890
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
890 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
50299 readers
934 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
history truly is a flat circle
This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.
If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn't count.
That's the kicker, Leftists are correct far more often than liberals yet libs never put 2 and 2 together.
Repeat for 150 years.
Revolution has already come in many countries, and the US Empire is on its way out. Not sure what your point is, this is correct.
China is ready to take over as the lead capitalist empire.
China is neither Capitalist nor an Empire, so not sure what your point is.
How is China not capitalist? The government keeps it's capitalist leashed, but they are the driving force are they not?
I'm also not sure how you'd not see them as an empire? It's a big ole place with a lot of folk.
The driving force in the PRC is the public sector. An example I like to use is the rubber ball factory vs the rubber factory, the one who controls the rubber factory has power over the rubber ball factory. In the PRC, heavy industry and large firms are almost entirely under state control, the private sector is more for smaller firms and secondary industries.
As for being an Empire, Imperialism isn't judged by size, but by relations with international countries.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#is-china-state-capitalist
That isn't really a point, could you explain what you meant, rather than sling pejoratives?
Only if you ignore all the obvious facts that make them wrong. For example two of the "allies" pictured here were never allies.
Seems to me it's more saying that NATO's stated goal for Libya was to "liberate" it, when in reality it was a disaster.
Either way, I'm more interested in continuing the conversations I tried to have with you regarding Marx's Law of Value and your understanding of how the PRC functions.
Ok but Qaddafi wasn't an ally of the USA.
Im not engaging in discussions that have zero to do with this thread in this thread.
You don't have to respond in this thread, I just want you to give an example on the other thread that you say disproves Marx's Law of Value, and ideally also elaborate on why you think workers in the PRC had it better 2-3 decades ago compared to today.
Qadaffi kinda was between ~2003 and 2011. The CIA even captured and handed over enemies from all over the world, along with providing intelligence about dissidents within Libya.
How was Libya, a member of the non-aligned movement, a US ally? They literally were part of a group that took neither side in the Cold War.
OBL was never an ally. The US gave money to the Pakistani ISI who gave money to fixers who gave money to OBL. There was no direct channel. He was never an ally and it is a weird assertion to make given the history.
The other two were US allies. Noriega was even friendly with Bush 41. This is just bad history.
Between 2003 and 2011, the CIA even captured and handed over enemies from all over the world, along with providing intelligence about dissidents within Libya.
As far as OBL goes, the US armed and trained his faction against the soviets during the soviet-afghan war.
Again the CIA gave money to the ISI who gave money to fixers who decided who got money. The US soldiers training them doesn’t make them an ally of the USA.
Ukraine was never an ally of the US either, by that metric.
No, because we actually have negotiated signed treaties with Ukraine. Are ypu confused as to what an ally is?
We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and "signing a treaty" does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don't count because they were never allies.
Ukraine didn’t cease to exist when the administration was removed. Why would you think that would be the case? They still go by the same name and hold to all their relative treaties other than those involved in their invasion.
We have all sorts of agreements with Ukraine including ones that provide military responses which seems to be a fairly significant sign they are an ally. They are not any more now that the USA is aligned with Russia once again.
Why would you think the Ukrainian government isn’t an ally of the USA? Why would you think the treaties and agreements made by previous administrations aren’t still in place?
And the US funding and training the other groups was "a fairly significant sign that they were allies," but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then "fairly significant signs" are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren't allied. You don't have to read into the signs, it's an objective fact.
"Security guarantees" aren't alliances. Or if they are, then we're using the term informally, and it's therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people.
Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don't get to have it both ways.
That's not how Operation Cyclone worked. You can just read the wikipedia article, there's several books on the subject, but honestly Blowback Season 4 is pretty good coverage. Episode 3 specifically deals with who at the CIA interfaced with the afghans and how.
It also includes the methods the US promoted the mujahedin as freedom fighters to the US before ultimately turning on them, which is what the meme is about.
From your link I have added emphasis to the part you seemed to have missed:
“ The distribution of the weaponry relied heavily on the Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who had a personal relationship with Congressman Wilson. His Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.[40] Along with funding from Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China,[41] the ISI developed a complex infrastructure that was directly training 16,000 to 18,000 mujahideen fighters annually by early 1986 (and indirectly facilitating training for thousands of others by Afghans that had previously been recipients of ISI instruction).[42] They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[40] Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq also directed the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to establish contact with Israel's Mossad.[43] Intelligence offices were set up at both countries' embassies in Washington, where the ISI, MI6, CIA and Mossad jointly ran the operation.[44] During this operation, Israel supplied Soviet-made weaponry (seized from Palestinian militants) to the Afghan mujahideen. Pakistan and Israel cooperated very closely during the entirety of the conflict and the Pakistani military which was engaging Soviet aircraft and providing the mujahideen with funds and weapons—received a generous amount of Israeli armaments and aid as a result.[44]___
So how didn’t it work like that? It really seems the ISI, who would best know the parties involved, did the heavy lifting.
The CIA using the ISI to transport some weapons and train soldiers isn't "this ISI did everything therefore the Mujahedin weren't supported by the US", it's "the ISI were a tool of the CIA", the operation was run out of Washington. It had US media providing glowing coverage of the Mujahedin as they committed war crimes.
The ISI being the go between for almost everything does mean those groups the ISI paid are not allies of the USA. If anyone in the Mujahideen needed help we would not have provided it because we are not allies. If the ISI needed help we likely would help depending on the circumstances (we wont fight India for example).
The Mujaheddin did need help, they needed weapons, bombs, intelligence, diplomatic support, booby traps specifically procured by the CIA. The US provided it.
And then back home, they used their contacts in the media to make sure everyone knew that the Mujaheddin were the good guys worthy of America's support, even if they were not officially receiving it. Americans, Mujaheddin, and Soviets all understood the US supported the Mujaheddin, even if there was a layer of plausible deniability. It's why the Soviets asked the US to stop the attacks on Soviet soldiers during the pullout and not Pakistan.
The american people were told to see the Mujaheddin as their ally, and the Mujaheddin understood it was the US supporting them.
You ever heard of operation cyclone before?
Yes and the ISI were the intermediary for almost everything. The wiki link they provided even explains this.
What did you think I was missing or am I supposed to think a handful of CIA guys made all the decisions vs taking input from the ISI would would know all of the players involved.
I know you are a communist and not a huge fan of the USA, but are you one of the people that actually believes America’s intelligence agencies were good at spy-craft? We weren’t.
And MI6 and the CIA giving info about mutual enemies doesn’t make them an ally.
People are seriously acting like Bin Laden was bait and switched by the US. I somehow remember it differently...
...he was, though? We funded the Mujahideen to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and then when the USSR collapsed we cut him loose to get all chummy with the Saudi government so we could get that cheap oil.
higher resolution version