4 ms·

It's quite egregious how the US thinks it has the right to force a regime change in any state it chooses, and that "secular" and "democratic" is always the answ

by apta 7y ago

It's quite egregious how the US thinks it has the right to force a regime change in any state it chooses, and that "secular" and "democratic" is always the answer. This is an extremely Western biased, and sorry to say, extremely ignorant way of thinking.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
First of all, I didn't say that the US had the right to force a regime change on anyone it chose. You're reading that into my comment. I only said that, if we wanted to actually change a place like Iraq, we couldn't do it "on the cheap" like we tried to do. Back in World War II, we didn't initiate the "forcing". Once we won, what did you want us to do? Leave Germany and Japan to nurse their grievances, rebuild their militaries, and come back 20 years later for another round? (Note the pattern of Germany between World Wars I and II.) Having won, we (quite rightly in my view) decided that they were going to be transformed. Don't want your society transformed by outsiders by force? Don't start wars with them that you're going to lose in the end. If you want to say that Iraq is a less justified case, I might agree. If you want to say that going to war to remove him was the wrong thing to do, that's a reasonable position. But having removed him, what should we do next? Just help the people set up any semblance of a government, and walk away? It may be that secular can't work in some place like Iraq. That's possible. It may be that democratic can't work, either, not without preparing people for a generation. But what would you shoot for instead? Who should be the non-democratic leader, and why should it be them? And why do you think that way would work better?
- apta 7y ago
  > Don't want your society transformed by outsiders by force? Don't start wars with them that you're going to lose in the end. Iraq was invaded by the US and its allies, especially in 2003, under the guise of baseless WMD. Yet, the political leaders in the US and its allies never faced any ramifications for their actions, that directly resulted in the deaths and mutilations of hundreds of thousands of people over time. But hey, they're just "brown people", so who cares, right? > not without preparing people for a generation "Preparing" meaning brainwashing, correct? Again, what gives the US the right to "prepare" people of other states and countries, especially since we see the failures of US-style "democracy" and "secularism". Face the facts, people in the Middle East are generally conservative and religious, and they don't see Western style democracy or secularism as a solution, particularly when many aspects of those directly contradict their religion and culture. Furthermore, we saw what happens when the local population elects someone not in line with US's interests (see Morsi, etc.). The US is now forced to declare peace with the Taliban, after all it's put Afghanistan and its people through. Countless lives and trillions of dollars later, and it's back to where things started (almost).
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I'll say this again, since you seem to have ignored it the first time: I'm not defending the invasion of Iraq. So you can stop saying "But Iraq!" as if that somehow refutes my position. It doesn't. (Neither does "But Afghanistan!") > "Preparing" meaning brainwashing, correct? Well, take Japan. The people there had been brainwashed into a cult of the emperor and militarism. So the choice is, leave them brainwashed into something that sees no problem with trying to kill massive numbers of foreigners, or brainwash them into something else. Again, what gives us the right to choose to do so? That they attacked us, and that we won.

by apta 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

First of all, I didn't say that the US had the right to force a regime change on anyone it chose. You're reading that into my comment. I only said that, if we wanted to actually change a place like Iraq, we couldn't do it "on the cheap" like we tried to do. Back in World War II, we didn't initiate the "forcing". Once we won, what did you want us to do? Leave Germany and Japan to nurse their grievances, rebuild their militaries, and come back 20 years later for another round? (Note the pattern of Germany between World Wars I and II.) Having won, we (quite rightly in my view) decided that they were going to be transformed. Don't want your society transformed by outsiders by force? Don't start wars with them that you're going to lose in the end. If you want to say that Iraq is a less justified case, I might agree. If you want to say that going to war to remove him was the wrong thing to do, that's a reasonable position. But having removed him, what should we do next? Just help the people set up any semblance of a government, and walk away? It may be that secular can't work in some place like Iraq. That's possible. It may be that democratic can't work, either, not without preparing people for a generation. But what would you shoot for instead? Who should be the non-democratic leader, and why should it be them? And why do you think that way would work better?

apta 7y ago
> Don't want your society transformed by outsiders by force? Don't start wars with them that you're going to lose in the end. Iraq was invaded by the US and its allies, especially in 2003, under the guise of baseless WMD. Yet, the political leaders in the US and its allies never faced any ramifications for their actions, that directly resulted in the deaths and mutilations of hundreds of thousands of people over time. But hey, they're just "brown people", so who cares, right? > not without preparing people for a generation "Preparing" meaning brainwashing, correct? Again, what gives the US the right to "prepare" people of other states and countries, especially since we see the failures of US-style "democracy" and "secularism". Face the facts, people in the Middle East are generally conservative and religious, and they don't see Western style democracy or secularism as a solution, particularly when many aspects of those directly contradict their religion and culture. Furthermore, we saw what happens when the local population elects someone not in line with US's interests (see Morsi, etc.). The US is now forced to declare peace with the Taliban, after all it's put Afghanistan and its people through. Countless lives and trillions of dollars later, and it's back to where things started (almost).
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I'll say this again, since you seem to have ignored it the first time: I'm not defending the invasion of Iraq. So you can stop saying "But Iraq!" as if that somehow refutes my position. It doesn't. (Neither does "But Afghanistan!") > "Preparing" meaning brainwashing, correct? Well, take Japan. The people there had been brainwashed into a cult of the emperor and militarism. So the choice is, leave them brainwashed into something that sees no problem with trying to kill massive numbers of foreigners, or brainwash them into something else. Again, what gives us the right to choose to do so? That they attacked us, and that we won.