4 ms·
> unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it Yes by militarily involved I do mean having mi
by shri_krishna 3y ago
> unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it
Yes by militarily involved I do mean having military bases as well. "Doesn't cause bad blood" -> you are talking from perspective of a Westerner/American (I am making an assumption here). It benefits US to have a military base but need not necessarily benefit the host country. Almost always there will be a compromise, "a choosing of lesser of two evils" so to speak, when a Nation has to give up sovereign space for a military of another Nation to occupy its lands. It is out of desperation. In some cases it is out of pressure too.
Which is why I consider it "military involvement". There is a stark contrast between having an Embassy in a Country vs a Military Base in a Country. The host country can always call for shutdown of a foreign Embassy and expel Diplomats. These rules are governed by World organizations like the United Nations. However, a Host country cannot expel a military base from its land unless it is written down in the agreement between the two Nations. Even then, the actual ability to shut down an already established military base is significantly costlier on the host nation if it has lesser military strength (which it most certainly has, else why would it want to host another Nation's military in the first place?).
I also include coup-de-tats as there is covert operations which involves using militia or even military of countries where USG wants Government to be toppled. The most recent example is that of Pakistan where there is widespread allegation within the country that USG along with Pakistani military toppled the previous regime. Now whether those allegations are true or not is secondary. The sentiment within the country prevails. So when I said "bad blood" I mean it as a "perception of the people on ground" sort of thing.
> Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Scandinavia, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it), Mongolia, Nepal, all of the former Soviet Union (except stuff like paying to get nuclear waste and weapons properly disposed of, which is even less of "militarily involved" and even less cause for bad blood), big chunks of Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunis (unless you count Operation Torch to free the Vichy France protectorates in favour of Free), South Africa, Rwanda, South Sudan, etc. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch even if I might be mistaken on one or two.
I talked about military involvement. It need not necessarily mean the War was not justified. It could very well be justified and it could be fought on the sides of Allies too. However, when a foreign Nation involves in any War to assist another Nation (especially in civil wars), there will always be bad blood created within the Nation as there is one section of the populace who would be targeted by strikes. You can call them "rebels" but for those "rebels" it is an invasion of their homeland. I am sure if I do further research I'll be able to find US military involvement in every one of these countries that you listed in some form or the other. Of the top of my head, US was involved in the Nepalese Civil War where it supported the Gorkha Empire against the Communist Party of Nepal.
> All that to say, there's no need to exaggerate American warmongering, imperialism and neo-colonialism. It has done insurmountable damage to many counties and resulted in millions if not tens of millions of dead, all for profits of American corporations. Exaggerating it makes it more easily refutable and minimises the suffering caused.
Not exaggerating. "Militarily involved" does not necessarily mean going into a country guns blazing. One can always covertly bring about regime change or tilt an ongoing civil war within another country in one's favour. Almost always creates bad blood among a section of the populace.
- throwaway11204 3y agoHere in Europe we compete over who gets the new US base first. Do you really think we'd rather be under Russian rule and the US had to do anything other than offer us protection that we gladly accepted? We actually fought hard to get the NATO to expand to us in the 90s, against US resistance. Think again. Nobody is occupying us. We asked the US to come help us. We share culture and way of life. There were no changes about anything in our country other than increased security. Occupation looks different - look at Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine to get a feel for it.
- shri_krishna 3y agoYes every relationship has a good point and a bad point. There was a time when Pakistan (my neighbouring country) had the best of relations with US. Lasting almost 5 decades. Even allowed US to setup military base so US could fight it's War on Terror. Now they curse US every other day. It is not a question of whether you are more comfortable living under Russian control or US "partnership". Eventually, in the long run, relationships of this kind sour inevitably. Because there will always be divergence in interests. The moment that happens you will feel "stuck" with someone you don't want anymore but can't do anything about it. Colonization comes in various forms. Setting up military bases is one of them. This bonhomie is good as long as relationship between your country and US is good. What will you do if it turns sour in the future? No one can predict the future. Who would have predicted splitting of Germany? Who would have predicted collapse of Soviet Union? You talk of Europe as if it is one entity "sharing values" with USA. A quick look into European history and you'll see it was always engaged in Wars not just with the entire World but with each other. It's not even 80 years since Nazi Germany came attacking most European countries. Don't forget your history and think everything will be hunky dory going forward. This sort of myopic view is what causes one to become complacent and ultimately end up colonized. If Europe is so United in its values why was there even a Brexit in the first place? If Europe could not keep the Brits within its own fold you are thinking you can keep America permanently within the fold? US is not there to help you out. It's there only for its own interests. It just so happens that at this moment in time your interests align. That's all.
- 3y ago