Should We Defend Our Allies?

[Tigerace117]

Why the Iran revolution had happened if US didn't cause a coup that kept the Shah in power?

I find those examples debatable, I find those examples debatable:

The Vietnam War helped Pol Pot take power in Cambodia.

The Gulf War set up the Iraq War that ended by being a disaster and did not help the people of Iraq.


US interference in Somilia did not help in many cases:

The Biden administration could change failed US policy towards Somalia

The Black Hawk Down military raid in 1993 transformed US policy in Africa, but the intervention had a longer historic legacy embedded in Cold War politics.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

The Iranian Revolution was the culmination of a wide variety of different factors. Trying to go “it was only because the evuuuuul Shah and America” is dumb.

I’m sure you do. However, I was specifically referring to the Vietnamese intervention after they realized their Khmer Rouge allies had gone too far.

The Gulf War kicked Saddam’s ass out of Kuwait rather decisively. It was a disaster for Iraq, but that’s because Saddam chose to invade yet another one of his neighbors in a brutal war of annexation. Boo ****ing hoo.

In case you missed it, the UN has continued its intervention in Somalia, and things have slowly but surely improved over the years.

 

[Yes_Minister]

Again. No.

Trump has always said he wants to end the US involvement in the wars...and he worked to do it.

I have to think that you really don't know anything about Trump.

Then why didn't he end them? He had 4 years.

 

[Evilroddy]

Again, how are South Korea and Taiwan “not real democracies”? Unless you are using the definition by which America isn’t a “real democracy” either, in which case I would suggest starting to live in the real world.

I hate to break it to you but both Iraq and Afghanistan were extremely popular with the American people until they got bored. The national debt is already long past the point of being solvable, and abandoning a democratic country to the tender “mercies” of a genocidal dictatorship wouldn’t save us a cent.

Tigerace117:

I was wrong about Taiwan. In the last 25 years they have made good progress regarding democracy. However you might read the following article which explains how many powerful Taiwanese interests want closer ties with the PRC/Mainland China and ultimately reunification. The crackdown on Hong Kong has caused some pause but Taiwanese in numerous polls place economic prosperity above democracy as the central political issue of Taiwanese politics. So they might just reunite despite American posturing..

Taiwan's democracy and the China challenge | Brookings

Executive Summary Taiwan has gotten high marks when it comes to holding clean elections and protecting political rights. The public strongly supports democracy in principle and by and large approves the island’s system in practice. When it comes to performance, however, the political system does...

www.brookings.edu

But S. Korea is still a democracy in name only. It is an oligarchy strongly influenced by powerful economic interests (Chæbols) allied to the state agencies and civil service and willing to overthrow governments which have been democratically elected over and over again. When it was discovered that the South Korean security services interfered seriously with an election on behalf of the winning party several years ago, nothing substantive was done about it.

The popularity of the Afghan Invasion was understandable, given the events of 9/11 but had the 9/11 Commisdion report's redacted sections involving Saudi Arabian complicity in the attacks been made public in 2002 that support would have dried up very quickly. As it was, the public soured on Afghanistan about 2005 and was thus firmly against the war for more than 15 years. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was sold to the American public using lies and thus the public quickly turned against the war when the lies were exposed by the press/media. The cost to the American Government of the Iraq Invasion and on/off occupation of the country dwarfed the expense of the Afghan War to American tax-payers and the public purse.

Your cavalier disregard for fiscal restraint is well noted. To militarists, war is a sacred rite upon which no price-tag, no matter how high, can be placed. Too bad you're not so keen on that principle when it comes to education, medical care and public infrastructure. You're first alliance should be with your fellow Americans, not with corrupt elites in foreign countries who ignore the needs of their own people and then bolt with embezzled public monies when the going gets tough.

So, again, choose better allies, avoid aligning with factions in internecine civil wars and develop better soft power tools rather than relying on the mailed-fist of militarism, a strategy which has been proven again and again to not work for the US Government.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Yes_Minister]

The Iranian Revolution was the culmination of a wide variety of different factors. Trying to go “it was only because the evuuuuul Shah and America” is dumb.

I’m sure you do. However, I was specifically referring to the Vietnamese intervention after they realized their Khmer Rouge allies had gone too far.

The Gulf War kicked Saddam’s ass out of Kuwait rather decisively. It was a disaster for Iraq, but that’s because Saddam chose to invade yet another one of his neighbors in a brutal war of annexation. Boo ****ing hoo.

In case you missed it, the UN has continued its intervention in Somalia, and things have slowly but surely improved over the years.

The coup did not help, but I didn't claim it was the sole cause.

You seem to constantly want to downplay or ignore the times US intervention harmed both the US and the country it invades, its why the endless wars have become unpopular.

Just because you want to be a part of a new Athenian Empire, doesn't mean the majority of Americans do as well.

 

[nvflash]

We should defend our allies when they show the initiative to defend themselves AND they are in the right.

Let's say France sinks a Chinese ship for no good reason and China retaliates. I don't think that binds us into war with China.

The Afghan government and security force just ran away without any real fight in them to defend Afghanistan , I'm not sending my sons' and daughters' to die in their place.

 

[Grand Mal]

We should defend our alias when they show the initiative to defend themselves AND they are in the right.

Let's say France sinks a Chinese ship for no good reason and China retaliates. I don't think that binds us into war with China.

The Afghan government and security force just ran away without any real fight in them to defend Afghanistan , I'm not sending my sons' and daughters' to die in their place.

Nice-sounding words but America doesn't go to the aid of allies. America's allies stepped up when America was attacked though.

 

[Mycroft]

Then why didn't he end them? He had 4 years.

He ended one, reduced another and was working on a third. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[Questerr]

Lol Biden wouldn’t send helicopters for Americans trapped in Kabul, he’s not ordering nukes on China. Get real

Why didn’t Trump nuke China for their bioweapon attack? Was he too weak?

 

[Yes_Minister]

He ended one, reduced another and was working on a third. Isn't that a good thing?

You guys are complaining about Biden pulling the troops and the fallout it caused, but Trump could have pulled 2 years and the results would have been similar. You want an end to endless wars, that is the price we are going to end up paying.

And Trump increased the drone war:

Redirect Notice

Does that make Trump solely responsible for the wars? No, these are structural problems, casting either Biden or Trump as some super villain who ruined these wars is reductive. One President is not responsible for the endless wars, all of them since Bush are to some degree. Bush started the wars and Obama kept them going, it's not just a question of blaming either Trump or Biden. I think Trump is an opportunitist who wanted to end the Afghanistan war, but wanted someone else to be blamed for the fallout, but that is hardly the worst thing associated with these wars.

 

[Mycroft]

You guys are complaining about Biden pulling the troops and the fallout it caused, but Trump could have pulled 2 years and the results would have been similar. You want an end to endless wars, that is the price we are going to end up paying.

And Trump increased the drone war:

Redirect Notice

Does that make Trump solely responsible for the wars? No, these are structural problems, casting either Biden or Trump as some super villain who ruined these wars is reductive. One President is not responsible for the endless wars, all of them since Bush are to some degree. Bush started the wars and Obama kept them going, it's not just a question of blaming either Trump or Biden. I think Trump is an opportunitist who wanted to end the Afghanistan war, but wanted someone else to be blamed for the fallout, but that is hardly the worst thing associated with these wars.

I don't know what to tell you. You have some kind of issues...and I cannot help you with it.

 

[Tigerace117]

Tigerace117:

I was wrong about Taiwan. In the last 25 years they have made good progress regarding democracy. However you might read the following article which explains how many powerful Taiwanese interests want closer ties with the PRC/Mainland China and ultimately reunification. The crackdown on Hong Kong has caused some pause but Taiwanese in numerous polls place economic prosperity above democracy as the central political issue of Taiwanese politics. So they might just reunite despite American posturing..

Taiwan's democracy and the China challenge | Brookings

Executive Summary Taiwan has gotten high marks when it comes to holding clean elections and protecting political rights. The public strongly supports democracy in principle and by and large approves the island’s system in practice. When it comes to performance, however, the political system does...

www.brookings.edu

But S. Korea is still a democracy in name only. It is an oligarchy strongly influenced by powerful economic interests (Chæbols) allied to the state agencies and civil service and willing to overthrow governments which have been democratically elected over and over again. When it was discovered that the South Korean security services interfered seriously with an election on behalf of the winning party several years ago, nothing substantive was done about it.

The popularity of the Afghan Invasion was understandable, given the events of 9/11 but had the 9/11 Commisdion report's redacted sections involving Saudi Arabian complicity in the attacks been made public in 2002 that support would have dried up very quickly. As it was, the public soured on Afghanistan about 2005 and was thus firmly against the war for more than 15 years. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was sold to the American public using lies and thus the public quickly turned against the war when the lies were exposed by the press/media. The cost to the American Government of the Iraq Invasion and on/off occupation of the country dwarfed the expense of the Afghan War to American tax-payers and the public purse.

Your cavalier disregard for fiscal restraint is well noted. To militarists, war is a sacred rite upon which no price-tag, no matter how high, can be placed. Too bad you're not so keen on that principle when it comes to education, medical care and public infrastructure. You're first alliance should be with your fellow Americans, not with corrupt elites in foreign countries who ignore the needs of their own people and then bolt with embezzled public monies when the going gets tough.

So, again, choose better allies, avoid aligning with factions in internecine civil wars and develop better soft power tools rather than relying on the mailed-fist of militarism, a strategy which has been proven again and again to not work for the US Government.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

And that would be their last mistake given Xi Jinping’s ever increasingly crackdowns at every level of Chinese society. Furthermore, given the fact that Hong Kong has shown the CPC’s promises to be utterly worthless, the conclusion that they would happily return to the control of yet another brutal dictatorship is, again, a rather shaky one.

Again, the idea that “South Korea is a democracy in name only” coming from sources which declare America is likewise a “democracy in name only” isn’t much of an assertion.....and furthermore even if it WAS true, the current South Korean government is still exponentially better than the North Korean regime, and South Koreans have no desire to be ruled by the Kim family cult.

The idea that the public was “firmly against hunting down Bin Laden and the Taliban” is nonsensical. No amount of screeching “but Saudi Arabia” changes the fact that the Taliban aided and sheltered Bin Laden and were complicit in his attack on the United States. The idea that the public was “forced” into Iraq or Afghanistan simply has no truth to it. The fickleness(and stupidity) of the American public means that your premise holds no water. Of COURSE they would get bored the minute it stopped being an easy walkover.

Considering your glee at the thought of abandoning a democracy to a genocidal dictatorship, I don’t particularly care about your faux moral posturing either. The worst thing for isolationists like you would be if the US spent more on education, of course, because education shows rather clearly why isolationism flat out doesn’t work. My “first alliance” is not to people who have shown over and over again that they are dumb enough to think they can bury their hands in the sand and the rest of the world will leave them alone, or that it’s no big deal what happens in the rest of the world because it’s “only foreigners” it’s happening to.

So again, there is zero reason to abandon either Taiwan or South Korea simply because you are upset the US won’t let Xi Jinping “clean up the map”.

 

[Tigerace117]

The coup did not help, but I didn't claim it was the sole cause.

You seem to constantly want to downplay or ignore the times US intervention harmed both the US and the country it invades, its why the endless wars have become unpopular.

Just because you want to be a part of a new Athenian Empire, doesn't mean the majority of Americans do as well.

“Endless wars” have become unpopular because it’s a buzzphrase that resonates with the folks dumb enough to think isolationism works.

It’s not my fault you are upset I pointed out the fact that burying your head in the sand doesn’t work.

The majority of Americans who think like you don’t much care what happens to Canadians any more than they do what happens to Iraqis or Afghans.

 

[Yes_Minister]

“Endless wars” have become unpopular because it’s a buzzphrase that resonates with the folks dumb enough to think isolationism works.

It’s not my fault you are upset I pointed out the fact that burying your head in the sand doesn’t work.

The majority of Americans who think like you don’t much care what happens to Canadians any more than they do what happens to Iraqis or Afghans.

So there is no middle ground between the status quo and total isolation?

And Canada is fine, the US will likely protect us whether we want or not due to being on the border with the US and the US is the only country that could easily invade the US.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Bullshit.
The average American rightist thinks America is a hopelessly corrupt failure of a country. I don't.
Want examples? Here's one...

"FB paid 300 million dollars to have ballot boxes in primarily Democrat strongholds. No monitors, no cameras. Easy to take sack fulls of ballots and dump them in those boxes."

"I am just a reporter here who found a story. I am not holding my breath that the FBI or DOJ will do a thing because they are Marxist Obama/Jokers Wife lovers who are experts at burying the truth and witnesses."

That's a poster here who identifies as conservative. What's that guy's opinion of America?
Maybe I should open a thread in the basement for dumping examples of rightists badmouthing America.

Deflection. You know what you said.

 

[Grand Mal]

Deflection. You know what you said.

I do. And I know you didn't refute it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I do. And I know you didn't refute it.

Emotional horseshit doesn't need to be refuted.

 

[SkyChief]

The Founders believed that isolationism is the best policy. I'm inclined to agree with them.

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

 

[Grand Mal]

Emotional horseshit doesn't need to be refuted.

This is what you objected too...

You don't have allies. Not coming from your direction. NATO responded after 9/11 but you never came to the defense of anyone. Hell, America only declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on you and by then several of your 'allies' had been at war for three years. Might have been nice if the US had banned trade with Nazi Germany but that's a lot to ask of an ally, I guess.

Go ahead, refute it.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Founders believed that isolationism is the best policy. I'm inclined to agree with them.

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

The world has changed a bit since then. Isolationism in a global economy is definitely a bad policy.

 

[Tigerace117]

The Founders believed that isolationism is the best policy. I'm inclined to agree with them.

"Let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce." - Thomas Jefferson

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington

The Founders lived in a world where it took months to across the Atlantic.

Now it takes less than twelve hours.

Isolationism doesn’t work. It didn’t even work a century ago, much less today.

 

[Bodi]

You don't have allies. Not coming from your direction. NATO responded after 9/11 but you never came to the defense of anyone. Hell, America only declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on you and by then several of your 'allies' had been at war for three years. Might have been nice if the US had banned trade with Nazi Germany but that's a lot to ask of an ally, I guess.

The USA has Allies when it needs them... but after abandoning perhaps 200,000 Afghan Allies to the Taliban... who the hell would ever trust America again?

 

[Bodi]

No you won’t because no such evidence exists.

Seriously during the first 150 years of America’s existence we went to war with France, Britain, Spain, Mexico, and countless Native American nations. We established a ****ing empire during that time.

That’s not isolationist by any stretch of the imagination. You should just admit you were wrong rather than destroying your credibility by doubling down on this obvious falsehood.

I am not sure that you understand the concept of what being Isolationist means...

 

[Questerr]

I am not sure that you understand the concept of what being Isolationist means...

Non-involvement in foreign affairs.

Fighting wars to expand your territory, including the acquisition of a colonial empire, is not isolationism.

 

[Bodi]

Non-involvement in foreign affairs.

Fighting wars to expand your territory, including the acquisition of a colonial empire, is not isolationism.

Not really... it is staying out of the interest or affairs of other countries. That means involving yourself in the political affairs of others in order to assist them... like NATO, WWII... etc. If it concerns your own country then it is still an isolationist policy. Fighting the wars you listed, due to the interests of your nation, does not mean it is not isolationist.

 

[Questerr]

Not really... it is staying out of the interest or affairs of other countries. That means involving yourself in the political affairs of others in order to assist them... like NATO, WWII... etc. If it concerns your own country then it is still an isolationist policy. Fighting the wars you listed, due to the interests of your nation, does not mean it is not isolationist.

So it was isolationist when the US intervened in the border dispute between the Republic of Texas and Mexico or when it intervened in Spanish Cuba over the treatment of its people?