Results 1 to 20 of 46
I agree with Chomsky here except for two points:
1. I think there were a number of situations when the soviets really were a threat to the US. For example when they backed Cuba after their revolution. It was a direct threat to America because Cuba are positioned so strategically in the Gulf of Mexico, where a lot of the US trade routes go.
2. I think he expects too much from ideology and nation states. I don't know how else he expects international relations to work, but it has always been like this, dirty and domineering.
Was Cuba a theat to the US? Do you really think Cuba would attack the US???
Thats his point.
I don't think Cuba would attack the US, but I do think it was a threat. A strong Naval force in Cuba could control the sea lanes in and out of the Gulf of Mexico. It's kind of like saying that NATO isn't a threat to Russia, even though they are right at their doorstep now in Georgia.
And disrupt trade, for that to happen the Navy of cuba would have to physically threaten American trade ships
I don't think Russia consideres Nato a threat.
Yeah but soviet missiles in Cuba is surely a threat to American trade. What about the Cuban missile crisis? I think that Cuba was a huge bargaining chip for the soviets.
How come?
The whole nuclear missiles in Cuba thing was a response to nuclear missles in Turkey. It was a tit for tat situation, fundementally there was no threat had the US not instigated it.
Why would it be a threat?
Ok, but it is still a strategic threat.
Well, isn't the US arming and installing defence systems in places like Poland? Some of the most strategic places for Russia to expand its influence into Europe.
There is really no military threat in Europe From Russia or Nato ... At this point its not an issue.
Not really, Cuba would never dare to touch American trade boats or anything to disrupt American trade.
Ok, I see your point. I guess what I was trying to say then is that Cuba and Nato both represented significant political threats, rather than military ones.
You could argue Cuba represents a political threat to other latin American countries, because it provides an example of revolution, but not to the US, unless the US owns those countries, which it thinks it does :P.
And see- this is why, when the metal hits the pedal, the rubber hits the road- and especially- the shit hits the fan, revlefters always find themselves puzzled and confused as to why people associate them with the USSR et. al. You guys are (and were), at best, simply incapable of drawing a distinction between the USSR and the USA. At worse (as the above quote indicates) characterizes the USSR as an innocent in the wood, who simply reacted to that which the USA does or did (the video posted being about a quarter century old).
Whats wrong with that? Do you expect a winning result any other way? In geopolitical terms, you have to forget all these silly things like ideology and why the USSR is distinct from the US as a political structure. All that matters really in the end is power and how well it's executed. The USSR was definitely not an innocent in the woods, it had deep power to influence countries nearby and was a significant force of political influence on the world in general.
Yes there is, from Russia's standpoint NATO armies are already at the gates thus in the event of WWIII where Russia and NATO go to a full scale war Russian generals fear that they would have to go nuclear far sooner then during the cold war as NATO thus their only logical strategy would be to throw all their nukes at NATO preemptively and hope they wipe out most of NATO nuclear capabilities thus NATO can't fully retaliate. Thus from the standpoint of Russian military generals there is a higher risk of nuclear war with NATO then during the cold war.
... Yeah the point is though thats what happened, the USSR was not innocent in having hedgemony over half of europe after WW2, but they never were a military threat to the United States.
Its not a point of debate that the missles in Cuba were a reaction to missles in Turkey ....
BTW, I am a huge critic of the USSR and have said many times that I'd prefer a capitalist democracy to a state-capitalist dictatorship.
But the likely hood of a WWIII where Russia and NATO go to war is slim to nothing.
How so? NATO keeps creeping closer and closer to Russia as Russia strengthens the imperial power, that led to the Georgian conflict where Russia did mobilize tactical nuclear launches into the region in the event NATO decided to military intervene and later publicly restated their nuclear doctrine gives the Russian military the right to retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons against NATO forces that attack Russian forces.
[QUOTE]Neither was National Socialist Germany...
But isolationism does have a sound argument.
Which in turn was placed due to the Soviet hegemony in eastern europe...
What was the quote 'The USA is friends to liberty everywhere but guardians only of our own." (something like that).
National Socialist Germany almost took over all of Europe .... The USSR did'nt invade anyone except for afghanistan post WW2, the US was a much greater threat to world security and peace than the USSR ever was.
Which was a threat to anyone how?
It does'nt matter, because that quote is bullshit.
[QUOTE]
Yep.
But Europe ain't the USA.
Yep... When the pedal hits the medal, the rubber hits the road, the shit hits the fan... The revlefters line(d) themselves up with the USSR.
And declared war on the United States ...
Errr no, infact tons of revolutionary leftists were against the USSR, Chomsky was from the begning as was Emma Goldman, and many other famous leftists.
No one is lining themself up with the USSR, other than saying they were not ever a threat to the UNited STates.
