Comment

Comment on The crusade against Lemmy devs, lemmy.ml, and so-called "tankies"

My sense of the Cold War examples is that they happened in places that were on a kind of knife’s edge already. Like Chile - there was an existing underfunded, previously influential and endogamous military that didn’t need to much encouragement to take down Allende, electoral mandate be damned. They managed to gain influence across a lot of Latin America at the time, but there’s no comparable place now. In modern areas with unstable governments, the US has been losing ground this decade, as opposed to running the show.

If the US was secretly replacing otherwise-stable governments all over the world, it would take vast numbers of people all over and be much too hard to perfectly to cover up. France’s program in north Africa ended up an open secret, for example. You don’t need it to explain anything either; so, it’s not supported by Occam’s razor. And obviously, how could I falsify that idea? This is when it starts feeling like arguing against a conspiracy theory. Every thing you can say against it gets twisted into evidence for a successful coverup.

Sure, I agree that there were already internal elements that helped those regime change operations, but the way I see it, that’s true of most countries around the world. Look at the rise of the right in Europe and the US in the last few years. I think the main difference between those examples and the regime changes in the past is that there’s no “accelerant”, (i.e., something like the type of involvement the US’ CIA had in those countries). I’m not saying that the US is secretly controlling the entire world. I’m saying the US has a knee-jerk reaction to deeply meddle in order to promote regimes that advantage them and depose regimes that disadvantage them. I don’t see why this point should be controversial or feel like a conspiracy theory. The US has demonstrably engaged in more covert and overt regime change operations and high-pressure tactics around the world than the entire rest of the world combined, since the end of World War II.

My point there was just that a lot of the decision makers believe they’re doing something noble (and the rest just want to get re-elected). At least in my country, which is culturally very close to the US, foreign policy isn’t a deliberately self-serving enterprise. (Although the fascist/“far-right populist” movement obviously goes in exactly that direction, and claims it’s a virtue)

I think that if you look at their actions, the majority of these people that believe they’re doing something noble have drunk massive amounts of kool-aid. I can’t speak for Canada because I don’t know enough about their foreign policy, but I think claiming that US foreign policy isn’t a deliberately self-serving enterprise is pretty far out there and would need to some major evidence to the contrary, like perhaps demonstrating what was the actual noble purpose of all the regime change operations of the past. I’m sure that there are some people who get into foreign policy to help the world and not just the US, but I fear that’s a small minority.

The first example I was thinking of there is Venezuela. Conditions in the nation are really bad, there’s been mass migration out of it, and it’s not hard to find a Venezuelan that hates Maduro and friends. He can say it’s the CIA planting people, but even if you agree that none of the situation is actually his fault, it’s not the CIA - people do blame the current government. Same story during the Arab Spring. Really, dictators will usually say an enemy manufactured any civil unrest, and the US is the obvious choice for some of them. Others blame local rivals, and historically Jews were popular.

Do you not believe that the CIA has been deeply involved in Venezuela since the time that Hugo Chavez came to power there? If you really don’t think that’s the case, I don’t know what to tell you. If you do believe that’s the case, why should the US be involved in the domestic affairs of other countries (this particular country having the largest known oil reserves in the world, I might add)?

Interesting, I might have to read that. In my head the banana republic coups worked like half the time, but maybe that’s just because nobody talks about the failed ones.

Yeah, I thought that was interesting too, but I haven’t read the citation. I was surprised by it too.

source

Sort:hotnew top

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

I think the main difference between those examples and the regime changes in the past is that there’s no “accelerant”, (i.e., something like the type of involvement the US’ CIA had in those countries).

I mean, Russia’s trying to make far-right takeovers happen pretty hard.

I’m not saying that the US is secretly controlling the entire world. I’m saying the US has a knee-jerk reaction to deeply meddle in order to promote regimes that advantage them and depose regimes that disadvantage them.

The thing in question at this point, I think, is if it’s a reason why we should support anybody (or almost anybody) who opposes the US. Just saying that the US should chill wouldn’t be out there enough to argue with.

The US has demonstrably engaged in more covert and overt regime change operations and high-pressure tactics around the world than the entire rest of the world combined, since the end of World War II.

Hmm. That would include the end of the actual colonial era. There was a lot of what you could describe as “high-pressure tactics” used by Europe against the various independence movements.

If you restrict it to regime change only, it’s possible, since it’s mainly the US-led West and the Soviets playing. I honestly not sure if there’s non-aligned examples of supporting a foreign coup/revolution.

but I think claiming that US foreign policy isn’t a deliberately self-serving enterprise is pretty far out there and would need to some major evidence to the contrary, like perhaps demonstrating what was the actual noble purpose of all the regime change operations of the past.

If you do believe that’s the case, why should the US be involved in the domestic affairs of other countries?

During the Cold War the reason given was usually “to stop communism”, since then it’s more like “for democracy” or “to stop atrocities”.

That may or may not be drinking the kool-aid. If you are yourself a non-communist democracy, those can overlap with national interest, which is definitely a slippery slope. That’s not the same as it being purely propaganda, though (which looking back through the thread is where this tangent started).

source
- Cricket@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Sorry for the delay. I needed to take a break from online drama, and hope to continue avoiding getting sucked into it if possible. :)
  
  I mean, Russia’s trying to make far-right takeovers happen pretty hard.
  
  If they are, it doesn’t seem like they’re trying as hard as the US has in the past. Social media manipulation is in no way equivalent to supporting or initiating coups. Even if they have done some similar things, it’s been on a much smaller scale, at least an order of magnitude less.
  
  The thing in question at this point, I think, is if it’s a reason why we should support anybody (or almost anybody) who opposes the US. Just saying that the US should chill wouldn’t be out there enough to argue with.
  
  I’m not sure I understand your second point here, but I think that the first question could be turned right around: why should anyone support the US or any of its closest partners? I think the answer lies in the fact that most countries in the world (the so-called “Global South”) have not supported the US/West position in either Ukraine or Palestine.
  
  Hmm. That would include the end of the actual colonial era. There was a lot of what you could describe as “high-pressure tactics” used by Europe against the various independence movements.
  
  I would still have to see any evidence that what I said (essentially that the US has been the biggest bully in the world for the last 80 years) is way off the mark.
  
  During the Cold War the reason given was usually “to stop communism”, since then it’s more like “for democracy” or “to stop atrocities”.
  
  The claim that it was to “stop communism” seemed to have been sincere.
  
  The more recent claims that it’s to “stop atrocities” has some weight, but not a ton. How many times has the US used heavy foreign policy tactics purely for that purpose?
  
  The claims that it’s “for democracy” is very weak when there are examples in the recent past of the US either supporting or not opposing coups against democratically-elected foreign leaders. The first example that comes to mind is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the Arab Spring. From what I recall, there was hardly a squeak from the US when that happened, because it benefited the US.
  
  That may or may not be drinking the kool-aid. If you are yourself a non-communist democracy, those can overlap with national interest, which is definitely a slippery slope. That’s not the same as it being purely propaganda, though (which looking back through the thread is where this tangent started).
  
  I don’t know if I said “purely propaganda”, but if I did, I probably meant “mostly propaganda”.
  
  Thanks.
  
  source
  - CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    No problem. The internet should be fun, not stressful.
    
    I would still have to see any evidence that what I said (essentially that the US has been the biggest bully in the world for the last 80 years) is way off the mark.
    
    If we’re including post-WWII decolonisation, pretty much point to any former colony - which is a rather large map area. The British or French didn’t just let them leave, but did atrocities to stop them until they couldn’t anymore. I went looking for casualty figures, but it turns out there’s not much information known. Maybe we’ll have to wait until the guilty parties are all dead.
    
    I think you’d arrive at the same conclusion that it was a two-sided competition if you were to read up in detail on a few times and places during the Cold War, as opposed to just the US coup greatest hits. Mao did not fight alone. The thing is, it’s hard to capture that all in one number. The USSR spent maybe 20% of it’s GDP on it’s military, while being a third the economic size of the US, to give a sense of scale of the kind of resources that were piling in from the communist direction.
    
    Over a period that long and the area of the whole world that’s about as good as I can do in a Lemmy comment.
    
    Social media manipulation is in no way equivalent to supporting or initiating coups.
    
    Ukraine comes to mind (did we talk about that already?), as does Georgia. It’s in no way just social media, either. In places like the Baltics there’s your classic people with suitcases full of money going around and paying for sabotage, access or votes. That’s not just hearsay - some have been caught.
    
    In the West they’re more limited because it’s harder to get away with, so yeah, they mostly mess with social media. I’m pretty sure there was somebody that went to jail in the US during Biden’s time, though.
    
    I’m not sure I understand your second point here,
    
    It wasn’t a point, I just won’t/can’t argue with the basic idea that they’ve been too aggressive.
    
    why should anyone support the US or any of its closest partners?
    
    I mean, the most conservative stance would be just to support nobody and say every country is awful. Why isn’t that in consideration?
    
    have not supported the US/West position in either Ukraine or Palestine.
    
    Ukraine has lots of third world support. Palestine has some Western support; Canada just went against the US to recognise it in what is a very sensitive period in our relations.
    
    The claims that it’s “for democracy” is very weak when there are examples in the recent past of the US either supporting or not opposing coups against democratically-elected foreign leaders. The first example that comes to mind is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the Arab Spring. From what I recall, there was hardly a squeak from the US when that happened, because it benefited the US.
    
    Support for an anti-democratic coup hasn’t happened since the “stop communism” era. If you include not getting involved, neutral Switzerland is a massive bully, and I actually can show it in a Lemmy comment.
    
    I would guess Obama was concerned and disappointed, but also wanted some kind of stability, and to not alienate someone he was going to have to deal with one way or another. Starting another ground war in the Middle East was obviously out of the question at that point - even closing Libyan airspace was very controversial.
    
    source