3 ms·

Yes, stability would be good for them and everybody. War and fighting is not good for business in general. The instability we see is definitely not a function

by nickik 10y ago

Yes, stability would be good for them and everybody. War and fighting is not good for business in general. The instability we see is definitely not a function of design. If you have studied any of it you will quickly realise that this is situation that has many actors that act based on their own interest and absolutely nobody has control over it. Those that attempt to control it usually end up creating a hole host of unintended consequences even if they sometimes manage to achieve their main goal. Its however true, that in some limited cases, creating more chaos can potentially help you. Such cases definitely exist but they are not the majority of strategies used. Syria releasing of Jihadist to split the rebels is a interesting example of such a strategy. It usually is a strategy of the weak, not the strong. The strong prefer control, not chaos. The idea that it would be best to throw everything in chaos is completely wrong and even the leaders of the super powers understand that. Only if you assume that their is some sinister conspiracy that has completely different values thats operating under our institutions, could such a policy be explained. I see 0 evidence for such a conspiracy.

k__ 10y ago
But if they throw people into war, they have control. I mean, yes these people are now uncontrollable, but they also in a state of chaos that prevents them from getting so advanced that they would be a real problem for first world countries on a global scale.
- hx87 10y ago
  You don't need to be that "advanced" to cause real trouble to other countries around the world, and strong countries generally have more stake in the international and are less likely to rock the boat, which in turn favors other strong, status quo powers. From the US point of view, Putin isn't a friendly guy, but today's Russia is far better for the US than a weak, divided one full of Russian Orthodox extremist groups bent on exporting the traditionalist revolution across the world. Likewise, it's not like even the strongest possible Syria would pose a "real problem" for the likes of US, Russia, the EU or China.
- nickik 10y ago
  I don't understand why you don't want them to get advanced (or think US leaders). Economics is not a zero sum game. More developed states are good for us. If these states start to increase their oil production, its good for us. Also I don't know what advanced threads you think they could become? Other then becoming nuclear powers, they can not pose such a thread. Non of the countries that the US attacked is anywhere close to that level. The only country that is, Iran, was not attacked by the US and are voluntary not building a nuke. Also the chaos the created is totally against their interest, now china is a major player in Iraqi oil. Russia and Iran are drawing together more over the Syria issue. They are running into a huge conflict of interest regarding the Turks and the Kurds. That's just the beginning this strategic disaster. Its far easier to deal with stable regimes and when you want to take one down, you should always have a successor in mind. You can go threw history and look at all the great conqueror in history, they are always trying to set up puppet regimes that they control, and not throw everything into chaos.

by nickik 10y ago

k__ 10y ago

But if they throw people into war, they have control. I mean, yes these people are now uncontrollable, but they also in a state of chaos that prevents them from getting so advanced that they would be a real problem for first world countries on a global scale.

hx87 10y ago
You don't need to be that "advanced" to cause real trouble to other countries around the world, and strong countries generally have more stake in the international and are less likely to rock the boat, which in turn favors other strong, status quo powers. From the US point of view, Putin isn't a friendly guy, but today's Russia is far better for the US than a weak, divided one full of Russian Orthodox extremist groups bent on exporting the traditionalist revolution across the world. Likewise, it's not like even the strongest possible Syria would pose a "real problem" for the likes of US, Russia, the EU or China.
nickik 10y ago
I don't understand why you don't want them to get advanced (or think US leaders). Economics is not a zero sum game. More developed states are good for us. If these states start to increase their oil production, its good for us. Also I don't know what advanced threads you think they could become? Other then becoming nuclear powers, they can not pose such a thread. Non of the countries that the US attacked is anywhere close to that level. The only country that is, Iran, was not attacked by the US and are voluntary not building a nuke. Also the chaos the created is totally against their interest, now china is a major player in Iraqi oil. Russia and Iran are drawing together more over the Syria issue. They are running into a huge conflict of interest regarding the Turks and the Kurds. That's just the beginning this strategic disaster. Its far easier to deal with stable regimes and when you want to take one down, you should always have a successor in mind. You can go threw history and look at all the great conqueror in history, they are always trying to set up puppet regimes that they control, and not throw everything into chaos.