General Politics Thread

So... economic and group pressure used to exert cultural shifting within other governments is suddenly non-interventionist?

That's news.

And, how is your current, completely not-influenced president treating your institutions?

Edited by Euodiachloris on May 7th 2019 at 10:02:12 AM

Paranoia about military intervention to the point of suggesting political solutions when military ones are clearly called for certainly is. And it’s not like the two don’t walk hand in hand either, the US was putting economic and political pressure on Iraq well before the gulf war, same with most of our other modern-era military interventions. Plus there’s plenty of groups those strategies straight up don’t work on, like the various militias in Afghanistan pre-2001 or ISIS.

And suggesting that the US should “take the hint” and leave the Middle East in the lurch is as good as saying you place your morals over the lives of their citizens.

I also don't recall just the US getting told to take a hike. The UK and the rest of the EU has also been sworn at quite a bit, too (for often fairly justifiable reasons for which no squinting is required).

I'm not allergic to intervention. But, when you've royally bolluxed-up, well... Is it all that surprising people get innovative in how they tell you to fuck off, and with whom?

So... compounding the problem by keeping on as you have been going on... is not solving the problem. It's digging that hole to the core. Giving Russia and China ammunition, even.

In short, we done oopsed. Badly. In that region. Again.

Maybe not get in bed with the guys who actively suppress the freedoms of their own people using fundamentalist religious dogma to promote... um... freedom, justice and apple pie... simply because they're "our guys" with a strategic location next time? Perhaps?

Could have avoided that by taking a lot of the region (and our own allies) on their word when they quietly asked everybody to maybe not give the Saudis quite so much leeway?

But, you know... hindsight. Telegraphed twenty years ago hindsight, but...

Edited by Euodiachloris on May 7th 2019 at 10:30:08 AM

So then...what? We pack up and go home and let the militias and kleptocrats run the place? We hand it over to Russia and Pakistan?

I’m genuinely wondering what your proposal is here, because the damage is already done. At this point there’s no option but to stay, because every other option is worse.

“Sorry, we oopsed. Have fun getting massacred by your local militia, better that than have the evil US occupy you a minute longer.”

Edited by archonspeaks on May 7th 2019 at 2:29:25 AM

It's an option. It's the one Trump would go for.

I, however, would go to the UN... armed with apology cards and gift baskets. And talk. And listen. For starters.

But, hey; I'm not in power. Nor are you.

Edited by Euodiachloris on May 7th 2019 at 10:34:45 AM

Ah yes, the UN, that bastion of competence and efficacy.

The UN actually has a mission to Afghanistan that they set up there in 2002. It hasn’t done a whole lot. The UN Security Council has been backing the US’s efforts in Afghanistan since before there was even a military intervention there. Given that the US is essentially the strong arm of the UN I’m not really seeing what else they could do there, but at least no gift baskets would be necessary.

Like I’ve been saying, the damage is already done. At this point we’re there for the long haul whether we like it or not, because the alternatives would be disastrous.

Saudi Arabia is a case where the US needs to use soft power. A military intervention there would do far more harm than good, but we should be leaning on their government any way possible to bring them into the 21st century.

Also, I was referring to Iraq and Afghanistan there.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 7th 2019 at 2:40:54 AM

No, it isn't.

The US's current involvement in the Middle East is simply your government securing economic benefits for your business sector and flexing your muscles in some region far enough away that it doesn't harm your domestic infrastructure in order to intimidate all the other (potential) superpowers. Yet again.

If your efforts in the Middle East were about cleaning up your mistakes you'd be invading Saudi Arabia in a bid to remove their repressive government instead of providing them with material and logistic aid in the blockade of Yemen that's costing the lives of over 100 children per day. Especially considering that while the Houthis that Saudi Arabia is fighting in Yemen are a collection of nationalist, populist, authoritarian anti-Semitic shitbags, the only group that's giving the Saudis as much support as the US in that particular fight is Al fucking Qaeda.

RE: the topic of 'Pro American Third Worldism'

Given the thread this topic originated from, I can safely say this and know it will be understood:

This is the kind of 'the current situation isn't what I want, but I can't think of a way to fix it from where we are' thinking that leads to people hoping for a 'Benevolent Dictatorship', except replacing the single strong Dictator with the US.

x2 Spot on.

@archonspeaks: The bottom line is that we screwed up with military intervention, contributed to and made worse the region being a hotbed of extremism and violence, stuck around but kinda half-assed our “help” when, at the end of the day, we have a pretty much totally ravaged zone of innocent suffering people, many of whom who have suffered through the ensuing wars and come to rightfully resent the intrusion of foreign powers and have zero ability of self-determination in a climate that encourages more extremists and dictators to rise. And then we kinda turn a blind eye when some of those particular assholes (provided they give us what we want) are in power while we grab resources and keep an eye on our military rivals.

I’m sorry, but none of that is or was a good thing. The point is that future responses to global conflicts shouldn’t be the same as the debacle that was the Middle Eastern conflict, no matter what superpower we’re talking about. Let’s not casually hop into a region and exacerbate the conflicts and then kinda half-ass our responses to rebuild and make everything worse off while reaping the profits. And not just us, but every big power. You can remove a dictator, but with your methods you’re literally just paving the way for another to step right in. Guns and violent intervention breed similar responses.

US can pat itself on the back and say job well done, we got him, freedom reigns, but people in the region sure as hell ain’t feeling like it’s time to celebrate after Europe and the US deciding to make them their plaything for decades. Who knows how long it will take them to have actual stable, self-sufficient governments again.

Edited by ILikeRobots on May 7th 2019 at 2:55:07 AM

So then what now? You’re speaking in hypotheticals.

It’s all well and good to say that we never should have gone there in the first place, but now we’re there. That can’t be undone. I find the idea that we should simply leave them alone and hope for the best to be outright immoral at this point.

And I’ll point out that Afghanistan has done far better with the US than it did with the Soviets or the mujahideen.

We’re not getting oil out of Iraq or Afghanistan. There are no heavy metals coming from there. The argument that we’re there for resources is facetious. We went there for political power, and now we’re stuck because every other option is even worse than staying.

Like I said before, it’s ridiculous to oppose military intervention so much you’d rather let people die.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 7th 2019 at 3:01:45 AM

We can’t leave them alone now, but we can be doing a hell of a lot more to rebuild than we are. Enfranchise people. Give them a voice in their government and slowly give control over to native leaders, alienate and remove abusive power structures and figures, rebuild infrastructure at a more consistent rate, stimulate the economy, a ton of things more than we’re doing now.

But that requires people actually caring about the welfare of the region and people, of course, rather than the political power play and what the region can provide us.

And most of all learn from it. Don’t create another disaster like this in the future.

Edited by ILikeRobots on May 7th 2019 at 3:03:44 AM

Tough.

Find another way that isn't this one.

And, if that means jawing in the loathed, horrible, no-good, hellscape of the UN, well... suck it up, buttercup.

Using internationally acknowledged pathways with which to be barely civil to those you don't like is hard, too. (Mainly because you'd have to pretend to clean up your own political act at home a bit.) Diddums. It can still get stuff done.

It's just rather more Smiley and much less Micheal Bay.

Edited by Euodiachloris on May 7th 2019 at 11:05:12 AM

That is actually a interesting criticism.

Issue is, there regions that legit have decent relations with USA. The possibility to turn said relation into a ideology in itself is something that really should be done. No country can be fully isolated anymore.

There's a huuuuuuuge gulf between acknowledging that in modern times no country is an island, not even the ones that are on islands and extrapolating from this that 'weaker' countries should just capitulate to 'stronger' ones.

But hey, if you're in Latin America and you want your country dominated by the US, there's an easy way to do that. Just peacefully elect a socialist-leaning government that's not hardcore Communist enough to enjoy China's implicit protection. The US will be in your country 'protecting your freedom' in no time.

It’s not a matter of effort but one of time. The US needs to stop threatening to pull out every year and admit they’re there for the long run. Afghanistan is going to be a 40-year project and we keep running the timer back every time we say we’re gonna leave.

What do you suggest the US ask the UN to do? Have the security council double approve the US presence there? Set up a second mission? The UN can’t force other countries to join in, and has very limited resources of its own. The US has already been to the UN and secured what they had to offer. What now?

Why ask it to do anything to start with? The point about gift baskets is to go looking for jump-off points.

And, I've got few ideas what other blocs in the world would suggest, beyond some already raised here.

But, if you rarely take part just to take part, you don't bump into surprise possible proto-solutions amongst the problems.

You know there were like a dozen odd countries that participated in the invasion of Afghanistan and continue to participate, right? What you’re proposing is what the US already did, all the way back in 2001. Hell, it’s what they’re continuing to do. Do you think the US has no presence at the UN? They solicit help from allies all the time. Why do you think it was called ISAF? Here’s a hint: the I stands for international.

And if by other blocs you mean Russia or China, well, ask Syria or the various Central African countries who got in bed with China how that went.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 7th 2019 at 3:59:04 AM

There are other places to approach via the UN. Quit focussing on the major bug-bears. That's not how or where you get anywhere.

Basic group dynamics 101: schmooze the mid-tier. Especially if you've pissed them off.

Africa, South Asia, South America... What are they, chopped liver?

The UN isn't a piggy bank, only there to get things from. It's a place to invest in, too.

Get out what you work to put in.

And, the US has let that slide.

Aparantly, you think I'm an ignoramus who hasn't been following the news since the mid-80s. Noice.

Edited by Euodiachloris on May 7th 2019 at 12:23:23 PM

I’d suggest reading up on the war in Afghanistan a little. Check out the list of contributing nations, it might surprise you. [1]

The thing is, most countries do not have the military capabilities to project that far outside their borders, and unless they’re tight with NATO and friends they can’t hitch a ride with someone who can. Most African and South American militaries struggle to project power within their region, much less across the globe. The US and its partners certainly asked for their help, as they asked for damn near everyone’s help, but not everyone was in a position to give it.

The US contributes the single largest amount of any country to the UN. It provides actual force to the majority of the resolutions signed, contributes a sizable portion of their personnel, hosts its headquarters, and sits on all of its major councils. It’s doubtful the UN would work without it.

These solutions being offered aren’t really solutions at all.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 7th 2019 at 4:16:28 AM

Anyone has predictions for the future global political climate?

Just more chaos and the Russians and Chinese trying to expand their influence.

Of course, a Week is a Long Time in Politics.

To I Like Robots

Is a pyramid. Is literally a pyramid. Is a a systematic hierarchy.

Think about what that means. Nobody is saying that we should smile at casual racism, I'd agree that unchecked, it can lead to worse things. But treating Institutionalized Racism as just as bad as genuine crimes against humanity is just silly, is a All Crimes Are Equal.

Edited by KazuyaProta on May 24th 2019 at 5:04:06 AM

(Moves from other thread)

@archon: There is a difference between someone claiming it’s moral for them in particular, and claiming its moral for the person being invaded.

There’s a difference between “We’re invading you to benefit us and our people and our way of life” and “We’re invading because this somehow helps you, the people whose homes, lives and livelihoods we’re destroying in the process.” Most countries were the former, the US claims the latter. That’s the big difference. Fascism and realpolitik is honest about its selfish goals. “Because freedom” is not.

@kazuya: It’s not that it’s as bad, it’s that it’s not irrelevant or a mark of a “better” or more moral nation. Just because you incarcerate black men over petty charges instead of outright terrorizing them a la Jim Crow doesn’t mean we’re better morally than the country that outlaws LGBT marriage. We’re just less honest about it.

Obviously genocide is more heinous than the incarceration. But that doesn’t mean that the incarceration is “better” or that the bigots passing the legislation are “better” than other bigots. Their bigotry is just less socially acceptable, so they do it in a roundabout way.

Edited by ILikeRobots on May 24th 2019 at 3:11:17 AM

You’ve got a very oddly tinted view of history. Even fascists claimed they were doing things for moral reasons and to the world’s benefit. The Nazis claimed to be moral paragons.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan they positioned themselves as a righteous force, helping the people there by bringing them communism. Sound familiar? I mean, sure, they were really invading as part of a political strategy to threaten the Middle East and the US, but that doesn’t sound so good in a speech.

Also, just to add, the US is absolutely morally superior to a country that executes LGBT people.

Edited by archonspeaks on May 24th 2019 at 3:15:06 AM

How so? Fascism was first and foremost about their benefit. The arbitrary chosen group. An ideal world was one that benefited them and where they were on top.

They didn’t pretend to be the saviors of people across the world. When did the Nazis claim to be protecting Poland’s freedom exactly?

Edit: So we’re better because we don’t execute LGBT people? Do the ridiculous amounts of unarmed and innocent black people gunned down on flimsy pretenses not mean anything to you, or...?

Edited by ILikeRobots on May 24th 2019 at 3:19:41 AM