|
Tezzor posted:http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/ I'm guessing Europe is because "The Caliphate" wasn't a legitimate option.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
The US policy in the Middle East begins to make perfect sense once you consider the possibility that its first and foremost objective is to prevent the emergence of a strong and stable anti-US coalition in the region. The so-called "failures" in Libya, Iraq and Syria were wildly successful by this metric. The only place where the US policy demonstrably failed is Iran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
fspades posted:The US policy in the Middle East begins to make perfect sense once you consider the possibility that its first and foremost objective is to prevent the emergence of a strong and stable anti-US coalition in the region. The so-called "failures" in Libya, Iraq and Syria were wildly successful by this metric. The only place where the US policy demonstrably failed is Iran. Actually, you could say Iraq failed in that sense as it increasingly drew closer to Iran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Actually, you could say Iraq failed in that sense as it increasingly drew closer to Iran. Thankfully it then fell into total chaos...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
If the US was trying to create a failed government in Iraq it could have done that much faster and much cheaper. The popular conspiracy theory of US hyper competence in Middle East affairs should have died in 2004 at the very latest. It takes an incredible dedication to a ideological perspective to look at the US occupation of Iraq and say "well that went all according to plan."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
When you are as wealthy and disconnected from foreign regions as it is, it is easy to remain confident despite disaster. See: Trump. That said, if the goal was to convince Americans that the Middle East is awful and should be left to rot, that worked. People like Israel an unhealthy amount, but I think at this point people have a nihilism that hopes everybody in the region who took a shot at PVT Johnny can all kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
fspades posted:Thankfully it then fell into total chaos... North-Western Iraq maybe but the south remains stable and under a dominant (Iran-friendly) Shiite government, and for the most part oil production hasn't been significantly affected. It may have started as you said, but it ended up a disaster on almost every level for the US. Also Afghanistan didn't really end up as the US wanted either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:If the US was trying to create a failed government in Iraq it could have done that much faster and much cheaper. The popular conspiracy theory of US hyper competence in Middle East affairs should have died in 2004 at the very latest. It takes an incredible dedication to a ideological perspective to look at the US occupation of Iraq and say "well that went all according to plan." That wasn't their initial goal of course. They wanted a puppet regime compliant to US interests. When that proposition turned out to be untenable and the central government began to befriend the wrong kind of folk, they shifted gears to support the much more US-friendly regional government of Kurdistan instead. This also had the bonus of undermining Maliki and Baghdad's authority. Just before the Arab spring there was a considerable risk of an Syria-Iraq-Iran axis. Now look at where we are. Ardennes posted:North-Western Iraq maybe but the south remains stable and under a dominant (Iran-friendly) Shiite government, and for the most part oil production hasn't been significantly affected. It may have started as you said, but it ended up a disaster on almost every level for the US. Also Afghanistan didn't really end up as the US wanted either. You are just just shifting the goalposts though. I don't know how a government that lost control of its northern half (that had a good portion of its oil production, mind you) and is in the middle of a civil war can be considered stable. I mean, I'm pretty sure Latakia can be considered "stable" these days too. fspades fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Expect China to jump up that list as it continues to gently caress around in the south china sea. What a joke. People around the world know the difference between some international boundary hanky-panky and being literally insane like the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Pretty funny to talk about European opinion of American warmongering in a thread about a war where European governments played such a premier role. If the Europeans hate our military adventurism so much maybe they should stop electing governments that are so friendly to it! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Pretty funny to talk about European opinion of American warmongering in a thread about a war where European governments played such a premier role. If the Europeans hate our military adventurism so much maybe they should stop electing governments that are so friendly to it! Europeans who speak english are very xenophobic. German speaking Germans seem to be normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
People are still using blanket phrases like "people around the world" and "non-Americans" and then acting as though that in itself is some sort of special qualifier. How disconnected do I need to be from the US in order to qualify for this automatic geopolitical sage status?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Europeans who speak english are very xenophobic. German speaking Germans seem to be normal. Yes, of course, being skeptical of the intentions of US interventions is a sign of xenophobia now, and we should all strive to be "normal" like those good Germans. I guess "normal" in this context means tut-tutting about the humanitarian results of past interventions, but wholeheartedly supporting the current one because ~*this time it's different*~.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
fspades posted:You are just just shifting the goalposts though. I don't know how a government that lost control of its northern half (that had a good portion of its oil production, mind you) and is in the middle of a civil war can be considered stable. I mean, I'm pretty sure Latakia can be considered "stable" these days too. Oil production even around Mosul is pretty limited in raw numbers through compared to raw national output, one of the biggest reasons why regionalization of the budget would completely screw Sunnis (and the Kurds have almost a parallel economy setup). Remember, when I say "stable" I mean the part that Iran cares about is stable (enough) for their purposes. Iraq as a nation state is hosed, but I don't think the Iranians really cared that much in the first place.. If anything the effective partitioning of Iraq is a relatively good thing for the Iranians, they get to completely dominate the South (ie the vast majority of the population) with relatively little push back because any Sunni areas are now battlefields or Kurdistan (who has much bigger problems than Iran).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Except none of this even has anything to do with, much less proves, what you asserted, which was: Of course it does. And of course not all non-Americans or Americans think exactly the same way, thus the terminology of "group A tends to think this way and group B tends to this this other way," not "all of group A think the same way." That evidence I posted demonstrates the point well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Europeans would enjoy Libya flattened so its people don't go to Europe. Nonsense posted:Europeans who speak english are very xenophobic. German speaking Germans seem to be normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Of course it does. And of course not all non-Americans or Americans think exactly the same way, thus the terminology of "group A tends to think this way and group B tends to this this other way," not "all of group A think the same way." That evidence I posted demonstrates the point well. But a poll of people answering a "which country is the greatest threat to world peace" question proves nothing about long-term trends or deep-seated intellectual mannerisms. You argued that "people outside America observe long term trends while Americans only look at it on a case by case basis." Nevermind the fact that the question can be interpreted in a number of ways and I also get the feeling that if the same poll were taken now we'd see a number of differences particularly in Eastern Europe. In fact, assuming you're American (which you might not be, I don't know) you're in the ignominious position of telling me, a non-American, how I 'ought to think about America. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But a poll of people answering a "which country is the greatest threat to world peace" question proves nothing about long-term trends or deep-seated intellectual mannerisms. You argued that "people outside America observe long term trends while Americans only look at it on a case by case basis." I think people outside the US are more likely to look at its foreign-policy actions as part of a pattern while Americans are more likely to look at these actions on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that there is some inherent difference in how they think in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But a poll of people answering a "which country is the greatest threat to world peace" question proves nothing about long-term trends or deep-seated intellectual mannerisms. You argued that "people outside America observe long term trends while Americans only look at it on a case by case basis." Americans look at it in a case by case basis because that's how American 24-hour news media presents it and that's how they incorporate it to their larger domestic politics narrative. When non-Americans look at the US actions in the world what they first see is the American military, American sanctions, American cruise missiles and American presidents. When the Americans look at it they see Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain and Pelosi, Republicans and Democrats, the Senate and the House and the next election. Debates over violent actions on foreign countries are now a permanent feature in US election cycles to the point that not having a plan on how to blow up the latest "threat" to US interests is seen as cowardice and weakness. The atrocities done the last time is not to be blamed on a grand strategic vision or ideology; it was the fault of that president or this party and you'll hear about it till your ears bleed... If you are submerged in this kind of political environment since the Cold War, it kinda gets hard to notice just how unusual and insane it is and how, when we look at the historical record and compare it with others, the US is the most belligerent and dangerous country on Earth, by far. And their citizens are loving it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
fspades posted:Americans look at it in a case by case basis because that's how American 24-hour news media presents it and that's how they incorporate it to their larger domestic politics narrative. When non-Americans look at the US actions in the world what they first see the American military, American sanctions, American cruise missiles and American presidents. When the Americans look at it they see Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain and Pelosi, Republicans and Democrats, the Senate and the House and the next election. Debates over violent actions on foreign countries are now a permanent feature in US election cycles to the point that not having a plan on how to blow up the latest "threat" to US interests is seen as cowardice and weakness. The atrocities done the last time is not to be blamed on a grand strategic vision or ideology; it was the fault of that president or this party and you'll hear about it till your ears bleed... Lets be honest here and the Soviets were far from great as well (or the British/French), the issue is that the Soviets disappeared and were replaced by a weaker collection of states and the US kept pushing outwards alongside of NATO and their assorted allies. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Oil production even around Mosul is pretty limited in raw numbers through compared to raw national output, one of the biggest reasons why regionalization of the budget would completely screw Sunnis (and the Kurds have almost a parallel economy setup). I was more thinking about Kirkuk and Erbil, but I see your point now. I think it's not at all unlikely to see Iraq partitioned as the US-friendly north and Iran-friendly south in the future, but IMO that's still a better conclusion for the US than the other alternatives. Ardennes posted:Lets be honest here and the Soviets were far from great as well (or the British/French), the issue is that the Soviets disappeared and were replaced by a weaker collection of states and the US kept pushing outwards alongside of NATO and their assorted allies. Oh, it's definitely about the position the US found itself in the current capitalist world-system, but mostly I'm trying to do away with the outrageously naive idea that the US gives a poo poo about democracy or humanitarian crises in the Middle East, and is honest to the public about its objectives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:You could argue that there's an insurmountable differentiation between how a state acts in its internal policy and how a state acts in its external policy, but this is an interesting thought. However, material concerns are not separate from ideology. It's as easy to see as to see the US's support of Saudi Arabia. I think it's fair to say that states seek security and survival, but ideology reflects their choices to the degree that they do not seek the optimum choices to seek security and survival (and power.) It's not an insurmountable difference when you think of the unitary actors in geopolitics as people and institutions, like other IR approaches do. Seeing an insurmountable difference between foreign and domestic policy, when the same people and institutions engage in and influence both all the time, is exactly the sort of ideological blind spot I was talking about. Realist IR is an ideology that makes a lot of questionable assumptions about the world. I think you might even call it a useful heuristic framework grounded in European assumptions about modern states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
fspades posted:I was more thinking about Kirkuk and Erbil, but I see your point now. I think it's not at all unlikely to see Iraq partitioned as the US-friendly north and Iran-friendly south in the future, but IMO that's still a better conclusion for the US than the other alternatives. Ultimately it is a net loss for the US, and ultimately the result of institutional inertia. Saddam was a nail that seemed like it needed to be hammered, but in reality he was actually still needed to contain Iran. If anything this whiplash started with the Persian Gulf war, after we had backed Saddam versus Iran, he thought he had enough leeway to move south (and put out feelers to this effect). He didn't realize that the Saudis actually mattered a lot more to us them he did, but the US ultimately didn't take him out until institutional inertia built up enough in DC that it seemed like the "natural" thing to do. quote:Oh, it's definitely about the position the US found itself in the current capitalist world-system, but mostly I'm trying to do away with the outrageously naive idea that the US gives a poo poo about democracy or humanitarian crises in the Middle East, and is honest to the public about its objectives. More exactly they care when it lines up with their other interests, which is admittedly some of the time, but it is most incidental and easily forgotten. Sort of like everyone forgot Libya existed a couple months later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Europeans who speak english are very xenophobic. German speaking Germans seem to be normal. Germans channel their bloodlust into financially ruining poorer countries
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Lets be honest here and the Soviets were far from great as well (or the British/French), the issue is that the Soviets disappeared and were replaced by a weaker collection of states and the US kept pushing outwards alongside of NATO and their assorted allies. It probably didn't help, either, that the CIA specifically targeted populist leftward movements and supported conservative anti-soviet movements as well. Our ideological dickwaving resulted in some soviet states left with nothing after collapse, and some theocratic dictatorships making citizens wish the state had nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It probably didn't help, either, that the CIA specifically targeted populist leftward movements and supported conservative anti-soviet movements as well. Our ideological dickwaving resulted in some soviet states left with nothing after collapse, and some theocratic dictatorships making citizens wish the state had nothing. The Soviets made a lot of their own messes as the same time, and they often took the bait. That said, our tolerance for democracy was rather thin in the post-war period in Europe. Ultimately we (not only the US but our allies) won because we the collective resources of the west vastly overshadowed them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
I thought we won the Cold War because the leader of the Soviet Union was no longer willing to prop up his regimes with direct violence and allowed ethic strife to break the country apart. I hardly think the "efficiency" of Western nations is why
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I thought we won the Cold War because the leader of the Soviet Union was no longer willing to prop up his regimes with direct violence and allowed ethic strife to break the country apart. I hardly think the "efficiency" of Western nations is why They ultimately had to pull back because the Soviet Union simply could not economically sustain a military footing at that level (for a variety of reasons). Price controls continued to cause dysfunction in the economy while military spending (including Afghanistan) was sapping the budget during a period of dramatically lower oil prices compared to the 1970s. The Soviets pulled back hoping that Eastern Europe would remain a neutral buffer zone while resources were gradually reinvested into the Soviet economy, but it never really happened. In addition, US and the rest of its allies vastly overshadowed the Soviets as a trade bloc and if anything that difference was only widening. Also while the break-up of the Soviet Union itself was partly because of nationalism, Russian nationalism as well as Baltic and Caucasian nationalism, it also also due the general weakness of the Soviet economy and the desire for "shock therapy" from a number of economic advisers (who preferred the Soviet Union be dissolved). In addition, not all the union states actually wanted to leave, especially the Central Asian republics but once Yeltsin was in control of the RSFSR and Gorbachev annihilated most of the legal and political structures of the broader union itself (after the August coup attempt) then there was no structure left for any union to be formed around. One issue that isn't talked about very much is that a lot of Russian nationalists and conservatives backed Yeltsin because they preferred the Soviet Union itself be dissolved then the RSFSR be "overwhelmed" by internal migrants from Central Asia or the Caucasus. They changed their tune relatively quickly during the 1990s. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Rhodesian bush war
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:citations in original Came to Tezzor thread looking for bad opinion about guns. Left half satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
I think the fall of the Berlin Wall is never really appreciated. What I think is forgotten is, that if anyone in the eighties claimed that the soviet union would cease existing within a decade, they would be called madmen. Like, even the most ardent anti-communist ideologue of the age wouldn't even dream of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
I guess anyone who has tried predicting the future has failed miserably though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
I agree with Kenya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 02:50
|
|
