6 ms·

Well mission accomplished .. I guess. A great documentary if you haven't seen it is "Iraq: No End in Sight." It's pretty clear that the completely failed (non-e

Well mission accomplished .. I guess. A great documentary if you haven't seen it is "Iraq: No End in Sight." It's pretty clear that the completely failed (non-existent) reconstruction efforts of the Bush administration would lead eventually to a failed state. The same thing is happening in Libya after the Obama era bombings. These places weren't democratic paradises before or anything; I'm not saying that. They had corruption and human rights issues -- but they were stable. People who didn't protest against the government and weren't in poverty could usually live in relative peace. You can say the same thing about China to some extent as well.

quaquaqua1 7y ago
All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if I must, and let the warheads rust in peace.
- jacobush 7y ago
  But the US civilian administrator firing all of the Iraqi military was just stupid. Or sadistic.
- elboru 7y ago
  I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?
  - quaquaqua1 7y ago
    I'm sure we could make the argument that "if the US doesn't invade x country then China/Russia will". But for me, I just focus on the outcomes, not the motives. If Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton and Raydeon shareholders are making 100k or 1m or more, and hundreds of thousands of civilians are dying, those are two cold hard facts that can't be ignored. Either the ends justify the means or they don't, in the eyes of the beholder.
  - alchemism 7y ago
    A still-relevant classic analysis of US military-commercial ventures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      One of the most distinguished veterans of the Marine Corps, and simultaneously one of the only Marine generals to NEVER feature on the Commandant's Reading List. I love posing that question to junior Marines as introspective food for thought.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - noelsusman 7y ago
    It's not remotely that simple.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  I think it's more complicated that naked corporate interest pushing for conflict. There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. (I'm absolutely NOT saying that makes it "okay") I think the disaster-capitalism aspect of things is just an unfortunate byproduct.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. These are access to resources in event of war, and control of trade routes. Such a war would only benefit corporate interests, the people stand little to gain. And control of trade routes is only useful for war and corporate interests.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Resources, and therefore trade of those resources, are necessary for the country to function. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum separate from other considerations. They don't, for example, care about oil in and of itself. Yes, they make money on it, but only because petroleum and it's byproducts are a necessary feedstock at all levels of the global economy. Reducing complex issues of geo politics and economics to "corporate greed" is overly reductive. Demand for their products is what gives rise to them in the first place. I'm not saying corporations don't influence things, but they cannot be isolated and analyzed separate from the system in which they operate. Google wouldn't have much influence on foreign policy in the middle east. Oil companies have influence there precisely because there are factors outside of their corporate greed that makes them relevant. Things just aren't as simple as "because money".
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >Resources, and therefore trade of those resources, are necessary for the country to function. Then they should pay a fair price for those resources. Any use of force in this matter is unnecessary, and can be effectively boiled down to corporate greed outweighing human empathy.
- cpp4life 7y ago
  It's also shocking to see the EU tout mass migration from Syria as a solution to the demographic problem of dropping birth rates. There's a perverse incentive here that's scary. The same is true with the US, ignoring the political angle, it's not motivated to help stabilize countries that are sources of mass migration.
byw 7y ago
I'd say China is probably closer to Taiwan or South Korea, who followed a similar development model.
mullingitover 7y ago
My operating theory of foreign policy toward the countries of the former Ottoman Empire is that the US/EU do everything they can to keep it from re-forming. The peoples of these countries have far more in common than they have in difference, and if they pooled their oil money and weren't busy fighting each other they'd dominate the rest of the world.
- gataca 7y ago
  Highly unlikely. Look at the bloodletting in Syria or Lebanon for lessons in how much the former Ottoman subjects like each other
- jacobush 7y ago
  They do have more in common. There's a quote out there with the gist, that to really hate someone, you need to know them. Just look at the break up of Yugoslavia. Former Ottoman, very similar cultures and peoples and even very mixed and integrated peoples. Yet utter mayhem.

quaquaqua1 7y ago

All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if I must, and let the warheads rust in peace.

jacobush 7y ago
But the US civilian administrator firing all of the Iraqi military was just stupid. Or sadistic.
elboru 7y ago
I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  I'm sure we could make the argument that "if the US doesn't invade x country then China/Russia will". But for me, I just focus on the outcomes, not the motives. If Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton and Raydeon shareholders are making 100k or 1m or more, and hundreds of thousands of civilians are dying, those are two cold hard facts that can't be ignored. Either the ends justify the means or they don't, in the eyes of the beholder.
- alchemism 7y ago
  A still-relevant classic analysis of US military-commercial ventures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    One of the most distinguished veterans of the Marine Corps, and simultaneously one of the only Marine generals to NEVER feature on the Commandant's Reading List. I love posing that question to junior Marines as introspective food for thought.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- noelsusman 7y ago
  It's not remotely that simple.
ineedasername 7y ago
I think it's more complicated that naked corporate interest pushing for conflict. There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. (I'm absolutely NOT saying that makes it "okay") I think the disaster-capitalism aspect of things is just an unfortunate byproduct.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. These are access to resources in event of war, and control of trade routes. Such a war would only benefit corporate interests, the people stand little to gain. And control of trade routes is only useful for war and corporate interests.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Resources, and therefore trade of those resources, are necessary for the country to function. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum separate from other considerations. They don't, for example, care about oil in and of itself. Yes, they make money on it, but only because petroleum and it's byproducts are a necessary feedstock at all levels of the global economy. Reducing complex issues of geo politics and economics to "corporate greed" is overly reductive. Demand for their products is what gives rise to them in the first place. I'm not saying corporations don't influence things, but they cannot be isolated and analyzed separate from the system in which they operate. Google wouldn't have much influence on foreign policy in the middle east. Oil companies have influence there precisely because there are factors outside of their corporate greed that makes them relevant. Things just aren't as simple as "because money".
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      >Resources, and therefore trade of those resources, are necessary for the country to function. Then they should pay a fair price for those resources. Any use of force in this matter is unnecessary, and can be effectively boiled down to corporate greed outweighing human empathy.
cpp4life 7y ago
It's also shocking to see the EU tout mass migration from Syria as a solution to the demographic problem of dropping birth rates. There's a perverse incentive here that's scary. The same is true with the US, ignoring the political angle, it's not motivated to help stabilize countries that are sources of mass migration.

byw 7y ago

I'd say China is probably closer to Taiwan or South Korea, who followed a similar development model.

mullingitover 7y ago

My operating theory of foreign policy toward the countries of the former Ottoman Empire is that the US/EU do everything they can to keep it from re-forming. The peoples of these countries have far more in common than they have in difference, and if they pooled their oil money and weren't busy fighting each other they'd dominate the rest of the world.

gataca 7y ago
Highly unlikely. Look at the bloodletting in Syria or Lebanon for lessons in how much the former Ottoman subjects like each other
jacobush 7y ago
They do have more in common. There's a quote out there with the gist, that to really hate someone, you need to know them. Just look at the break up of Yugoslavia. Former Ottoman, very similar cultures and peoples and even very mixed and integrated peoples. Yet utter mayhem.