7 ms·

US was well intentioned in Sudan (this happens sometimes), but it did not work out. Wagner has no morals at all. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/20/sudan-ci

US was well intentioned in Sudan (this happens sometimes), but it did not work out. Wagner has no morals at all. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/20/sudan-civil-war-biden-burhan-hemeti-foreign-policy/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/20/sudan-civil-war-biden-b...

f6v 3y ago
[flagged]
- simonh 3y ago
  After the outcome of the one known encounter between Wagner and US forces, in Syria, I don’t think so.
  - f6v 3y ago
    I choose to think that doesn’t matter. Romans were defeated so many times. What won them the empire was perseverance.
sschueller 3y ago
The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. If those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > if those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t.
  - D_Alex 3y ago
    "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger. And also... “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger Nobody has permanent friends or alliances. The point is we, a maritime power, tend to be mutually supportive in our alliances in a way land powers are not. (We prefer them to have strong economies and militaries, for instance, and are generally okay, if not thrilled, when they compete with us.)
      - nmylc 3y ago
        I would say that Britain (maritime power) has been playing off European continental countries against each other, certainly up to WWI. The U.S. still does this. Now the Eastern European countries are used as a wedge against the Western ones. Pipelines are blown up, which is not supportive.
      - cpursley 3y ago
        The US puts major preconditions on other countries. And are very inconsistent on how they apply/enforce them. Contrast to all the newly formed (and preexisting but growing) non-western alliances and trade agreements.
        cpursley 3y ago
        And the weaponization of the dollar really spooked a whole lotta other countries and just added fuel to the fire of them looking into alternative non-dependent systems (trading in non-usd, swift alternatives, etc). At this rate, we’re going to isolate ourselves (Europe is already feeling significant pain). The West is only around a billion people out of what, 8 billion?
- CrampusDestrus 3y ago
  Most people act in their own interest A nation is comprised and guided by people Thus, unless something extraordinary happens, nations will act in their own interest
- BjoernKW 3y ago
  > The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. No country does. Countries don't have morals, countries have interests. Actions by countries are of course almost always justified based on the former, rather than the latter.
  - RedCondor 3y ago
    This is just the fascist mindset. "Everyone is as depraved as me, so I can and should be infinitely depraved preemptively."
- rayiner 3y ago
  > The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. That's a common belief, especially among people outside the U.S. But I think it's totally wrong. I don't think you can look at the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, our our support in Ukraine, and say that's serving America's interests. George W. Bush and Hilary Clinton exemplify a bipartisan coalition, cut from the same cloth, that believes in liberal democracy and individualistic human rights as a religion, and who think America is justified in using war to promote that religion around the world.
  - dmreedy 3y ago
    A "bipartisan coalition cut from the same cloth" does not sound very "bi", nor very "partisan" to me, beyond the absolute barest colloquial use of the term to describe the fact that there are two choices of the flag you can raise in order to functionally participate. What you are describing to me sounds a lot more like a single powerbase with a few disagreements of narcissism amongst its participants, with a dramatic hegemonic control over the broader citizenship. The self interests of this neoliberal consensus include empire-building, and have since the cold war that spawned and shaped it. A program to spread that hegemony broader and broader to preserve the flow of resources into the imperial center. I'm trying not to assign morality here per se; just give I think a better model with, I think, more explanatory power.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      I disagree with your characterization because I don't think it's accurate. I come from a country where the government has "hegemonic control over the broader citizenship." That's not what's happening in America. It's much more akin to different infighting sects of the same evangelical religion. I also disagree that your model has "more explanatory power." We spent $6 trillion going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we certainly didn't get $6 trillion in oil. We opened up trade with China, gave them our technology, and put them on a path to leapfrogging ahead of us. Your theory is that America is an empire trying to direct "the flow of resources into the imperial center"--but if that's the case then our imperial leaders are extremely incompetent. What happened in Iraq and China makes much more sense under my model. It was an attempt at converting those countries into our religion of liberal democracy, human rights, and capitalism.
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
US was supposedly well intentioned in a lot of countries that are now in chaos. Good luck finding a conflict where the US wasn't poking around before it started.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > good luck finding a conflict where the US wasn't poking around before it started The Cold War saw the U.S. and USSR take geopolitical positions with global remit. There is no conflict where either “wasn’t poking around before it started” because there was no place either wasn’t. In some cases, e.g. the banana republics, we can clearly trace causation to one party. Sudan is more complicated: there is a mix of foreign interests, some American-aligned, some not.
  - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
    Thats too easy, also after 2000's its the case: iraq, syria, ukraine just mention a few
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      My entire point was America pokes around. You’re mentioning more cases. Yes. We do that. Sometimes, mostly around WWII, we did it well. Since Vietnam, the record has been crap. (Question mark for the first Gulf War.) Ukraine and Taiwan look more like the work our Greatest Generation did than the Boomer years. The conflicts we hear the least about tend to be those we were least involved in. Myanmar. Tigray. Whatever the fuck South Africa is currently up to.
      - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
        Come on, too easy. Too many lives have been lost to just step over it with a shoulder shrug.
      - timellis-smith 3y ago
        As far as I know, South Africa hasn't been involved in anything since Angola. The current military probably couldn't find enough working vehicles to even get to a conflict let alone fight one.
jpm_sd 3y ago
US-led economic sanctions have made a bad situation much worse, as outlined in the original article. In fact they mostly don't work at all. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/04/11/1169072190/why-sanctions-dont-work-but-could-if-done-right https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/04/11/1169072190/why...
postsantum 3y ago
An entire book was written on "US was well intentioned" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hell_of_Good_Intentions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hell_of_Good_Intentions
nixass 3y ago
Where Wagner operate things are about to go genocidal soon
- simonh 3y ago
  It's already happened without them, but yes, their involvement doesn't bode well.

f6v 3y ago

[flagged]

simonh 3y ago
After the outcome of the one known encounter between Wagner and US forces, in Syria, I don’t think so.
- f6v 3y ago
  I choose to think that doesn’t matter. Romans were defeated so many times. What won them the empire was perseverance.

sschueller 3y ago

The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. If those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> if those interests align with what is moral it's just convenient and an easy way for the US to get other to go along with what they are doing Sure. But the American strategy relies on building alliances. That naturally aligns us to others in a way a more-domineering imperial approach doesn’t.
- D_Alex 3y ago
  "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger. And also... “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" - Henry Kissinger Nobody has permanent friends or alliances. The point is we, a maritime power, tend to be mutually supportive in our alliances in a way land powers are not. (We prefer them to have strong economies and militaries, for instance, and are generally okay, if not thrilled, when they compete with us.)
    - nmylc 3y ago
      I would say that Britain (maritime power) has been playing off European continental countries against each other, certainly up to WWI. The U.S. still does this. Now the Eastern European countries are used as a wedge against the Western ones. Pipelines are blown up, which is not supportive.
    - cpursley 3y ago
      The US puts major preconditions on other countries. And are very inconsistent on how they apply/enforce them. Contrast to all the newly formed (and preexisting but growing) non-western alliances and trade agreements.
      - cpursley 3y ago
        And the weaponization of the dollar really spooked a whole lotta other countries and just added fuel to the fire of them looking into alternative non-dependent systems (trading in non-usd, swift alternatives, etc). At this rate, we’re going to isolate ourselves (Europe is already feeling significant pain). The West is only around a billion people out of what, 8 billion?
CrampusDestrus 3y ago
Most people act in their own interest A nation is comprised and guided by people Thus, unless something extraordinary happens, nations will act in their own interest
BjoernKW 3y ago
> The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. No country does. Countries don't have morals, countries have interests. Actions by countries are of course almost always justified based on the former, rather than the latter.
- RedCondor 3y ago
  This is just the fascist mindset. "Everyone is as depraved as me, so I can and should be infinitely depraved preemptively."
rayiner 3y ago
> The United States does not do anything other than what serves it's own interests. That's a common belief, especially among people outside the U.S. But I think it's totally wrong. I don't think you can look at the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, our our support in Ukraine, and say that's serving America's interests. George W. Bush and Hilary Clinton exemplify a bipartisan coalition, cut from the same cloth, that believes in liberal democracy and individualistic human rights as a religion, and who think America is justified in using war to promote that religion around the world.
- dmreedy 3y ago
  A "bipartisan coalition cut from the same cloth" does not sound very "bi", nor very "partisan" to me, beyond the absolute barest colloquial use of the term to describe the fact that there are two choices of the flag you can raise in order to functionally participate. What you are describing to me sounds a lot more like a single powerbase with a few disagreements of narcissism amongst its participants, with a dramatic hegemonic control over the broader citizenship. The self interests of this neoliberal consensus include empire-building, and have since the cold war that spawned and shaped it. A program to spread that hegemony broader and broader to preserve the flow of resources into the imperial center. I'm trying not to assign morality here per se; just give I think a better model with, I think, more explanatory power.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I disagree with your characterization because I don't think it's accurate. I come from a country where the government has "hegemonic control over the broader citizenship." That's not what's happening in America. It's much more akin to different infighting sects of the same evangelical religion. I also disagree that your model has "more explanatory power." We spent $6 trillion going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we certainly didn't get $6 trillion in oil. We opened up trade with China, gave them our technology, and put them on a path to leapfrogging ahead of us. Your theory is that America is an empire trying to direct "the flow of resources into the imperial center"--but if that's the case then our imperial leaders are extremely incompetent. What happened in Iraq and China makes much more sense under my model. It was an attempt at converting those countries into our religion of liberal democracy, human rights, and capitalism.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

US was supposedly well intentioned in a lot of countries that are now in chaos. Good luck finding a conflict where the US wasn't poking around before it started.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> good luck finding a conflict where the US wasn't poking around before it started The Cold War saw the U.S. and USSR take geopolitical positions with global remit. There is no conflict where either “wasn’t poking around before it started” because there was no place either wasn’t. In some cases, e.g. the banana republics, we can clearly trace causation to one party. Sudan is more complicated: there is a mix of foreign interests, some American-aligned, some not.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  Thats too easy, also after 2000's its the case: iraq, syria, ukraine just mention a few
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    My entire point was America pokes around. You’re mentioning more cases. Yes. We do that. Sometimes, mostly around WWII, we did it well. Since Vietnam, the record has been crap. (Question mark for the first Gulf War.) Ukraine and Taiwan look more like the work our Greatest Generation did than the Boomer years. The conflicts we hear the least about tend to be those we were least involved in. Myanmar. Tigray. Whatever the fuck South Africa is currently up to.
    - wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
      Come on, too easy. Too many lives have been lost to just step over it with a shoulder shrug.
    - timellis-smith 3y ago
      As far as I know, South Africa hasn't been involved in anything since Angola. The current military probably couldn't find enough working vehicles to even get to a conflict let alone fight one.

jpm_sd 3y ago

US-led economic sanctions have made a bad situation much worse, as outlined in the original article. In fact they mostly don't work at all. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/04/11/1169072190/why-sanctions-dont-work-but-could-if-done-right https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2023/04/11/1169072190/why...

postsantum 3y ago

An entire book was written on "US was well intentioned" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hell_of_Good_Intentions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hell_of_Good_Intentions

nixass 3y ago

Where Wagner operate things are about to go genocidal soon

simonh 3y ago
It's already happened without them, but yes, their involvement doesn't bode well.