31–40 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood. Then what's our excuse this time?
As to Afghanistan? I don't know. It made sense to go in to fetch Bin Laden, but not to do any nation-building.
Think about all the people there who view the US poorly because of our actions there.
Not sure killing one person really makes up for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The domino thing wasn't that crazy. China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia. Then what? Philippines? Thailand? Of course, the right answer was that we couldn't take on all of those burdens, not even one, really, not for long. But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood.
>The domino thing wasn't that crazy. I wonder if that implies that the world should've gone full communist. That the attempts to stop that was just delaying the inevitable, even though the delay seems very successful right now. I wonder if socialism would've ended up as authoritarian as it did if it hadn't been fought like it was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but when are you "starting the clock", if not now, then how long ago? 10 years? 20? 30?
Most of the instability in the Middle East can be traced directly to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Our current strategy is like fighting fire with gasoline, because the people we are fighting have a better understanding of history than we do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The domino thing wasn't that crazy. China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia. Then what? Philippines? Thailand? Of course, the right answer was that we couldn't take on all of those burdens, not even one, really, not for long. But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood.
Everyone seems to also forget the then recent success of the Korean war. At risk of confusing what was known then and what is known now, well, look at NK vs SK today. Vietnam under socialist control turned out to be not anywhere as extreme but it would have been hard to guess that right during China's "great leap forward". Of course, things didn't turn out as well for neighboring Cambodia.
I guarantee that any general staff whose wives & children are in the affected area and who will be there for the next decade will figure out how to pacify the region to the level of a Chicago or Detroit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The domino thing wasn't that crazy. China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia. Then what? Philippines? Thailand? Of course, the right answer was that we couldn't take on all of those burdens, not even one, really, not for long. But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood.
Everyone seems to also forget the then recent success of the Korean war. At risk of confusing what was known then and what is known now, well, look at NK vs SK today. Vietnam under socialist control turned out to be not anywhere as extreme but it would have been hard to guess that right during China's "great leap forward". Of course, things didn't turn out as well for neighboring Cambodia.
Not as extreme as North Korea? No, but even the Soviet Union wasn't as extreme as North Korea. The subjugation of South Vietnam under North Vietnam was pretty brutal though — the Boat People didn't spring from nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US did let ISIS take over large swaths of Iraq and Syria during Obama's presidency. The lack of action of the US is directly correlated to the rise of ISIS, the prolonged Syrian civil war with its disastrous consequences. It was years and many beheadings before the US decided to do anything about it and really the Russians have done most of the work as well. I really like Obama as a person but his middle east str…
Not caring too much about massacring civilians is also a key part of Russia's recipe in Syria. And furthermore it is a little soon to be declaring victory for them there. What exactly would your strategy have been for a US intervention in Syria? Which local faction would you have supported? Would you have been willing to risk a hot war with Russia and Iran? When get involved in a war you don't get to say at the outse…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As to Afghanistan? I don't know. It made sense to go in to fetch Bin Laden, but not to do any nation-building.
Did it though? At the end of the day he’s just another bad guy. Think about all the people there who view the US poorly because of our actions there. Not sure killing one person really makes up for that.
So in hindsight, why was there an army in Afghanistan? 15/19 of the terrorists involved were former Saudi nationals, so it isn't like the Afghans were obviously churning out radicals.
Whole thing was bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The domino thing wasn't that crazy. I wonder if that implies that the world should've gone full communist. That the attempts to stop that was just delaying the inevitable, even though the delay seems very successful right now. I wonder if socialism would've ended up as authoritarian as it did if it hadn't been fought like it was.
The less authoritarian states, such as Allende's Chile, did not end up surviving for long. Can't help but wonder if there is a survivorship bias, wherein only the most vicious and brutal communist states could survive external interference.
If you are a soldier and find other reasons to fight rather than for the person next to you, then I wonder if you're fit to fight at all. You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is.