4 ms·

Certainly in the short run ...

by chvid 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Short run, mid run, and long run. Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly. That covers short and mid run. Iran is making problems today and receiving international flak only because the US intervened covertly and fucked up. That covers the long term.
- Grue3 7y ago
  >Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly. That's like saying Germany was a broken state after US intervened in WW2. I mean, it was literally broken up, but it didn't have an insane dictator committing mass scale human rights abuses anymore.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    It isn't. WW2 was a world war, and Germany was hell-bent on world domination and genocide. The US and its allies being under direct threat is a different situation than preemptively destroying nations to further US political goals.
- pas 7y ago
  Facts are good. They help to anchor people to the unfortunate reality of how hard it is to help a country (or just anyone in general). However, the simple fact that the US went in guns blazing and left before things got better (because otherwise it would have been too costly) doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention ever and forever.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    The US example doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention, but it does call into question any proposal of US intervention, which is the context here.
    - pas 7y ago
      I read someone mentioning India, others the UK, etc. Not that any makes much sense. It's no wonder such sensitive situations were mishandled. The theoretical magical chain of events that lead to sustained "freedom" was always there, on paper at least, but using the US examples we should conclude that its cost-benefit is waaay way lower than necessary to consider it a useful foreign policy tool. Of course, an avid idealist might argue that this just means the US (or the world, or the West) just needs more experience to be able to better export "freedom"; and of course it is something we should never stop trying. And even today, even after the whole ISIL/ISIS campaign every place is better off now than it was before. (No Saddam, no Gaddafi, etc.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Certainly in the short run ...

by chvid 7y ago

Certainly in the short run ...

Short run, mid run, and long run. Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly. That covers short and mid run. Iran is making problems today and receiving international flak only because the US intervened covertly and fucked up. That covers the long term.

Grue3 7y ago
>Iraq and Libya are broken states right now because the US intervened overtly. That's like saying Germany was a broken state after US intervened in WW2. I mean, it was literally broken up, but it didn't have an insane dictator committing mass scale human rights abuses anymore.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It isn't. WW2 was a world war, and Germany was hell-bent on world domination and genocide. The US and its allies being under direct threat is a different situation than preemptively destroying nations to further US political goals.
pas 7y ago
Facts are good. They help to anchor people to the unfortunate reality of how hard it is to help a country (or just anyone in general). However, the simple fact that the US went in guns blazing and left before things got better (because otherwise it would have been too costly) doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention ever and forever.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  The US example doesn't invalidate all forms of intervention, but it does call into question any proposal of US intervention, which is the context here.
  - pas 7y ago
    I read someone mentioning India, others the UK, etc. Not that any makes much sense. It's no wonder such sensitive situations were mishandled. The theoretical magical chain of events that lead to sustained "freedom" was always there, on paper at least, but using the US examples we should conclude that its cost-benefit is waaay way lower than necessary to consider it a useful foreign policy tool. Of course, an avid idealist might argue that this just means the US (or the world, or the West) just needs more experience to be able to better export "freedom"; and of course it is something we should never stop trying. And even today, even after the whole ISIL/ISIS campaign every place is better off now than it was before. (No Saddam, no Gaddafi, etc.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]