|
The sentiment expressed by tezzor (states only have interests and only act in those interests) is less true then pure cynicism would leave you to believe. Quick Question: What realpolitick objectives were pursued in the Iraq invasion? Resources? America never claimed sovereignty of either country, and the amount of Oil Iraq has isn't that spectacular for the cost expended (especially since they were already getting a favorable rate with the leverage of sanctions). Labor? Nope. Another example: the Guatamalen Coup, urged at the behest of the United Fruit Company. What objectives does that satisfy for the US state? Helping a US Corporation? Well, why does that matter? Corporations don't have loyalty to the state they operate in. Why should the state help it at all, without at least charging them for it? As far as the US government is concerned, a global corporation is just another foreign entity that it can extract resources from, but it should be by no means beholden to it. So why did that happen at all? Because the people who make the decisions for countries don't necessarily operate in the country of states interests, but their own. Those decisions can also be intensely ideological. They were buddy-buddy with the Corporation, and were ideologically opposed to the opposition in Guatemala. Ergo, coup. Similarly, the Saudis loving hated Saddam, and the US elite likes the Saudi elite, so they help a brother out and invaded Iraq for them. So when we come to Libya, we have to ask, not which states benefited (because that doesn't matter), but what ideology is being expressed here. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the arab spring, what they stood for and what they wanted. I like the non-islamist rebels, because I like their ideology when compared to both Gaddafi and the islamists, so I'd like to see them win. I also like the Syrian rebels that aren't ISIS, because I like what they stand for, so I'm positive for intervention for them. But in a realpolitick sense, neither intervention will actually pull a profit, so neither makes sense. So, why did the US elite intervene in Libya? Answer: they didn't like Gaddaffi. Supporting the rebels and what they stand for was a secondary concern. So their motives conflict with mine, but I'm happy they did help, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Why isn't Syria receiving the same support? A bunch of reasons, but I suspect it's Obama's own personal cautiousness that's at play here. Which is, I think, a mistake which the region is worse off for. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Oct 27, 2015 |
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Expect China to jump up that list as it continues to gently caress around in the south china sea. Also:Tezzor posted:There was an article that I read by a non-American that really opened my eyes. In America, we tend to debate each individual war on its own merits. Will killing Gaddhafi be good or bad? Will invading Iraq protect America? However, outside of America, they tend to see each individual instance as a pattern. This is, I think, a correct way to look at it, because incidents are close together, ceaseless, and have been occurring for decades. rudatron fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 14:10
|
|
