I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
While I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, you're not entirely right either. Do you not want America fighting ISIS? You want to let them take over regions without world powers stepping in to help curb their influence in the world? And yes, Russian influence. You think they're acting like peaceniks? Russia's been bombing Syrian hospitals and supporting Assad, the guy who uses chemical weapons on his own people. If America leaves that stage Russia's influence gets stepped up, since America is one of nations in the world capable of fucking with them toe-to-toe. The Kurds are going to get slaughtered by Turkey, Russia's ally because of this.
If you think isolationism is going to fix everything I don't know what to tell you. That's a policy which is going to get the Kurds murdered, UK's getting people assassinated on their own streets, various former Soviet nations are getting political and literal military pressure to fold back into Putin's version of the Soviet Union and the EU is facing an emerging threat as Russia tries to break it apart - like Brexit. Yet you want America to sit it out? Any stupid war Trump or whatever Republican president we get will automatically default to a proxy war because Russia wants to relive their glory days emulating Stalin with a right wing aesthetic. Do you think a Russia influenced Venezuela or Iran (and they already have some pull there via arms sales) is going to be a good thing for the world or their citizens?
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
While I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, you're not entirely right either. Do you not want America fighting ISIS?
This is endlessly recursive. We fight because this guy can't be allowed to win and then oh shit well now we have to fight these new guys. ISIS is, in large part, the result of us continuing the same cycle of half ass military adventures we've always been in engaged in and it won't end just because you beat the newest incarnation.
If you think isolationism is going to fix everything I don't know what to tell you.
I haven't advocated isolationism. Most Americans just equate a global presence with a global military presence, which plays to my point.
Anyway, I'm going to bed. I'm sure the next round of proxy wars will turn out better than the last.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
While I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, you're not entirely right either. Do you not want America fighting ISIS?
This is endlessly recursive.
It's a simple question with a yes or no answer.
I haven't advocated isolationism. Most Americans just can't process a global presence that isn't military force.
What are you advocating then? I can accept America doing more with the military but this is not what this discussion has been about. It's also a bit difficult to stop Russia fucking up countries with the Peace Corps.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
Values and policy aren't interchangeable terms.
Make your case then. Exactly what values did they share such that they are indistinguishable to you?
I thought I was being rather clear. Every president, across parties, and with more or less the full backing of their parties, has had a foreign policy centered around "The rest of the world is our business to the exact extent we so decide and we will liberally use military force to conduct that business". This has gone on for decades. Longer than you and I have been alive. A global blanket of US military force to be applied where and when we see fit is the core value of the United States of America in so far as foreign policy is concerned.
There is no party or major politician who, for instance, backs a foreign policy centered around nonviolent economic and health development. Sure, we do some of that, but you'd be insane to say our foreign policy is defined by building Liberian hospitals.
That is simply wrong though. Bush believed in US unilateralism, and that led to the unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq.
Obama believed in international consensus and cooperation, and as such his interventions were always limited because he could never get the international support to go further.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
While I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, you're not entirely right either. Do you not want America fighting ISIS?
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
Values and policy aren't interchangeable terms.
Make your case then. Exactly what values did they share such that they are indistinguishable to you?
I thought I was being rather clear. Every president, across parties, and with more or less the full backing of their parties, has had a foreign policy centered around "The rest of the world is our business to the exact extent we so decide and we will liberally use military force to conduct that business". This has gone on for decades. Longer than you and I have been alive. A global blanket of US military force to be applied where and when we see fit is the core value of the United States of America in so far as foreign policy is concerned.
There is no party or major politician who, for instance, backs a foreign policy centered around nonviolent economic and health development. Sure, we do some of that, but you'd be insane to say our foreign policy is defined by building Liberian hospitals.
That is simply wrong though. Bush believed in US unilateralism, and that led to the unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq.
Obama believed in international consensus and cooperation, and as such his interventions were always limited because he could never get the international support to go further.
You think it means anything to parents watching their children starve to death in Yemen that Obama was in good standing with European allies? Did Libya get less fucked because there were also French jets?
Like I said, confusing differences in competency of application with a difference in values.
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
While I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, you're not entirely right either. Do you not want America fighting ISIS?
I mean I guess it sure is easier to argue that poor brown people in Syria or whatever should die for your proxy war when you define literally everything unfriendly as war.
Anyway, when leftists talk about how violent imperialism is the true bipartisan plank in American politics this kind of shit is what we're talking about.
I think the leftist view of America's role in the world is incredibly naive. The US retreating from the world stage will not result in less imperialism, it will result in more.
50 years of the US invading countries and arming rebels has not actually made the Middle East any better off. You'd think half a century of blood and spent treasure would be enough to conclusively say a policy is ineffective, but its always other people doing the dying.
You also confuse "stop invading every fucking thing" with retreating from the world stage. Our choices aren't imperialism or isolationism.
The US wasn't invading Syria. It was stopping a massacre. It wasn't an imperialist action, it was a humanitarian one.
We routinely allow massacres and genocide to go unanswered across the globe. Hell, we'll ally with governments that commit ethnic cleansing. The notion that our involvement in Syria was out of humanitarian concern and not because we don't want Russia's sphere of influence expanding is a big ask.
But you also missed the point. Our involvement in Syria is basically par for the course in the middle east. How many more decades of casually throwing around bullets and bombs are we going to go through before we consider that maybe it won't bring peace to the region?
The US does not intervene in every situation it could or should, and that is both a shame and a natural consequence of the limits of logistics, power, and politics.
If we wanted to knock Syria over and occupied it, we could have, easily. We didn't. I don't know how to get through to you that the US's actions in Syria don't fit nicely into the anti-imperialist worldview.
The US is not a consistent actor, since we have elections that swap our foreign policy out every 4-8 years. Sometimes someone gets into power like Obama who does want to do good, as much as he can do.
Its perfectly consistent. We intervene when its in line with our larger goals as a global power. Its why we choose to step in when Syria goes to shit under Russian influence and ISIS threatens our holdings nearby and have done almost nothing for the Rohingya. Myanmar isn't relevant to our interests.
And no, we don't swap out our foreign policy. You have your choice of violent interventionism or violent interventionism and sometimes they'll cut a treaty after starving enough civilians. The veneer of respectability isn't the same thing as an actual change in policy.
If you don't see any difference in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama then this conversation is clearly never going to go anywhere and I'm going to call it now.
You confuse differences in the competency of execution with differences in fundamental values.
Bush and Obama had incredibly different values. Is it just one big blob of capitalist imperialism to you, you can't see that there is in fact nuance and difference and contrast?
Values and policy aren't interchangeable terms.
Make your case then. Exactly what values did they share such that they are indistinguishable to you?
I thought I was being rather clear. Every president, across parties, and with more or less the full backing of their parties, has had a foreign policy centered around "The rest of the world is our business to the exact extent we so decide and we will liberally use military force to conduct that business". This has gone on for decades. Longer than you and I have been alive. A global blanket of US military force to be applied where and when we see fit is the core value of the United States of America in so far as foreign policy is concerned.
There is no party or major politician who, for instance, backs a foreign policy centered around nonviolent economic and health development. Sure, we do some of that, but you'd be insane to say our foreign policy is defined by building Liberian hospitals.
That is simply wrong though. Bush believed in US unilateralism, and that led to the unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq.
Obama believed in international consensus and cooperation, and as such his interventions were always limited because he could never get the international support to go further.
You think it means anything to parents watching their children starve to death in Yemen that Obama was in good standing with European allies? Did Libya get less fucked because there were also French jets?
Like I said, confusing differences in competency of application with a differences in values.
Libya got fucked because Obama could not go in with a peacekeeping force alone. Cameron and Sarkozy absolutely fucked Obama.
I just gave you a clear outline of how their values on foreign policy differed and you just reiterated your previous disproven statement so lets stop now.
Edit: Obama advised Saudi Arabia not to go ahead with the Yemen invasion. Trump reversed course and gave Saudi Arabia full backing.
Edit2: I want to mention that Obama was notably harder on Israel and Saudi Arabia than previous presidents (Obama hated Netanyahu's guts). So much so that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been implicated in the conspiracy to get Trump elected so they could continue getting US support without the strings attached a competent Democratic administration would have put on it.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
It is rather arrogant to assume that things like ISIS arise because of the US' meddling. Do you think that things like the Sunni Shia animosity wouldn't be causing violent conflict if the US hadn't been involved?
I thought I was being rather clear. Every president, across parties, and with more or less the full backing of their parties, has had a foreign policy centered around "The rest of the world is our business to the exact extent we so decide and we will liberally use military force to conduct that business". This has gone on for decades. Longer than you and I have been alive. A global blanket of US military force to be applied where and when we see fit is the core value of the United States of America in so far as foreign policy is concerned.
There is no party or major politician who, for instance, backs a foreign policy centered around nonviolent economic and health development. Sure, we do some of that, but you'd be insane to say our foreign policy is defined by building Liberian hospitals.
There are two topics here. First, the are huge differences with the values between the parties of how they conduct war. Second, the military industrial complex is a large organism which exists outside the parties and presidents have trouble controlling them due to their power and influence. Its something I'd love for America to get rid of, but you're tossing them all into one big blob as if they are all the same thing - missing the nuances between the groups involved.
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
The US doesn't usually engage in realpolitik either. Middle eastern interventions are pretty clearly ideological.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The US should be dealing with ISIS, just like France and the UK and so on and so forth, because they were and are and awful, brutal, violent theocracy that enslaved, murdered and raped their way across large swathes of territory
We absolutely have the power to help in the fight against them and therefore have the responsibility to try to do so, although absolutely I will agree that responsibility has often not been fulfilled or has not been fulfilled in a way which is intelligent, restrained, ethical and sustainable.
From a purely hard-headed and practical point of view it is also not in anyone's interest for ISIS to control the territory that they did, least of all the poor buggers who had to live there. Isolationism is not practical, not viable, and definitely not ethical or moral.
Another thing, "a Second Cold War"? Are you actually serious about this? Most people aren't up for WW3 over what, Facebook ads? Ridiculous.
Active political espionage involving the theft of the millions of documents of one political party, the hacking of state voter registration systems, and I'm betting we will eventually learn the actual alteration of votes and/or voter registration. It wasn't just Facebook ads.
So this is what this is really about? Sending soldiers to die on a proxy war because people are still mad about 2016? Really?
And people said that Trump would wage wars to satisfy his ego.
I'm not saying it justifies further involvement in Syria. Never getting in was the right decision. Getting out in some sort of planned way is the best option there and in Afghanistan. I do think the rushed nature of the withdrawal increases danger to American soldiers. I also know that we are going to abandon allies who are going to get massacred and that's not good. I don't think the foreign policy establishment cares very much about the latter point though.
What I am saying is that what Russia did was not a small thing. You said it was just "Facebook ads." Leftists consistently downplay what Russia did (echoing Russian propaganda!) and it bothers me. What they did was fundamentally disturb the internal political process of another country via criminal acts. When the CIA does that to support repressive right wing wannabe strongmen (Pahlavi, Pinochet, etc), leftists correctly describe that as imperialism. When Russia does it to the US, y'all downplay it. I just want consistency on that front.
Also, just in general, Russia under Putin is a violently repressive government with expansionist territorial ambitions and nuclear weapons. Seems like figuring out what to do about that should be a major feature of American foreign policy.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
Of they were also eager for a proxy fight with russian interests just like this board.
That is a complete contradiction of the record of the conflict. The US primarily targeted ISIS and had extensive deconfliction channels with Syria and Russia.
Only if you don't start paying any attention to the conflict until halfway in. Initially the US's policy was to help the Turks/Saudis/Qataris etc. ship vast amounts of weapons in, train rebels (not Kurds, anti-Assad Arab militias), etc. In the early years of conflict ISIS was just another rebel group fighting in Syria against the government. The entire reason they were able to do what they did was that the US and allies had spent years fueling a deadly civil war, which weakened the government enough for ISIS to make gains.
By 2015 we were in the awkward middle ground of direct weapons shipments to the rebellion - led by hardline Islamic militia - while simultaneously bombing ISIS in the east. Our two wars (one indirect and one direct) in Syria were cross purposes, with the "regime change" policy being counterproductive from a "defeat ISIS" perspective (and I guess the other way around).
So the US has created or helped to create ISIS twice, first by blowing up Iraq in 2003 and then by pouring gasoline on the Syrian fire that started in 2011.
edit - also I think it was what had happened in Iraq that spurred our direct intervention against IS in Syria, not someone in the Obama admin shedding tears over the YPG in Kobane. We intervened after ISIS took Mosul and Anbar and the admin realized shit was out of control and that they'd have to fight in both countries.
Another thing, "a Second Cold War"? Are you actually serious about this? Most people aren't up for WW3 over what, Facebook ads? Ridiculous.
WW 3 isn't an option, therefore Cold War 2.0. Putin's been pushing for a Cold War with the West since at least Obama. The Cold War involved proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea etc) in the past and what Russia did to America in 2016 merits a response on that scale. We're already at war with Russia, it's just in the shadows. Yes, I am deadly serious. And the charges are a lot more than Facebook ads, check the Mueller threads - which includes one compromised National Security Advisor (Michael Flynn) and a captured Russian spy (Maria Butina). That's the tip of the iceberg in that investigation.
And it's not just America which has been fucked with by Russia. They've been antagonising the UK the last few months.
Then there's their escalating relationship with the EU.
When would you say this new Cold War started? 2016 election? Ukraine? Or perhaps when the US started trying to overthrow Russia's main ally in the Middle East?
When would you say this new Cold War started? 2016 election? Ukraine? Or perhaps when the US started trying to overthrow Russia's main ally in the Middle East?
Ooooh what about the invasion of Georgia? Or when Bush invaded Iraq over Russian objections.
But let's be honest. It started in the 90's when Putin got disgusted with what had happened to his country.
It is rather arrogant to assume that things like ISIS arise because of the US' meddling. Do you think that things like the Sunni Shia animosity wouldn't be causing violent conflict if the US hadn't been involved?
ISIS spreads in countries where the government is already losing control due to civil war. Aside from Iraq and Syria, their two most successful branches have been Libya, after the US destroyed the country's government and the rebel factions went to war against each other, and Afghanistan.
I honestly don't think it's arrogant to pin the blame for ISIS largely (definitely not entirely) on the US. Yes, these groups exist regardless, but we keep giving them the opportunities they need to grow. If we don't want transnational sectarian war cults to spread, not doing the regime change shit and trying to reduce the Saudi-Iran proxy struggle (instead of adding to on the Saudis' behalf) would be great first steps.
I also think some people might be overstating the danger currently posed by ISIS. As long as foreign powers don't try to destroy the Syrian government (again), I don't see ISIS having the opportunity to start conquering cities again.
It is rather arrogant to assume that things like ISIS arise because of the US' meddling. Do you think that things like the Sunni Shia animosity wouldn't be causing violent conflict if the US hadn't been involved?
ISIS spreads in countries where the government is already losing control due to civil war. Aside from Iraq and Syria, their two most successful branches have been Libya, after the US destroyed the country's government and the rebel factions went to war against each other, and Afghanistan.
I honestly don't think it's arrogant to pin the blame for ISIS largely (definitely not entirely) on the US. Yes, these groups exist regardless, but we keep giving them the opportunities they need to grow. If we don't want transnational sectarian war cults to spread, not doing the regime change shit and trying to reduce the Saudi-Iran proxy struggle (instead of adding to on the Saudis' behalf) would be great first steps.
I also think some people might be overstating the danger currently posed by ISIS. As long as foreign powers don't try to destroy the Syrian government (again), I don't see ISIS having the opportunity to start conquering cities again.
I could easily see Turkey and Syria decide to start fighting each other over Afrin and ISIS once again thriving in the Chaos.
It's why I keep using the Mongols as a parallel for ISIS. Everybody had a bigger fish to fry. Something they wanted more. Until Magikarp evolved into Gyarados. And then it was too late.
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
Of they were also eager for a proxy fight with russian interests just like this board.
That is a complete contradiction of the record of the conflict. The US primarily targeted ISIS and had extensive deconfliction channels with Syria and Russia.
Only if you don't start paying any attention to the conflict until halfway in. Initially the US's policy was to help the Turks/Saudis/Qataris etc. ship vast amounts of weapons in, train rebels (not Kurds, anti-Assad Arab militias), etc. In the early years of conflict ISIS was just another rebel group fighting in Syria against the government. The entire reason they were able to do what they did was that the US and allies had spent years fueling a deadly civil war, which weakened the government enough for ISIS to make gains.
By 2015 we were in the awkward middle ground of direct weapons shipments to the rebellion - led by hardline Islamic militia - while simultaneously bombing ISIS in the east. Our two wars (one indirect and one direct) in Syria were cross purposes, with the "regime change" policy being counterproductive from a "defeat ISIS" perspective (and I guess the other way around).
So the US has created or helped to create ISIS twice, first by blowing up Iraq in 2003 and then by pouring gasoline on the Syrian fire that started in 2011.
edit - also I think it was what had happened in Iraq that spurred our direct intervention against IS in Syria, not someone in the Obama admin shedding tears over the YPG in Kobane. We intervened after ISIS took Mosul and Anbar and the admin realized shit was out of control and that they'd have to fight in both countries.
Good post.
I'll expand on the last part. The US, and indeed much of the world, kinda woke up to the problems in the area when the Syrian rebel group called ISIS captured a city of 2 million people in Iraq. American forces had withdrawn from Iraq but still felt ownership over the problems there. Iraq falling to jihadists was not part of the plan at all, they'd spent too much fighting these exact guys over the previous decade.
In Syria it was another matter, the US was quite willing to either fund jihadis directly or look the other way when jihadis called themselves "moderate" in order to get the good guns. It was clear for years that US-purchased weapons were ending up the wrong hands. But jihadis were either attacking Assad, or at least denying Assad control of territory and people, so it was ok. Of course US allies KSA and UAE were running their own programs that helped jihadis. US miliary intelligence were aware of the risks of doing this, but continued anyway.
Its pretty rich to declare that the US is in Syria for some sort of moral reason. They're involved for the same reason as Russia, Turkey and Iran. Its geopolitics, and it gets dirtier the closer you look.
+6
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
Of they were also eager for a proxy fight with russian interests just like this board.
That is a complete contradiction of the record of the conflict. The US primarily targeted ISIS and had extensive deconfliction channels with Syria and Russia.
Only if you don't start paying any attention to the conflict until halfway in. Initially the US's policy was to help the Turks/Saudis/Qataris etc. ship vast amounts of weapons in, train rebels (not Kurds, anti-Assad Arab militias), etc. In the early years of conflict ISIS was just another rebel group fighting in Syria against the government. The entire reason they were able to do what they did was that the US and allies had spent years fueling a deadly civil war, which weakened the government enough for ISIS to make gains.
By 2015 we were in the awkward middle ground of direct weapons shipments to the rebellion - led by hardline Islamic militia - while simultaneously bombing ISIS in the east. Our two wars (one indirect and one direct) in Syria were cross purposes, with the "regime change" policy being counterproductive from a "defeat ISIS" perspective (and I guess the other way around).
So the US has created or helped to create ISIS twice, first by blowing up Iraq in 2003 and then by pouring gasoline on the Syrian fire that started in 2011.
edit - also I think it was what had happened in Iraq that spurred our direct intervention against IS in Syria, not someone in the Obama admin shedding tears over the YPG in Kobane. We intervened after ISIS took Mosul and Anbar and the admin realized shit was out of control and that they'd have to fight in both countries.
Good post.
I'll expand on the last part. The US, and indeed much of the world, kinda woke up to the problems in the area when the Syrian rebel group called ISIS captured a city of 2 million people in Iraq. American forces had withdrawn from Iraq but still felt ownership over the problems there. Iraq falling to jihadists was not part of the plan at all, they'd spent too much fighting these exact guys over the previous decade.
In Syria it was another matter, the US was quite willing to either fund jihadis directly or look the other way when jihadis called themselves "moderate" in order to get the good guns. It was clear for years that US-purchased weapons were ending up the wrong hands. But jihadis were either attacking Assad, or at least denying Assad control of territory and people, so it was ok. Of course US allies KSA and UAE were running their own programs that helped jihadis. US miliary intelligence were aware of the risks of doing this, but continued anyway.
Its pretty rich to declare that the US is in Syria for some sort of moral reason. They're involved for the same reason as Russia, Turkey and Iran. Its geopolitics, and it gets dirtier the closer you look.
Accurate. Though I would describe fighting IS as more "cleaning up a mess before it becomes insoluble"
But no you can't ignore all the secret shit we were doing that created an ideal environment for ISIS.
But I do feel A) Bad that we are screwing over the Kurds and leaving them for an authoritarian dictator to massacre. That we haven't gotten rid of the last ISIS holdouts. If ISIS no longer controlled territory, I wouldn't be so worried about the Syrian army being ineffectual.
At the current rate I am having to worry about the Saudi's, Turks, Iranians, Russian and Hezbollah (which I should maybe just file under Iran) handling the problem.
When would you say this new Cold War started? 2016 election? Ukraine? Or perhaps when the US started trying to overthrow Russia's main ally in the Middle East?
Ooooh what about the invasion of Georgia? Or when Bush invaded Iraq over Russian objections.
But let's be honest. It started in the 90's when Putin got disgusted with what had happened to his country.
Well then it started with Yeltsin and US support of him.
Not that this kind of analysis is helpful. In some sense the Cold War never ended, the end of communism couldn't change the fact that the USA wants a geo-political rival and Russia is the only one who can be hyped up to fill that role. Russia for its part recognizes that their biggest threat is the USA, so that is how they act.
The US doesnt give a shit about the status of human rights in the middle east come on.
The US intervened in Syria because a lot of US government officials and military leaders actually do care. If they didn't they would have just let ISIS and Syria fight it out, casualties be damned, that would have been the realpolitik decision to make.
Of they were also eager for a proxy fight with russian interests just like this board.
That is a complete contradiction of the record of the conflict. The US primarily targeted ISIS and had extensive deconfliction channels with Syria and Russia.
Only if you don't start paying any attention to the conflict until halfway in. Initially the US's policy was to help the Turks/Saudis/Qataris etc. ship vast amounts of weapons in, train rebels (not Kurds, anti-Assad Arab militias), etc. In the early years of conflict ISIS was just another rebel group fighting in Syria against the government. The entire reason they were able to do what they did was that the US and allies had spent years fueling a deadly civil war, which weakened the government enough for ISIS to make gains.
By 2015 we were in the awkward middle ground of direct weapons shipments to the rebellion - led by hardline Islamic militia - while simultaneously bombing ISIS in the east. Our two wars (one indirect and one direct) in Syria were cross purposes, with the "regime change" policy being counterproductive from a "defeat ISIS" perspective (and I guess the other way around).
So the US has created or helped to create ISIS twice, first by blowing up Iraq in 2003 and then by pouring gasoline on the Syrian fire that started in 2011.
edit - also I think it was what had happened in Iraq that spurred our direct intervention against IS in Syria, not someone in the Obama admin shedding tears over the YPG in Kobane. We intervened after ISIS took Mosul and Anbar and the admin realized shit was out of control and that they'd have to fight in both countries.
Good post.
I'll expand on the last part. The US, and indeed much of the world, kinda woke up to the problems in the area when the Syrian rebel group called ISIS captured a city of 2 million people in Iraq. American forces had withdrawn from Iraq but still felt ownership over the problems there. Iraq falling to jihadists was not part of the plan at all, they'd spent too much fighting these exact guys over the previous decade.
In Syria it was another matter, the US was quite willing to either fund jihadis directly or look the other way when jihadis called themselves "moderate" in order to get the good guns. It was clear for years that US-purchased weapons were ending up the wrong hands. But jihadis were either attacking Assad, or at least denying Assad control of territory and people, so it was ok. Of course US allies KSA and UAE were running their own programs that helped jihadis. US miliary intelligence were aware of the risks of doing this, but continued anyway.
Its pretty rich to declare that the US is in Syria for some sort of moral reason. They're involved for the same reason as Russia, Turkey and Iran. Its geopolitics, and it gets dirtier the closer you look.
Accurate. Though I would describe fighting IS as more "cleaning up a mess before it becomes insoluble"
But no you can't ignore all the secret shit we were doing that created an ideal environment for ISIS.
But I do feel A) Bad that we are screwing over the Kurds and leaving them for an authoritarian dictator to massacre. That we haven't gotten rid of the last ISIS holdouts. If ISIS no longer controlled territory, I wouldn't be so worried about the Syrian army being ineffectual.
At the current rate I am having to worry about the Saudi's, Turks, Iranians, Russian and Hezbollah (which I should maybe just file under Iran) handling the problem.
I don't think the US should be in Syria. But like most of the thread and seemingly most commentators generally, I'm worried about such a fast withdrawal. Power vacuums can be dangerous, especially in somewhere like Syria. It was exactly these conditions that saw the rise of ISIS in the first place.
I also feel awful for the Kurds. I've really rooted for the YPG, though I knew their betrayal was inevitable, as it was in the past. I guess I'd like to see some sort of more gradual draw down. The SDF controls a ton of territory in Eastern Syria -including most of the countries oilfields- but most of the territory isn't ethnically Kurdish. It doesn't make sense for an essentially Kurdish militia to control this area in perpetuity. The US withdraws from areas, and the SDF gives back the oil fields to Assad as a first step, in exchange for some sort of political protection from Assad, enforced by Russia and/or Iran. As a second step create some sort of buffer along the border with Turkey-- this is trickier, and maybe not possible, but worth a shot. Instead we get this sudden change (which I'm not convinced will actually come to pass, but we'll see) which catches everyone off guard and leaves open the possibility for another escalation of fighting.
And I never understood how/why those last IS pockets were left unmolested. The SDF raced down the Euphrates against Assad's forces, taking IS territory rapidly. They got the oil fields, but then held back before going after the final pocket. There's a pocket inside Syria government lines as well. The cynic in me wonders if the pocket was left to retain justification for the US being involved in the first place.
I feel like we’ve forgotten or are ignoring that some pretty horrendous shit was going down.
Assad was using nerve gas on people and ISIS were putting people into cages and setting them on fire. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Obviously things could have been done better in Syria, but it wasn’t without purpose.
Bill Clinton not intervening in the Rwanda genocide hasn’t exactly been forgotten. It’s always gonna be a lose/lose in these situations. Ignore massacres and genocides or intervention, it always comes down to the lesser of two evils, cause people are gonna die no matter what you do.
I don't think I'm prone to forgetting atrocities happening the middle east, it's just that as someone from the middle east I'm not selective about the ones to remember, so it's pretty hard for me to believe that they're that the motivator for American administrations flooding the middle east with weapons and bombs, and actively helping starve civilians and create catastrophes out of nothing. References by people like Powers to Rwanda and how that motivates their foreign policy seem more like sick jokes every day. But it's easy for them to get away with their bullshit, because people will eager offer apologetics to every crime they actively took part in - or, in the best case scenario, just shrug and move on.
Given Geth’s inability to do this for people with spaces in their names you won’t automatically be stopped from posting in this thread, I think, but I’ll check.
When would you say this new Cold War started? 2016 election? Ukraine? Or perhaps when the US started trying to overthrow Russia's main ally in the Middle East?
Ooooh what about the invasion of Georgia? Or when Bush invaded Iraq over Russian objections.
But let's be honest. It started in the 90's when Putin got disgusted with what had happened to his country.
Well then it started with Yeltsin and US support of him.
Not that this kind of analysis is helpful. In some sense the Cold War never ended, the end of communism couldn't change the fact that the USA wants a geo-political rival and Russia is the only one who can be hyped up to fill that role. Russia for its part recognizes that their biggest threat is the USA, so that is how they act.
The Trump administration is not going to give a shit about the kurds or the syrian people caught in the middle of this civil war. Hell we might start supporting Assad with money.
No government involved in this war ever gave a shit about the Syrian people stuck in the middle, so in this they are entirely unremarkable.
The number of humanitarian initiatives that are going to end when the US leaves is not zero. That politicians personally might not care about them does not mean that US soldiers in Syria and the US government in Syria is not providing assistance that is going to end.
I'm sure it's true that the US has some aid programs in Syria, but is that the implication of your first post? You didn't write that the US government has some aid programs in Syria and they might end, you wrote about how the administration is "not going to give a shit about the kurds or the syrian people caught in the middle of this civil war." Implying that this notable, because it's different from some other government previously or currently involved that cared about people stuck in the middle. That's not the case, and I'm fine with my post just the way it is. This is line with the many posts about brave soldiers, Kurds, and humanitarian catastrophe, etc, just trying to make American involvement in Syria about anything other than US geopolitical goals. The people stuck in the middle were not, are not, and never will be the reason any government got involved in the Syrian civil war.
When would you say this new Cold War started? 2016 election? Ukraine? Or perhaps when the US started trying to overthrow Russia's main ally in the Middle East?
Ooooh what about the invasion of Georgia? Or when Bush invaded Iraq over Russian objections.
But let's be honest. It started in the 90's when Putin got disgusted with what had happened to his country.
Well then it started with Yeltsin and US support of him.
Not that this kind of analysis is helpful. In some sense the Cold War never ended, the end of communism couldn't change the fact that the USA wants a geo-political rival and Russia is the only one who can be hyped up to fill that role. Russia for its part recognizes that their biggest threat is the USA, so that is how they act.
Hey Hey Hey.
China is a way better geo-political rival.
And that was Obama's entire strategic plan. His instinct was to wash American hands of the whole region and focus on East Asia (which would have had its own downsides) but kept getting drawn back by events and the American foreign policy establishment.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Given Geth’s inability to do this for people with spaces in their names you won’t automatically be stopped from posting in this thread, I think, but I’ll check.
Wait, what?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Given Geth’s inability to do this for people with spaces in their names you won’t automatically be stopped from posting in this thread, I think, but I’ll check.
When would you say this new Cold War started? 2016 election? Ukraine? Or perhaps when the US started trying to overthrow Russia's main ally in the Middle East?
Ooooh what about the invasion of Georgia? Or when Bush invaded Iraq over Russian objections.
But let's be honest. It started in the 90's when Putin got disgusted with what had happened to his country.
Well then it started with Yeltsin and US support of him.
Not that this kind of analysis is helpful. In some sense the Cold War never ended, the end of communism couldn't change the fact that the USA wants a geo-political rival and Russia is the only one who can be hyped up to fill that role. Russia for its part recognizes that their biggest threat is the USA, so that is how they act.
Hey Hey Hey.
China is a way better geo-political rival.
No China is too important an economic partner and culturally and historically less relatable. Plus there is too much invested in Western Europe and NATO to really switch, while the US really only has bases in S. Korea and Japan.
But sure if you start from scratch China may be the better candidate.
0
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
edited December 2018
Shh, Geth's inability to parse spaces is our only defense.
NEO|Phyte on
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Posts
While I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, you're not entirely right either. Do you not want America fighting ISIS? You want to let them take over regions without world powers stepping in to help curb their influence in the world? And yes, Russian influence. You think they're acting like peaceniks? Russia's been bombing Syrian hospitals and supporting Assad, the guy who uses chemical weapons on his own people. If America leaves that stage Russia's influence gets stepped up, since America is one of nations in the world capable of fucking with them toe-to-toe. The Kurds are going to get slaughtered by Turkey, Russia's ally because of this.
If you think isolationism is going to fix everything I don't know what to tell you. That's a policy which is going to get the Kurds murdered, UK's getting people assassinated on their own streets, various former Soviet nations are getting political and literal military pressure to fold back into Putin's version of the Soviet Union and the EU is facing an emerging threat as Russia tries to break it apart - like Brexit. Yet you want America to sit it out? Any stupid war Trump or whatever Republican president we get will automatically default to a proxy war because Russia wants to relive their glory days emulating Stalin with a right wing aesthetic. Do you think a Russia influenced Venezuela or Iran (and they already have some pull there via arms sales) is going to be a good thing for the world or their citizens?
I haven't advocated isolationism. Most Americans just equate a global presence with a global military presence, which plays to my point.
Anyway, I'm going to bed. I'm sure the next round of proxy wars will turn out better than the last.
It's a simple question with a yes or no answer.
What are you advocating then? I can accept America doing more with the military but this is not what this discussion has been about. It's also a bit difficult to stop Russia fucking up countries with the Peace Corps.
That is simply wrong though. Bush believed in US unilateralism, and that led to the unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq.
Obama believed in international consensus and cooperation, and as such his interventions were always limited because he could never get the international support to go further.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You think it means anything to parents watching their children starve to death in Yemen that Obama was in good standing with European allies? Did Libya get less fucked because there were also French jets?
Like I said, confusing differences in competency of application with a difference in values.
Libya got fucked because Obama could not go in with a peacekeeping force alone. Cameron and Sarkozy absolutely fucked Obama.
I just gave you a clear outline of how their values on foreign policy differed and you just reiterated your previous disproven statement so lets stop now.
Edit: Obama advised Saudi Arabia not to go ahead with the Yemen invasion. Trump reversed course and gave Saudi Arabia full backing.
Edit2: I want to mention that Obama was notably harder on Israel and Saudi Arabia than previous presidents (Obama hated Netanyahu's guts). So much so that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been implicated in the conspiracy to get Trump elected so they could continue getting US support without the strings attached a competent Democratic administration would have put on it.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Okay you're in charge of the US Executive.
What's the plan for dealing with ISIS?
There are two topics here. First, the are huge differences with the values between the parties of how they conduct war. Second, the military industrial complex is a large organism which exists outside the parties and presidents have trouble controlling them due to their power and influence. Its something I'd love for America to get rid of, but you're tossing them all into one big blob as if they are all the same thing - missing the nuances between the groups involved.
I'm stunning you think this a "gotcha," it's one of the easiest questions to answer I'll ever make on a forum.
Still no details on your foreign policy outside of isolationism, either. How disappointing.
The US doesn't usually engage in realpolitik either. Middle eastern interventions are pretty clearly ideological.
Why does the US need to deal with ISIS?
You should really ask the Khwarazmian Shah about that.
Got to ask the same question. I mean, even if you think that they should, Saudi Arabia and Israel are right there.
We absolutely have the power to help in the fight against them and therefore have the responsibility to try to do so, although absolutely I will agree that responsibility has often not been fulfilled or has not been fulfilled in a way which is intelligent, restrained, ethical and sustainable.
From a purely hard-headed and practical point of view it is also not in anyone's interest for ISIS to control the territory that they did, least of all the poor buggers who had to live there. Isolationism is not practical, not viable, and definitely not ethical or moral.
I'm not saying it justifies further involvement in Syria. Never getting in was the right decision. Getting out in some sort of planned way is the best option there and in Afghanistan. I do think the rushed nature of the withdrawal increases danger to American soldiers. I also know that we are going to abandon allies who are going to get massacred and that's not good. I don't think the foreign policy establishment cares very much about the latter point though.
What I am saying is that what Russia did was not a small thing. You said it was just "Facebook ads." Leftists consistently downplay what Russia did (echoing Russian propaganda!) and it bothers me. What they did was fundamentally disturb the internal political process of another country via criminal acts. When the CIA does that to support repressive right wing wannabe strongmen (Pahlavi, Pinochet, etc), leftists correctly describe that as imperialism. When Russia does it to the US, y'all downplay it. I just want consistency on that front.
Also, just in general, Russia under Putin is a violently repressive government with expansionist territorial ambitions and nuclear weapons. Seems like figuring out what to do about that should be a major feature of American foreign policy.
By 2015 we were in the awkward middle ground of direct weapons shipments to the rebellion - led by hardline Islamic militia - while simultaneously bombing ISIS in the east. Our two wars (one indirect and one direct) in Syria were cross purposes, with the "regime change" policy being counterproductive from a "defeat ISIS" perspective (and I guess the other way around).
So the US has created or helped to create ISIS twice, first by blowing up Iraq in 2003 and then by pouring gasoline on the Syrian fire that started in 2011.
edit - also I think it was what had happened in Iraq that spurred our direct intervention against IS in Syria, not someone in the Obama admin shedding tears over the YPG in Kobane. We intervened after ISIS took Mosul and Anbar and the admin realized shit was out of control and that they'd have to fight in both countries.
When would you say this new Cold War started? 2016 election? Ukraine? Or perhaps when the US started trying to overthrow Russia's main ally in the Middle East?
Like I said, Khwarazmian Shah.
The go to guy to ask about these things.
He seems to be dead as of 700 or more years.
Because a wandering group of horse nomads, who were conquering, expanding and using terror tactics were not his problem. Until they were.
Somebody Else's Problems tend to spread.
Ooooh what about the invasion of Georgia? Or when Bush invaded Iraq over Russian objections.
But let's be honest. It started in the 90's when Putin got disgusted with what had happened to his country.
I honestly don't think it's arrogant to pin the blame for ISIS largely (definitely not entirely) on the US. Yes, these groups exist regardless, but we keep giving them the opportunities they need to grow. If we don't want transnational sectarian war cults to spread, not doing the regime change shit and trying to reduce the Saudi-Iran proxy struggle (instead of adding to on the Saudis' behalf) would be great first steps.
I also think some people might be overstating the danger currently posed by ISIS. As long as foreign powers don't try to destroy the Syrian government (again), I don't see ISIS having the opportunity to start conquering cities again.
I could easily see Turkey and Syria decide to start fighting each other over Afrin and ISIS once again thriving in the Chaos.
It's why I keep using the Mongols as a parallel for ISIS. Everybody had a bigger fish to fry. Something they wanted more. Until Magikarp evolved into Gyarados. And then it was too late.
How do you like that for American Exceptionalism?
Good post.
I'll expand on the last part. The US, and indeed much of the world, kinda woke up to the problems in the area when the Syrian rebel group called ISIS captured a city of 2 million people in Iraq. American forces had withdrawn from Iraq but still felt ownership over the problems there. Iraq falling to jihadists was not part of the plan at all, they'd spent too much fighting these exact guys over the previous decade.
In Syria it was another matter, the US was quite willing to either fund jihadis directly or look the other way when jihadis called themselves "moderate" in order to get the good guns. It was clear for years that US-purchased weapons were ending up the wrong hands. But jihadis were either attacking Assad, or at least denying Assad control of territory and people, so it was ok. Of course US allies KSA and UAE were running their own programs that helped jihadis. US miliary intelligence were aware of the risks of doing this, but continued anyway.
Its pretty rich to declare that the US is in Syria for some sort of moral reason. They're involved for the same reason as Russia, Turkey and Iran. Its geopolitics, and it gets dirtier the closer you look.
Wait are you saying he should have attacked the Mongols????
Accurate. Though I would describe fighting IS as more "cleaning up a mess before it becomes insoluble"
But no you can't ignore all the secret shit we were doing that created an ideal environment for ISIS.
But I do feel A) Bad that we are screwing over the Kurds and leaving them for an authoritarian dictator to massacre.
At the current rate I am having to worry about the Saudi's, Turks, Iranians, Russian and Hezbollah (which I should maybe just file under Iran) handling the problem.
Should have allied with the Caliph in Baghdad and heightened internal unity. Also should not have helped knock over Qara Khitai.
Well then it started with Yeltsin and US support of him.
Not that this kind of analysis is helpful. In some sense the Cold War never ended, the end of communism couldn't change the fact that the USA wants a geo-political rival and Russia is the only one who can be hyped up to fill that role. Russia for its part recognizes that their biggest threat is the USA, so that is how they act.
I don't think the US should be in Syria. But like most of the thread and seemingly most commentators generally, I'm worried about such a fast withdrawal. Power vacuums can be dangerous, especially in somewhere like Syria. It was exactly these conditions that saw the rise of ISIS in the first place.
I also feel awful for the Kurds. I've really rooted for the YPG, though I knew their betrayal was inevitable, as it was in the past. I guess I'd like to see some sort of more gradual draw down. The SDF controls a ton of territory in Eastern Syria -including most of the countries oilfields- but most of the territory isn't ethnically Kurdish. It doesn't make sense for an essentially Kurdish militia to control this area in perpetuity. The US withdraws from areas, and the SDF gives back the oil fields to Assad as a first step, in exchange for some sort of political protection from Assad, enforced by Russia and/or Iran. As a second step create some sort of buffer along the border with Turkey-- this is trickier, and maybe not possible, but worth a shot. Instead we get this sudden change (which I'm not convinced will actually come to pass, but we'll see) which catches everyone off guard and leaves open the possibility for another escalation of fighting.
And I never understood how/why those last IS pockets were left unmolested. The SDF raced down the Euphrates against Assad's forces, taking IS territory rapidly. They got the oil fields, but then held back before going after the final pocket. There's a pocket inside Syria government lines as well. The cynic in me wonders if the pocket was left to retain justification for the US being involved in the first place.
I don't think I'm prone to forgetting atrocities happening the middle east, it's just that as someone from the middle east I'm not selective about the ones to remember, so it's pretty hard for me to believe that they're that the motivator for American administrations flooding the middle east with weapons and bombs, and actively helping starve civilians and create catastrophes out of nothing. References by people like Powers to Rwanda and how that motivates their foreign policy seem more like sick jokes every day. But it's easy for them to get away with their bullshit, because people will eager offer apologetics to every crime they actively took part in - or, in the best case scenario, just shrug and move on.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Hey Hey Hey.
China is a way better geo-political rival.
I'm sure it's true that the US has some aid programs in Syria, but is that the implication of your first post? You didn't write that the US government has some aid programs in Syria and they might end, you wrote about how the administration is "not going to give a shit about the kurds or the syrian people caught in the middle of this civil war." Implying that this notable, because it's different from some other government previously or currently involved that cared about people stuck in the middle. That's not the case, and I'm fine with my post just the way it is. This is line with the many posts about brave soldiers, Kurds, and humanitarian catastrophe, etc, just trying to make American involvement in Syria about anything other than US geopolitical goals. The people stuck in the middle were not, are not, and never will be the reason any government got involved in the Syrian civil war.
And that was Obama's entire strategic plan. His instinct was to wash American hands of the whole region and focus on East Asia (which would have had its own downsides) but kept getting drawn back by events and the American foreign policy establishment.
Wait, what?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It’s a bug in the forum software.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
No China is too important an economic partner and culturally and historically less relatable. Plus there is too much invested in Western Europe and NATO to really switch, while the US really only has bases in S. Korea and Japan.
But sure if you start from scratch China may be the better candidate.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt