3 ms·

Not just the middle east, but the world over. We can't have normal relations with Cuba because they're repressive, yet we'll sell weapons to Vietnam? Politician

Not just the middle east, but the world over. We can't have normal relations with Cuba because they're repressive, yet we'll sell weapons to Vietnam? Politicians get maligned for simply meeting with Bashar al-Assad, but selling weapons to Saudi Arabia gets met with a shrug? The political establishment in the U.S., usually backed by the media, pushes a nonsensical foreign policy that's often against U.S. interests. Turning Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states runs contrary to just about any goal you can imagine for the U.S., but the political and media establishment decided to go at it full bore for whatever reason.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
I think you missed my point, which was that the wars in the Middle East failed because we didn't have clear political objectives. That's not true in the other examples you listed, we have pretty clear goals as it relates to the Saudis and Cubans. With respect to Libya and Syria we're more sideline players but the goals are still fairly clear. If you try and apply a consistent morality onto geopolitics you're going to see everyone is hypocritical. But geopolitics is not a debate between philosophers on morality and political theory. It's applied game theory closer to what Sun Tzu wrote than Hobbes or Locke.
pjc50 7y ago
The US can't have normal relations with Cuba because the families of those who fled are swing voters in Florida. Whereas nobody cares about Vietnam and they're now a fairly normal far east state (effectively one-party, but so is Singapore) and communist in name only like China. > Turning Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states runs contrary to just about any goal you can imagine for the U.S All of them had publicly defied the US at some point. It's the insult that matters to the establishment.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  How much profit did some major USA companies make out of Iraq? Are you sure it's "for honor"?
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I think if you say "often against the non-ruling population of USA's interests", then you might find a reason why the elite still sell arms to both sides.
nradov 7y ago
Vietnam is now seen as an essential military ally to encircle and contain China.

unlinked_dll 7y ago

I think you missed my point, which was that the wars in the Middle East failed because we didn't have clear political objectives. That's not true in the other examples you listed, we have pretty clear goals as it relates to the Saudis and Cubans. With respect to Libya and Syria we're more sideline players but the goals are still fairly clear. If you try and apply a consistent morality onto geopolitics you're going to see everyone is hypocritical. But geopolitics is not a debate between philosophers on morality and political theory. It's applied game theory closer to what Sun Tzu wrote than Hobbes or Locke.

pjc50 7y ago

The US can't have normal relations with Cuba because the families of those who fled are swing voters in Florida. Whereas nobody cares about Vietnam and they're now a fairly normal far east state (effectively one-party, but so is Singapore) and communist in name only like China. > Turning Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states runs contrary to just about any goal you can imagine for the U.S All of them had publicly defied the US at some point. It's the insult that matters to the establishment.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
How much profit did some major USA companies make out of Iraq? Are you sure it's "for honor"?

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

I think if you say "often against the non-ruling population of USA's interests", then you might find a reason why the elite still sell arms to both sides.

nradov 7y ago

Vietnam is now seen as an essential military ally to encircle and contain China.