|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2016 18:58:32 GMT
‘Isolationism’ is quite an annoying term. I mean, we’re talking about basic peaceability and imperial restraint, not going off to live on the moon. I wasn't talking about going off to live on the moon, I was simply saying that America unilaterally retreating (even only militarily) from the rest of the world would have disastrous consequences for the smaller countries. As for the geopolitical contest with Russia, this is the subtext to an awful lot of recent history. A strong transatlantic relationship makes perfect sense, and I didn’t suggest otherwise. But one needn’t have romantic delusions about Putin’s Russia to recognise the fact that it is America that has been doing the provocation. Russia has been behind several provocations as well. Just not as transparently.It is not Russia that has been violating previous commitments to maintain its military alliances at a certain scale. Those commitments were with the USSR, which is technically a different country. Also, surely sovereign nations like Poland and the Baltic States have every right to align themselves with NATO should they wish. Your argument amounts to saying that Russia should have a veto on the foreign policy of these states. It is not Russia that has been establishing new military bases closer and closer to US soil. It doesn't need to. It has loyal allies in Cuba and Venezuela. It has not been threatening US allies in the Middle East with ‘regime change’. It doesn't need to: it's doing an excellent job as it is trying to bring it about across Europe through the ballot box. Also, America would never have gotten involved if said dictators had not crushed the popular protests with such indiscriminate force. (Iraq and Afghanistan were exceptions, I know and they were misguided, but it is still valid everywhere else.)It has not been funding colour-coded revolutions around America’s border. Again, this implies that the grievances of Georgians and Ukrainians were largely illegitimate, and were inflated by the Americans for propaganda value. Also, what about Crimea? The Donbass? Transnistria? Abkhazia? South Ossetia? Its diplomats do not boast of the billions they have spent bringing Mexico or Canada into the Russian sphere of influence (while also self-serving, the Kremlin’s restrictions on foreign NGOs need to be understood in this context). The only differences are a) their interest is in Europe, not Canada and Mexico and b) they are far more secretive about it than the Americans are. Certainly, any American who wishes for ‘regime change’ to be brought to Russia really needs to be kept as far away from the levers of power as possible. Christ protect us from these lunatics… Certainly, I would strongly oppose any attempt to do so by force, but would support doing so by peaceful means. If that makes me a lunatic, so be it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 21:23:39 GMT
I don't believe Libya and Syria were justified at all. In fact, the entire concept of the "Arab Spring" was a farce. The Western forces didn't learn their lesson from earlier, which is that going in and over-throwing a dictator, without realistically thinking through what comes next, is stupid. As I said in the other thread before, the people of that part of the world have a different culture, and therefore different mindset, and not taking this into account was naive at best. I have no doubt there are people in Libya and Syria who would support genuine democracy, but why the denial (by Western leaders) that there would be people who simply saw the previous leader's fall as their chance to move up the hierarchy? Libya is still divided from what I understand, and understandably many leaders seem happier to forget about it.
For all their faults, the ruthless regimes of dictators kept Islamists in line. I would also think it goes outside of that, as from what I understand Syria and Libya have tribal elements to them. It's not something anyone has to be happy about, but it's something that should be appreciated nonetheless. If anyone sought to make change, this should have been taken into account first. I find it hard to believe this is information that somehow slipped passed the mind's of Western leaders.
Also, the whole concept of justified intervention in the Middle East is a slippery slope. If intervention in these countries was justified, it could easily be argued that Iran and Saudi Arabia are fair game. Somehow I don't think anyone will be too keen on those countries though. In fact, the concept of outside intervention is a questionable one in general. The question is, whether before or after the fact, could/can Libya and Syria realistically be seen as Just Wars? It doesn't seem so.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2016 21:52:02 GMT
I don't believe Libya and Syria were justified at all. In fact, the entire concept of the "Arab Spring" was a farce. The Western forces didn't learn their lesson from earlier, which is that going in and over-throwing a dictator, without realistically thinking through what comes next, is stupid. As I said in the other thread before, the people of that part of the world have a different culture, and therefore different mindset, and not taking this into account was naive at best. I have no doubt there are people in Libya and Syria who would support genuine democracy, but why the denial (by Western leaders) that there would be people who simply saw the previous leader's fall as their chance to move up the hierarchy? Libya is still divided from what I understand, and understandably many leaders seem happier to forget about it. For all their faults, the ruthless regimes of dictators kept Islamists in line. I would also think it goes outside of that, as from what I understand Syria and Libya have tribal elements to them. It's not something anyone has to be happy about, but it's something that should be appreciated nonetheless. If anyone sought to make change, this should have been taken into account first. I find it hard to believe this is information that somehow slipped passed the mind's of Western leaders. Also, the whole concept of justified intervention in the Middle East is a slippery slope. If intervention in these countries was justified, it could easily be argued that Iran and Saudi Arabia are fair game. Somehow I don't think anyone will be too keen on those countries though. In fact, the concept of outside intervention is a questionable one in general. The question is, whether before or after the fact, could/can Libya and Syria realistically be seen as Just Wars? It doesn't seem so. Antaine, I accept that the American interventions in the companies you have mentioned could and should have been better handled: for example, I would argue that the savage and summary execution of Gaddafi, as opposed to taking him to the Hague and imprisoning him there, should not have happened. Still, I remember at the time being shocked at the government's brutal crackdown on the rebels and wondering what it would take for the US to intervene and end that madness. The problem with stepping back is that it could lead to a repeat of the events in Rwanda, which I think partly motivates the more active foreign policy of the US. As for Libya and Syria, if there are irreconcilable differences, perhaps it is better that they are partitioned (with checks to keep IS-like groups from attaining power) rather than having the people suffer under an oppressive autocrat for the sake of unity. Perhaps that was something people on both sides needed to take into account. I think that something similar will need to happen in Syria once ISIS are taken care of, with a Russian-backed Alawite state in the west, a pro-US Kurdish state and a neutral state covering the rest of Syria. As for Iran and SA, I would certainly advocate giving (non-military) aid to the regime's opponents, and I do think that the US need to make it crystal clear to the Saudis that the future of their alliance must be contingent on the latter ending their promotion of Wahhabism. In fact, I believe that many of our problems are at least in part due to Obama's seeming inability, for all his rhetoric and bluster, to stand up to Putin, the Chinese, the Saudis and the Iranians when the cards are down. George W. Bush's administration was flawed in many ways, but he was certainly more competent in foreign policy than Obama seems to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 22:04:19 GMT
Fair points all around Young Ireland.
Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that because dictators can create unity and put the weight on extremists that they should be seen as default rule. Merely I was pointing out that the West seemed to see these dictators as simply holding back democracy, while really the leaders should have had a peek through the keyhole to see what else was behind the gates, before opening them.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2016 22:12:39 GMT
Fair points all around Young Ireland. Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that because dictators can create unity and put the weight on extremists that they should be seen as default rule. Merely I was pointing out that the West seemed to see these dictators as simply holding back democracy, while really the leaders should have had a peek through the keyhole to see what else was behind the gates, before opening them. Don't worry Antaine, I wasn't suggesting that you held that view. All I was saying is that if a dictator was the only way to keep that country united, then perhaps the country should not be governed as a single entity at all (within reason: I do accept that if there is too much fragmentation, then extremists can take advantage of any potential power vacuum very quickly).
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 20, 2016 21:23:23 GMT
I just thought that I'd revive this thread to note that there seems to be a growing sense in certain sections of the US Catholic blogosphere that WWIII and possibly nuclear war is imminent. Examples include that blogpost Annie linked to a short time back about Fatima, as well as the Vortex here: www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-interesting-timesI think that nuclear war is a possibility, but it is not inevitable. The latter im my humble opinion would require that Clinton win in America (Trump would most likely disengage from foreign politics if elected) and Le Pen wins in France (thus placing American influence in Europe under direct threat and sandwiching most of Europe between Russia and a closely allied France) In such a scenario, Clinton may feel the need to act aggressively or risk losing face in America and on the world stage. However, Alan Juppe is the favourite to become president in France, and is firmly pro-Western. If both he and Clinton win, then Russia's aggression will probably be checked (part of the problem now is that none of the current world leaders, Theresa May excluded, have shown any real backbone in standing up to Putin, which only emboldens him further) and perhaps even pushed back. Though if Trump and Juppe win, Russia might intensify the current information war, but will probably stop short of invasion as NATO, even without the US will still have an advantage. The worst case for the West would be if Trump and Le Pen win their respective elections. In that case, Europe will probably be carved up between French and Russian spheres of influence with the tacit acceptance of the Americans. It would also probably lead to a more multipolar world order dominated by several regional powers, whilst liberal democracy will most likely retreat to the Anglosphere, which could form one block (the others IMHO being Western Europe (led by France and possibly Germany), Eurasia (Russia), China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The Middle East would be in the spheres of Egypt(Sunni) or Iran (Shia), with Israel probably remaining as is. That's what I think, it might be rubbish, but I just thought I'd put it out there.
|
|