3 ms·

Vietnam was originally a US funded French effort to retake its former colony, Iraq & Afghanistan rebalanced Middle Eastern power to secure an unthreatened flow

Vietnam was originally a US funded French effort to retake its former colony, Iraq & Afghanistan rebalanced Middle Eastern power to secure an unthreatened flow of oil to Europe and Asia (even in the early 2000s, it was the EU almost wholly dependent on ME oil, not the US). And then obviously as a result of acting as a third party security guarantor deterring internal conflict, the EU exists.

pasabagi 6y ago
>rebalanced Middle Eastern power This is totally absurd. Do you seriously see Iraq or Afghanistan as balanced? Or are you using 'rebalancing' in the same way I could use 'rebalancing' to describe flipping a table? The second sentence is also ridiculous. The EU stops the EU from having internal conflicts. That's the original purpose of the union. I don't know what the US has to do with it.
- readarticle 6y ago
  Balance of power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(internationa... The Treaty of Rome was signed in the late 1950s. It, and the subsequent steps to today’s EU are products of Europe’s own internal balance being suspended by the presence of something roughly US shaped [0]. That statement isn’t particularly controversial without delving into some heady revisionism as far as I’m aware. The EU certainly wasn’t developed in a vacuum, and US involvement in the region—especially re: security—was substantial to say the least. [0] obviously there’s no formal role for the US in the EU, assuming a greater context.
  - pasabagi 6y ago
    I think in the immediate post-war era, the US was obviously the guarantor of european peace. That's very different to saying the EU exists because of the US. That's also very different to your claim that interventions in the ME were to protect European interests. Using your logic, you could say that Britain exists because of the US, because without US support, they would probably[1] have been invaded by the Germans. [1]: Not very probably, but the chances of the USSR rolling over Europe were always a bit slim too.
    - readarticle 6y ago
      The primary threat to European peace isn’t external. The EU was wholly created and developed during a suspension of internal politics, conflict, and balancing due to the distorting weight of a third party ensuring order, e.g. German reunification is opposed by Britain, France, and Poland without the presence and backing of the US rendering their oppo essentially useless. Repeat for N issues. Britain’s current state wasn’t conceived and started because England, Scotland and Wales’ historically conflicting interests were rendered meaningless in the face of an ostensibly neutral third party keeping the peace allowing them to develop ever closer ties, England just conquered the rest a long time ago. For reference, the last time Europe tried to collectively balance itself internally before conflicting interests inevitably metastasized into alliance formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe And forgive me but once again, I just cannot overstate how important suspending internal conflict was vs keeping the USSR at bay, or going further back, keeping the Nazis out of Britain.
      - pasabagi 6y ago
        Is this a common view of european history amongst Americans? To me, it seems very idiosyncratic and strange. Here's some doubts off the top of my head: 1. Has the peace in europe been unusually long-lasting? 2. Are internal politics actually suspended? Russia, and by extension the USSR, was a traditional player in European conflicts. 3. Is there a fundamental difference between the soviet bloc / nato 'grand alliances' and the earlier ones? 4. What practical role did the US play in, for instance, German unification? I thought that was basically the German's own thing, with nobody else having a relevant opinion. I'd see the recent cooperation between EU states as a result of the collapse of their empires. No empires means no squabbling over colonial territory, a loss of military power and prestige, and the end of an easy way of translating military power into economic success. Usually, external powers cause instability, much as the US and the USSR did throughout the cold war in the third world. Also, what internal conflict was possible to help the Nazis invade britain? Everywhere else in western europe was already conquered by the time such an invasion was in the works.
        6y ago
arrosenberg 6y ago
Iraq was about securing the US Dollar as the reserve currency for trading oil, not about securing supply to Western Europe. Saddam was threatening to start trading in Euros - he wasn't threatening to cut them off.
- readarticle 6y ago
  “Unthreatened” by regional conflict that spirals into affecting regional output more than anything explicit like turning off the taps. And I’m sorry, but I personally still can’t/won’t do petrodollar discussions on the internet. It’s a perfectly valid reason for US involvement here, but I have been deeply scarred when it comes to good faith on this subject.

pasabagi 6y ago

>rebalanced Middle Eastern power This is totally absurd. Do you seriously see Iraq or Afghanistan as balanced? Or are you using 'rebalancing' in the same way I could use 'rebalancing' to describe flipping a table? The second sentence is also ridiculous. The EU stops the EU from having internal conflicts. That's the original purpose of the union. I don't know what the US has to do with it.

readarticle 6y ago
Balance of power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(internationa... The Treaty of Rome was signed in the late 1950s. It, and the subsequent steps to today’s EU are products of Europe’s own internal balance being suspended by the presence of something roughly US shaped [0]. That statement isn’t particularly controversial without delving into some heady revisionism as far as I’m aware. The EU certainly wasn’t developed in a vacuum, and US involvement in the region—especially re: security—was substantial to say the least. [0] obviously there’s no formal role for the US in the EU, assuming a greater context.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  I think in the immediate post-war era, the US was obviously the guarantor of european peace. That's very different to saying the EU exists because of the US. That's also very different to your claim that interventions in the ME were to protect European interests. Using your logic, you could say that Britain exists because of the US, because without US support, they would probably[1] have been invaded by the Germans. [1]: Not very probably, but the chances of the USSR rolling over Europe were always a bit slim too.
  - readarticle 6y ago
    The primary threat to European peace isn’t external. The EU was wholly created and developed during a suspension of internal politics, conflict, and balancing due to the distorting weight of a third party ensuring order, e.g. German reunification is opposed by Britain, France, and Poland without the presence and backing of the US rendering their oppo essentially useless. Repeat for N issues. Britain’s current state wasn’t conceived and started because England, Scotland and Wales’ historically conflicting interests were rendered meaningless in the face of an ostensibly neutral third party keeping the peace allowing them to develop ever closer ties, England just conquered the rest a long time ago. For reference, the last time Europe tried to collectively balance itself internally before conflicting interests inevitably metastasized into alliance formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe And forgive me but once again, I just cannot overstate how important suspending internal conflict was vs keeping the USSR at bay, or going further back, keeping the Nazis out of Britain.
    - pasabagi 6y ago
      Is this a common view of european history amongst Americans? To me, it seems very idiosyncratic and strange. Here's some doubts off the top of my head: 1. Has the peace in europe been unusually long-lasting? 2. Are internal politics actually suspended? Russia, and by extension the USSR, was a traditional player in European conflicts. 3. Is there a fundamental difference between the soviet bloc / nato 'grand alliances' and the earlier ones? 4. What practical role did the US play in, for instance, German unification? I thought that was basically the German's own thing, with nobody else having a relevant opinion. I'd see the recent cooperation between EU states as a result of the collapse of their empires. No empires means no squabbling over colonial territory, a loss of military power and prestige, and the end of an easy way of translating military power into economic success. Usually, external powers cause instability, much as the US and the USSR did throughout the cold war in the third world. Also, what internal conflict was possible to help the Nazis invade britain? Everywhere else in western europe was already conquered by the time such an invasion was in the works.
      - 6y ago

arrosenberg 6y ago

Iraq was about securing the US Dollar as the reserve currency for trading oil, not about securing supply to Western Europe. Saddam was threatening to start trading in Euros - he wasn't threatening to cut them off.

readarticle 6y ago
“Unthreatened” by regional conflict that spirals into affecting regional output more than anything explicit like turning off the taps. And I’m sorry, but I personally still can’t/won’t do petrodollar discussions on the internet. It’s a perfectly valid reason for US involvement here, but I have been deeply scarred when it comes to good faith on this subject.