The moral failure of this "American" Government

Out of the many things we can blame this Congress for, it's the pitiful 'Trump Investigation', in which the government couldn't prove what it alleged and then pointed to facebook posts. Russiagate was and is the most embarrassing debacle of US intelligence in over a century.

But it did more than to humiliate US Intelligence, it ultimately damaged the American Psyche, resulting in posts like yours. There's people like you who believe in the Russian conspiracy, even though not an arrest or a charge was made related to the case(emphasis mine, because Rick Gates and ultimately Paul Manafort proved to be immaterial to the case. So immaterial, the government lashed out at them for being unwilling to cooperate with the case.)

This is not a thread based on US Intelligence failures(though I could make a whole list of them in the past decade, let alone the past 5 years) but I did want to highlight this as a unique example of the damage caused by the failure of American intelligence.

The only reason Russian-Americans weren't treated like Asian-Americans at the height of the coronavirus is because there's not that active of a Russian-American community. If there were, people like yourself would have undoubtedly attacked those Russian-Americans.

And though that hypothetical you would have been physically responsible for the attack, I blame the US Government for its lack of transparency, hyperbole and failure to articulate what did and didn't occur leading up to the investigative debacle.

I quote this post, to show my friends on the left the damage caused by the failed US intelligence.

 

It’s funny , in one hand you say USA don’t get anything out of NATO / EU , and now you wish NATO would have sent “best wishes” after 9/11 and not their military. Do you see the contradiction? In one hand you say “ what do we get from EU” , now you say “ I wish they didn’t help us” .

 

You want me to get nitty gritty with the details on foreign policy? Fine, we can get nitty gritty but it's not going to be much better for you. So let's start with #1. Already on the verge of happening. At the advent of the Trump Administration, the Europeans had a hissy fit(even though Obama sec. of defense Robert Gates told them, this is what we expect from Europe.)

Obama asked nicely, Trump asked abruptly and the Europeans went and betrayed us with the Chinese. And now that they still need us(and the fact that the Chinese are not yet going to destabilize their relationship with Russia), the EU now is going to try to pander back to the US.

One could argue the EU is juggling both sides, trying to find out which one of them will give the comfier lifestyle(because in the face of EU weakness, that's basically what it is.). And it's true that if we don't militarily oppose Russia, they could/will/have joined the Chinese.

But that's a betrayal of the Western System, and ultimately of Europe because China is also uninterested in providing European Security.

That is why the best thing for the EU, is to take my advice: Continue modernizing and strengthening their economic, political and military might so that they can protect themselves, and in turn be a much more appealing ally to really anyone, but especially the US.

The alternative? The EU will find itself subjugated by China(the same way the Chinese are now subjugating Africa) and the EU effectively cements itself in the Third World. This will of course benefit China, but it doesn't damage us all that much because the EU was a lagging economic partner anyway, due to various factors we hadn't been able to get a true fair trade agreement.

Our 'values' are only shared in the sense that we pay lip service to them. The EU has become less and less reliable over the past decade. So yeah, #1 is already happening but at the detriment of Europe, not us.

So what about #2? World Peace. As we've seen NATO cannot establish a true peace in the European/Eurasian Sphere. If Hitler had actually abided by the Non-Aggression Pact, Europe would've had the economic boom and much less so the US. If we can evolve the relationship between the nations of Europe and Eurasia, we can secure one of the world's most violent regions. Over centuries of violence based on Europe's eastern continent.

The military contractors would be pissed, but everyone else should be happy about a EU/Russian(Eurasian) alliance. Too bad under present conditions, that'll never happen. But if you told me us stepping away a little would be the opportunity to create a massive peace deal, I would be all for it.

Truly upholding the 'intl rules based order' means getting these two in a room and figuring it out.

#3 is a combination of 1/2 and it's kind of interesting. It would be a 'anti-US' coalition and it would be a massive win for both Russia and China. What stops this from happening, is what I just said before. EU/Russia are antagonistic, and so even though Russia could be the bridge between a EU/Chinese alliance(and actually, despite it being an anti-US coalition, it would be great for the world) as long as EU/Russian antagonism exists, China cannot be a third party to them, or Russia being a third party to EU/China.

That said #2/3 can happen, but it requires EU/Russia in a room first and that's not happening. If the two sides do get in a room, the relationship with China becomes very possible.

You then switch gears to the Pacific Theater for point #4, and it's hilariously off base: Japan and BOTH Koreas in a military pact? Along with China? There's so much bad blood over the attempts to unify Asia(first via Chinese expansion, and then later Imperial Japan) that this area is underrated for its violence, its own stability issues and lack of unity.

What you propose here is simply not going to happen. At least the other scenarios dealt with planet earth, scenario 4 is a fairy tale. But in touching on the Pacific Theater, allow me to define what US Foreign Policy should be, and what our objectives historically were:

Manifest Destiny, Sea to Shining Sea. Essentially, similar to Britain, we wanted and still want uninterrupted trade routes and economic activity and collaboration with nations. The ideal Foreign Policy outcome, is one where the world's activities do not disrupt the US. We entered WWI due to two factors: Encrouchment with Mexico, as well as Germany's total sea warfare which destroyed the US Lusitania.

WWII was a mirror, except this time it was Pearl Harbor(though public sentiment and the greatest generation wanted to fight for liberty against the oppressors. A massive gamble that was not a part of US foreign policy until that time, and WWII posed the greatest existential threat to the US.).

But generally US foreign policy is historically based on a collaboration front. Hence my EU sentiment, in their inability to collaborate with us. Other nations in the past and present whom we've aligned with and have not been able to collaborate with us, or share our values. At times, we lied to ourselves and told ourselves they shared our values but we've seen they do not.

Now, I make no exceptions or apologies: I am pro Manifest Destiny. I am pro American Exceptionalism. I am not doing this for the 'INTL community', and I'm not doing this for Europe. I am doing this for me, you, US.

We've secured our Atlantic, thanks in large part to our alliance with the UK.(in fact, including a lot of mainland Europe into the NATO alliance was a favor to the UK, because geographically speaking they aren't part of the Atlantic. As one Marine Le Pen pointed out). So honestly in a worse case scenario those countries don't matter much to us, just to maintain UK strength and vitality as a national interest)

We do need to secure the Gulf of Mexico. It is vitally important that Mexico and Latin America(even though historically they are on the Far Left) are in the American Umbrella. It's important that Latin America is economically and politically viable, so that much as I said with the EU, Latin America can support herself while also not being a bridge to attack the continental US.

And after securing the Gulf, the next thing is to Secure our Pacific. And like I just described, the Pacific is a bloodbath.

Controversially, we would have been better off approving of the Co-East prosperity Sphere. All of Asia would have(violently) been united under Imperial Japanese rule, and we would have been allied with Imperial Japan. Now we basically have to recreate that scenario(without the violence and occupation, if possible.)

There's two scenarios to diplomatically achieve our goals in the Pacific: An alliance with China or an alliance with Russia. There's no way around it, for world peace the East and West must come to some kind of agreement(as we potentially thought was possible with the break up of the Soviet Union.).

An 'alliance' with Russia is seemingly off the table(at least, not unless the POTUS wants to be brave and incur the wrath of the democrats, still upset that Queen Hillary isn't POTUS. And then there's the neocons who just want bloodshed.). The sad thing is, a US-Russian-Japanese agreement is wholly possible, on the basis of settling the final island questions between Russia and Japan.

A Russo-Japanese alliance would secure Japan against China(along with the US). It would also basically undercut the North Koreans completely and strengthen the South. Japan would in turn be able to give democratic assurances to the other smaller Asian nations as China is completely isolated.

Then there's the diplomatic version of Operation Unthinkable: An alliance with China. Let's put how big of an undertaking this would be into prospective: Nazi Germany also wanted to ally China and Japan together, they couldn't make it work. If we could get Japan and China on the same team, that diplomatic achievement would make us the most powerful country in the world.

A Japanese-Chinese alliance also paves the way for a US-Euro-Chinese alliance as well. There would be the small issue that this time, it would be South Korea holding the bag(China isn't going to abandon the North). In the ideal world, we could reform North Korea under Southern principles. And while China isn't going to abandon the North, maybe the combination of the US-Euro-Chinese Alliance, as well as the Japanese-Chinese alliance softens China to the idea that they don't need North Korean hard power.

The last remaining issue is Taiwan. I'd be willing to pay a settlement to the Chinese to the equivalent of the Taiwanese GDP, for Taiwan's independence. Because Taiwan as a neutral nation is best for China, for the US and the world.

Either way is a massive undertaking that if successful, could finally secure the US Pacific. And with Pacific, Mexican Gulf, Atlantic all protected, Manifest Destiny has been realized. The other landlocked countries are f*cked but that's not my problem.

 

I think Bush would have gone ahead anyway.

There is today a rather larger consensus, mostly outside the US though, that the second Irak war was not wholly justified, to say the last.
However, many also consider that the father didn't finish the job during the first one. Saddam Hussein was left in power and in a postion to develop his terrorist activitis.

Allies do go through good times and bad times together and they make mistake together. This is called solidarity and you need to consider the benefits and the drawbacks of an alliance on a long period of time.

Irak, like Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples of the US' inability to really win a war, after WW2.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't like wars, but when you're at war, you've got to go "all the way" and not try to minimize your involvement, as was the case in these 3 examples.

 

The taking down of Saddam Hussein was a mixed bag. Hussein was evil and a source of terrorism. At the same time he was also an arch enemy of Iranians. The war between Iraq and Iran was truly a wonderful thing. It was like Hitler against Stalin. Two evil forces killing each other.

 

The veto vote in the UNSC, in which the US is one of five members with absolute veto power, is based on a three criteria:

1. Israel must severely diminish the military capability of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
2. The diminishing of Hamas will allow the Palestinian Authority to be able to exert influence and governance in the Gaza Strip while allowing an international peacekeeping force of mostly Arabs to patrol within the Gaza Strip, and
3. The Palestinian Authority will be able to govern the Gaza Strip and diminish any military action against Israel.

The first segment is the most dangerous. It is a no-win scenario for Israel basically if the Israelis continue to bomb or use JDAM missiles to target specific Hamas leaders in an ever-increasing population density in the so-called "safe havens" that Israel has designated. Two is questionable because the Palestinian Authority is not capable of doing much, thanks to the Israeli Government. The Israeli government is not going to allow an international peacekeeping force of Arabs from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or anywhere else in the Gaza Strip. Nor will Israel, as long as the Likud Party is in power, allow a two-state solution? The religious hard right in Israel won't allow that and will use sectarian violence like they are doing in the West Bank which the Israeli government is turning a blind eye to. Finally, I am unsure about the Palestinian Authority in how much it can govern effectively unless an established two-state system is in place with Israel as an International city where both Israel and Palestine can claim as the Capital of their respective countries.

 

I am right in my first post when I said , please accept the fact we live in 2023 and not 1776. I am sorry my friend “Manifest Destiny” is a 19th century racist dream which has no place in 21st century. You claiming you are unapologetic about “ Manifest Destiny” just prove my point that world and Americans moved on, but you still live few centuries in the past.

 

Taking down Saddam was fine, but “ building democracy’ in Middel East is a pipe dream W. Bush had.

 

No, it was not. Although Great Britain banned slavery in the Bristish Aisles, it did not ban slavery everywhere in the British Empire such as in India which was still used. It was indentured servitude that was still allowed for some time in places like India. Our independence had to do with rights of man in general in that each man had their destiny and did not need the King's permission to have those rights. That was the foundation of our independence and we gave a list of grievances to the King of England, King George III, in the infamous Declaration of Independence. Slavery was an internal issue, but like all complicated issues, it was pushed down the road until we had our Civil War to reunify the Union.

 

There was/is nothing racist about expanding American borders and there's nothing racist about consolidating those gains now. USA over everything, for the well being of ALL Americans.

 

I agree with that. A democracy in an Arab / Islamic state is not in their DNA. It is sad, but true.

 

Calling an alternative history is charitable I call it a conspiracy theory.

 

you should be aware of where the ideas you are parroting comes from

I don't think he was in a tortoise for that that sounds like made up conspiracy BS from the 1619 conspiracy theory.

 

You made a false statement which was disproven.

Not a basis for any reasonable discussion

 

I have never heard of 1619. The theory I am presenting I actually learned from a visit to Westminster Hall in London.
It is amusing that the very credible link I make between the James Somerset case and the American Revolution is described as ridiculous by people who then make a link between my posts and me being an agent for Communist China.
I know which ‘link’ is the most real, and have learned that some posters on here are very stupid.

 

Too bad, I have.

Wow they teach conspiracy theories there now?

I don't give a **** about your links.

 

I would like to point out that, while Russia may appear big on a map, Russia only has 144 million people, compared to 515 million in the EU and Britain.

In terms of economics the difference is even greater. the EU has a combined GDP ten times that of Russia.
Even if we assume some of this is misrepresentative due to international currency exchange rates, it's still clear the EU has several times more wealth than Russia.
Even right now, France alone is producing about the same amount of steel that Russia is.

The thing is, for Europe to ramp up its support for the Ukraine conflict, they would have to cut into their generous social spending programs.

Right now Germany is only spending 19% of its total budget on military spending.

 

That is the British take on our War of Insurrection as they call it.

 

When you emphasize ‘All Americans’, I assume you exclude all the Native Americans who were killed in the name of “Manifest Destiny”.

 

So many Americans are graceless wankers like you appear to be.
You can let off a bit of steam by shooting some schoolchildren,

 

You are probably right, being Irish I believe the ‘take’ is credible.

 

The Declaration of Independence includes a list of 27 grievances by the colonies against the British. None of them includes anything about slavery. Where are you getting this from?

 

I see it as different viewpoints of the same thing like looking at a Piccaso Painting where one person says it is brilliant and the other person says it is not. Most on this forum have been taught the myths of our history, or at least believe in the internet hype, especially the hard right or far right on this forum.

 

From the study of history.

 

The same history that says Britain didn't outlaw slavery until 1834? Time machines don't exist.