Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Josh said:

It is still a war of choice, even if it’s on the Russian doorstep rather than the other side of the world. And like Iraq, it is an extremely expensive war of choice that has only detracted from the security of the country that started it.

Well, if a definition of the "war of choice" is when you are literally attacked first, then yes, but it's a high bar.

The EU attempt to literally cut UA out of the Euarasinan Union market, the supported coup that followed, US/EU plan  to turn UA into a military bedrock aimed at RU and the vicious suppression of the part of the population who didn't like what was happening (alternative media was shutdown, UA nationalists were openly bragging about disappeared activists and journalists) - all that was/is reason enough.

HOW it was done was obviously a clusterfuck.

And that is the last time I am going to address it, you obviously are free to live in your reality.

  • Replies 411
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
On 7/2/2023 at 7:41 AM, Josh said:

Not buying the last paragraph. I think Russia would gladly take the Sulwaki gap if it could just snap its fingers and own in. Plus asking the poles to ignore 1941-1989 seems like quite the gesture; look at how riled up Russia gets over “nazies” to this day despite them having rather minimal representation in German or Ukrainian parliament.

And UK would take all of their empire if they could and so would France (just look how much butthurt they get when asked to fuck off from Africa)  - that's a poor if not silly argument. 

As to asking Poles to ignore past:

1. Nobody does ask them to forget.  But it's not like Poland was incorporated into USSR, quite the opposite - they got some German land courtesy of it.  They were not genocided,  despite of the current liberal interpretation of this word and so on (do compare with Reich's policies if you are daring to equate)

But yes they were not free and yes they suffered as a result of the misguided economic policies.

2. When they think it's worth for them they are quite (un)happy to forget what current official heroes of UA and their followers did to them (hint: many more people were killed by Ukrainian nationalists than by Soviets) and swallow Uke official glorification of those.

So it's all about the natsec.

Edited by Strannik
Posted (edited)

The FACT is that by it's greediness in advancing it's economic and security interests that crossed all possible RU lines the West now started the chain of events that may end in a new situation such that they wish they were these "fucking monkeys" who were making money and sitting tight.

And Europe would wish it way more.  So will be watching for Le Pen and AfD - things that were unfathomable before may become a reality soon.

Edited by Strannik
Posted
11 hours ago, Josh said:

The Iraq war was the single biggest US foreign policy failure of the century. Perhaps since the civil war, really, though ....

Worse than Vietnam?

Posted

From the geopolitical point of view, absolutely. At least you could argue about Vietnam that the commies had to be stopped somewhere and by the end the US was able to utilize the Sino-Soviet split. Saddam's Iraq was mostly toothless and despised/hated by neighbours. Not only Saddam's overthrow didn't achieve anything positive for the US, but also paved the way for more Iranian influence in the region - and Iran is far more of a challenge than Iraq. Ironically, Saddam's Iraq was sort of a counterweight for Iran - despite being weak and despised the Gulf Arabs (except Kuwaitis) would rather have Saddam in power than a Shia-ruled Iraq (and Iraq with actual elections will be Shia-ruled pretty much by definition), which in turn is likely to have closer relations with Iran, which... scares them shitless.

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, JWB said:

Worse than Vietnam?

Honestly I think so. The loss in Vietnam didn’t really change the US security situation in Asia nor significantly weaken it with regards to the USSR. Where as the repercussions of Iraq massively changed the regional politics and US standing in the mid east (and Arguably its political standing the world over). Both conflicts did also cost the armed forces a modernization cycle as well.

Edited by Josh
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Rick said:

Could be. Anything except peace is possible in the Middle East. 

I think if anything the Iraq invasion created more Islamic terrorism rather than preventing it. Sans Iraq invasion, it is hard to picture ISIS ever existing in the first place.

Edited by Josh
Posted
24 minutes ago, Josh said:

Honestly I think so. The loss in Vietnam didn’t really change the US security situation in Asia nor significantly weaken it with regards to the USSR.

If only you ignore the fact that rise of China is the result of USA deal with China to oppose USSR, and this deal was needed because of Vietnam loss.... (yes it is simplification - but hard to imagine China becoming what it is now without Virtnam loss). And now China is stronge production power than USSR ever was, isn't it " change of US security situation"?

Posted
28 minutes ago, Josh said:

Honestly I think so. The loss in Vietnam didn’t really change the US security situation in Asia nor significantly weaken it with regards to the USSR. Where as the repercussions of Iraq massively changed the regional politics and US standing in the mid east (and Arguably its political standing the world over). Both conflicts did also cost the armed forces a modernization cycle as well.

Failure in Vietnam led to the Iran hostage crisis, Lebanon hostage crises, Saddam invasion of Kuwait, 911 attacks..............

Posted
4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

If only you ignore the fact that rise of China is the result of USA deal with China to oppose USSR, and this deal was needed because of Vietnam loss.... (yes it is simplification - but hard to imagine China becoming what it is now without Virtnam loss). And now China is stronge production power than USSR ever was, isn't it " change of US security situation"?

The decisions across multiple US presidencies to pull China into the Western economic world didn’t gatger steam until the 90s post USSR. Vietnam had nothing to do with it.

Posted
4 hours ago, JWB said:

Failure in Vietnam led to the Iran hostage crisis, Lebanon hostage crises, Saddam invasion of Kuwait, 911 attacks..............

You’re going to have to connect those dots for me.

Posted
18 hours ago, Josh said:

You’re going to have to connect those dots for me.

On one of those PBS docs I saw a poster held up by radicals that took the embassy that said "Vietnam USA can do nothing". 

Saddam repeatedly claimed the USA could not fight because it lost the Vietnam war.

Saddam Hussein once famously believed that the United States was a country whose people couldn't handle 10,000 dead in a war. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen because no one has been able to inflict those kinds of losses on the U.S. since Vietnam. But we all know Saddam was a-okay with taking those kinds of losses.

Saddam thought the US was cool with an invasion of Kuwait | We Are The Mighty

bin Laden believed a US invasion of Afghanistan would provoke anti war riots in American cities.

Nelly Lahoud: He thought that the American people would take to the streets, replicate the anti-Vietnam war protests and they would put pressure on their government to withdraw from Muslim majority states. "

Exposing al Qaeda's Secrets: Inside the documents obtained from Osama bin Laden's compound - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Posted (edited)

That seems like a very thin argument. More over, the first US war with Iraq went rather well. Hardly seems like a major downside.

Edited by Josh
Posted

As an American, the foreign policy of this nation serves to benefit nobody other than the Military Industrial Complex and the elite war mongering politicians that govern our country. We should have never invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. In all of those situations, our interventionism has lead to miserable failure and only served to lead to further chaos. The United States, in my opinion, should also stop funding European nations and focus soley on the Americas to further our own domestic security instead of Globalist Agendas. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, CarnelianClout said:

As an American, the foreign policy of this nation serves to benefit nobody other than the Military Industrial Complex and the elite war mongering politicians that govern our country. We should have never invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. In all of those situations, our interventionism has lead to miserable failure and only served to lead to further chaos. The United States, in my opinion, should also stop funding European nations and focus soley on the Americas to further our own domestic security instead of Globalist Agendas. 

Waiting for somebody come along and apply a "trickle down" theory forpol-wise as a counter 🙄

Posted
1 minute ago, Strannik said:

Waiting for somebody come along and apply a "trickle down" theory forpol-wise as a counter 🙄

Truth be told, I don't care if some far away land is Communist or what have you. It's not worth our blood to die on foreign soil. 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, CarnelianClout said:

Truth be told, I don't care if some far away land is Communist or what have you. It's not worth our blood to die on foreign soil. 

I mean the economic side of this: if we "let go" then our economic dominance will suffer - poor peons won't have enough - revolution (displacement of current biparty setup)

Edited by Strannik
Posted
On 7/2/2023 at 10:56 AM, Josh said:

Honestly I think so. The loss in Vietnam didn’t really change the US security situation in Asia nor significantly weaken it with regards to the USSR. Where as the repercussions of Iraq massively changed the regional politics and US standing in the mid east (and Arguably its political standing the world over). Both conflicts did also cost the armed forces a modernization cycle as well.

That is all debatable. What is not is how the Vietnam war ravaged the US economy for a decade. Iraq 2 did not.

Posted

Europeans have embarked on a process of self-vassalization, in which they sacrifice much of their independence in foreign policy to Washington in return for protection

 

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, CarnelianClout said:

As an American, the foreign policy of this nation serves to benefit nobody other than the Military Industrial Complex and the elite war mongering politicians that govern our country. We should have never invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. In all of those situations, our interventionism has lead to miserable failure and only served to lead to further chaos. The United States, in my opinion, should also stop funding European nations and focus soley on the Americas to further our own domestic security instead of Globalist Agendas. 

So you would have preferred that the Soviet Union, an existential enemy of the United States, became the world's hegemon?  That pro-Soviet movements took over Latin America, Europe, Africa, and much of Asia?  That foreign terrorists based overseas should be able to murder thousands of Americans with impunity?  That the security of a major part of the world's energy supply be controlled by a hostile and unstable dictator?    As for "funding Europe", in the current war in Ukraine the US is ruining an enemy on the cheap with due to be scrapped or expended equipment funded by what's essentially couch change and lettting someone else do the fighting.

One can certainly argue the how of many of those intervetnions and policies, but not the why.

 

 

Edited by R011
Posted

I think the 4 schools of foreign policy all have their place in Foggy Bottom at the same time. Just relevant to the locale. 

Wilsonian for our friends. 
Hamiltonianism for neutrals. 
Jacksonianism for our foes. Jeffersonianism for the rest where there is no return. 
 

A bit if Wilsonianism as magnanimity and generosity in our spheres of influence goes a long way. 

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, R011 said:

So you would have preferred that the Soviet Union, an existential enemy of the United States, became the world's hegemon? 

That was not possible.  The Soviet Union never was economically strong enough to qualify for the role of global hegemon, and it derived much of the influence it did have as an alternative playing card to US hegemony.  In the places where the Soviet Union did dominate their neighborhood in a way that hindered global development (Eastern Europe and Balkans), the USA did not interfere for reasons of political stability.

Quote

That pro-Soviet movements took over Latin America, Europe, Africa, and much of Asia?

Communist movements that appealed to peasant classes.  These were misguided, but predictable given the economic and social conditions prevalent in the countries where Soviet ideology played.   

Quote

  That foreign terrorists based overseas should be able to murder thousands of Americans with impunity? 

The hunting down and killing of Bin Laden was one thing.  A pointless and useless war in Afghanistan was another.  They were not the same thing.   In fact, given the way that his ticket got punched, I would bet that they could have hunted him down without any war in Afghanistan.

Quote

That the security of a major part of the world's energy supply be controlled by a hostile and unstable dictator? 

 The issue with the 1st Gulf War was not that Iraq was ejected from Kuwait - this was the ascendant moment of US global leadership and the capping stone to that entire ideology.   No, the problem was that after the war it all went for a shit and turned into a 2nd war.  It was this moment that started the downhill slide of the US on the world stage that has continued to this day and is gaining momentum.  

Quote

As for "funding Europe", in the current war in Ukraine the US is ruining an enemy on the cheap with due to be scrapped or expended equipment funded by what's essentially couch change and lettting someone else do the fighting.

The Ukrainian war has strengthened the Sino-Russian coalition, which is now expanding into some sort of rival Chinese global system thanks to the senile incompetence of the worst president in modern US history.   NATO patches over its increasing internal divisions with hollow statements and the West is exposed as industrially weak WRT military production.  The Russians are stronger now than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and the world awaits the outcome of the Ukraine war, which if it ends with the collapse of the Ukrainian army, will be the end of the US century that started in 1945.  

Quote

One can certainly argue the how of many of those intervetnions and policies, but not the why.

Korea was worthwhile.   So was the 1st Gulf War.  Well, if one ignores what happened afterwards.  The list grows thin after that.  That's why rmgill is 100% correct on his observations.  I would add that of the 4 schools, Jacksonian is the one that is useful the least, but also seems to be the one these days that is used the most.  This needs to be corrected.

 

 

Edited by glenn239
Posted

@R011

I don't consider Russia as an enemy. It's only like that because of American Interventionism in the region that caused them to go on the defensive and protect their borders against foreign encroachment. If the US can do the Monroe Doctrine, what is so bad about other countries doing the same for their own borders? I would much rather the US abandon any and all support for Ukraine in favor of restoring relations with Russia completely, dropping all sanctions and economic restrictions. Would definitely improve the economic situation of the world and the life of the common man in the United States. Inflation isn't worth Ukraine. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...