| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:28 xDaunt wrote: The Europeans can't even manage their own backyard. They can't be trusted to manage a country on another continent. Is it better to let atrocities happen, or to help people in need? From a geopolitical perspective. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:31 Naracs_Duc wrote: Is it better to let atrocities happen, or to help people in need? From a geopolitical perspective. but If you decide to help people then you're in for an Iraq level of commitment or else you get lybia. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:31 Naracs_Duc wrote: Is it better to let atrocities happen, or to help people in need? From a geopolitical perspective. I'd argue it is best to let atrocities happen if you can't actually commit to making a difference. The amount of times we spend tons of money, leave when things seem decent, then end up with a pile of shit...It's just a shame. I feel like all of these failed states need to be kept under the thumb of whoever helps them much more. They are incompetent and have already failed to protect their citizens. Writing them some checks, patting ourselves on the back, then walking away is just an ego trip for us. It's useless. Either bring them in in a more long-term way or do nothing at all. When we run in, totally distort the power dynamics, then leave, the power dynamics go right back to where they were. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:31 Naracs_Duc wrote: Is it better to let atrocities happen, or to help people in need? From a geopolitical perspective. Its pay now, or pay more later. These problems rarely solve themselves and normally get worse. On May 07 2016 03:37 Barrin wrote: Surely that's a matter of how you [can] help them? This is the real problem, there is no clear way to solve the problem in those regions. Any progress would be slow and set backs would be numerous. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:20 ticklishmusic wrote: Europe also dropped the ball on Libya And Libya pretty much said "thanks but we got it from here", turns out they didn't The head of Libya's transitional authorities has called for Nato to extend its mission in Libya until the end of the year. Source | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:31 Naracs_Duc wrote: Is it better to let atrocities happen, or to help people in need? From a geopolitical perspective. The wisdom of intervention depends upon the nature of the intervener's interests in the subject country. Intervention solely for the sake of preventing atrocity probably is not a good idea from the perspective of the intervener. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:38 Plansix wrote: Its pay now, or pay more later. These problems rarely solve themselves and normally get worse. But many times we pay now, then also pay later, then also pay again. We do a very poor job at ensuring our money is well spent saving lives here and there in random shit hole countries. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:40 Mohdoo wrote: But many times we pay now, then also pay later, then also pay again. We do a very poor job at ensuring our money is well spent saving lives here and there in random shit hole countries. Yep. Or you can not pay at all and let the region go its separate ways. Expect its filled with natural resources that you need and conflicts like this take decades upon decades. Never mind the human cost, its not a viable plan to just wait to see how it works out. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Given that preventing atrocities is merely a pretext and that all of these interventions are in fact political in nature, I'd also say that it's a moot point. On May 07 2016 03:13 Naracs_Duc wrote: Libya was in pretty bad shape without US involvement. The US involvement that did happen was very minimal. The reason this strategy was done was because of the lessons from Iraq. The moral of the story is that you're either there for longterm occupation/imperialism OR you be okay letting atrocities happen in the world. There is no middle ground option. I don't think anyone has figured out an effective long-term solution. I think the most effective one I've seen in general is the Soviet/Russian one: install a well-chosen secular dictator, through brutal force if necessary, who will suppress local ethnic conflicts and bring about at least temporary stability. Perhaps there's a better solution but I've yet to see one (democracy building has been a disaster and leaving a power vacuum is worse). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
problem was not intervening strongly enough and with more of a post plan. it was either syria or iraq in terms of outcomes. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:56 Nyxisto wrote: The Assad family has probably killed about 200k Syrians or something. That's not a benevolent dictator, that's just genocidal. No one said anything about them being benevolent. On May 07 2016 03:55 oneofthem wrote: it's not like intervention caused the instability. euros were going to go in without the u.s. anyway. problem was not intervening strongly enough and with more of a post plan. it was either syria or iraq in terms of outcomes. Again, that's a situation which isn't necessarily bad to intervene in. That lack of a follow-up was pretty stupid and the main point of why that ended up being a blunder. Exactly what do you think happens when you leave a power vacuum? It doesn't necessarily have to be either Iraq or Syria. What should have happened was that there would be a chosen, sponsored successor that NATO would specifically install, and have enough support there to manage the transition. Short of that, they might as well have cut their losses and just helped Gaddafi survive the war. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22460 Posts
On May 07 2016 03:55 oneofthem wrote: it's not like intervention caused the instability. euros were going to go in without the u.s. anyway. problem was not intervening strongly enough and with more of a post plan. it was either syria or iraq in terms of outcomes. What is a viable post plan tho? There is no one to take over, that is the problem with freeing dictatorships. Everyone who could form a viable interim government has been removed by the state. Same problem as Egypt, Iraq ect. If you want to fix it your forced to do it from the ground up yourself and no one is willing to nation build with a security force in place to protect the fragile democracy for multiple decades. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 07 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote: Without the support of a larger nation like Russia, I doubt Assad can every provide "stability" for that region. This all stated with his own people trying to overthrow him and there is no reason to think they won't try again. I don't disagree. He's much better than either anarchy or an Islamist leader though. We're dealing with a situation of shithole vs bigger shithole. There's no "good" option here. On May 07 2016 03:57 Nyxisto wrote: I'd not consider that "well chosen" either, when they polled refugees in Germany late last year the overwhelming majority stated that they're running from the regime, not Isis, which isn't surprising given the death toll. The Assad family isn't a source of stability Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
With Donald Trump on the brink of receiving classified security briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. foreign policy figures of both parties are raising concerns about a close Trump aide’s ties to allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s top adviser, Paul Manafort, has spent much of his recent career working for pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, and doing complex deals for an oligarch with close ties to Putin. And while a Democratic senator has already charged Trump is not responsible enough to receive secret information, Manafort’s deep relationships with top pro-Russian figures raise special concerns. Manafort may be best known for managing the 2010 campaign of Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian politician whose ouster as president prompted a Russian invasion of the country. He has, according to court documents, managed tens of millions of dollars for Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch denied entry to the U.S. reportedly for ties to organized crime, but so close to Vladimir Putin that top Russian officials fought (unsuccessfully) to get him a visa. Gary Schmitt, a former Reagan Administration official now at the American Enterprise Institute, said he believed Manafort’s ties merit extra scrutiny. “If Trump is to be given access to sensitive intelligence, which can’t help but implicitly involve even more sensitive information about ‘sources and methods,’ then it’s imperative that any campaign staff who have had commercial ties with foreign governments and politicians not be given access as well until they have gone through a full, thorough background check — not the typical perfunctory review,” he said. “Given his dubious foreign connections, it’s fair to assume that many in the intelligence and national security community would be extremely wary of him handling or receiving material at even the lowest level of classification,” said Adam Blickstein, a former aide to former Obama defense secretary Robert Gates. Presidential nominees have been given access to classified briefings for decades, a tradition aimed at ensuring that they are prepared for the presidency, as well as that their campaign rhetoric not depart from secret realities. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 07 2016 04:03 Gorsameth wrote: What is a viable post plan tho? There is no one to take over, that is the problem with freeing dictatorships. Everyone who could form a viable interim government has been removed by the state. Same problem as Egypt, Iraq ect. If you want to fix it your forced to do it from the ground up yourself and no one is willing to nation build with a security force in place to protect the fragile democracy for multiple decades. gaddafi was pretty toast before intervention anyway. there were no costless options/outcomes at that point. it's basically the chickens of despotic regimes coming home to roost. failing states failed. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote: Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
