The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[ralfy]

I agree with you that the US policy towards Cuba is redundant. I agree that you shouldn't just attack a country because it is crappy. The rest of what you say, not so much.

The rest explains U.S. policy towards Cuba, as it belongs to the same set of policies used to coerce weaker countries in other parts of the world.

[ralfy]

Ralfy - ehhh even raul Castro has admitted that besides of the sanctions Cuba has serious problems. socialism is inherently a limiting system, really no place for ambitious sort of people. Like most of the countries down there, they have very very nice beaches and make most of their $$ that way. Providing absurd luxury to fatcat capitalists from all over the world!



So much of what we've see since 2016 is a reaction to trump and the fear that he will steer the whole world into an iceburg.  Meanwhile, Biden has us back in the cold war and on the edge of a nuclear disaster.

Biden is the psycho everyone thought Trump was gonna be

If it's a limiting system, then Cuba should have experienced poor economic growth. Instead, it experienced the opposite: an average rate of 10 pct per annum, which allowed it to quadruple the size of its economy.

Interestingly enough, similar took place in Asian countries which promoted socialist policies like protectionism and national economic planning. It might have to do with the point that they were promoted together with heavy infrastructure development needed for manufacturing and even mechanized agriculture.

In contrast, countries like the Philippines did the opposite as it copied the U.S. The result is an ave. economic growth rate that's a fraction of what the others experienced.

Finally, what's interesting about Trump is that he tried to make peace with North Korea, was going to do the same for Yemen, was more interested in trade deals with China, and wanted to decrease military expenditures.

The problem is that the military industrial complex, which Sachs was talking about, and which has been backed by every U.S. President, and coupled with exceptionalism by Presidents from Reagan onward, does not support that.

[lester1/2jr]

marx believed in free trade, protectionism is a FASCIST policy if anything, though every country practices some form of it

at any rate this is off the topic

[ralfy]

marx believed in free trade, protectionism is a FASCIST policy if anything, though every country practices some form of it

at any rate this is off the topic

If by free trade you mean free market capitalism, I think he wasn't.

I think protectionism is socialist when implemented by democracies. It is fascist when implemented by fascist regimes.

[LilCerberus]

The evening nooz is now saying that the white house is trying to get Zelenskyy to warm up to the idea of peace, but he has never been interested in it.....
It seems I recall Zelenskyy offering to secede occupied territories in exchange for peace, but Putin wouldn't consider it...

[lester1/2jr]

ralfy- he also opposed tariffs. he was an economist

[Alex]

Sorry, but I missed this reply earlier.

He stopped with the regions dominated by Russian speaking people because his troops are getting their arses kicked. If he could have, he'd have taken the whole thing, but a combination of under prepared troops, too few numbers of men used (standard protocol says he should have used a force three times as large as he did in the initial invasion. You attack with a force three times the size of the defending army, not one more or less equal in size). The only way his invasion plan makes any sense to me is if they'd expected the Ukrainians to not fight back at all, either collapsing early on in the attack or even welcoming the invaders in.

It's probably because he's not using WMDs, e.g., bombers and missiles. As I pointed out earlier, I recall a former U.S. military general interviewed by one outlet during the early weeks of the war, and he pointed out that if that were the U.S. the war would have ended on Day One. That's because the U.S. would have bombed Ukraine back to the stone age. Given such circumstances, force size won't matter. If you don't believe me, check out what happened to the Iraqis during the first Gulf War.

Think you'll find the Russians are using both bombers and missiles. Try googling Russian missile attacks, and Russian aircraft strikes. Did you know that in NATO exercises where they simulate a war against Russia, they leave out modern air defences, because if they include them, the US airforce gets annihilated? You've not faced a country with modern air defences, so bombing them into the stone age may not be as effective as you might think. Especially not if the enemy is spread out with smaller-scale actions (platoon-sized clashes) rather than big armies clashing, as seems to be the case in Ukraine, rather than clumped together as they were in Iraq. You have two very different situations here, comparing the two scenarios is like comparing apples and DVDs. Force size does matter a lot, although not perhaps in the way you were thinking.

While there isn't an official definition, the phrase WMD tend to refer to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Unless you count depleted uranium rounds used to take out armoured vehicles, to the best of my knowledge they were never against Iraq's though. They don't tend to be used to refer to conventional bombs or missiles (not since around the end of World War 2 anyway). I am assuming you were meaning conventional, high-explosive weapons though here, rather than accusing US and allied forces of committing war crimes.

Even if the forces are all clumped up all nice and close together for you to bomb them, and you get past their air defences, yeah you might win a conventional war on day 1. What happens then? Well, then you get caught up in a much different affair. The enemy adapts and fights guerilla style. As we've seen in recent years, the US does not handle unconventional warfare very well. Might take a decade or two, but eventually, you lose. Given how both Iraq and Afghanistan ended up I am surprised to hear of a general saying they'd have won the fight in the first day. If it really was that simple, both those conflicts should have ended up totally differently.

Just some food for thought.

[ER]

Sorry, but I missed this reply earlier.

He stopped with the regions dominated by Russian speaking people because his troops are getting their arses kicked. If he could have, he'd have taken the whole thing, but a combination of under prepared troops, too few numbers of men used (standard protocol says he should have used a force three times as large as he did in the initial invasion. You attack with a force three times the size of the defending army, not one more or less equal in size). The only way his invasion plan makes any sense to me is if they'd expected the Ukrainians to not fight back at all, either collapsing early on in the attack or even welcoming the invaders in.

It's probably because he's not using WMDs, e.g., bombers and missiles. As I pointed out earlier, I recall a former U.S. military general interviewed by one outlet during the early weeks of the war, and he pointed out that if that were the U.S. the war would have ended on Day One. That's because the U.S. would have bombed Ukraine back to the stone age. Given such circumstances, force size won't matter. If you don't believe me, check out what happened to the Iraqis during the first Gulf War.

Think you'll find the Russians are using both bombers and missiles. Try googling Russian missile attacks, and Russian aircraft strikes. Did you know that in NATO exercises where they simulate a war against Russia, they leave out modern air defences, because if they include them, the US airforce gets annihilated? You've not faced a country with modern air defences, so bombing them into the stone age may not be as effective as you might think. Especially not if the enemy is spread out with smaller-scale actions (platoon-sized clashes) rather than big armies clashing, as seems to be the case in Ukraine, rather than clumped together as they were in Iraq. You have two very different situations here, comparing the two scenarios is like comparing apples and DVDs. Force size does matter a lot, although not perhaps in the way you were thinking.

While there isn't an official definition, the phrase WMD tend to refer to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Unless you count depleted uranium rounds used to take out armoured vehicles, to the best of my knowledge they were never against Iraq's though. They don't tend to be used to refer to conventional bombs or missiles (not since around the end of World War 2 anyway). I am assuming you were meaning conventional, high-explosive weapons though here, rather than accusing US and allied forces of committing war crimes.

Even if the forces are all clumped up all nice and close together for you to bomb them, and you get past their air defences, yeah you might win a conventional war on day 1. What happens then? Well, then you get caught up in a much different affair. The enemy adapts and fights guerilla style. As we've seen in recent years, the US does not handle unconventional warfare very well. Might take a decade or two, but eventually, you lose. Given how both Iraq and Afghanistan ended up I am surprised to hear of a general saying they'd have won the fight in the first day. If it really was that simple, both those conflicts should have ended up totally differently.

Just some food for thought.

Nice to have input from someone with actual knowledge of and experience in these matters.

[ralfy]

ralfy- he also opposed tariffs. he was an economist

He opposed tariffs because he was against the idea of nation. For him, it's a bourgeois concept created so that the rich could maintain control over the proletariat.

What he wanted was world Communism, with no nations. Hence, "workers of the world, unite."

That's not the same as opposing tariffs to encourage free trade, which the bourgeois also want because it allows for more business, and thus makes them richer.

[ralfy]

The evening nooz is now saying that the white house is trying to get Zelenskyy to warm up to the idea of peace, but he has never been interested in it.....
It seems I recall Zelenskyy offering to secede occupied territories in exchange for peace, but Putin wouldn't consider it...

Might make sense if more Americans are suffering economically and complaining that the aid for Ukraine should go to them.

[ralfy]

Think you'll find the Russians are using both bombers and missiles. Try googling Russian missile attacks, and Russian aircraft strikes. Did you know that in NATO exercises where they simulate a war against Russia, they leave out modern air defences, because if they include them, the US airforce gets annihilated? You've not faced a country with modern air defences, so bombing them into the stone age may not be as effective as you might think. Especially not if the enemy is spread out with smaller-scale actions (platoon-sized clashes) rather than big armies clashing, as seems to be the case in Ukraine, rather than clumped together as they were in Iraq. You have two very different situations here, comparing the two scenarios is like comparing apples and DVDs. Force size does matter a lot, although not perhaps in the way you were thinking.

While there isn't an official definition, the phrase WMD tend to refer to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Unless you count depleted uranium rounds used to take out armoured vehicles, to the best of my knowledge they were never against Iraq's though. They don't tend to be used to refer to conventional bombs or missiles (not since around the end of World War 2 anyway). I am assuming you were meaning conventional, high-explosive weapons though here, rather than accusing US and allied forces of committing war crimes.

Even if the forces are all clumped up all nice and close together for you to bomb them, and you get past their air defences, yeah you might win a conventional war on day 1. What happens then? Well, then you get caught up in a much different affair. The enemy adapts and fights guerilla style. As we've seen in recent years, the US does not handle unconventional warfare very well. Might take a decade or two, but eventually, you lose. Given how both Iraq and Afghanistan ended up I am surprised to hear of a general saying they'd have won the fight in the first day. If it really was that simple, both those conflicts should have ended up totally differently.

Just some food for thought.

I don't think they're using it on a scale that the U.S. would, especially given the U.S. did in Iraq and Afghanistan, e.g., MOABs (mother-of-all-bombs or "daisy cutters") which some say killed large numbers of civilians. Otherwise, as that former U.S. general puts it, the war would have ended quickly.

In addition, such use of WMDs (that refers to any weapon that does extensive damage, including explosives) following what the U.S. did would not require the use of large numbers of personnel. That's why the U.S. managed to take control of various countries quickly.

Finally, I think the general was referring to invasion rather than occupation. This explains why, as you put it, the U.S. struggled in the latter. For example, in Iraq, it ended up coming up with a weird coalition of Saddam's former men which they supported in the past to counter Islamic fundamentalist, their own puppets, and the same Islamic fundamentalists who hate them. The whole thing eventually fell apart.

Similarly, in Afghanistan, they tried to form some coalition consisting of their own stooges, Northern Alliance rapists and drug pushers, and Islamic fundamentalists stemming from mujahedeen which they supported to counter the Soviets and eventually turned on them. That fell apart, too.

Given these, perhaps we're seeing similar in Ukraine, following what was shared in this lecture and in others:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

That is, another attempt at regime change following over five decades of similar, to prop up a pro-U.S. government and then use that to exploit the country strategically and even economically.

That fell apart when Russian attacked but stopped at regions controlled by Russians. Will it follow through and copy the U.S. by trying to occupy more of the country?

[ralfy]

Nice to have input from someone with actual knowledge of and experience in these matters.

There's an interesting set of quotes from foreign policy experts on subject shared here:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,157145.msg689325.html#msg689325

Here's the link:

https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592

Interestingly enough, several of them are Cold War strategists, and come from left and right ideologies, plus former politicians and government officials.

Some of the notable ones for me are uni-based ones, like Noam Chomsky and John Mearsheimer. The latter is mentioned here:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,157145.msg689410.html#msg689410

For Chomsky, I'd like to share the ff. asides, as they may give us some perspective on what Jeffrey Sachs said here:

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,157145.msg689145.html#msg689145

From Chomsky:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

I think the gist is that the military industrial complex coupled with the use of the dollar as a reserve currency, and even the petrodollar, is likely what underlies U.S. foreign policies, including what happened to Ukraine from 2004 to the Russian invasion.

[lester1/2jr]

That's not the same as opposing tariffs to encourage free trade, which the bourgeois also want because it allows for more business, and thus makes them richer.

its exactly the same . man

[Alex]

Think you'll find the Russians are using both bombers and missiles. Try googling Russian missile attacks, and Russian aircraft strikes. Did you know that in NATO exercises where they simulate a war against Russia, they leave out modern air defences, because if they include them, the US airforce gets annihilated? You've not faced a country with modern air defences, so bombing them into the stone age may not be as effective as you might think. Especially not if the enemy is spread out with smaller-scale actions (platoon-sized clashes) rather than big armies clashing, as seems to be the case in Ukraine, rather than clumped together as they were in Iraq. You have two very different situations here, comparing the two scenarios is like comparing apples and DVDs. Force size does matter a lot, although not perhaps in the way you were thinking.

While there isn't an official definition, the phrase WMD tend to refer to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Unless you count depleted uranium rounds used to take out armoured vehicles, to the best of my knowledge they were never against Iraq's though. They don't tend to be used to refer to conventional bombs or missiles (not since around the end of World War 2 anyway). I am assuming you were meaning conventional, high-explosive weapons though here, rather than accusing US and allied forces of committing war crimes.

Even if the forces are all clumped up all nice and close together for you to bomb them, and you get past their air defences, yeah you might win a conventional war on day 1. What happens then? Well, then you get caught up in a much different affair. The enemy adapts and fights guerilla style. As we've seen in recent years, the US does not handle unconventional warfare very well. Might take a decade or two, but eventually, you lose. Given how both Iraq and Afghanistan ended up I am surprised to hear of a general saying they'd have won the fight in the first day. If it really was that simple, both those conflicts should have ended up totally differently.

Just some food for thought.

I don't think they're using it on a scale that the U.S. would, especially given the U.S. did in Iraq and Afghanistan, e.g., MOABs (mother-of-all-bombs or "daisy cutters") which some say killed large numbers of civilians. Otherwise, as that former U.S. general puts it, the war would have ended quickly.

In addition, such use of WMDs (that refers to any weapon that does extensive damage, including explosives) following what the U.S. did would not require the use of large numbers of personnel. That's why the U.S. managed to take control of various countries quickly.

Finally, I think the general was referring to invasion rather than occupation. This explains why, as you put it, the U.S. struggled in the latter. For example, in Iraq, it ended up coming up with a weird coalition of Saddam's former men which they supported in the past to counter Islamic fundamentalist, their own puppets, and the same Islamic fundamentalists who hate them. The whole thing eventually fell apart.

Similarly, in Afghanistan, they tried to form some coalition consisting of their own stooges, Northern Alliance rapists and drug pushers, and Islamic fundamentalists stemming from mujahedeen which they supported to counter the Soviets and eventually turned on them. That fell apart, too.

Given these, perhaps we're seeing similar in Ukraine, following what was shared in this lecture and in others:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

That is, another attempt at regime change following over five decades of similar, to prop up a pro-U.S. government and then use that to exploit the country strategically and even economically.

That fell apart when Russian attacked but stopped at regions controlled by Russians. Will it follow through and copy the U.S. by trying to occupy more of the country?

I don't have time at the moment (just about to go to work), but I will try and give you an in-depth answer later.

[ralfy]

its exactly the same . man

Of course, not. Marx argued that nationalism is a bourgeois concept needed to maintain private property. He wanted private property abolished and the formation of a dictatorship of the proletariat, after which all would combined and form world communism.