There are things between passively "rooting for" and being 100% responsible for something.
You added "passively". I said
basically just rooting against a socialist leader, mostly from the sidelines, in the context of explicitly contrasting that with P&E murdering scores of people along with their other nefarious activities in the show to advance the interests of a totalitarian power. You completely ignored that part when you replied.
For example, the US contributed to the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Middle-East by financing the Mujahideen,but I'd never say the US "founded ISIS" or something as stupidly simplistic as that.
Even the first version you gave is simplistic and misleading, since most of the Afghan Mujahideen evolved into the Northern Alliance, with the Taliban really being formed later in the 1990s by young people who had been students in Pakistan madrassas when the war against the Soviets was raging. To the extent the the US
and its allies contributed to the rise of Islamist jihadism (assuming that's what you meant by "religious fundamentalism", which in most cases isn't a problem and can even be a good thing), it wasn't by directly supporting anyone so much as by withdrawing and abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out, leaving a vacuum, and showing no interest in exerting influence to shape the course of events from then on.
It would be more accurate to say that US support to the Soviet Union during WW2 led to that nation becoming a superpower and the consequential Cold War.
Are you seriously saying I'm biased towards Russia rather than the US because Stalin killed or sent to Siberia some of my relatives?
Obviously I said nothing of the sort. Go back and check.
I'm from Finland (one of those "soft welfare socialist states" or whatever you called them) - Reporters Without Borders ranks us #1 in the world in freedom of press. I'm lucky to not have been subjected to much propaganda.
 Such indices are fundamentally worthless because they don't actually relay any factual information, unless one knows the internal components. Obviously they're inherently subjectively constructed (chosen variables and weights), but designed to give the illusion of objectivity. They're almost always biased and exist to push some kind of agenda. That you would spout that without qualification as though it has some meaning by itself (as opposed to maybe some hard facts from the internals) illustrates why activist outfits and political organizations go to the trouble of constructing and pushing them. People tend to be fairly easy to manipulate.
I remember analyzing and mocking that particular "press freedom" index years ago, though I don't recall the specifics now, except that the reasons it had for downgrading the US were extremely stupid and hypocritically not applied to other countries. I am confident, however, that it doesn't measure "propaganda", especially as I used the term, which is ideologically slanted material that can come from private or public sources. In fact the press freedom index is at least partly propaganda, though sometimes such indices (like the HDI) are more useful for roughly showcasing differences between third and first world countries than precise comparisons between first world countries.
More significant is my utter lack of surprise that you're from one of those soft socialist welfare state nations. Did I call that or what?
My own country and all the rest of the Nordics rank very highly in everything (human development, happiness, education, lack of corruption, above-mentioned freedom of press blah blah blah) and the media will not let us forget that.
 I wrote the above before I even read this part. I've thoroughly debunked the HDI at IMDb (among other places) before. Those things are rigged to give the result you indicate. That's the type of propaganda I'm talking about. I'm glad you seem to be aware in this comment that you're being bombarded with propaganda, yet you still just cited the press freedom index with a straight face, indicating that it may have influenced you more than you realize.
Are you able to objectively look at the United States, or is American exceptionalism something you've heard your whole life about and just assume must be true?
If you knew anything about the US media you wouldn't ask that question. The modern American media is almost entirely left wing and often anti-American itself. It's not as bad as much of the European or Canadian media, but it's pretty bad. To answer your question, if we got into an expanded discussion of international comparisons, or frankly any other political/economic topic, you would see how fact based my opinions are.
And, relating to your earlier comment about press freedom, I will say that at least the US has the First Amendment and a stronger commitment to free speech than any other country on earth. You don't see things like "hate speech" laws, like you often do in Europe, where unpopular speech is actually outlawed, or in Canada, where stand up comedians have literally been fined tens of thousands of dollars simply for telling politically incorrect jokes. We may not have such protections much longer if the left gets its way, but I'm speaking of traditional American exceptionalism here.
Also, why is it so important to you how other countries conduct their affairs? Live and let live. (Barring serious violations of human rights, of course.)
When the US tried that before WW2 happened, and when it naively viewed the USSR as a partner in the immediate postwar world, as exemplified by astonishingly delusional statements like these....
"I think that if I give him (Stalin)
everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace." - FDR"I like Stalin . . . . He is very fond of classical music. . . . I got the impression Stalin would stand by his agreements and also that he had a Politburo on his hands like the 80th Congress." - Trumanhttp://www.nhinet.org/beichman16-1.pdf....the Soviets broke promises to hold free elections in Central Europe, enslaved half the continent with oppressive puppet regimes, and within a few years half the world had gone communist. They had already infiltrated the US at the highest levels. Marxism, even more than Nazism, was a universalist ideology and its adherents wanted the entire world within the communist bloc. The US fortunately if belatedly changed its tune and started to recognize that Moscow backed communist expansions, especially on America's own doorstep, very much impacted its own interests and those of the rest of the free world, and sought to stop them. And, in addition to the strategic element, there were human rights violations in every communist country. Communism is an inherently oppressive system. That you'd even ask that question underscores what I originally said about you not knowing or caring much about the Cold War.
reply
share