Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[Halifax Tar]

Global victims of US military aggression

US' military interventions globally range from direct military actions to covert operations to military support for client states. Lasting from days or weeks to over many years, these result in significant loss of life.

www.ibon.org

Lots of other potential sources.

It makes sense when you consider all the regimes they propped up, wars started (Iraq and Afghanistan alone killed almost 6 million), Vietnam, Korea, the other 90 some odd wars/conflicts the US got involved in, the blockades the US has enacted resulting in famine, etc.

The IBON Foundation operates from an explicitly left-wing, progressive, and anti-neoliberal perspective.

Sounds about par for the course.

 

[Eaglelord17]

LOL, I could easily peg 2/3rds of those conflict onto the action of Maoist China and/or the USSR. Then the rest mostly on the Muslim Brotherhood and the expansion of radical Islam. Apparently the US is guilty of existence.

How many dictatorships has the US supported because it was in their ‘interest’? How many deaths were caused because of regimes they propped up? How many democracies have they toppled to replace with their preferred puppet?

They are only pro-democracy as long as you’re voting in their interests.

The US is better than the alternatives, that doesn’t make them the good guys. It makes them a necessary evil.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Lots of other potential sources.

It makes sense when you consider all the regimes they propped up, wars started (Iraq and Afghanistan alone killed almost 6 million), Vietnam, Korea, the other 90 some odd wars/conflicts the US got involved in, the blockades the US has enacted resulting in famine, etc.

Useless source.

The Korean War was not "US military aggression". The war to evict Iraq from Kuwait was not "US military aggression".

Maybe find a source that isn't so transparently biased. Maybe check the context underlying the claim next time.

GIGO.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How many dictatorships has the US supported because it was in their ‘interest’? How many deaths were caused because of regimes they propped up? How many democracies have they toppled to replace with their preferred puppet?

They are only pro-democracy as long as you’re voting in their interests.

The US is better than the alternatives, that doesn’t make them the good guys. It makes them a necessary evil.

The numbers that died because of Communism just in the 20th century is staggering, not to mention the forced resettlements and political upheaval it has brought and still brings to this day.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The numbers that died because of Communism just in the 20th century is staggering, not to mention the forced resettlements and political upheaval it has brought and still brings to this day.

It's not just that. It's also that "communist-backed" (primarily USSR) aggression was the root cause of many of the major conflicts, which can't be laid at the feet of the US or any other country.

 

[childs56]

Useless source.

The Korean War was not "US military aggression". The war to evict Iraq from Kuwait was not "US military aggression".

Maybe find a source that isn't so transparently biased. Maybe check the context underlying the claim next time.

GIGO.

Not as useless as one might think.
Looking around the world at the time. The East verses West was an enormous task. Both sides were trying to divide the world up into their own markets of supply, demand and control. Often directly in each others back yard to create chaos. With little to any regard for what the actual countries and people wanted.
This resulted in many proxy wars where many hundreds of thousands if not millions were slaughtered in the name of fighting communists and or Western aggression.

It's not just that. It's also that "communist-backed" (primarily USSR) aggression was the root cause of many of the major conflicts, which can't be laid at the feet of the US or any other country.

To blame only the Communists is short sighted. Both sides were stirring the pot around the world. The US was indirectly supporting many other Western nations interests into areas they otherwise at the time had not direct intervention. All this was to keep the Soviets occupied elsewhere.
Western nations reestablishing and or gaining ground around the world was a major tug of war for both East verses West.

Anywhere there was Oil, western nations were involved with gaining control, regaining control or loosing control to the Soviets. Then China was behind the scenes going after not only oil but precious minerals with few even realizing their actual reach until it was to late. They had already created a foot hold into Africa and southern Pacific.
Both China and the USSR had two common enemies. The Western Bloc, and both China and the USSR were each others enemies. Friends by convivence against the Western bloc but non the less enemies of each other.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not as useless as one might think.
Looking around the world at the time. The East verses West was an enormous task. Both sides were trying to divide the world up into their own markets of supply, demand and control. Often directly in each others back yard to create chaos. With little to any regard for what the actual countries and people wanted.
This resulted in many proxy wars where many hundreds of thousands if not millions were slaughtered in the name of fighting communists and or Western aggression.

To blame only the Communists is short sighted.

It's the long view. Roosevelt and Churchill and Stalin were the three most powerful post-war leaders. The two former generally wanted countries' peoples to decide their forms of government after the war, particularly in Europe. (Obviously their respective imperial, colonial, and territorial possessions were not necessarily included.) Stalin wanted to plant the miserable seeds of state socialism wherever possible, with a few exceptions/concessions (eg. Austria). Eastern Europe. Italy if he could have managed it. Middle East. China, Korea, Indochina.

Western nations reestablishing and or gaining ground around the world was a major tug of war for both East verses West.

Sure. I was satisfied with western efforts to react to Soviet action as long as I can remember, and not much that's happened in the past few decades convinces me that was wrong to do or to support. India and Pakistan are masters of themselves. Phillipines is an independent country. South Korea and Taiwan are still independent and prosperous.

Eastern Europe isn't under the Soviet boot. How about that.