4 ms·

Lots and lots of locals were equally excited, if not more, at the beginning of Arab Spring…

christophilus 9mo ago
Yeah. Exactly. There have been many regime changes in the last few centuries. It’s hard to think of more than a handful that were actually objectively better. It’s even harder to think of any where the US was involved in the overthrow and installation of the replacement, and it went well. The Marshall plan was good. Any others?
- kjkjadksj 9mo ago
  Yugoslavia in the sense that the cultures were at an unlivable state with eachother without significant autonomy. Bad from an economic perspective as the resulting nations are weaker than what a unified yugoslavia would have been today when one looks at gdp projections.
  - torginus 9mo ago
    Are you from the region? Yugoslavia has been a far richer and developed country than any of its successor states for a long time, and I hardly think most locals would see the cost of human lives and untold destruction the war brought to settle some incomprehensible ethnic conflict as a good trade.
    - scns 9mo ago
      > incomprehensible ethnic conflict It's about grudges held since hundreds of years. Blood feuds are still a thing in the region.
littlestymaar 9mo ago
In 1917's Russia too.
- wiseowise 9mo ago
  Well, who could've anticipated red plague to grip a whole country?
- mananaysiempre 9mo ago
  Worth remembering that Russia experienced three revolutions in the beginning of the 20th century: in winter of 1905, turning it into a constitutional monarchy at least de jure; in spring of 1917, turning that into a parliamentary republic; and in autumn of 1917, turning the parts that did not secede into a dictatorship that shortly became embroiled in a civil war. The Bolsheviks later did an impressive job of erasing the memory of the third being essentially a military coup against the second, despite their very name originating in (remarkably petty) name-calling in the parliament.
  - littlestymaar 9mo ago
    By the time the October revolution came, the Provisional Government had lost most of its popular support by choosing to continue WWI though. Anyway, the main point is that as nice as getting rid of a dictator sounds, the consequences can be much worse than the dictatorship itself, at least in the short term (which can last for a decade or more…). I sincerely wish the best to Venezuelans, but previous US toppling of terrible dictatorships don't have a stellar record to say the least. Living in a country stuck in a decade of counterinsurgency warfare doesn't feel particularly great, and I'm sure the Iraqis or Afghans would agree.
    - mananaysiempre 9mo ago
      > [T]he Provisional Government had lost most of its popular support by choosing to continue WWI Whereas the Bolsheviks took very little time to effectively surrender to Germany and its allies only half a year before Germany itself surrendered to the former allies of Russia. (Thus freeing up the returning army to wage several years of civil war amongst various parts of itself.) Every option sucked here, much like in every other case during WWI. And yes, it’s absolutely true that little good usually comes from violently overthrowing a dictator. The best results are obtained from the dictator peacefully resigning after a promise of amnesty for them and their inner circle, however crass and unfair that sounds. Generally speaking, it’s not very helpful to put people in power before a choice of either losing everything or attempting to maintain their hold on that power by whatever means necessary: it’s going to be the second one every time.
_zagj 9mo ago
Thankfully Venezuelans aren't Muslim fanatics with a 40-50% chance of their parents being first cousins.

Yeah. Exactly. There have been many regime changes in the last few centuries. It’s hard to think of more than a handful that were actually objectively better. It’s even harder to think of any where the US was involved in the overthrow and installation of the replacement, and it went well. The Marshall plan was good. Any others?

kjkjadksj 9mo ago
Yugoslavia in the sense that the cultures were at an unlivable state with eachother without significant autonomy. Bad from an economic perspective as the resulting nations are weaker than what a unified yugoslavia would have been today when one looks at gdp projections.
- torginus 9mo ago
  Are you from the region? Yugoslavia has been a far richer and developed country than any of its successor states for a long time, and I hardly think most locals would see the cost of human lives and untold destruction the war brought to settle some incomprehensible ethnic conflict as a good trade.
  - scns 9mo ago
    > incomprehensible ethnic conflict It's about grudges held since hundreds of years. Blood feuds are still a thing in the region.

littlestymaar 9mo ago

In 1917's Russia too.

wiseowise 9mo ago
Well, who could've anticipated red plague to grip a whole country?
mananaysiempre 9mo ago
Worth remembering that Russia experienced three revolutions in the beginning of the 20th century: in winter of 1905, turning it into a constitutional monarchy at least de jure; in spring of 1917, turning that into a parliamentary republic; and in autumn of 1917, turning the parts that did not secede into a dictatorship that shortly became embroiled in a civil war. The Bolsheviks later did an impressive job of erasing the memory of the third being essentially a military coup against the second, despite their very name originating in (remarkably petty) name-calling in the parliament.
- littlestymaar 9mo ago
  By the time the October revolution came, the Provisional Government had lost most of its popular support by choosing to continue WWI though. Anyway, the main point is that as nice as getting rid of a dictator sounds, the consequences can be much worse than the dictatorship itself, at least in the short term (which can last for a decade or more…). I sincerely wish the best to Venezuelans, but previous US toppling of terrible dictatorships don't have a stellar record to say the least. Living in a country stuck in a decade of counterinsurgency warfare doesn't feel particularly great, and I'm sure the Iraqis or Afghans would agree.
  - mananaysiempre 9mo ago
    > [T]he Provisional Government had lost most of its popular support by choosing to continue WWI Whereas the Bolsheviks took very little time to effectively surrender to Germany and its allies only half a year before Germany itself surrendered to the former allies of Russia. (Thus freeing up the returning army to wage several years of civil war amongst various parts of itself.) Every option sucked here, much like in every other case during WWI. And yes, it’s absolutely true that little good usually comes from violently overthrowing a dictator. The best results are obtained from the dictator peacefully resigning after a promise of amnesty for them and their inner circle, however crass and unfair that sounds. Generally speaking, it’s not very helpful to put people in power before a choice of either losing everything or attempting to maintain their hold on that power by whatever means necessary: it’s going to be the second one every time.

_zagj 9mo ago

Thankfully Venezuelans aren't Muslim fanatics with a 40-50% chance of their parents being first cousins.