3 ms·

Given the choice between a government that poses no threat to it but is illiberal and any possibility of a liberal government the US always opts to harm the ill

Given the choice between a government that poses no threat to it but is illiberal and any possibility of a liberal government the US always opts to harm the illiberal government. Libya complied with all arms control treaties and is buddy buddy with Italy. Doesn’t matter, as soon as someone whispers democracy the US does their level best to fan the flames of war. There’s an authoritarian democratically elected government in Ukraine. Let’s support a violent rebellion. This is part of a historical pattern that’s basically unbroken but is aptly represented by the US involvement in the world wars. What business did the premier power in North America, or the Western Hemisphere, have in a European war between empires? What possible benefit would accrue to them from it? Very similar argument for the European theatre in WWII but the Pacific theatre is, if anything, more ridiculous if you don’t start the history of US involvement with Pearl Harbour. The US embargoes the Empire of Japan, banning most importantly the export of oil. They know the Empire of Japan cannot continue its never ending clusterfuck of an attempt to conquer China without oil. This was a calculated attempt to bring the Japanese to heel they had to have known could lead to war. And this was not isolated. The only reason the US military started hostilities against the Empire of Japan after Pearl Harbour rather than before was logistical fuckups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers The US is, in every part of it, hostile to anything that isn’t a democratic republic. This is true even if wide heads within USG know that democracy is bad for US interests. If the Arab Spring had actually succeeded anywhere apart from Tunisia it would have been a car crash for the US. The Arab public is a lot less willing to deal with Israel than the dictatorships, monarchies and juntas that currently surround it, and democracies are very likely to lead to civil war and ethnic cleansing in any country with no tradition of liberal government. See Syria. The US tries to arm the non-existent liberal opposition and all the weapons end up with the people who were Al Qaeda in Syria until yesterday or with those shouting “The Christians to Lebanon. The Alawites to Hell!”

tsimionescu 7y ago
As others have mentioned, this would be true only if by 'liberal' you understand 'in full agreement with US policy'. The most relevant example is actually Iran: the US and UK orchestrated a coup to get rid of the last democratic regime in Iran and reinstall the militaristic, authoritarian Shah. They have done the same or similar in a lot of South America, starting well before the world wars. That is not to say that they are unique in this - it is how all empires operate. My point is only that the US is not some idealistic, freedom, democracy, and everything good loving benefactor of the world. It is an empire, one that is quite good to its own people but that ruthlessly pursuits its rational interests abroad.
entropy_ 7y ago
This particular position baffles me, especially since we're discussing Iran here. Iran had a liberal democratic government and the US toppled it(because they dared try to take control of their own oil reserves) in favor of a military coup and a dictator. That dictatorship then proceeded to radicalize the population through oppression which led to a revolution and the installation of a theocratic anti-US government in one of the worst cases of shooting-your-own-foot US foreign policy in modern history. The reality is: US foreign policy does not care one tiny bit about the liberal/ilieberal or democracy/dictatorship spectrums, it only cares(rightly, some may argue) about its own(mostly economic) self-interests. As pertains to the MENA region, that mostly means it only cares about the economics and politics of the oil business(though there is in an irrational, lobby-driven, tendency to protect Israel in any and all things even when it harms the aformentioned oil intersts). The liberal/illiberal thing is a red herring and mostly about gaining the support of their citizens for whatever thing they want to undertake right now. Do note, I'm not in any way condemning the US for the way they tend to act around the world, they're just looking out for themselves. I'm just saying, it has nothing to do with favoring particular modes of government and to argue otherwise is to cherry-pick maybe 30% of the events the last 60 years and ignore the rest which does not line up with your particular worldview.
- gdy 7y ago
  "Do note, I'm not in any way condemning the US for the way they tend to act around the world, they're just looking out for themselves." So did the Nazi Germany.
  - entropy_ 7y ago
    First, I may or may not have privately held views about the morality(or lack thereof) of US foreign policy post WW2(hint: If you look at my comment history, you can probably figure it out given where I've stated that I live and some oblique comments pertaining to the subject). However, the above comment was specifically meant to not make a statement about the subject so as not to fan the flames any further, but only act as a refutation of the statement it was replying to based on historical facts rather than moral arguments. Second, your statement is patently untrue. The genocides(against the Jewish people and countless others as well) perpetrated en masse by the Nazi state have nothing to do with self-interest or looking out for oneself. So no, this does not apply. If we were talking purely about their expansionist policies and invasions, then you may have had a point, but that's not what people usually mean when they, rightly, hold up the Nazi state as an example of criminally abhorrent and repulsive behavior.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
yongjik 7y ago
> Given the choice between a government that poses no threat to it but is illiberal and any possibility of a liberal government the US always opts to harm the illiberal government. This makes sense only if you define "liberal" as "aligned with the interests of Washington and/or American corporations". For god's sake, USA supported Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurdish civilians during the Iran-Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... > Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.
- chibg10 7y ago
  "Supported" in the sense of "not letting being conquered completely by Iran." Who was carrying out its own mass executions of non-Muslims and implementing its own cultural revolution around that time. America definitely had some self-interest in protecting Iraq, but it's not like the alternative was clearly a better choice either.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    > "Supported" in the sense of "not letting being conquered completely by Iran." Iraq started the war.
    - chibg10 7y ago
      Right, that doesn't mean it went well for them. The US didn't provide significant aid to Iraq until it feared the Hussein government being overrun altogether. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War#Support https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Ir...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
wolco 7y ago
The US record in central/south America or the support for the princes in UAE and Saudi Arabia shows they will choose stability over democracy.

tsimionescu 7y ago

As others have mentioned, this would be true only if by 'liberal' you understand 'in full agreement with US policy'. The most relevant example is actually Iran: the US and UK orchestrated a coup to get rid of the last democratic regime in Iran and reinstall the militaristic, authoritarian Shah. They have done the same or similar in a lot of South America, starting well before the world wars. That is not to say that they are unique in this - it is how all empires operate. My point is only that the US is not some idealistic, freedom, democracy, and everything good loving benefactor of the world. It is an empire, one that is quite good to its own people but that ruthlessly pursuits its rational interests abroad.

entropy_ 7y ago

This particular position baffles me, especially since we're discussing Iran here. Iran had a liberal democratic government and the US toppled it(because they dared try to take control of their own oil reserves) in favor of a military coup and a dictator. That dictatorship then proceeded to radicalize the population through oppression which led to a revolution and the installation of a theocratic anti-US government in one of the worst cases of shooting-your-own-foot US foreign policy in modern history. The reality is: US foreign policy does not care one tiny bit about the liberal/ilieberal or democracy/dictatorship spectrums, it only cares(rightly, some may argue) about its own(mostly economic) self-interests. As pertains to the MENA region, that mostly means it only cares about the economics and politics of the oil business(though there is in an irrational, lobby-driven, tendency to protect Israel in any and all things even when it harms the aformentioned oil intersts). The liberal/illiberal thing is a red herring and mostly about gaining the support of their citizens for whatever thing they want to undertake right now. Do note, I'm not in any way condemning the US for the way they tend to act around the world, they're just looking out for themselves. I'm just saying, it has nothing to do with favoring particular modes of government and to argue otherwise is to cherry-pick maybe 30% of the events the last 60 years and ignore the rest which does not line up with your particular worldview.

gdy 7y ago
"Do note, I'm not in any way condemning the US for the way they tend to act around the world, they're just looking out for themselves." So did the Nazi Germany.
- entropy_ 7y ago
  First, I may or may not have privately held views about the morality(or lack thereof) of US foreign policy post WW2(hint: If you look at my comment history, you can probably figure it out given where I've stated that I live and some oblique comments pertaining to the subject). However, the above comment was specifically meant to not make a statement about the subject so as not to fan the flames any further, but only act as a refutation of the statement it was replying to based on historical facts rather than moral arguments. Second, your statement is patently untrue. The genocides(against the Jewish people and countless others as well) perpetrated en masse by the Nazi state have nothing to do with self-interest or looking out for oneself. So no, this does not apply. If we were talking purely about their expansionist policies and invasions, then you may have had a point, but that's not what people usually mean when they, rightly, hold up the Nazi state as an example of criminally abhorrent and repulsive behavior.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

yongjik 7y ago

> Given the choice between a government that poses no threat to it but is illiberal and any possibility of a liberal government the US always opts to harm the illiberal government. This makes sense only if you define "liberal" as "aligned with the interests of Washington and/or American corporations". For god's sake, USA supported Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurdish civilians during the Iran-Iraq war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... > Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.

chibg10 7y ago
"Supported" in the sense of "not letting being conquered completely by Iran." Who was carrying out its own mass executions of non-Muslims and implementing its own cultural revolution around that time. America definitely had some self-interest in protecting Iraq, but it's not like the alternative was clearly a better choice either.
- yongjik 7y ago
  > "Supported" in the sense of "not letting being conquered completely by Iran." Iraq started the war.
  - chibg10 7y ago
    Right, that doesn't mean it went well for them. The US didn't provide significant aid to Iraq until it feared the Hussein government being overrun altogether. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_War#Support https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Ir...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

wolco 7y ago

The US record in central/south America or the support for the princes in UAE and Saudi Arabia shows they will choose stability over democracy.