Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The NK/ Russia comparison may be out of place, I'll give you that, but the other one holds a lot of water. In fact, many across South America are turning their backs on left wing governments. The problem with individuals like Castro and Chavez is that they were using nationalism as a political tool to build up a strong domestic base. They made a lot of promises that sadly ended up not holding much water. They were pretending to stand up to the West only because they knew many would fall for their ploy. They were able to grab on to power in the first place thanks to the fact that the regimes they overthrew were corrupt in the first place.
Chile had a socialist leader in the 70's that was overthrown in a CIA backed coup. Now Pinochet himself, was convincted following the end of his reign as he did execute opposition, but at the same time he set the stage for the country's rapid growth following the 90's.
DKM isn't wrong on his assessment that many of the countries that followed a forced socialist model are worse off today. The US's biggest allies Chile and Colombia are much better off even if they have suffered quite a bit in the past.
I mentioned Latin American countries where their constitutions specifically ban more than 1 or 2 consecutive re-elections but still popular leaders come back after a "leave of absence" (and Chile is currently one of these countries), that has nothing to do with socialism/communism...I totally agree with you on Chavez (or Castro) but the Putin regime and Putin ideas could not be more different, Putin does not follow a socialist model....definitely not!! Putin could not have been more adamant about his opinion that the communist/classic socialist model was an utter failure.
Venezuela was the real, proverbial "gas station pretending to be a country", when the price of oil dropped, it was all over for the Chavez regime.
In Europe most nations do not even have term limits, a head of government (Prime Minister/Chancellor) can hold on power as much as he/she wants as long as his/her party wins the majority of seats and the party does not challenge his/her leadership.
The country where you reside, Australia, had a prime minister (Robert Menzies) that was in power for a total of almost 20 years and many Australians (among them, the second longest serving Australian Prime Minister, John Howard 1996-2007) still consider him an icon.
DKM is talking nonsense.
Last edited by saturno_v; 03-19-2018 at 10:16 PM..
I mentioned Latin American countries where their constitutions specifically ban more than 1 or 2 consecutive re-elections but still popular leaders come back after a "leave of absence" (and Chile is currently one of these countries), that has nothing to do with socialism/communism...I totally agree with you on Chavez (or Castro) but the Putin regime and Putin ideas could not be more different, Putin does not follow a socialist model....definitely not!!
Venezuela was the real, proverbial "gas station pretending to be a country", when the price of oil dropped, it was all over for the Chavez regime.
In Europe most nations do not even have term limits, a head of government (Prime Minister/Chancellor) can hold on power as much as he/she wants as long as his/her party wins the majority of seats and the party does not challenge his/her leadership.
The country where you reside, Australia, had a prime minister (Robert Menzies) that was in power for a total of almost 20 years and many Australians (among them, the second longest serving Australian Prime Minister, John Howard 1996-2007) still consider him an icon.
DKM is talking nonsense.
I'm definitely not equating Putin with Latin America. Putin's refine is not socialist, even his reminiscing of the SU can be attributed to it's power structure and ability to project hard/soft power as opposed to trying to emulate it's economic policies. The one similarity I see is that he's portraying himself as Russia's savior.
In Venezuela's case, the regime is still in place though it's leader Maduro is an idiot of the highest order. He is dragging the country down and unlike Chavez he lacks the latter man's appeal.
As to the situation in Australia, yes not everything runs on democratic principles. The previous PM, Abott was replaced without an election by someone from the same party (Turnbull) due to a vote of no confidence.
In Venezuela's case, the regime is still in place though it's leader Maduro is an idiot of the highest order. He is dragging the country down and unlike Chavez he lacks the latter man's appeal.
Ironically Maduro is receiving economic and technological help from Russia and China and that is what keeping him around longer....however, incompetent or not, Chavez was democratically elected.....calling him a "dictator" like many in the media did, was nonsense.
Iraq definitely presents a sour spot in American foreign policy. It started as a conflict to get rid of WMD, then the goalpost changed to spreading democracy. My point is that it's silly to only accuse the US of this when other countries have been doing the same and some for far longer. Look at China's island buildup in the South China Sea, The UK's and France's intervention in Libya, Germany's role in the EU not to mention it's past actions... In Russia's case it has engaged in a lot of activities in the past to prop of socialist movements during the Cold War (supporting Castro, the Vietcong...) to more recent ones like poisoning Russians living abroad, entering into Syria or Ukraine without disclosing proper figures.
I'm not someone who believes that everything western countries do is right, but that doesn't mean that Russia or anyone else isn't guilty as well.
Are you American?
Vietnam actually started the land reclamation in the South China Sea. China started a few months later and outdid them. At the time, people saw it as an attempt by the various parties to grab the islands for their offshore resources. I think it's since become something more strategic as there had been threats of war and naval blockade against China per the Rand report. It makes lot of sense to build a forward military defense in the shipping lanes to spare heavy civilian casualties on the mainland as indicated in the report.
I wouldn't call Libya an intervention. It is a similar case to Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other wars where a foreign rebel force was trained and equipped by the US and its allies for the purpose of staging an armed rebellion under the guise of a civil war.
Castro overthrew a US-backed dictator. The US attempted an invasion of Cuba in 1962. There has also been a long list of terrorist attacks directed against Cuba. I don't want to go into the history of Latin America but there's a long history of political repression (see the 30-year Operation Condor) which still goes on to this day.
The Viet Minh fought on the same side as the US against Japanese colonialism. After the war, they sought to establish Vietnam as a country independent from the French. They were turned down by the Americans. You might want to look up the Potsdam conference and the attempt by France to restore Indochina as a colony per the first Indochina War. The Viet Cong were formed in the south after the first Indochina War by the Viet Minh.
Russia was asked to come into Syria to provide support for fight against terrorist groups backed by US. When Russia entered the war, Obama's foreign policy advisor Brzezinski took out a full-page op-ed in the Financial TImes to implore the administration to use the military to save US assets there who were waging war. If the US was actually following its own laws, they would be attacking the rebels since the 2001 AUM authorizes US military force against Al Qaeda.
Gini coefficient is not an accurate way to compare in this case because it does not take into account America's uniquely progressive income tax system and how its used to redistribute wealth. If they measured after tax income, it would generate a higher coefficient.
Of course, this is very subjective. But everything is not as straightforward as you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM
What do you think of Ukraine's high efficiency in this measurement?
That in 2014 their distribution is more just than in Russia.
I don't think it's really out of place though. Consider all the tech coming out of the US and the importance of the IT sector in our daily lives. Look at the footprint tech Giants like Microsoft, Google and Apple have. Nowadays every one using an IT device relies on them. Every one who has a smartphone will be likely using one of the three big OS's (I'm being generous to Microsoft here as their mobile division is terrible).
If these companies weren't there, someone would fill the void immediately....it is not like unreachable technologies from other actors and countries...
Quote:
How about the fact that the US is defending our planet from incoming asteroids/comets.
These are at best theoretical plans, not even sure to work....Russia launched similar projects and so Europe at study stage...
Quote:
It may seem like I'm always bolstering the US, but I'm mostly just pointing out things that seem a little too obvious, yet seem to be neglected by most people. Even Iran's president uses Twitter despite the fact that the 2 countries have no official diplomatic relations.
That's not to say that this position is guaranteed and any country with the right resources can take over the mantle, just as the US did, but for the time being it is what it is.
Putin himself said publicly more than once that the US is a great nation and he admires many aspects of it....and others, less so....
Vietnam actually started the land reclamation in the South China Sea. China started a few months later and outdid them. At the time, people saw it as an attempt by the various parties to grab the islands for their offshore resources. I think it's since become something more strategic as there had been threats of war and naval blockade against China per the Rand report. It makes lot of sense to build a forward military defense in the shipping lanes to spare heavy civilian casualties on the mainland as indicated in the report.
I wouldn't call Libya an intervention. It is a similar case to Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other wars where a foreign rebel force was trained and equipped by the US and its allies for the purpose of staging an armed rebellion under the guise of a civil war.
Castro overthrew a US-backed dictator. The US attempted an invasion of Cuba in 1962. There has also been a long list of terrorist attacks directed against Cuba. I don't want to go into the history of Latin America but there's a long history of political repression (see the 30-year Operation Condor) which still goes on to this day.
The Viet Minh fought on the same side as the US against Japanese colonialism. After the war, they sought to establish Vietnam as a country independent from the French. They were turned down by the Americans. You might want to look up the Potsdam conference and the attempt by France to restore Indochina as a colony per the first Indochina War. The Viet Cong were formed in the south after the first Indochina War by the Viet Minh.
Russia was asked to come into Syria to provide support for fight against terrorist groups backed by US. When Russia entered the war, Obama's foreign policy advisor Brzezinski took out a full-page op-ed in the Financial TImes to implore the administration to use the military to save US assets there who were waging war. If the US was actually following its own laws, they would be attacking the rebels since the 2001 AUM authorizes US military force against Al Qaeda.
In Castro's case, he may have overthrown a corrupt regime but he was never elected. What came afterwards was over 50 years of economic stagnation. What surprises me is how people who condemn all the Western backed coups turn s blind eye to Castro and others like him who also came to power through coups.
As to China's island reclamation, Vietnam is hardly singular in it's complaints. There is a whole dispute with Japan over the Senkaku islands along with others with the Philippines and that's not even going over the contested territory with India.
Syria is another peculiar case as many countries have gotten involved there. I don't believe that all the rebels ate terrorists either. Some of them definitely are, but they are a mixed group as is common with many groups. It doesn't help that Assad isn't exactly innocent either. On top of his use of chemical attacks, he's been helping Hezbollah attack Israel with Iran's help. Russia picked a side. I understand why they did so, but let's not pretend like they are there for benevolent reasons. If you ask me, I don't believe anyone is doing the right thing there and both the rebels and government forces have carried out attacks against civilians.
What's your justification for Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan and East Germany?
You also still haven't answered my question as to why you turn a blind eye to the activities of non-western countries. Why is the West, the US in particular, the singular focus of your wrath?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stop to write nonsense.