India is run by a deeply fucked up nationalist and racist government, yes
I am pretty not happy about the overlooking of that by most of the world either
Geopolitics is incredibly more complicated than this. There are many reasons for the inaction, and the knowledge over India's status quo isn't unknown to millions - it's just what do you expect America to do? Lots of countries are awful dystopians regimes.
Do you think I need this pointing out, Harry?
Or do you think I actually already know that
I think that it's easy to make very useless morality statements that, were you yourself in charge of the relevant government apparatus, would not be able to actually affect in a way which would not make the situation worse.
So yes, I think it does need pointing out: "This is bad and the US should do something about it" was a sentiment which led to plenty of people thinking "yeah, why not take down Saddam Hussein?" - myself included, in my teen years.
When one of the arguments against sanctioning Iran is the damage it's doing to the Iranian populace but not the government, its not impudent to ask "and so we should do what?"
Because stating you think it's bad is implying everyone else is okay with it.
Also worth noting that none of us posting on this board likely have the full picture. There is a fair bit of sensitive and confidential information that the government has and acts on, that the average person will never see because the government doesn't want his adversaries and rivals to see it.
I'd have to look more how India runs, but I'm inclined to think it's probably a better deal for humanity overall than China. In theory the racist asshat running it can be voted out. A quick google check shows that India doesn't outlaw unions, where China does. So decent chance that as things get better there, the jobs, as long as they stay, will possibly become less shit. China, that wasn't going to happen because the moment works begin organizing against shit conditions is the moment that the jackboots of the Chinse government show up and cart them off. Also if India doesn't slide into being an authoritarian shithole and they do well economically, that could help things stabilize in Pakistan if they get decent relations at any point. I mean, yeah, I've looked at the situation in Mexico and it's bad, but I'm incline to think things probably would be much worse there if the US was an economic shithole.
Also I could see the vanishing jobs putting pressure on China. The big card China has played against social unrest has been goosing their economy. Probably the best way to play bread and circuses as an authoritarian government is to make sure enough of you population has food and jobs, that they feel they'd lose too much if they pushed back.
Also worth noting that none of us posting on this board likely have the full picture. There is a fair bit of sensitive and confidential information that the government has and acts on, that the average person will never see because the government doesn't want his adversaries and rivals to see it.
I'd have to look more how India runs, but I'm inclined to think it's probably a better deal for humanity overall than China. In theory the racist asshat running it can be voted out. A quick google check shows that India doesn't outlaw unions, where China does. So decent chance that as things get better there, the jobs, as long as they stay, will possibly become less shit. China, that wasn't going to happen because the moment works begin organizing against shit conditions is the moment that the jackboots of the Chinse government show up and cart them off. Also if India doesn't slide into being an authoritarian shithole and they do well economically, that could help things stabilize in Pakistan if they get decent relations at any point. I mean, yeah, I've looked at the situation in Mexico and it's bad, but I'm incline to think things probably would be much worse there if the US was an economic shithole.
Also I could see the vanishing jobs putting pressure on China. The big card China has played against social unrest has been goosing their economy. Probably the best way to play bread and circuses as an authoritarian government is to make sure enough of you population has food and jobs, that they feel they'd lose too much if they pushed back.
Mexico's problem has always been that it is too far from God and too close to the US.
You won't get any arguments from me that some policies the US has. Namely a shitty gun culture and war on drugs, cause huge issues for Mexico. I'd have to check, but I recall seeing a figure that indicated most guns used by criminals throughout South America and Central America originated from the US civilian market. Don't even need to go into the drug war.
That said, having a neighbor that is somewhat stable and in decent economic shape, does bring benefits that you don't get if your neighbor is in piss poor shape.
India is run by a deeply fucked up nationalist and racist government, yes
I am pretty not happy about the overlooking of that by most of the world either
Geopolitics is incredibly more complicated than this. There are many reasons for the inaction, and the knowledge over India's status quo isn't unknown to millions - it's just what do you expect America to do? Lots of countries are awful dystopians regimes.
Do you think I need this pointing out, Harry?
Or do you think I actually already know that
Except that comment did absolutely nothing acknowledging the complications in geopolitics; I'm asking you what do you think America's foreign policy should;d be?
You won't get any arguments from me that some policies the US has. Namely a shitty gun culture and war on drugs, cause huge issues for Mexico. I'd have to check, but I recall seeing a figure that indicated most guns used by criminals throughout South America and Central America originated from the US civilian market. Don't even need to go into the drug war.
That said, having a neighbor that is somewhat stable and in decent economic shape, does bring benefits that you don't get if your neighbor is in piss poor shape.
True. That's Mexoco's southern neighbours.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
The US has 1,000 more troops in Afghanistan than reported, because fuck transparency and ending wars mirite?
These seem mainly to be special forces which carry out illegal assassination death squad operations
Special forces at the headquarter level per the article. So trainers / advisers, not operators. Probably some IT, linguists, liaisons, etc.
If someone is going to say there are illegal American death squads they should back that shit up with more than hyperbole. Combat conducted lawfully with the approval of the legitimate government certainly isn't that.
Special forces at the headquarter level per the article. So trainers / advisers, not operators. Probably some IT, linguists, liaisons, etc.
If someone is going to say there are illegal American death squads they should back that shit up with more than hyperbole. Combat conducted lawfully with the approval of the legitimate government certainly isn't that.
how about you do research yourself before waving away US sanctioned child murder?
THE 12 BOYS KILLED in the madrassa at Omar Khail that winter night were among scores of civilians massacred during at least 10 previously undocumented night raids in the central Afghan province of Wardak. Beginning in December 2018 and continuing for at least a year, Afghan operatives believed to belong to an elite CIA-trained paramilitary unit known as 01, in partnership with U.S. special operations forces and air power, unleashed a campaign of terror against civilians. This story is based on interviews with more than 50 Wardak residents, including 20 survivors and firsthand witnesses and 29 victims’ relatives and local residents who witnessed the aftermath of the killings within hours of when they occurred. Some of those accounts were corroborated by local officials, analysts, and community representatives.
The 10 raids resulted in the deaths of at least 51 civilians, according to The Intercept’s reporting. In most cases, men and boys as young as 8, few of whom appear to have had any formal relationship with the Taliban, were summarily executed. Some died alone, others alongside friends and family. Several raids were accompanied by airstrikes or, in at least one instance, the detonation of hand-laid explosives targeting structures known to be occupied by civilians.
Yeah, the US has been known to be running some horrific death squads in Afghanistan for quite a while now. The special forces mentioned in that article aren't necessarily connected to that, but since the article says that they're working with the CIA (who oversee the death squads) it seems likely enough.
edit - and regarding "approval of the legitimate government," only kind of. The Afghan government approves of US forces in its country, but the CIA's Afghan militias answer to the Americans, not the Afghan government, and this has been problematic in the past.
Of course, what we call "the Afghan government" is increasingly just a loose alliance of warlords and local militias rather than a single government as we think of it, so the problem of armed groups not obeying the Kabul authorities is not limited to the US intelligence agency's death squads.
The US has deployed special forces to Mozambique in order to help quell the insurgency there. I've been expecting this for about a year now; it took longer for the US to get involved than I'd have thought. In impoverished northern Mozambique, a militant Islamic insurgency has escalated from a handful of guys killing and kidnapping people in 2017 to a force estimated at ~1000 strong which has captured a medium sized port town and some villages in the area. The main reason this concerns the US and other western countries is that the insurgency's area of operations abuts a massive natural gas project run by Total, to the detriment of the project's development.
Kaputa on
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
looks like we're again going to be training death squads in another country run by warlords to kill kids
Discoveries of a huge ruby deposit and a giant gas field in 2009-10, raised hopes of jobs and a better life for many local people, but those hopes were soon dashed.
It was alleged that any benefits were being taken by a small elite in the Frelimo party, which has governed Mozambique since independence in 1975.
New Islamist preachers, both East Africans and Mozambicans trained abroad, established mosques and argued that local imams were allied to Frelimo and its grab for wealth.
Some of these new mosques provided money to help local people start business and create jobs - and the Islamists argued the society would be fairer under Sharia.
This proved attractive to youth, who form the backbone of the insurgency.
The US has deployed special forces to Mozambique in order to help quell the insurgency there. I've been expecting this for about a year now; it took longer for the US to get involved than I'd have thought. In iimpoverished northern Mozambique, a militant Islamic insurgency has escalated from a handful of guys killing and kidnapping people in 2017 to a force estimated at ~1000 strong which has captured a medium sized port town and some villages in the area. The maim reason this concerns the US and other western countries is that the insurgency's area of operations abuts a massive natural gas project run by Total, to the detriment of the project's development.
I wonder who's backing the islamists, Saudi Arabia?
You don't need Green Berets to train death squads. If all of human history is any indication, death squads can form anywhere organically with little to no training at all.
You generally do need effective trainers if you want something resembling a disciplined and effective military that can maintain order and not summarily execute / rape / pillage citizenry. That doesn't preclude an army being used as a death squad, but with some exceptions the more disciplined and organized a military is the less atrocities it causes.
Edit - like, the idea that these African or Middle Eastern or wherever people are too stupid and ignorant to figure out how to point the bangy end of an AK at civilians until the evil US military shows up and tells them to get their murder on is...I don't even know. It's dead serious, but it gets tedious.
Edit2:
Their intervention follows reports that Mozambique had recruited Russian and South African mercenaries to help fight the militants.
And if you're really going to go looking for death squads...it's like right there, two paragraphs down below the one noting the EU was also providing training resources. You don't get more death squad than Wagner Group. Blackwater / XE / whatever have nothing on them when it comes to atrocities.
Maybe we shouldn't minimize the atrocities that American-based PMCs have committed by saying "well they aren't as bad as these guys *gestures to 1980s action movie villains*.
Maybe we shouldn't minimize the atrocities that American-based PMCs have committed by saying "well they aren't as bad as these guys *gestures to 1980s action movie villains*.
Nah, pointing out that Wagner's SOP would have the Wehrmacht saying 'holy shit guys, that was a bit brutal' isn't minimizing the atrocities of American-based PMCs.
It's pointing on that Wagner group is a horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world and eighty years ago Utkin would have fit right in as as the SS officers he idolizes (well, aside from being Ukrainian but besides the point).
Maybe we shouldn't minimize the atrocities that American-based PMCs have committed by saying "well they aren't as bad as these guys *gestures to 1980s action movie villains*.
Nah, pointing out that Wagner's SOP would have the Wehrmacht saying 'holy shit guys, that was a bit brutal' isn't minimizing the atrocities of American-based PMCs.
It's pointing on that Wagner group is a horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world and eighty years ago Utkin would have fit right in as as the SS officers he idolizes (well, aside from being Ukrainian but besides the point).
Could you elaborate on Wagner's unique horribleness? I mean, I've heard some bad things, but nothing beyond what I'd expect out of Blackwater or other PMC's (i.e. just some war crimes here and there, you know). Could you provide a link about their activities? "an horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world" seems hyperbolic to me, but maybe I'm just uninformed on the subject. In Mozambique, Wagner basically suffered some casualties, said "fuck this" and left.
I have read that the South African mercenaries are committing some brutal atrocities in their campaign there, though.
Maybe we shouldn't minimize the atrocities that American-based PMCs have committed by saying "well they aren't as bad as these guys *gestures to 1980s action movie villains*.
Nah, pointing out that Wagner's SOP would have the Wehrmacht saying 'holy shit guys, that was a bit brutal' isn't minimizing the atrocities of American-based PMCs.
It's pointing on that Wagner group is a horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world and eighty years ago Utkin would have fit right in as as the SS officers he idolizes (well, aside from being Ukrainian but besides the point).
Could you elaborate on Wagner's unique horribleness? I mean, I've heard some bad things, but nothing beyond what I'd expect out of Blackwater or other PMC's (i.e. just some war crimes here and there, you know). Could you provide a link about their activities? "an horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world" seems hyperbolic to me, but maybe I'm just uninformed on the subject. In Mozambique, Wagner basically suffered some casualties, said "fuck this" and left.
I have read that the South African mercenaries are committing some brutal atrocities in their campaign there, though.
I mean the 'horrific atrocity unmatched' is a bit hyperbolic considering we have ISIS and the Taliban and plenty of other terrorist groups around the world that are as or more brutal, and the shit Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen or SAA has been doing throughout Syria (albet Wagner / Russia have been strongly supporting and participating in) are atrocious. Really playing atrocity Olympics wasn't my point.
The CIA and Mossad are pretty awful and do awful stuff, but are at least to some degree constrained and give lip service to operating within their charters / laws. The rest of the western intelligence agencies / militaries tend to operate the same way, and western PMCs when they commit atrocities tend to be the exception, not the rule, which is why they get publicized to the degree they do. Trump is a fucker with his pardon, but you would never see four Wagner operators get prison time for killing civilians.
With specifics though, there's a lot of accounts of Wagner troops murdering civilians and summarily executing captured militants in Syria. Some accounts of the same throughout Ukraine. There's currently one group trying to sue Wagner mercs for torturing and beheading a Syrian citizen. There are a bunch of accounts of them abducting and torturing civilians in Libya as well as firing indiscriminately on civilians in support of Haftar's offensive.
The CIA and Mossad are pretty awful and do awful stuff, but are at least to some degree constrained and give lip service to operating within their charters / laws. The rest of the western intelligence agencies / militaries tend to operate the same way, and western PMCs when they commit atrocities tend to be the exception, not the rule, which is why they get publicized to the degree they do. Trump is a fucker with his pardon, but you would never see four Wagner operators get prison time for killing civilians.
The US has deployed special forces to Mozambique in order to help quell the insurgency there. I've been expecting this for about a year now; it took longer for the US to get involved than I'd have thought. In iimpoverished northern Mozambique, a militant Islamic insurgency has escalated from a handful of guys killing and kidnapping people in 2017 to a force estimated at ~1000 strong which has captured a medium sized port town and some villages in the area. The maim reason this concerns the US and other western countries is that the insurgency's area of operations abuts a massive natural gas project run by Total, to the detriment of the project's development.
I wonder who's backing the islamists, Saudi Arabia?
Well, the rise of Salafist ideology in northern and eastern Africa has been facilitated by Saudi/other Gulf Arab money and religious institutions, so indirectly yes. But I haven't read anything that suggests that this militant group is itself receiving external support. If they were, it would likely be from some rival state in the region, not from the KSA, but I think most of the states there see groups like this as a threat, not an asset (neighboring Tanzania certainly feels that way). Barring any reporting to the contrary I'm assuming the insurgents aren't receiving foreign backing.
Maybe we shouldn't minimize the atrocities that American-based PMCs have committed by saying "well they aren't as bad as these guys *gestures to 1980s action movie villains*.
Nah, pointing out that Wagner's SOP would have the Wehrmacht saying 'holy shit guys, that was a bit brutal' isn't minimizing the atrocities of American-based PMCs.
It's pointing on that Wagner group is a horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world and eighty years ago Utkin would have fit right in as as the SS officers he idolizes (well, aside from being Ukrainian but besides the point).
Could you elaborate on Wagner's unique horribleness? I mean, I've heard some bad things, but nothing beyond what I'd expect out of Blackwater or other PMC's (i.e. just some war crimes here and there, you know). Could you provide a link about their activities? "an horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world" seems hyperbolic to me, but maybe I'm just uninformed on the subject. In Mozambique, Wagner basically suffered some casualties, said "fuck this" and left.
I have read that the South African mercenaries are committing some brutal atrocities in their campaign there, though.
I mean the 'horrific atrocity unmatched' is a bit hyperbolic considering we have ISIS and the Taliban and plenty of other terrorist groups around the world that are as or more brutal, and the shit Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen or SAA has been doing throughout Syria (albet Wagner / Russia have been strongly supporting and participating in) are atrocious. Really playing atrocity Olympics wasn't my point.
The CIA and Mossad are pretty awful and do awful stuff, but are at least to some degree constrained and give lip service to operating within their charters / laws. The rest of the western intelligence agencies / militaries tend to operate the same way, and western PMCs when they commit atrocities tend to be the exception, not the rule, which is why they get publicized to the degree they do. Trump is a fucker with his pardon, but you would never see four Wagner operators get prison time for killing civilians.
With specifics though, there's a lot of accounts of Wagner troops murdering civilians and summarily executing captured militants in Syria. Some accounts of the same throughout Ukraine. There's currently one group trying to sue Wagner mercs for torturing and beheading a Syrian citizen. There are a bunch of accounts of them abducting and torturing civilians in Libya as well as firing indiscriminately on civilians in support of Haftar's offensive.
"Well everybody does it" is not a free pass for war crimes and other atrocities.
And going "sure they're awful but" to downplay the acts perpetrated by Western intelligence agencies and military organizations, and the PMCs deployed in service of them is also not a great take. Saying it's in service to what they view as a greater good or that they're at least following a code of conduct is criteria that can be applied to those terrorist organizations you name-dropped, but no one is going to argue in defense of their actions.
You mentioned Trump's pardon of someone who murdered civilians and performed summary executions, and then in the very next sentence list those as examples of how Wagner is somehow uniquely awful, which makes me wonder how much thought you are actually putting into this.
At the very least, don't be so credulous as to suggest that if our media is not putting out headlines about atrocities performed by Americans, there are no atrocities being committed.
The US has deployed special forces to Mozambique in order to help quell the insurgency there. I've been expecting this for about a year now; it took longer for the US to get involved than I'd have thought. In iimpoverished northern Mozambique, a militant Islamic insurgency has escalated from a handful of guys killing and kidnapping people in 2017 to a force estimated at ~1000 strong which has captured a medium sized port town and some villages in the area. The maim reason this concerns the US and other western countries is that the insurgency's area of operations abuts a massive natural gas project run by Total, to the detriment of the project's development.
I wonder who's backing the islamists, Saudi Arabia?
Well, the rise of Salafist ideology in northern and eastern Africa has been facilitated by Saudi/other Gulf Arab money and religious institutions, so indirectly yes. But I haven't read anything that suggests that this militant group is itself receiving external support. If they were, it would likely be from some rival state in the region, not from the KSA, but I think most of the states there see groups like this as a threat, not an asset (neighboring Tanzania certainly feels that way). Barring any reporting to the contrary I'm assuming the insurgents aren't receiving foreign backing.
And see me I can believe fiscal backing. The article quoted above mentions that they were able to get a quick pick up in the area due to being able to provide jobs for people who are out of work. That takes money
But that doesn't necessarily imply State sponsorship it could be private sponsorship.
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
trying to hand wave US atrocities by pointing fingers at other atrocities and whataboutism is a known war hawk tactic and pretty gross tbh. how about we just not train paramilitary forces which have been known to kill civilians and end imperial wars that are ultimately over mineral/energy resources at the expense of innocent lives?
also the fact that a lot of these insurgencies don't need massive funding. the way their own governments treat them, backed by countries like Russia and the US, is largely what motivates them to take up arms. Again, funding infrastructure and providing humanitarian aid will go far more towards stabilizing the situation that paramilitary special forces no knock assassination raids and dropping bombs on people
In this particular discussion about Mozambique, the 'whattaboutism' came from the anti-American side seizing on and derailing any pointed discussion that you don't need Green Berets to train death squads, but you do need training to have an organized and disciplined troops. Instead, the discussion became one about the PMCs from Russia and South Africa and about how if you want to look for death squads, look there first.
And something else that's really kinda gross is the whole 'noble savage' and lack of agency that is frequently given to any nation outside the western world when it comes to committing their own atrocities. People have been getting their rape pillage and murder on since the dawn of human history and it doesn't take Green Berets or American money to make that happen. It's not 'whataboutism' to point out that not all American aid / training / resources are forming and training death squads because no place in the world needs that.
And unfortunately, as I've said in the past instability doesn't just disappear. Things that are broken are broken, and America deciding we want no part of cleaning up messes we've contributed to and walking away leads to even more stability evil and atrocities. ISIS was able to form and gain so much territory largely because America destabilized Iraq and then walked away, and Trump abandoning the Kurds was unmitigated evil. The support the US military provided to the Yadizi people by supporting the Kurds and providing humanitarian aid were a good thing.
I don't think you're going to find any disagreement here that funding infrastructure and providing aid will go far towards stabilizing the situation. But you're completely neglecting the fact that you've gotta have a stable enough government to deliver that aid and protect that infrastructure, or that infrastructure gets destroyed / falls into disrepair and the aid just gets hijacked by militants and warlords. It's not being a 'war hawk' to say there is some baseline of stability that is needed - which requires trained and disciplined police or military - before unarmed humanitarian aid and resources get to the people who actually need them.
So a friendly military capable state loyal to the US must be in place first before good things can happen
Looks like a justification of imperialism and neo colonism to me!
I do like get you point but also the west infrastructure projects in Africa are to reinforce the military presence of the US allied state or to export resources to privatised companies demanded by the shit hole that is the IMF
It looks like me to be a lose lose for the people and a big win for the west and yeah foreign powers do that same but the sheer scope of the us makes it much more discrete means then the nation that almost started a nuclear war over Cuba asking for some mistakes
I don't have a answer and I don't think you do either despite the pragmatic response more.kiltary grade equipment and training from a nation they very specifically wants subservience isn't going to instill confidence in me no matter how justified you want to claim it is
We could listen to the people of these nations and what they want and maybe pay em for all the wealth we stole but that ain't ever gonna fly in capitalism cause we the west (or any nation ) has to profit of these peoples struggles
So a friendly military capable state loyal to the US must be in place first before good things can happen
Looks like a justification of imperialism and neo colonism to me!
I do like get you point but also the west infrastructure projects in Africa are to reinforce the military presence of the US allied state or to export resources to privatised companies demanded by the shit hole that is the IMF
It looks like me to be a lose lose for the people and a big win for the west and yeah foreign powers do that same but the sheer scope of the us makes it much more discrete means then the nation that almost started a nuclear war over Cuba asking for some mistakes
I don't have a answer and I don't think you do either despite the pragmatic response more.kiltary grade equipment and training from a nation they very specifically wants subservience isn't going to instill confidence in me no matter how justified you want to claim it is
We could listen to the people of these nations and what they want and maybe pay em for all the wealth we stole but that ain't ever gonna fly in capitalism cause we the west (or any nation ) has to profit of these peoples struggles
And like that's fucked up yo
It's not about staying with America only makes them "good," it's that this is vastly more complicated than just blaming all the evils of the world on America. Take America out , there will and have been bad consequences because not everyone in the region has good intentions and might be worse or backed by other countries like Russia who their own agendas - see Venezuela. Please don't erase all the factors going in foreign policy, pointing them out isn't the same as agreeing with American imperialism.
America isn't just doing atrocities overseas, America leaving can costs lives and communities - that's what happened to the Kurds. Trump left them to die, he dismantled America's global impact and that's come with loads of pain which would otherwise be avoided, it's why North Korea is years ahead in acquiring nuclear weapons and broken America's working deal with Iran.
Why are the "foreign powers" diminished as though they don't have big impact themselves on the world stage? America is the 900lb gorilla but it's far from the only country to worry about and when America withdraws its influence they'll fill the vacuum left behind. America's not the only nation with enormous range over the globe, Russia and China are up there right now. What do you think they'll do when America no longer is the top dog? Cuba was going to be a platform for Soviet nukes in the Cold War, and Cuba knew what they were doing. Russia gets nervous whenever America puts missiles in its backyard today, the Soviets would have done the same back then were circumstances reversed.
What is the left's view on foreign policy with matters like this? How would they differ from what America's doing? Part of finding answers is looking at those who do, so what do the left wing academics think? If you don't have an answer why is a pragmatic response bad? How does that differ from an idealistic response?
What would give you confidence in what America does?
What nation has done this? All nations have their own agendas, that's not the fault of capitalism by itself. I doubt the Soviet Union was asking the people of Cuba if they wanted to let Soviet nukes be on their soil when they're in a Cold War with America, that was a call by the Cuban government.
Foreign policy is a fucked up subject. There are rarely truly good answers which please everybody.
Harry Dresden on
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So a friendly military capable state loyal to the US must be in place first before good things can happen
Looks like a justification of imperialism and neo colonism to me!
I do like get you point but also the west infrastructure projects in Africa are to reinforce the military presence of the US allied state or to export resources to privatised companies demanded by the shit hole that is the IMF
It looks like me to be a lose lose for the people and a big win for the west and yeah foreign powers do that same but the sheer scope of the us makes it much more discrete means then the nation that almost started a nuclear war over Cuba asking for some mistakes
I don't have a answer and I don't think you do either despite the pragmatic response more.kiltary grade equipment and training from a nation they very specifically wants subservience isn't going to instill confidence in me no matter how justified you want to claim it is
We could listen to the people of these nations and what they want and maybe pay em for all the wealth we stole but that ain't ever gonna fly in capitalism cause we the west (or any nation ) has to profit of these peoples struggles
And like that's fucked up yo
Yes, that well known Western nation of China, which is also doing massive infrastructure spending. Absolutely no ulterior motives whatsoever there, I'm sure!
So a friendly military capable state loyal to the US must be in place first before good things can happen
Looks like a justification of imperialism and neo colonism to me!
I do like get you point but also the west infrastructure projects in Africa are to reinforce the military presence of the US allied state or to export resources to privatised companies demanded by the shit hole that is the IMF
It looks like me to be a lose lose for the people and a big win for the west and yeah foreign powers do that same but the sheer scope of the us makes it much more discrete means then the nation that almost started a nuclear war over Cuba asking for some mistakes
I don't have a answer and I don't think you do either despite the pragmatic response more.kiltary grade equipment and training from a nation they very specifically wants subservience isn't going to instill confidence in me no matter how justified you want to claim it is
We could listen to the people of these nations and what they want and maybe pay em for all the wealth we stole but that ain't ever gonna fly in capitalism cause we the west (or any nation ) has to profit of these peoples struggles
And like that's fucked up yo
It's not about staying with America only makes them "good," it's that this is vastly more complicated than just blaming all the evils of the world on America. Take America out , there will and have been bad consequences because not everyone in the region has good intentions and might be worse or backed by other countries like Russia who their own agendas - see Venezuela. Please don't erase all the factors going in foreign policy, pointing them out isn't the same as agreeing with American imperialism.
I feel like this is a logical and moral fallacy
The argument is that the US imperial project is actively making these areas worse, because our motivation isn’t helping the people where we’re galavanting abroad, it is to entrench US material interests abroad, a friendlier faced version of good ol’ manifest destiny and a new structure for colonialism that has better PR going for it.
You can’t just handwave away the actions of a bad actor by saying there are other bad actors who will do even worse things, because then all you’ve done is refuse to engage with the central argument: the US being a bad actor abroad. You have to meet the critique head on.
So a friendly military capable state loyal to the US must be in place first before good things can happen
Looks like a justification of imperialism and neo colonism to me!
I do like get you point but also the west infrastructure projects in Africa are to reinforce the military presence of the US allied state or to export resources to privatised companies demanded by the shit hole that is the IMF
It looks like me to be a lose lose for the people and a big win for the west and yeah foreign powers do that same but the sheer scope of the us makes it much more discrete means then the nation that almost started a nuclear war over Cuba asking for some mistakes
I don't have a answer and I don't think you do either despite the pragmatic response more.kiltary grade equipment and training from a nation they very specifically wants subservience isn't going to instill confidence in me no matter how justified you want to claim it is
We could listen to the people of these nations and what they want and maybe pay em for all the wealth we stole but that ain't ever gonna fly in capitalism cause we the west (or any nation ) has to profit of these peoples struggles
And like that's fucked up yo
It's not about staying with America only makes them "good," it's that this is vastly more complicated than just blaming all the evils of the world on America. Take America out , there will and have been bad consequences because not everyone in the region has good intentions and might be worse or backed by other countries like Russia who their own agendas - see Venezuela. Please don't erase all the factors going in foreign policy, pointing them out isn't the same as agreeing with American imperialism.
I feel like this is a logical and moral fallacy
The argument is that the US imperial project is actively making these areas worse, because our motivation isn’t helping the people where we’re galavanting abroad, it is to entrench US material interests abroad, a friendlier faced version of good ol’ manifest destiny and a new structure for colonialism that has better PR going for it.
You can’t just handwave away the actions of a bad actor by saying there are other bad actors who will do even worse things, because then all you’ve done is refuse to engage with the central argument: the US being a bad actor abroad. You have to meet the critique head on.
I'm not hand waving anything, however, I do find the critique that America is the sole evil of the world an everything will be ok on the world stage an unrealistic fantasy on the left. Another is that the left has no foreign policy to speak of, aside from taking America off the map. America's responsible for evil across the globe in the past and present but the answer is far more complicated than being presented.
America didn't make the Kurdish nation worse by protecting them, it was betraying them that was evil. That America shouldn't be fighting terrorist groups like Al Quaeda and ISIS, it was paramount in shutting them down and almost destroyed ISIS until Trump pulled out at there last second. America's backed evil groups it shouldn't and protected statuses which were wrong in countries, the question is - what was the right choice? I'd love for relations with America and Venezuela to soften but how do you pose doing that with Maduro and his government being backed by Russia and China? America leaving Venezula alone feels like a cop out and letting those corrupt destabilising free reign only harms its citizens. So why should America do? What's the left critique that is the moral and practical correct choice?
America isn't the only bad actor on the world stage, what about nations like Russia or China? I asked a lot of questions and not getting any answers. The left's critique must be more than the world will be a nice place without America in it.
Like I said, foreign policy is fucked up, and it'll continue to be if by chance we get a leftist president. They'll have to choose between which regimes and groups to work with and who they choose to ignore and fight again will put the lives of millions or billions at stake.
And reducing America's actions about as solely being an "imperial project" is wrong, was America protecting the Kurdish nation imperialist? How about backing South Korea? Or Obama's plan to ally with nations like Japan, India, Australia and South Korea to contain China's presence with the TPP, was that imperialist?
“We held accountable all the people in that organization – but not the crown prince, because we have never, that I’m aware of … when we have an alliance with a country, gone to the acting head of state and punished that person and ostracized him,” Biden said in his first extended public comments on his administration’s decision.
Saudi exiles pointed out that this is the worst result for them since now Bin Salman fully confirmed that he can kill them and only get a slap on the wrist. Though honestly that was always the case.
Biden’s inaction against the prince was a turnabout from his campaign, when Biden spoke scathingly of the royal family and said he wanted to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” for the killing and other abuses.
Rights groups, Saudi dissidents and journalists criticized the decision not to punish the crown prince, saying it signaled impunity for the royal and other authoritarian leaders in the future.
Biden noted that he had approved releasing the intelligence report and also said he had “made it clear” to Saudi Arabia’s aging king “that things were going to change.” King Salman, who is in his mid-80s, has allowed his son broad governing authority.
TryCatcher on
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
“We held accountable all the people in that organization – but not the crown prince, because we have never, that I’m aware of … when we have an alliance with a country, gone to the acting head of state and punished that person and ostracized him,” Biden said in his first extended public comments on his administration’s decision.
Saudi exiles pointed out that this is the worst result for them since now Bin Salman fully confirmed that he can kill them and only get a slap on the wrist. Though honestly that was always the case.
Biden’s inaction against the prince was a turnabout from his campaign, when Biden spoke scathingly of the royal family and said he wanted to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” for the killing and other abuses.
Rights groups, Saudi dissidents and journalists criticized the decision not to punish the crown prince, saying it signaled impunity for the royal and other authoritarian leaders in the future.
Biden noted that he had approved releasing the intelligence report and also said he had “made it clear” to Saudi Arabia’s aging king “that things were going to change.” King Salman, who is in his mid-80s, has allowed his son broad governing authority.
Yeah, MBS has shown zero compunction about throwing his minions under the bus, so I'm not thinking that this is going to influence his behavior. Might get him to just call up the kill teams directly, after all, he's untouchable and they're expendable.
That's cute though that Biden is telling the King that things are going to change. Long wait for a train don't come.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
If we punish the Saudi head of state for green lighting a grotesque murder that will undermine our ability to idk impoverish Iranian civilians or something.
Saudi Arabia and Iran always seem to be basically Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They have each other's faults. If Iran had kept its Shah we'd probably still be buddies.
+1
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
it's scary how 'us vs them' cold war ideology has resurrected in people's heads.
there just is never any justification for murdering civilians, and the lengths people go to justify is really gross. pointing fingers at other countries really does nothing to absolve the US of what it has been doing and continues to do
Posts
I think that it's easy to make very useless morality statements that, were you yourself in charge of the relevant government apparatus, would not be able to actually affect in a way which would not make the situation worse.
So yes, I think it does need pointing out: "This is bad and the US should do something about it" was a sentiment which led to plenty of people thinking "yeah, why not take down Saddam Hussein?" - myself included, in my teen years.
When one of the arguments against sanctioning Iran is the damage it's doing to the Iranian populace but not the government, its not impudent to ask "and so we should do what?"
Because stating you think it's bad is implying everyone else is okay with it.
I'd have to look more how India runs, but I'm inclined to think it's probably a better deal for humanity overall than China. In theory the racist asshat running it can be voted out. A quick google check shows that India doesn't outlaw unions, where China does. So decent chance that as things get better there, the jobs, as long as they stay, will possibly become less shit. China, that wasn't going to happen because the moment works begin organizing against shit conditions is the moment that the jackboots of the Chinse government show up and cart them off. Also if India doesn't slide into being an authoritarian shithole and they do well economically, that could help things stabilize in Pakistan if they get decent relations at any point. I mean, yeah, I've looked at the situation in Mexico and it's bad, but I'm incline to think things probably would be much worse there if the US was an economic shithole.
Also I could see the vanishing jobs putting pressure on China. The big card China has played against social unrest has been goosing their economy. Probably the best way to play bread and circuses as an authoritarian government is to make sure enough of you population has food and jobs, that they feel they'd lose too much if they pushed back.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Mexico's problem has always been that it is too far from God and too close to the US.
That said, having a neighbor that is somewhat stable and in decent economic shape, does bring benefits that you don't get if your neighbor is in piss poor shape.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Except that comment did absolutely nothing acknowledging the complications in geopolitics; I'm asking you what do you think America's foreign policy should;d be?
True. That's Mexoco's southern neighbours.
These seem mainly to be special forces which carry out illegal assassination death squad operations
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/14/world/asia/us-troops-afghanistan.html
The bolded part is referenced in the article. The remainder of the sentence is nowhere in the article.
If someone is going to say there are illegal American death squads they should back that shit up with more than hyperbole. Combat conducted lawfully with the approval of the legitimate government certainly isn't that.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/18/afghanistan-cia-militia-01-strike-force/
though I guess most Americans are fine with children being killed by US trained death squads since it's been going on for decades now
either that or they 're willfully ignorant. in any case, it's fucking GROSS to gaslight and pretend it isn't going on
how about you do research yourself before waving away US sanctioned child murder?
edit - and regarding "approval of the legitimate government," only kind of. The Afghan government approves of US forces in its country, but the CIA's Afghan militias answer to the Americans, not the Afghan government, and this has been problematic in the past.
Of course, what we call "the Afghan government" is increasingly just a loose alliance of warlords and local militias rather than a single government as we think of it, so the problem of armed groups not obeying the Kabul authorities is not limited to the US intelligence agency's death squads.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-56411157
I wonder who's backing the islamists, Saudi Arabia?
You generally do need effective trainers if you want something resembling a disciplined and effective military that can maintain order and not summarily execute / rape / pillage citizenry. That doesn't preclude an army being used as a death squad, but with some exceptions the more disciplined and organized a military is the less atrocities it causes.
Edit - like, the idea that these African or Middle Eastern or wherever people are too stupid and ignorant to figure out how to point the bangy end of an AK at civilians until the evil US military shows up and tells them to get their murder on is...I don't even know. It's dead serious, but it gets tedious.
Edit2:
And if you're really going to go looking for death squads...it's like right there, two paragraphs down below the one noting the EU was also providing training resources. You don't get more death squad than Wagner Group. Blackwater / XE / whatever have nothing on them when it comes to atrocities.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Nah, pointing out that Wagner's SOP would have the Wehrmacht saying 'holy shit guys, that was a bit brutal' isn't minimizing the atrocities of American-based PMCs.
It's pointing on that Wagner group is a horrific atrocity unmatched in the modern world and eighty years ago Utkin would have fit right in as as the SS officers he idolizes (well, aside from being Ukrainian but besides the point).
I have read that the South African mercenaries are committing some brutal atrocities in their campaign there, though.
I mean the 'horrific atrocity unmatched' is a bit hyperbolic considering we have ISIS and the Taliban and plenty of other terrorist groups around the world that are as or more brutal, and the shit Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen or SAA has been doing throughout Syria (albet Wagner / Russia have been strongly supporting and participating in) are atrocious. Really playing atrocity Olympics wasn't my point.
The CIA and Mossad are pretty awful and do awful stuff, but are at least to some degree constrained and give lip service to operating within their charters / laws. The rest of the western intelligence agencies / militaries tend to operate the same way, and western PMCs when they commit atrocities tend to be the exception, not the rule, which is why they get publicized to the degree they do. Trump is a fucker with his pardon, but you would never see four Wagner operators get prison time for killing civilians.
With specifics though, there's a lot of accounts of Wagner troops murdering civilians and summarily executing captured militants in Syria. Some accounts of the same throughout Ukraine. There's currently one group trying to sue Wagner mercs for torturing and beheading a Syrian citizen. There are a bunch of accounts of them abducting and torturing civilians in Libya as well as firing indiscriminately on civilians in support of Haftar's offensive.
This is really credulous.
"Well everybody does it" is not a free pass for war crimes and other atrocities.
And going "sure they're awful but" to downplay the acts perpetrated by Western intelligence agencies and military organizations, and the PMCs deployed in service of them is also not a great take. Saying it's in service to what they view as a greater good or that they're at least following a code of conduct is criteria that can be applied to those terrorist organizations you name-dropped, but no one is going to argue in defense of their actions.
You mentioned Trump's pardon of someone who murdered civilians and performed summary executions, and then in the very next sentence list those as examples of how Wagner is somehow uniquely awful, which makes me wonder how much thought you are actually putting into this.
At the very least, don't be so credulous as to suggest that if our media is not putting out headlines about atrocities performed by Americans, there are no atrocities being committed.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And see me I can believe fiscal backing. The article quoted above mentions that they were able to get a quick pick up in the area due to being able to provide jobs for people who are out of work. That takes money
But that doesn't necessarily imply State sponsorship it could be private sponsorship.
also the fact that a lot of these insurgencies don't need massive funding. the way their own governments treat them, backed by countries like Russia and the US, is largely what motivates them to take up arms. Again, funding infrastructure and providing humanitarian aid will go far more towards stabilizing the situation that paramilitary special forces no knock assassination raids and dropping bombs on people
And something else that's really kinda gross is the whole 'noble savage' and lack of agency that is frequently given to any nation outside the western world when it comes to committing their own atrocities. People have been getting their rape pillage and murder on since the dawn of human history and it doesn't take Green Berets or American money to make that happen. It's not 'whataboutism' to point out that not all American aid / training / resources are forming and training death squads because no place in the world needs that.
And unfortunately, as I've said in the past instability doesn't just disappear. Things that are broken are broken, and America deciding we want no part of cleaning up messes we've contributed to and walking away leads to even more stability evil and atrocities. ISIS was able to form and gain so much territory largely because America destabilized Iraq and then walked away, and Trump abandoning the Kurds was unmitigated evil. The support the US military provided to the Yadizi people by supporting the Kurds and providing humanitarian aid were a good thing.
I don't think you're going to find any disagreement here that funding infrastructure and providing aid will go far towards stabilizing the situation. But you're completely neglecting the fact that you've gotta have a stable enough government to deliver that aid and protect that infrastructure, or that infrastructure gets destroyed / falls into disrepair and the aid just gets hijacked by militants and warlords. It's not being a 'war hawk' to say there is some baseline of stability that is needed - which requires trained and disciplined police or military - before unarmed humanitarian aid and resources get to the people who actually need them.
Looks like a justification of imperialism and neo colonism to me!
I do like get you point but also the west infrastructure projects in Africa are to reinforce the military presence of the US allied state or to export resources to privatised companies demanded by the shit hole that is the IMF
It looks like me to be a lose lose for the people and a big win for the west and yeah foreign powers do that same but the sheer scope of the us makes it much more discrete means then the nation that almost started a nuclear war over Cuba asking for some mistakes
I don't have a answer and I don't think you do either despite the pragmatic response more.kiltary grade equipment and training from a nation they very specifically wants subservience isn't going to instill confidence in me no matter how justified you want to claim it is
We could listen to the people of these nations and what they want and maybe pay em for all the wealth we stole but that ain't ever gonna fly in capitalism cause we the west (or any nation ) has to profit of these peoples struggles
And like that's fucked up yo
It's not about staying with America only makes them "good," it's that this is vastly more complicated than just blaming all the evils of the world on America. Take America out , there will and have been bad consequences because not everyone in the region has good intentions and might be worse or backed by other countries like Russia who their own agendas - see Venezuela. Please don't erase all the factors going in foreign policy, pointing them out isn't the same as agreeing with American imperialism.
America isn't just doing atrocities overseas, America leaving can costs lives and communities - that's what happened to the Kurds. Trump left them to die, he dismantled America's global impact and that's come with loads of pain which would otherwise be avoided, it's why North Korea is years ahead in acquiring nuclear weapons and broken America's working deal with Iran.
Why are the "foreign powers" diminished as though they don't have big impact themselves on the world stage? America is the 900lb gorilla but it's far from the only country to worry about and when America withdraws its influence they'll fill the vacuum left behind. America's not the only nation with enormous range over the globe, Russia and China are up there right now. What do you think they'll do when America no longer is the top dog? Cuba was going to be a platform for Soviet nukes in the Cold War, and Cuba knew what they were doing. Russia gets nervous whenever America puts missiles in its backyard today, the Soviets would have done the same back then were circumstances reversed.
What is the left's view on foreign policy with matters like this? How would they differ from what America's doing? Part of finding answers is looking at those who do, so what do the left wing academics think? If you don't have an answer why is a pragmatic response bad? How does that differ from an idealistic response?
What would give you confidence in what America does?
What nation has done this? All nations have their own agendas, that's not the fault of capitalism by itself. I doubt the Soviet Union was asking the people of Cuba if they wanted to let Soviet nukes be on their soil when they're in a Cold War with America, that was a call by the Cuban government.
Foreign policy is a fucked up subject. There are rarely truly good answers which please everybody.
Yes, that well known Western nation of China, which is also doing massive infrastructure spending. Absolutely no ulterior motives whatsoever there, I'm sure!
I feel like this is a logical and moral fallacy
The argument is that the US imperial project is actively making these areas worse, because our motivation isn’t helping the people where we’re galavanting abroad, it is to entrench US material interests abroad, a friendlier faced version of good ol’ manifest destiny and a new structure for colonialism that has better PR going for it.
You can’t just handwave away the actions of a bad actor by saying there are other bad actors who will do even worse things, because then all you’ve done is refuse to engage with the central argument: the US being a bad actor abroad. You have to meet the critique head on.
I'm not hand waving anything, however, I do find the critique that America is the sole evil of the world an everything will be ok on the world stage an unrealistic fantasy on the left. Another is that the left has no foreign policy to speak of, aside from taking America off the map. America's responsible for evil across the globe in the past and present but the answer is far more complicated than being presented.
America didn't make the Kurdish nation worse by protecting them, it was betraying them that was evil. That America shouldn't be fighting terrorist groups like Al Quaeda and ISIS, it was paramount in shutting them down and almost destroyed ISIS until Trump pulled out at there last second. America's backed evil groups it shouldn't and protected statuses which were wrong in countries, the question is - what was the right choice? I'd love for relations with America and Venezuela to soften but how do you pose doing that with Maduro and his government being backed by Russia and China? America leaving Venezula alone feels like a cop out and letting those corrupt destabilising free reign only harms its citizens. So why should America do? What's the left critique that is the moral and practical correct choice?
America isn't the only bad actor on the world stage, what about nations like Russia or China? I asked a lot of questions and not getting any answers. The left's critique must be more than the world will be a nice place without America in it.
Like I said, foreign policy is fucked up, and it'll continue to be if by chance we get a leftist president. They'll have to choose between which regimes and groups to work with and who they choose to ignore and fight again will put the lives of millions or billions at stake.
And reducing America's actions about as solely being an "imperial project" is wrong, was America protecting the Kurdish nation imperialist? How about backing South Korea? Or Obama's plan to ally with nations like Japan, India, Australia and South Korea to contain China's presence with the TPP, was that imperialist?
Saudi exiles pointed out that this is the worst result for them since now Bin Salman fully confirmed that he can kill them and only get a slap on the wrist. Though honestly that was always the case.
Yeah, MBS has shown zero compunction about throwing his minions under the bus, so I'm not thinking that this is going to influence his behavior. Might get him to just call up the kill teams directly, after all, he's untouchable and they're expendable.
That's cute though that Biden is telling the King that things are going to change. Long wait for a train don't come.
there just is never any justification for murdering civilians, and the lengths people go to justify is really gross. pointing fingers at other countries really does nothing to absolve the US of what it has been doing and continues to do