5 ms·

Why do people continue to believe nonsense like this? The US wants stable governments, not unstable ones.

mushbino 5y ago
The US has historically and currently benefited much more from unstable governments. Why do you think they've invested so much in making governments unstable? Especially if they're "unfriendly" to US business interests
- mlindner 5y ago
  Historically is different than currently. Historically the fight was against the spread of communism and so we propped up dictatorships all over the world that would prevent the spread of communism in their countries (which often backfired). Currently that is no longer the case because communism is basically dead for all intents and purposes.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  That's Russian propaganda. The West/ US interventions were always supported by the population, that's why the amount of casualties from US/West military is so low. In many cases there are barely boots on the ground and the actual work is done by civilians protesting en masse. ( They were already protesting before interventions). It doesn't mean there are no casualties, but that's mostly lowered by the interventions ( by lowering authoritarian military strength)
  - mushbino 5y ago
    This is one of the longer wikipedia articles I've come across. It's hard to imagine the US population had much say in the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
bell-cot 5y ago
You could argue probabilities, causation vs. correlation, etc. - but the data on which countries have had their military trained by the U.S., vs. which countries have had military coups is fairly black-and-white. And the WSJ is not exactly a left-wing peacenic paper, to have knee-jerk or click-bait reasons to oppose U.S. training of foreign militaries. > The US wants stable governments... That line of argument tends to assume that the U.S. is both monolithic, and highly competent in the planning & conduct of its foreign policy. Vs. looking at history...
- needlefish 5y ago
  IMO for many in the US the outcome is a far second to the morality of the intention no matter what the outcome.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    This excuse doesn't hold forever. How many wars must we be lied into, before we start recognizing the lies ahead of time?
n4r9 5y ago
It seems like the US wants weak trading partners with lots of natural resources more than it wants stability. There's a long history of them interfering and shaping regimes in countries where the government was left-wing, anti-US or linked to China/USSR, rich in oil/minerals/crops, or threatening to form a large trading bloc. South America in the early-mid 19th century, the Middle East more recently. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, these are not countries that US intervention has helped to stabilise.
- mlindner 5y ago
  Shaping the politics of other countries with soft power is normal diplomacy. Don't confuse that with pushing for violent overthrow of the governments of other countries.
  - n4r9 5y ago
    > pushing for violent overthrow of the governments of other countries This is a perfect description of US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria over the last 20 years, and many more countries prior to that.
    - mlindner 5y ago
      It's simply laughable that people claim this, especially for Afghanistan which was an outright war after we were attacked.
      - n4r9 5y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... Afghanistan: >In what was known as Operation Cyclone, the U.S. government provided weapons and funding for a collection of warlords and several factions of jihadi guerrillas known as the Afghan mujahideen fighting to overthrow the Afghan government. Iraq: >The CIA launched DBACHILLES, a coup d'état operation against the Iraqi government, recruiting Ayad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord, a network of Iraqis who opposed the Saddam Hussein government, as part of the operation. The network included Iraqi military and intelligence officers but was penetrated by people loyal to the Iraqi government.[349][350][351] Also using Ayad Allawi and his network, the CIA directed a government sabotage and bombing campaign in Baghdad between 1992 and 1995. Libya: >France, the United States and the United Kingdom launched the 2011 military intervention in Libya with Operation Odyssey Dawn, US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[404] the French and British Air Forces[405] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. Syria: >Starting in 2013, the U.S. provided training, weapons and cash to Syrian vetted moderate rebels,[411][412] and in 2014, the Supreme Military Council.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Why do people continue to believe nonsense like this? We've seen it happen a number of times? Graduates of the School of the Americas have committed countless human rights violations throughout and lead numerous military dictatorship throughout the Americas. >The US wants stable governments, not unstable ones. Civilian led governments often aren't stable. They can suddenly vote to not side with the US.
- mlindner 5y ago
  > Civilian led governments often aren't stable. They can suddenly vote to not side with the US. If we actually cared about pro-American governments over democracy then we wouldn't have run democratic elections in Iraq, a government that's now rather anti America.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Despite the Iraqi leader being against the US presence in Iraq, US oil companies are still making huge profits in Iraq and the US military is still in Iraq as an "advisory role" even more powerful than the one mentioned in the article. Plus, I can't imagine it's easy to create a truly pro-US government in Iraq no matter how hard you try.
AndrewVos 5y ago
Because we have seen evidence of it over and over again, maybe?
- mlindner 5y ago
  Before I was born certainly. But it's been 30 years since that's been standard practice of the US.
imtringued 5y ago
If that were the case it wouldn't have even attempted implementing the Bretton Woods system because it is inherently unstable and creates unstable governments. Instead of trying to maximize trade imbalances between countries one should have adopted a system that minimizes trade imbalances between countries. The reason this isn't done is because you would rather be the king of nations over other poor nations than if you were an equal and insignificant country among many.
- mlindner 5y ago
  Don't extrapolate to the past into the future. The soviet union collapsed which was a turning point in US external interference. We were trying to prevent the spread of communism (which would often backfire).
manuelabeledo 5y ago
The US wants friendly governments, and if that’s not possible, unstable ones. There is a plethora of examples mostly in Central and South America, and the Middle East. But the US is not the only one doing this. It’s been common practice for imperialist powers for centuries.
- mlindner 5y ago
  Don't take examples from the cold war era fight against communism as examples that indicate how the US government currently behaves. Also, the US isn't imperialist.
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    > Don't take examples from the cold war era fight against communism as examples that indicate how the US government currently behaves. I don’t need to. There is a literal Wikipedia page summarising most of them [1]. > Also, the US isn't imperialist. This is historically inaccurate, but if so, then countries like Russia aren’t either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
rajup 5y ago
Not very aware of history and current events are you?
- mlindner 5y ago
  I'm quite aware of history, but if you were aware of current events you wouldn't be agreeing with this. This hasn't been the policy of the US since the soviet union fell. It's been over 30 years since this was the policy of the US.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    How do you explain Libya?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

The US has historically and currently benefited much more from unstable governments. Why do you think they've invested so much in making governments unstable? Especially if they're "unfriendly" to US business interests

mlindner 5y ago
Historically is different than currently. Historically the fight was against the spread of communism and so we propped up dictatorships all over the world that would prevent the spread of communism in their countries (which often backfired). Currently that is no longer the case because communism is basically dead for all intents and purposes.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
That's Russian propaganda. The West/ US interventions were always supported by the population, that's why the amount of casualties from US/West military is so low. In many cases there are barely boots on the ground and the actual work is done by civilians protesting en masse. ( They were already protesting before interventions). It doesn't mean there are no casualties, but that's mostly lowered by the interventions ( by lowering authoritarian military strength)
- mushbino 5y ago
  This is one of the longer wikipedia articles I've come across. It's hard to imagine the US population had much say in the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

bell-cot 5y ago

You could argue probabilities, causation vs. correlation, etc. - but the data on which countries have had their military trained by the U.S., vs. which countries have had military coups is fairly black-and-white. And the WSJ is not exactly a left-wing peacenic paper, to have knee-jerk or click-bait reasons to oppose U.S. training of foreign militaries. > The US wants stable governments... That line of argument tends to assume that the U.S. is both monolithic, and highly competent in the planning & conduct of its foreign policy. Vs. looking at history...

needlefish 5y ago
IMO for many in the US the outcome is a far second to the morality of the intention no matter what the outcome.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  This excuse doesn't hold forever. How many wars must we be lied into, before we start recognizing the lies ahead of time?

n4r9 5y ago

It seems like the US wants weak trading partners with lots of natural resources more than it wants stability. There's a long history of them interfering and shaping regimes in countries where the government was left-wing, anti-US or linked to China/USSR, rich in oil/minerals/crops, or threatening to form a large trading bloc. South America in the early-mid 19th century, the Middle East more recently. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, these are not countries that US intervention has helped to stabilise.

mlindner 5y ago
Shaping the politics of other countries with soft power is normal diplomacy. Don't confuse that with pushing for violent overthrow of the governments of other countries.
- n4r9 5y ago
  > pushing for violent overthrow of the governments of other countries This is a perfect description of US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria over the last 20 years, and many more countries prior to that.
  - mlindner 5y ago
    It's simply laughable that people claim this, especially for Afghanistan which was an outright war after we were attacked.
    - n4r9 5y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... Afghanistan: >In what was known as Operation Cyclone, the U.S. government provided weapons and funding for a collection of warlords and several factions of jihadi guerrillas known as the Afghan mujahideen fighting to overthrow the Afghan government. Iraq: >The CIA launched DBACHILLES, a coup d'état operation against the Iraqi government, recruiting Ayad Allawi, who headed the Iraqi National Accord, a network of Iraqis who opposed the Saddam Hussein government, as part of the operation. The network included Iraqi military and intelligence officers but was penetrated by people loyal to the Iraqi government.[349][350][351] Also using Ayad Allawi and his network, the CIA directed a government sabotage and bombing campaign in Baghdad between 1992 and 1995. Libya: >France, the United States and the United Kingdom launched the 2011 military intervention in Libya with Operation Odyssey Dawn, US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[404] the French and British Air Forces[405] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. Syria: >Starting in 2013, the U.S. provided training, weapons and cash to Syrian vetted moderate rebels,[411][412] and in 2014, the Supreme Military Council.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>Why do people continue to believe nonsense like this? We've seen it happen a number of times? Graduates of the School of the Americas have committed countless human rights violations throughout and lead numerous military dictatorship throughout the Americas. >The US wants stable governments, not unstable ones. Civilian led governments often aren't stable. They can suddenly vote to not side with the US.

mlindner 5y ago
> Civilian led governments often aren't stable. They can suddenly vote to not side with the US. If we actually cared about pro-American governments over democracy then we wouldn't have run democratic elections in Iraq, a government that's now rather anti America.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Despite the Iraqi leader being against the US presence in Iraq, US oil companies are still making huge profits in Iraq and the US military is still in Iraq as an "advisory role" even more powerful than the one mentioned in the article. Plus, I can't imagine it's easy to create a truly pro-US government in Iraq no matter how hard you try.

AndrewVos 5y ago

Because we have seen evidence of it over and over again, maybe?

mlindner 5y ago
Before I was born certainly. But it's been 30 years since that's been standard practice of the US.

imtringued 5y ago

If that were the case it wouldn't have even attempted implementing the Bretton Woods system because it is inherently unstable and creates unstable governments. Instead of trying to maximize trade imbalances between countries one should have adopted a system that minimizes trade imbalances between countries. The reason this isn't done is because you would rather be the king of nations over other poor nations than if you were an equal and insignificant country among many.

mlindner 5y ago
Don't extrapolate to the past into the future. The soviet union collapsed which was a turning point in US external interference. We were trying to prevent the spread of communism (which would often backfire).

manuelabeledo 5y ago

The US wants friendly governments, and if that’s not possible, unstable ones. There is a plethora of examples mostly in Central and South America, and the Middle East. But the US is not the only one doing this. It’s been common practice for imperialist powers for centuries.

mlindner 5y ago
Don't take examples from the cold war era fight against communism as examples that indicate how the US government currently behaves. Also, the US isn't imperialist.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > Don't take examples from the cold war era fight against communism as examples that indicate how the US government currently behaves. I don’t need to. There is a literal Wikipedia page summarising most of them [1]. > Also, the US isn't imperialist. This is historically inaccurate, but if so, then countries like Russia aren’t either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

rajup 5y ago

Not very aware of history and current events are you?

mlindner 5y ago
I'm quite aware of history, but if you were aware of current events you wouldn't be agreeing with this. This hasn't been the policy of the US since the soviet union fell. It's been over 30 years since this was the policy of the US.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  How do you explain Libya?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]