4 ms·

I believe the status quo is more wild and more inhumane. I'm not proposing another Vietnam or Iraq. I'm proposing a modern solution to an old problem, involvin

I believe the status quo is more wild and more inhumane. I'm not proposing another Vietnam or Iraq. I'm proposing a modern solution to an old problem, involving 100000x less death.

esseph 1y ago
That goes both ways, and means you're asking for other countries to do the same here. You don't want that.
- energy123 1y ago
  Liberal norms are an iterative game. We can't play that game unilaterally. It is a bilateral game. Dictators don't respect your attempts to play this game with them. If you try to play this game with them, they will use your attempts as a weapon against you. For example, the liberal pursuit to get Ukraine to surrender its nuclear weapons. Or the liberal pursuit behind UNSC Resolution 1701, where Hezbollah pinkie promised not to keep its arms. These people don't think like you do. They see your restraint as a weakness to exploit, not as a quality to reciprocate. This is why I advocate only for selective bilateral liberalism as a foreign policy. Play the liberalism game with parties who want to play that game. Respect the sovereignty of democracies. Get that iterative game running. But for dictators, at least those without a nuclear deterrent who follow a policy of cruelty, show them overwhelming power, and kill them in targeted strikes whenever the opportunity presents itself.
  - Starman_Jones 1y ago
    "Overwhelming force" was how the Bush administration pitched Iraq. Your theory is solid, except for the fact that it doesn't work.
    - energy123 1y ago
      It didn't work in the early 2000s. But why would you use past capabilities to reason about current capabilities? The world changed, and our reasoning needs to be updated accordingly. It took 3 years and a ground invasion to find Saddam. What I am proposing is to locate Maduro and send a JDAM to him. A more relevant case study is the war between Israel and Hezbollah, where targeting senior leadership worked. Israel killed two successive leaders until they found someone willing to sign a surrender in all but name, and ceased the rocket attacks. This would not have been possible in the early 2000s.
      - Starman_Jones 1y ago
        Yes, targeting senior leadership was exactly what the Bush administration attempted in Iraq. And they were hugely successful at it! The problem was never that the firepower was underwhelming...
ethersteeds 1y ago
Worth noting: the people pushing for wars in Vietnam or Iraq weren't proposing what they became, either. It always sounds simple, surgical, net-positive. And yet we're always willing to believe this time will be different.
UncleMeat 1y ago
"Surely if we simply assassinate the leader of a sovereign nation it will not possibly become a nightmare boondoggle. It definitely would not further destabilize the country."

I believe the status quo is more wild and more inhumane. I'm not proposing another Vietnam or Iraq. I'm proposing a modern solution to an old problem, involving 100000x less death.

esseph 1y ago

That goes both ways, and means you're asking for other countries to do the same here. You don't want that.

energy123 1y ago
Liberal norms are an iterative game. We can't play that game unilaterally. It is a bilateral game. Dictators don't respect your attempts to play this game with them. If you try to play this game with them, they will use your attempts as a weapon against you. For example, the liberal pursuit to get Ukraine to surrender its nuclear weapons. Or the liberal pursuit behind UNSC Resolution 1701, where Hezbollah pinkie promised not to keep its arms. These people don't think like you do. They see your restraint as a weakness to exploit, not as a quality to reciprocate. This is why I advocate only for selective bilateral liberalism as a foreign policy. Play the liberalism game with parties who want to play that game. Respect the sovereignty of democracies. Get that iterative game running. But for dictators, at least those without a nuclear deterrent who follow a policy of cruelty, show them overwhelming power, and kill them in targeted strikes whenever the opportunity presents itself.
- Starman_Jones 1y ago
  "Overwhelming force" was how the Bush administration pitched Iraq. Your theory is solid, except for the fact that it doesn't work.
  - energy123 1y ago
    It didn't work in the early 2000s. But why would you use past capabilities to reason about current capabilities? The world changed, and our reasoning needs to be updated accordingly. It took 3 years and a ground invasion to find Saddam. What I am proposing is to locate Maduro and send a JDAM to him. A more relevant case study is the war between Israel and Hezbollah, where targeting senior leadership worked. Israel killed two successive leaders until they found someone willing to sign a surrender in all but name, and ceased the rocket attacks. This would not have been possible in the early 2000s.
    - Starman_Jones 1y ago
      Yes, targeting senior leadership was exactly what the Bush administration attempted in Iraq. And they were hugely successful at it! The problem was never that the firepower was underwhelming...

ethersteeds 1y ago

Worth noting: the people pushing for wars in Vietnam or Iraq weren't proposing what they became, either. It always sounds simple, surgical, net-positive. And yet we're always willing to believe this time will be different.

UncleMeat 1y ago

"Surely if we simply assassinate the leader of a sovereign nation it will not possibly become a nightmare boondoggle. It definitely would not further destabilize the country."