Foreign Policy

[Krypton]

There's been a lot of talk about our involvement in the Middle East, and whether it's a good or a bad thing. I, personally, can see both arguments well enough, but I'd like to come to a bit more of a resolution on how the US should involve itself.

One the one hand, there have been near-constant problems in Iraq since our decision to invade, and our drone strikes motivate future terrorist attacks to some degree. On the other, it would be absurd to suggest every foreign invasion has ended this way--and the particular methods we use to enact the changes we want in these countries are generally the kinds that make the biggest vacuums, making it easier for insurgent groups to pop in or form.

Ultimately, it may end up the least of our problems, given the fact that insurgent groups are now present and wrecking shit in the middle east--the conversation has shifted from how we can avoid making insurgent groups/making them stronger, to how we can squash them. And this is of course to say nothing of the broader humanitarian issues of promoting civil rights and economic development, the both of which have aspects we haven't even really seen discussed in US politics.

So, what's everyone think of all these issues? I have opinions on my own on these, of course, but this is a long post already.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think a cost/benefit analysis has to be made in each case.

Some moral causes are possible, but they should be guided by preexisting alliances, and seldom with rebel groups/factions.

Imposing democracy, or deposing dictators should never be a motive imo.

 

[Sinny]

Name a single positive thing that the US or Coalition forces have achieved in the Middle East.

???

Acquired some oil fields.
Grown some opium.
Made billions in weapons sales.
Plundered ancient heritage.
Trained and created armies of barbaric mercenaries.

What else?

Destroyed Afghanistan, destroyed Iraq, destroyed Libya, almost destroyed Egypt, almost destroyed Syria.. and they have tried their damn best to incite Eurasian war.

Who has benefited from this?
Not we, the Western people. Who, at the expense of class warfare, have been put on the tightest austerity measures, and witnessed our own infrastructure and culture deteriorate before our very eyes.

Not those Middle Eastern or 3rd world people's we claim to have liberated.

Pfft.

No, the people benefiting are the International Financiers, the Crown, Silicon Valley, and all the fat cats running the international NGOs and transnational corporations.

Wake up and smell the coffee, there are no pros to the middle eastern wars, or any being waged further afield.

There is only a system of control and slavery, while the Western people largely ignore and turn a blind eye to the mass international genocide being waged in our names, and in the name of Western consumerism.

People's ignorance disgusts me.

Millions of Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis, and Syrians.. and all for what?

"Collateral damage"

It's sickening.

 

[Krypton]

I think a cost/benefit analysis has to be made in each case.

Some moral causes are possible, but they should be guided by preexisting alliances, and seldom with rebel groups/factions.

1. Which moral causes? Which moral causes are not?
2. I'd agree that "seldom with rebels" is a good idea, given that there's often little unified strategy for replacement governments, and the replacements are often as bad or worse. However, what happens when you have like a Syria and you play off of some rebel groups and the main government to beat down a different set of rebels, and then negotiate an agreement between the rebels and the government that lessens the government's power? Or just banding rebels together a bit more if none of the rebels are truly abhorrent?

Imposing democracy, or deposing dictators should never be a motive imo.

Why?

Spoiler

Name a single positive thing that the US or Coalition forces have achieved in the Middle East.

???

Acquired some oil fields.
Grown some opium.
Made billions in weapons sales.
Plundered ancient heritage.
Trained and created armies of barbaric mercenaries.

What else?

Destroyed Afghanistan, destroyed Iraq, destroyed Libya, almost destroyed Egypt, almost destroyed Syria.. and they have tried their damn best to incite Eurasian war.

Who has benefited from this?
Not we, the Western people. Who, at the expense of class warfare, have been put on the tightest austerity measures, and witnessed our own infrastructure and culture deteriorate before our very eyes.

Not those Middle Eastern or 3rd world people's we claim to have liberated.

Pfft.

No, the people benefiting are the International Financiers, the Crown, Silicon Valley, and all the fat cats running the international NGOs and transnational corporations.

Wake up and smell the coffee, there are no pros to the middle eastern wars, or any being waged further afield.

There is only a system of control and slavery, while the Western people largely ignore and turn a blind eye to the mass international genocide being waged in our names, and in the name of Western consumerism.

People's ignorance disgusts me.

Millions of Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis, and Syrians.. and all for what?

"Collateral damage"

It's sickening.

I can't, but I can name a few reasons why it didn't go as well as it could have. I could also name beneficial policies of earlier conquests by other nations (South Africa, before it got fucked over by Britain, actually improved while racism and reactionary land "reform" wasn't yet part of the equation--not to mention the secularizing trend in the Middle East before the US fucked up in Iran)

 

[Peppermint]

Name a single positive thing that the US or Coalition forces have achieved in the Middle East.


Destroyed Afghanistan, destroyed Iraq, destroyed Libya, almost destroyed Egypt, almost destroyed Syria.. and they have tried their damn best to incite Eurasian war.

Spoiler

Millions of Iraqis, Afghanis, Yemenis, and Syrians.. and all for what?

"Collateral damage"

It's sickening.

 

[Pin]

I prefer diplomacy but support military intervention on a case-by-case basis.