Comment by adventured
4 days ago
It took decades for the US to stabilize itself as a nation after its birth.
Why would you think Iraq would find it easy to stabilize itself post Hussein, such that you'd declare their future void already. Iraq is not yet a failure and is dramatically more stable than it was under Hussein (dictatorships bring hyper instability universally, which is why they have to constantly murder & terrify everybody to try to keep the system from instantly imploding due to the perpetual instability inherent in dictatorship).
Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, and most of Eastern Europe (which the US was extremely deep in interfering with for decades in competition with the USSR). You can also add Colombia to that list, it is a successful outcome thus far of US interference.
I like the part where people pretend the vast interference in positive outcomes don't count. The US positively, endlessly interfered in Europe for the past century. That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well.
And what about the precedent it sets for other world powers?
Why shouldn't Russia or China just do the same and interfere with the leadership of countries they don't like.
Also it is impossible to argue the cost of the war in Iraq was worth the benefit, even if we agree Iraq is in a better place now then it was under Hussein.
> Also it is impossible to argue the cost of the war in Iraq was worth the benefit, even if we agree Iraq is in a better place now then it was under Hussein.
But the Iraquis didn’t pay the military monetary cost (arguably they paid a different cost, but it’s very hard to balance that against living under a dictator, and I said that from experience), and I’m sure US’ imperialist shenanigans could recoup the monetary cost. Seeing as US doesn’t have compulsory conscription, that takes away part of the reprehensibility of the human cost of US’ personnel caused by its interventionist policy. Which, to my eyes, leaves the thing as a net positive.
One thing can be said with certainty about countries like Venezuela and Cuba: they are broken and they cause untold pain to their citizens. The moral imperative to fix them is there, even if one can certainly discuss how and maybe quibble a little about the monetary cost.
Trillions added to the US national debt. Those chickens haven't yet come home to roost.
Just noticed the “whataboutism”. I don’t have a particular take on the comment above but those countries do those things in their own parts of the globe.
The government of nations is anarchy and in anarchy the only rule is that “might makes right”. Some seem to have a view that there is a world government and that there are “rules” when in reality there are none.
I wouldn't say there are no rules.
There are international agreements, consequences, and parties that may or may not choose to enforce those consequences.
E.g. the entire UN Security Council was predicated on the idea that no other country could/would force a nuclear power to do anything it didn't want to
"Don't worry, the democracy will eventually trickle down".
There is such thing as a post-Vietnam America, and its record is pretty bad.
"That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well."
What an absurd thing to say. The US doesn't only overthrow dictatorships - it supports them too, as it suits its self-interest. Why not include the US interference when it SUPPORTED Hussein and later changed its mind - still think "interference turns out well" after backing a genocidal monster, supporting his invasion of a neighbour, invading twice and related deaths of 400 000 people?
Countries stabilise over time, that's what their people make happen. You ignore Indonesia, Iran, El Salvador, Nicaragua and dozens of disaster of US imperialism but give credit to the US when their populations rebuild them.
The US has done some positive things but they're the convenient accidents you've cherry picked to make your point.
And overthrows actual democratically elected leaders when they're inconvenient too. Hello, Chile. (The OG 9/11?)
You're saying only facts and somehow getting downvoted, I guess denial is easier for some people.
It isn’t denial it is tribalism at this point.
1 reply →
> The US positively, endlessly interfered in Europe for the past century. That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well.
Are we counting the financial support that Wall Street and the budding CIA boys at Sullivan & Cromwell gave Hitler to harass the Soviet Union, which ultimately had to take care of the problem they created, in the "turning out well" column here?
Looks like we’re forgetting that Soviet Union was pretty buddy buddy with Hitler until surprised pikachu face happened in 1941.
"surprised Pikachu face" lmao, just absurdly arrogantly wrong. Molotov-Ribbentrop was Stalin's last resort and (successful) bid for time and breathing room after trying and failing numerous diplomatic efforts to unite the Allies against Hitler. Many of those Allies were explicit, at the time, about their desire to use Nazi Germany to inflict a mortal blow on the godless communists in Moscow.
15 replies →
Kuwait is a dictatorship. South Korea and Taiwan were, too until the 80s-90s. Especially, in the case of Taiwan it is unclear what US intereference there has been politically: the Chinese fought hard to be free of interference and although in Taiwan they need US support I don't think they are as controlled as South Korea and Japan (which has been invaded and "vassalised"). If interefence there is it is indeed to literally interfere to foster separation with the mainland.
Re. Iraq, interestingly the US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in the country because the majority is Shia while Saddam was from a Sunni tribe.
> separation with the mainland.
Which is somehow inherently wrong due to what reason exactly?
But yes, the South Korean regime in the 50s (and the RoC one in Taiwan to a lesser extent) was extremely brutal and oppressive and hardly much worse than the one in the north.