|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In Iraq western forces were successful in defeating Al-Qaeda and bringing a small measure of stability, but yeah the West’s aims were in many ways defeated in Iraq. In Libya the West turned its back on them and unsurprisingly they descended into a hellish collapse |
We wouldn't have been fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq if we hadn't toppled the Saddam regime. Libya wouldn't be in a state of chaos if we had not done 'regime change.' It seems that these endless military adventures you champion, in the name of 'ensuring Western hegemony,' lead to more chaos and more war. Perhaps that's the plan. |
You are completely right about Libya, Gaddafi had become a very strong ally and was willing to do deals in regards to oil and regional security.
The problem was that when the revolution happened western leaders got swept up in the romance of toppling a dictatorship.
As for Iraq, Saddam was already exporting terror and had invited islamists into the country to take on the Kurds as a proxy.
Also how was the policy of contaiment not a military intervention? We controlled 60% of their airspace and regularly bombed them.
If you want to play the 'what if?' game, then how does that story end? I hardly think it would have ended with a peaceful transfer from a Sunni Arab minority dictatorship to a democracy. Further western intervention was always the most likely outcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The problem was that when the revolution happened western leaders got swept up in the romance of toppling a dictatorship. |
You actually seem to believe, at face value, the claims of Western leaders that the intervention in Libya was done for humanitarian reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The problem was that when the revolution happened western leaders got swept up in the romance of toppling a dictatorship. |
You actually seem to believe, at face value, the claims of Western leaders that the intervention in Libya was done for humanitarian reasons. |
I'm sure the French and initial Arab allies had far more prosaic reasons for intervening. I also do not doubt that there was a complex web of interests at play for all sides.
However, I maintain that the reason UK and US decision makers wanted rid of Gaddaffi was because at that moment the prospect of a democratic Libya was too tempting to resist.
In what way did the West, in particular the US and UK, benefit from the demise of a dictator who had enthusiastically moved towards the West since 2003?
Especially as his forces were just about to crush the rebellion in Bengazhi and thereby neutralize the threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In what way did the West, in particular the US and UK, benefit from the demise of a dictator who had enthusiastically moved towards the West since 2003? |
Who knows exactly what is behind the foreign policy adventures of our governing class? However, the idea that they were driven by "the prospect of a democratic Libya" is laughable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In what way did the West, in particular the US and UK, benefit from the demise of a dictator who had enthusiastically moved towards the West since 2003? |
Who knows exactly what is behind the foreign policy adventures of our governing class? However, the idea that they were driven by "the prospect of a democratic Libya" is laughable. |
How so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In what way did the West, in particular the US and UK, benefit from the demise of a dictator who had enthusiastically moved towards the West since 2003? |
Who knows exactly what is behind the foreign policy adventures of our governing class? However, the idea that they were driven by "the prospect of a democratic Libya" is laughable. |
How so? |
As has already been stated, we happily did business with Gaddafi up until the point where, we are led to believe, we could no longer stomach his dictatorial rule. The West (essentially the US) does business with all manner of nasty dictatorships around the world while mouthing 'concerns' for human rights. As long as you play by the rules and don't do things which threaten US financial, commercial, and political interests (like proposing that oil be traded in something other than the dollar) then the West does not care whether or not you are a democracy. In fact, we will actively help surpress uprisings (see Bahrain) or overthrow elected governments (see Mosaddegh in Iran) if it is deemed to be in our interest. There is no reason to believe our leaders care about democracy or 'human rights.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In what way did the West, in particular the US and UK, benefit from the demise of a dictator who had enthusiastically moved towards the West since 2003? |
Who knows exactly what is behind the foreign policy adventures of our governing class? However, the idea that they were driven by "the prospect of a democratic Libya" is laughable. |
How so? |
As has already been stated, we happily did business with Gaddafi up until the point where, we are led to believe, we could no longer stomach his dictatorial rule. The West (essentially the US) does business with all manner of nasty dictatorships around the world while mouthing 'concerns' for human rights. As long as you play by the rules and don't do things which threaten US financial, commercial, and political interests (like proposing that oil be traded in something other than the dollar) then the West does not care whether or not you are a democracy. In fact, we will actively help surpress uprisings (see Bahrain) or overthrow elected governments (see Mosaddegh in Iran) if it is deemed to be in our interest. There is no reason to believe our leaders care about democracy or 'human rights.' |
"How the USA does business, 101" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voyeur
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US government is not run by angels, but things are a lot more complex than is being made out. The US does care about human rights. It also has business interests. And it has limitations.
Truth be told, on the whole I think most anti-US cynics have misplaced their cynicism: the US is often more incompetent than it is calculatingly self-serving. And that incompetence often has more to do with the inherent and rising complexity of foreign affairs couple with the constraints imposed by its out-of-control democracy. American's aren't inherently stupider than other countries, but their system is becoming increasingly so.
Ultimately, the US would love to smash ISIS (and mostly for pretty magnanimous reasons). But they have finally become aware that the real game is in Asia, and that the US is no longer rich enough (relatively) to piss away its capital in the desert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Voyeur wrote: |
| Truth be told, on the whole I think most anti-US cynics have misplaced their cynicism: the US is often more incompetent than it is calculatingly self-serving. |
Most of us will agree on this point, I imagine.
The 40yr Middle East cluster has been short-sighted, disorganized, expensive and inefficient. I would suggest it is calculated, self-serving, and also plays out to prove incompetent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voyeur
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No one is completely altruistic. However, I think you give less credit to American generosity than is deserved. Take Iraq, for example. While there were certainly many reasons for the invasion, at heart I believe that Bush and the Administration truly believed they were going to make the lives of the Iraqis better. And this was a motivation--a major one--for the intervention. In fact, if the Iraqis had accepted the Americans their lives truly would have been much better by now (at least in material terms).
If America had subscribed to an East Asian mentality post-WW II, the world would likely be a lot worse off (materially). America, on the other hand, might well have much better long term prospects (again, at least materially). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In what way did the West, in particular the US and UK, benefit from the demise of a dictator who had enthusiastically moved towards the West since 2003? |
Who knows exactly what is behind the foreign policy adventures of our governing class? However, the idea that they were driven by "the prospect of a democratic Libya" is laughable. |
How so? |
As has already been stated, we happily did business with Gaddafi up until the point where, we are led to believe, we could no longer stomach his dictatorial rule. The West (essentially the US) does business with all manner of nasty dictatorships around the world while mouthing 'concerns' for human rights. As long as you play by the rules and don't do things which threaten US financial, commercial, and political interests (like proposing that oil be traded in something other than the dollar) then the West does not care whether or not you are a democracy. In fact, we will actively help surpress uprisings (see Bahrain) or overthrow elected governments (see Mosaddegh in Iran) if it is deemed to be in our interest. There is no reason to believe our leaders care about democracy or 'human rights.' |
Voyeur said it best before I could:
| Quote: |
| Truth be told, on the whole I think most anti-US cynics have misplaced their cynicism: the US is often more incompetent than it is calculatingly self-serving. |
Even just the last week or two they mistakenly 1) bombed the Kurds once, and 2) dropped weapons and supplies to a very happy group of Daesh fighters.
I'd like to see if there's any correlation between those that believe the US acts 100% out of financial and geopolitical interests and those alone, and the size of the largest company they've worked at. Because there are some amazingly stupid things that go on when people work together in groups numbering a thousand and more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Voyeur wrote: |
| Take Iraq, for example. While there were certainly many reasons for the invasion, at heart I believe that Bush and the Administration truly believed they were going to make the lives of the Iraqis better. |
Sorry, you lost me there.
Also I'd like to point out that since Amerika is never stating their true motive, you don't know if a mission "failed", or if the intention of the mission was never success. But yes, the county is very dysfunctional/incompetent. That makes it difficult to tell if it is deception or incompetence, on a case by case basis.
Which is why we always stay high-level and go back to this central principle --> "follow the money"...oil, power and weapon sales. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Even just the last week or two they mistakenly 1) bombed the Kurds once, and 2) dropped weapons and supplies to a very happy group of Daesh fighters. |
Was it a mistake? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Even just the last week or two they mistakenly 1) bombed the Kurds once, and 2) dropped weapons and supplies to a very happy group of Daesh fighters. |
Was it a mistake? |
Are you KimchiNinja? Am I me? Is what is is, and not not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Even just the last week or two they mistakenly 1) bombed the Kurds once, and 2) dropped weapons and supplies to a very happy group of Daesh fighters. |
Was it a mistake? |
Are you KimchiNinja? Am I me? Is what is is, and not not? |
Well like I said, since the US has not stated their actual motives (it's not "fighting terrorists", what profit is there in that?) we don't have enough information to judge if they are succeeding or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
