4 ms·

I don't know, ask all the Arab Spring countries. In the history of regime changes by the West and by West i mean US, it has never really worked out. In fact, it

I don't know, ask all the Arab Spring countries. In the history of regime changes by the West and by West i mean US, it has never really worked out. In fact, it always destabilises the countries. Not supporting the current regime, just saying history has proven West supported coups don't work.

baybal2 6y ago
> I don't know, ask all the Arab Spring countries. > Not supporting the current regime, just saying history has proven West supported coups don't work. I see you omit the fact that regimes felled by Arab Spring were all darlings of the West, with exceptions of Libya, and Syria. It's true however that Western policy making in regards to the "our bastards'" is a tragicomedic history of failure, after failure.
ipaddr 6y ago
History has proven west supported coups mostly work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... From Costa Rica to South Korea to Japan to modern Iraq to Egypt in 1952 to Lebanon etc.. Iran didn't work out. Some of the central American operation didn't work out. Cuba didn't. But things are not static either. Things have a habit of working out given a longer timescale.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Libya didn't work out. And if the West had succeeded in Syria, the groups that would have taken control would have been much worse than Assad (though there's the ever so tiny chance that there could have been an independent Kurdistan, so that would have been a silver lining I guess?)
  - ipaddr 6y ago
    Look at the list I provided. There are dozens and dozens of successful cases and a handful of failed ones. The failed ones are recent which means the outcome has the potential to change in time. Would an 80% success rate over the last hundred years change your perspective?
    - FpUser 6y ago
      >"Would an 80% success rate over the last hundred years change your perspective?" People who live in those places rightfully do not give a flying fuck about westerner's perspective. They care about being killed, maimed, displaced, robbed of the source of income etc. etc. I can only imagine what would happen if you stood in front of them and tried to explain your stats.
  - worik 6y ago
    I do not think the point was that the successful Western backed coups produced a good, better, or desirable result. Additionally I am not convinced that a independent Kurdistan would be a good idea. I know Abdullah Öcalan has come under the influence of Murray Bookchin, and has had some very progressive ideas about how the politics of the Middle East should be structured. But in the event of the establishment of Kurdistan there is no good reason to believe it would be any less of a dictatorship than Iran, Turkey, or Dog help us, Syria.
- rurban 6y ago
  "Mostly" is arguably a loaded term. It might have worked for the US, but certainly not for the native people. Let's start with Italian fascism and Mussolini, financed by the US. Worked ok, everybody was happy. Next Hitler financed by the US. Worked ok, everybody was happy. Until their partners started to threaten Singapore and those pesty sunken ships. US and Britain suddenly not so happy anymore. Let's turn it around. Next, coups in Turkey, Greece, ... and massive interventions in Italy and France. Military fascist dictatorships were of course great for their countries, and their people, esp. the workers. Or East Asia. Japan's and Korea as prime examples but also most others, such as Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Kambodia. Turned out extremely well for Indonesia and Kambodia, lots of dead socialists. Japan still ruled Korea via proxy military dictatorship, but everybody loved the new fascist systems in Korea and other proxies. A few thousand protesters were killed in massacres, but workers protests need to be fought hard, right? Socialism. Latin America also loved their US coups and military dictatorships. The few socialists were tortured or flown out to the sea, and business could flourish. Happy times. Certainly the best system in the world. Freedom.

baybal2 6y ago

> I don't know, ask all the Arab Spring countries. > Not supporting the current regime, just saying history has proven West supported coups don't work. I see you omit the fact that regimes felled by Arab Spring were all darlings of the West, with exceptions of Libya, and Syria. It's true however that Western policy making in regards to the "our bastards'" is a tragicomedic history of failure, after failure.

ipaddr 6y ago

History has proven west supported coups mostly work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... From Costa Rica to South Korea to Japan to modern Iraq to Egypt in 1952 to Lebanon etc.. Iran didn't work out. Some of the central American operation didn't work out. Cuba didn't. But things are not static either. Things have a habit of working out given a longer timescale.

HideousKojima 6y ago
Libya didn't work out. And if the West had succeeded in Syria, the groups that would have taken control would have been much worse than Assad (though there's the ever so tiny chance that there could have been an independent Kurdistan, so that would have been a silver lining I guess?)
- ipaddr 6y ago
  Look at the list I provided. There are dozens and dozens of successful cases and a handful of failed ones. The failed ones are recent which means the outcome has the potential to change in time. Would an 80% success rate over the last hundred years change your perspective?
  - FpUser 6y ago
    >"Would an 80% success rate over the last hundred years change your perspective?" People who live in those places rightfully do not give a flying fuck about westerner's perspective. They care about being killed, maimed, displaced, robbed of the source of income etc. etc. I can only imagine what would happen if you stood in front of them and tried to explain your stats.
- worik 6y ago
  I do not think the point was that the successful Western backed coups produced a good, better, or desirable result. Additionally I am not convinced that a independent Kurdistan would be a good idea. I know Abdullah Öcalan has come under the influence of Murray Bookchin, and has had some very progressive ideas about how the politics of the Middle East should be structured. But in the event of the establishment of Kurdistan there is no good reason to believe it would be any less of a dictatorship than Iran, Turkey, or Dog help us, Syria.
rurban 6y ago
"Mostly" is arguably a loaded term. It might have worked for the US, but certainly not for the native people. Let's start with Italian fascism and Mussolini, financed by the US. Worked ok, everybody was happy. Next Hitler financed by the US. Worked ok, everybody was happy. Until their partners started to threaten Singapore and those pesty sunken ships. US and Britain suddenly not so happy anymore. Let's turn it around. Next, coups in Turkey, Greece, ... and massive interventions in Italy and France. Military fascist dictatorships were of course great for their countries, and their people, esp. the workers. Or East Asia. Japan's and Korea as prime examples but also most others, such as Indonesia, Thailand, Laos, Kambodia. Turned out extremely well for Indonesia and Kambodia, lots of dead socialists. Japan still ruled Korea via proxy military dictatorship, but everybody loved the new fascist systems in Korea and other proxies. A few thousand protesters were killed in massacres, but workers protests need to be fought hard, right? Socialism. Latin America also loved their US coups and military dictatorships. The few socialists were tortured or flown out to the sea, and business could flourish. Happy times. Certainly the best system in the world. Freedom.