Comment by 0xDEAFBEAD
12 days ago
That's exactly the problem. US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2, and that leads us to military misadventures all over the place. Utter foolishness.
It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.
Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you.
> US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2
If "US foreign policy analysts" would actually think that these situations might lead to the next WW2, then you wouldn't counter them with destabilizing countries, that leads to the rise of extreme parties and then treating them with ignorance. Because THAT is exactly how WW2 happened.
> If we are involved, we're called imperialist
Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved.
> It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.
If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye. I mean you are a sovereign country and can do what you like, but you do it, because your administration thinks that is a good idea, not because all the other countries would tell you to. You frame it like other countries called for action and you did them and now they complain. No, they told you they won't like that, and you did it either way.
>Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you.
Nope. Just the opposite. The reason the US did regime changes during the Cold War was because we were paranoid that communism would affect us. We need to be less paranoid.
>Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved.
Doesn't matter, we're called imperialist however we choose to get involved. Ever heard the term "neocolonialism"?
>If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye.
Even when US military action is requested or approved of by people in the country, we're still called imperialists. Consider the war in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese were attacked. We came to their aid for some time. They kept fighting after we left. Yet this was still described as "neocolonialist" activity on our part. That's how our actions are always described.
> Nope. Just the opposite. The reason the US did regime changes during the Cold War was because we were paranoid that communism would affect us. We need to be less paranoid.
I was more thinking of "post" Cold War interventions.
> Doesn't matter, we're called imperialist however we choose to get involved. Ever heard the term "neocolonialism"?
Yes. The US isn't alone in that situation. The EU is described as neocolonialist in the same way. Personally I think that is stupid and we shouldn't have let us be influenced by that. Now Europe stopped being "neocolonialist" and the Chinese has taken over that role in Africa. Now it's much worse both for us (EU) and for Africa. Great.
> Consider the war in Vietnam.
Honestly I wasn't alive and don't know the public opinion of that time. I basically only know it from history class. The rough sentiment is that the French messed up and the US has payed for it. It's true, that some actions in the war are portrayed as bad, most famously Agent Orange, but I think the war in total isn't blamed on the US.
> That's how our actions are always described.
Reading the other thread you linked, I think you have a worse view of the public opinion of the US then it actually is.
Earlier you wrote:
The thing is, nobody's offering you that. In the ideal scenario for Russia, the US would be mired in internal conflict and instability to such an extent that it would be unable to function as a country, leaving Russia to dominate the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Con...
In other words, they want an endless line of Donald Trumps to ruin your country and turn it into a banana republic so that you wouldn't have the energy to pay attention to Russia stomping over the rest of the world.
Why would any American voluntarily choose this fate?
So according to you, the current state of the US is a result of us trying to "contain" Russia and protect Europe through NATO. Can you see why I wouldn't be particularly enthusiastic about continuing to do this?
None of this would've happened if we had avoided imperialism post-WW2.
I'm not sure exactly what you refer to with "the current state of the US". Domestic issues (e.g. personal financial struggle of the populace, "immigration", and cultural war like ICE), economic issues (bubbles, monopolies) or the role of the USA in world politics? It's the latter, that was the topic of the discussion so far, but I'm not sure if you call that "the current state of the US".
"mopsi" stated how you going isolationist and stuck in domestic struggles, is following Russias plan. So no, the current state of the US results in you stopping to
> "contain" Russia and protect Europe through NATO.
So this is what the EU complains about and tries to tell you: you follow Russians plan and that can't be in your best interest. (Not that the EU would be free from such interests either.) Do you think Russia would leave you alone when there plan succeeded? That would be the biggest success of Russian policy since 1945. When they can get you from the major world power to being a isolationist country with domestic struggles, why would they stop?
> None of this would've happened if we had avoided imperialism post-WW2.
I think you need to define terms here. What exactly counts as "imperialism post-WW2" and what not? I mean the arms race let to the collapse of the soviet union, so I guess until to the 90s it went pretty good for the countries part of the "First World".
If you wouldn't have stayed in Europe after WW2, the USSR would have reached to the Atlantic. And no not just in 1945, they also tried that in the 50s and continued to want that. Not sure, if you already know, but Putin was in prison in Germany in the 90s for trying to topple the German government and his goal was to expand the "Soviet/Russian" empire to the Atlantic. He was already ~40 and has served in the KGB before, so I guess he hasn't changed his opinion since.
2 replies →
No, the Euro-Atlantic alliance produced incredible prosperity in its heyday.
The current deteriorating state of the US is the result of departure from the previously held values and forms of cooperation. Nothing illustrates this better than the US president openly threatening the sovereignty of Canada and Denmark while accepting massive bribes from Arab sheikhs and calling genocidal dictators like Putin his "friends". This is the wet dream of people who want to see the US fail.
Why would any American want to hit the gas pedal and accelerate even further down this road?
7 replies →