3 ms·

Of course that’s absolutely what would happen, like Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama. On reflection regime change hasn’t been successful wi

Of course that’s absolutely what would happen, like Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama. On reflection regime change hasn’t been successful without significant troops on the ground

theandrewbailey 8y ago
Depends on what significant means. Recently, regime change hasn't been successful even with 100,000 troops on the ground.
adventured 8y ago
Regime change often isn't necessary for the US to accomplish its goals. In this thread premise, Syria would be regarded as a success, because there's nothing left of the country. They no longer pose a threat to Israel and they're a small fraction of the military power they used to be (a net drag on Russia rather than a benefit). It'll take them decades to rebuild. The average income in Cuba is $20 per month. Without regime change they were heavily neutralized as an influence in Latin America. Cuba's military could hardly be less of a concern. Once Raul Castro is gone, that's the formal end. Venezuela is a failed state. The Bolivarian Revolution is over there. There won't be another Chavez any time soon. And if there is, there are no resources to be used to fund such a regime's agenda. The US didn't have to do anything in that case, Venezuela destroyed itself through typical Statist mismanagement. Ironically Chavez will have ended up helping to benefit the US considerably, by destroying what should have been one of the world's largest oil producers. It removed vast potential supply from the global oil market for decades, helping to an extent to make way for the US boom, keeping prices high enough to spur on the Permian shale build-out. If Venezuela were producing like it should be, that'd be ~4m more barrels per day the US producers would have to contend with on the global market, dragging on prices. Instead the US has a solid runway from here to 16m barrels per day of production in the coming decade. The US is now a big oil competitor with Iran. So keeping them boxed in - no regime change needed - is a large win economically. The US can pretend it's for all sorts of reasons, while actually serving the purpose of furthering US oil production and exports. The US is 'convincing' South Korea to abandon Iranian oil right now, in favor of US oil. All the US has to do is keep Iran boxed in for two decades until oil demand begins to contract, then it's over (two decades merely being the time from here to 9/11). Iran's theocratic system will collapse in on itself as oil demand fades, they don't have enough of an alternative economy.
- petre 8y ago
  That's why I'm happy about the US being an oil producer: less arab/persian oil money to sponsor terrorism. Syria is also screwed. Too bad they scewed Gaddafi, a hopeless romantic who wasn't sponsoring terrorism when the US made everybody think he was, but it was in fact Hafez al-Assad who did.
  - zaphirplane 8y ago
    No idea where you’d get that from. I am sure when the US and UK are building a coalition to invade and remove Assad a lot of things will turn up, nuclear programs, chemical weapons, training camps, cocaine, ivory trade. Lots and lots of stories will be made up. No need to get the ball rolling
- stunt 8y ago
  Yes! But millions are suffering as a result in these countries. And apart from that, the EU is also in trouble with the immigration crisis. I don't call it a success.

theandrewbailey 8y ago

Depends on what significant means. Recently, regime change hasn't been successful even with 100,000 troops on the ground.

adventured 8y ago

Regime change often isn't necessary for the US to accomplish its goals. In this thread premise, Syria would be regarded as a success, because there's nothing left of the country. They no longer pose a threat to Israel and they're a small fraction of the military power they used to be (a net drag on Russia rather than a benefit). It'll take them decades to rebuild. The average income in Cuba is $20 per month. Without regime change they were heavily neutralized as an influence in Latin America. Cuba's military could hardly be less of a concern. Once Raul Castro is gone, that's the formal end. Venezuela is a failed state. The Bolivarian Revolution is over there. There won't be another Chavez any time soon. And if there is, there are no resources to be used to fund such a regime's agenda. The US didn't have to do anything in that case, Venezuela destroyed itself through typical Statist mismanagement. Ironically Chavez will have ended up helping to benefit the US considerably, by destroying what should have been one of the world's largest oil producers. It removed vast potential supply from the global oil market for decades, helping to an extent to make way for the US boom, keeping prices high enough to spur on the Permian shale build-out. If Venezuela were producing like it should be, that'd be ~4m more barrels per day the US producers would have to contend with on the global market, dragging on prices. Instead the US has a solid runway from here to 16m barrels per day of production in the coming decade. The US is now a big oil competitor with Iran. So keeping them boxed in - no regime change needed - is a large win economically. The US can pretend it's for all sorts of reasons, while actually serving the purpose of furthering US oil production and exports. The US is 'convincing' South Korea to abandon Iranian oil right now, in favor of US oil. All the US has to do is keep Iran boxed in for two decades until oil demand begins to contract, then it's over (two decades merely being the time from here to 9/11). Iran's theocratic system will collapse in on itself as oil demand fades, they don't have enough of an alternative economy.

petre 8y ago
That's why I'm happy about the US being an oil producer: less arab/persian oil money to sponsor terrorism. Syria is also screwed. Too bad they scewed Gaddafi, a hopeless romantic who wasn't sponsoring terrorism when the US made everybody think he was, but it was in fact Hafez al-Assad who did.
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  No idea where you’d get that from. I am sure when the US and UK are building a coalition to invade and remove Assad a lot of things will turn up, nuclear programs, chemical weapons, training camps, cocaine, ivory trade. Lots and lots of stories will be made up. No need to get the ball rolling
stunt 8y ago
Yes! But millions are suffering as a result in these countries. And apart from that, the EU is also in trouble with the immigration crisis. I don't call it a success.