd because there was no Russia during USSR era. Soviet government was a mixed bag of all nations that lived in USSR: Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Tatars and other. By claiming that “Russia invented communism and killed millions in former USSR countries” you provoke national conflict, hatred, historical vandalism. This is what is now happening in Ukraine.

Another thing is American support for some regimes because those regimes are supposedly champions of democracy. I will again give you example of Ukraine since I live here. USA support Porochenko who is much worse than any of our previous president. He is corrupted, mean and oppressive. He assassinates his political enemies and journalist and use neo-Nazi youth to silence anyone who talks bad about him. People are living in terror and afraid to criticize him in any way. He is hated by both pro-Russian part of population and Ukrainian nationalists. Literally nothing good happened during his reign, people hate his guts. Buy every time you switch to American or British media they are telling us that Porochenko maybe is not a perfect choice but still a friend of democracy. And by supporting him “USA is preparing Ukraine for democracy and independence”.

People see such hypocrisy and hate Western countries for it.
I hope you at least consider what I said and maybe think about it more sometime.

 

[RX-79G]

Of course. For example, when you say that "China killed 1-5-10-50 millions of its own citizens" you must consider the scale of a country when even one mistake in politics or economy can cause so many deaths.

What I'm trying to point out is that only totalitarian regimes can kill millions with a "mistake in politics or economy". That doesn't happen in free market countries because the entire populace doesn't have to take stupid instructions, and is free to travel away from famine.

USA get a lot of bad response because of double standards policy. It was the same with British Empire. You can’t take two violations of international law and say one is acceptable because its “good” or lead to “better consiquences” (how the hell anyone can confirm that?). For example invasion of Iraq is “prepearing Iraq people for democracy and independence” while same invasion of Afghanistan by USSR is an “act of aggression and occupation”. Kosovars and Chechens are “freedom fighters fighting tyranny to protect themselves” while Ossetians, Abkhazians or ethnic Russian separatists are “mindless criminals, brutes and enemies of free world”. You can’t advocate Kosovo and at the same time condemn South Osetia or Donetsk as a direct violation of international law. That’s hypocrisy and double standards.

For the most part, I agree with you. But we do get back to the equivocation problem - the US has a history of setting its occupied former enemies free as sovereign states, and other countries (like the USSR) just keep occupying them. So when autocratic Russia is "helping" the "rebels" in neighboring Ukraine (which has a lot of ethnic Russian citizens), it doesn't look much like freedom anything is happening, because a not-so-free country is attempting to make a neighboring country subordinate to it. The methods and excuses all sound the same, but the expectations are different because of both the history and temperament of the states involved.

You just can't claim to be "setting a country free" like Afghanistan or Tibet if you have absolutely no stated interest in those countries ever returning to self government and your own state is against representative government.

In the modern internet, post Communist age, the US has no interest in setting up puppet dictators to fend off Communist expansion - dictatorships aren't stable in the information age. Free market representative governments are the most stable, because they are mired in the bureaucracy of democracy - you can't have a revolution when everyone is already part of the process.

Another thing is – Americans do not understand or care about how sensitive some political or national topic can be in Europe or Asia. For example let’s take a random quote of yours: “Russia killed 20 ml. Soviet people”. The quote itself is absurd because there was no Russia during USSR era. Soviet government was a mixed bag of all nations that lived in USSR: Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Tatars and other. By claiming that “Russia invented communism and killed millions in former USSR countries” you provoke national conflict, hatred, historical vandalism. This is what is now happening in Ukraine.

No one in foreign lands is promoting internal descent among the former Soviet states by speaking casually about the old power structures. The Soviet revolution started with a country called "Soviet Russia", which then entered into a union with several other states and invaded several others to form the USSR, which was run out of the Russia, used Russia as the defacto national language, was culturally dominated by Russia and was composed of just over 50% ethnic Russians. After the breakup of the USSR, Russia is the one sitting on the UN security council and Russia has the most power and influence. So I don't buy your melting pot argument - the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc were controlled by a Russian power structure and Russian dominance that still exists. So when the west observes something about "Russians", it isn't some racial thing - it is the observation that Russian citizens have always had the most clout in the region.

Another thing is American support for some regimes because those regimes are supposedly champions of democracy. I will again give you example of Ukraine since I live here. USA support Porochenko who is much worse than any of our previous president. He is corrupted, mean and oppressive. He assassinates his political enemies and journalist and use neo-Nazi youth to silence anyone who talks bad about him. People are living in terror and afraid to criticize him in any way. He is hated by both pro-Russian part of population and Ukrainian nationalists. Literally nothing good happened during his reign, people hate his guts. Buy every time you switch to American or British media they are telling us that Porochenko maybe is not a perfect choice but still a friend of democracy. And by supporting him “USA is preparing Ukraine for democracy and independence”.

Then you should get a different president. We currently have a bad president, and we will rid ourselves of him in 4 years. But even Trump does not have the power to assassinate or form a Hitler youth. No US leader has powers to behave that way. If you have such a leader, it is not our fault, whether we "support" him or not. We are just supporting the democratically elected leader of a sovereign country against another country that is trying to screw with that sovereignty. If your people are not able to sue bad policemen in court or hold an election, you aren't living in a democracy. And you aren't ever going to end up in a democracy when the neighboring despot is supply rebels with arms.

What I see in a lot of post-Soviet politics are people either acting like Soviets, or acting like ethnic pre-Soviet enemies. When countries protect the rights of individuals with the power of law and elections, they don't need outside countries to "help them" run their countries or supply their revolutionaries. But many former Soviet countries had never been free in any way, and still have no idea what that actually means.


That said, I completely understand that your country is struggling and our simple sounding pronouncements about who is right and who is wrong are frustrating. But I think you have to understand that the West can't care too much about that. We will generally support your right to be free of Russia to make your own government so you don't end up as Russian puppets, but that means you have to do the hard work of making your country work internally.

 

[Fish Owl]

and is free to travel away from famine.

Travel where? By what means? How to provide for your basic needs while traveling?

US has a history of setting its occupied former enemies free as sovereign states,

It is wishful thinking. Japanese can't persuade US to remove it's military bases for years. Iraq and Afghanistan current governments will be present as long as US will support them.

Ukraine (which has a lot of ethnic Russian citizens), it doesn't look much like freedom anything is happening, because a not-so-free country is attempting to make a neighboring country subordinate to it.

Because you see the issue through Western media. There is no way to tell how many ethnic Russians are there in Ukraine or Ukrainians in Russia. Almost every person in Eastern Ukraine is fluent in both Russian and Ukrainian and have mixed origins. They can pass for either ethnicity without any problem. Today young Ukrainians are so eager to support EU and proclaim their hatred for Russia only because they will do anything for VISA-free regime and an opportunity to find some work in EU.

Then you should get a different president.

Any attempt to remove Poroshenko will be presented in Western media as Russian Spetsnaz operation that threaten Ukrainian independence. It is already happening. Remember Nadezda Savchenko? The Ukranian prisoner of Putin? After she returned to Ukraine and started to criticize Poroshenko media had the nerve to tell everyone that she was agent of Putin all this time.

But I think you have to understand that the West can't care too much about that.

In 2014 revolt against Yanukowich was successful mainly because EU and USA expressed their support. If you West do not care - West better not be involved. Be it Syria, Ukraine or Iraq.

This is why I'm against any intervention in other country problems despite the reasons.

 

[Fish Owl]

The Soviet revolution started with a country called "Soviet Russia", which then entered into a union with several other states and invaded several others

This is very simplified. What you call "invasion" was actually civil war between local communists and nationalists. Sometimes Russia was directly involved like in Ukraine or Baltic states, sometimes no - like in Turkmenia where local communists stood without Russian support for 90% timespan of civil war.

 

[RX-79G]

In 2014 revolt against Yanukowich was successful mainly because EU and USA expressed their support. If you West do not care - West better not be involved. Be it Syria, Ukraine or Iraq.

"Expressed their support." So you're saying your country's electorate made political decisions based on the opinion of foreign countries? And those opinions are so highly influential that they are much more important than the direct Russian influence, interference and military intervention?

May I suggest that your own citizens opinions about how to self-govern are more important than the US or EU's, and you need to take responsibility for forming them? "Expressions of support" are NOT interference - they are free speech.

 

[Fish Owl]

And those opinions are so highly influential that they are much more important than the direct Russian influence, interference and military intervention?

In many ways: yes, they are more important. Today Ukrainians believe in EU and European integration with the same passion they grandfathers believed in communism. And with same results. Because their beliefs are based on fantasies and not reality. If some important European politician or public figure tells Ukrainians “chop off your hand and you will be allowed to join EU” – you will have a country of one handed people. This is why any sane and educated Ukrainian will tell you: do not try to help us in any way. You will only make things worse.

May I suggest that your own citizens opinions about how to self-govern are more important than the US or EU's

It will have same results as telling spoiled child to go do his homework while he is at the middle of Christmas sale in toy store with Merkel and Nuland in clown suits giving out free cookies. Your advice will be ignored and if you try to force it – be prepared to hear a loud crying.

 

[RX-79G]

It will have same results as telling spoiled child to go do his homework while he is at the middle of Christmas sale in toy store with Merkel and Nuland in clown suits giving out free cookies. Your advice will be ignored and if you try to force it – be prepared to hear a loud crying.

All you are saying is that your citizens aren't capable of self governing - incapable of making up their own minds and processing outside information.

I don't know what to tell you, other than the rest of the world is unlikely to treat your population as children, which is essentially what you are requesting.

This is one of the very best arguments against totalitarian states - that their legacy are people that are so unable to think for themselves that they want ideas imposed on them, making them unable to self govern and extremely open to corruption. However, if you want help learning to be grown-ups, the EU is a much better source of help and inspiration than neighboring despots.

 

[Fish Owl]

which is essentially what you are requesting.

For the 1001 time: my opinion is any intervention in internal affairs of country will lead to bad results. Even by giving free food to starving people you will just make things worse because they will never learn how to provide for themselves.

the EU is a much better source of help and inspiration than neighboring despots.

Like any other humble grandpa or grandma - good old Europe is very poor at giving advice to youngsters. Proximity to EU is actually making things worse because best people of our country just leave to become EU citizens.

 

[RX-79G]

For the 1001 time: my opinion is any intervention in internal affairs of country will lead to bad results. Even by giving free food to starving people you will just make things worse because they will never learn how to provide for themselves.


Like any other humble grandpa or grandma - good old Europe is very poor at giving advice to youngsters. Proximity to EU is actually making things worse because best people of our country just leave to become EU citizens.

I'm sorry - there is no possible version of this universe where there will be zero outside influences or opinions for your citizens to hear. They even get into North Korea.

 

[Fish Owl]

I'm sorry - there is no possible version of this universe where there will be zero outside influences or opinions for your citizens to hear. They even get into North Korea.

It doesn't mean that if world without killing is impossible we need to advocate killing. What Americans do is advocating intervention with "good causes".

 

[RX-79G]

It doesn't mean that if world without killing is impossible we need to advocate killing. What Americans do is advocating intervention with "good causes".

Of course we do. Just as tyrants like to advocate for the preservation of tyranny, the West advocates for just, legal, self governing societies.

And if we were just to shut up, that silence would be read as advocacy of whatever voices didn't stay quiet. Which in the Ukraine's case would be external corruption from Russia.

While I'm sure even people at the US State Department would love to put a forcefield around the Ukraine and let you figure things out on your own, that isn't possible. You know very well that Russia has an "interest" in your country isn't going to just go away, and Russia is in no position to be designing anyone's society.

 

[Fish Owl]

You know very well that Russia has an "interest" in your country isn't going to just go away, and Russia is in no position to be designing anyone's society.

USA and EU also have a lot of interests here. Both economic and political. The most obvious: the need to have buffer zone and no man's land between Russia and EU.

But for you somehow the current geopolitical situation is everyone's fault except US.

 

[RX-79G]

USA and EU also have a lot of interests here. Both economic and political. The most obvious: the need to have buffer zone and no man's land between Russia and EU.

But for you somehow the current geopolitical situation is everyone's fault except US.

The only reason anyone in the EU wants a buffer zone with Russia is because of how Russia behaves. E. Germany, Lithuania and Poland were also part of the Soviet sphere at one time, and no one needed a buffer zone between them and Europe once the USSR died. Russia could have some free elections, clean up its act and become the biggest friend to Europe tomorrow.

Post WWII, no one in the West wants to hear about your local genocide, annexation, satelite state or "peace keeping troops". The EU wants a stable, self governing and independent Ukraine because that will keep the Ukraine from turning into yet another stream of refugees and human atrocities that the EU will then need to deal with. Despite the bang-up job Russia has done in its long association with Syrian dictators, no one wants the Ukraine to be another Syria.

And I did not say or imply that the current situation is not the US's "fault". I'm saying that blaming the janitor for the mess shows a lack of perspective. Or to put it another way - if you think the US has done such a bad job, please step up and do a better one. Because the US was pretty much the only country that was able to keep the enormous tyrannical cancer of the early 20th century from eating the world.

Sorry we didn't do a better job.

 

[Fish Owl]

You really don't bother with finding other arguments. It's all Russia's fault.
But guess what. In 90's when Russia was in ruins and couldn't control its own territory USA had the same imperialistic policy.

Because the US was pretty much the only country that was able to keep the enormous tyrannical cancer of the early 20th century from eating the world.

You need to consider writing Trump-speeches for a living. Really, you are doing some great job there. Any person preaching in similar manner for Mother Russia would be considered 100% Putin Troll on payroll.

 

[RX-79G]

You need to consider writing Trump-speeches for a living. Really, you are doing some great job there. Any person preaching in similar manner for Mother Russia would be considered 100% Putin Troll on payroll.

You need to consider not insulting someone because you don't like the content of their debate with you. Act like a grown up.

 

[Fish Owl]

You need to consider not insulting someone because you don't like the content of their debate with you. Act like a grown up.

I just don't know how else to react to those MAGA-style rally speeches. Sorry for being honest with my opinion. In a world where Saudi Arabia exists all the talks about USA fighting with "cancer of tyranny" are either naivety or hypocricy.