The US ought to fuck right off from anywhere possible. — StreetlightX

This is one reason I seriously considered voting Trump prior to the pandemic.

Political scientists would say this would actually create more global volatility, though, right?

which was a war that the US gave weapons to both sides in — Coben

Yes, because the strategy at that time was to let the competing psychopaths fight each other instead of fighting us. And because Saddam exhausted himself in Iran he was thus much easier to defeat when it became necessary to do so.

Though the invasion led to the creation of Isis and this was certainly a threat to the neighbors — Coben

Yes, IS was a threat, and so the Islamic State was then effectively crushed.

We might observe how Iraq war critics are typically far more interested in demonizing those who crushed the Islamic State than they are in demonizing the Islamic State. It was the same for Saddam. Five words about Saddam being bad, and then 27 billion words about Bush as the new Satan etc. Complete lack of moral clarity.

then changed to fighting an evil regime for the people of Iraq and then didn't give a shit about them in the long run. — Coben

Iraq war critics showed no interest in the Iraqi people before the war, and now that American involvement in Iraq has wound down they again show no interest. That is, they were never interested in the Iraqi people, they were only interested in using the war to score partisan political points. If Iraq war critics were interested in the Iraqi people they could, for example, argue for a massive rebuilding fund.

Intellectual dishonesty is dodging the same issue three times in a row — Benkei

You're clogging the thread with junk, if I reply to every one of your little posts all hope will be lost for this thread. If you wish to now claim victory, please do so, I don't mind.

the USA will start unjust wars because money is the predominant influence in its politics — Benkei

Erm, isn't that all politics- anywhere? Lol. It's not funny it's really rather tragic but yeah.

The Iranian regime is a relatively small group of gangsters holding the Iranian people prisoner. — Hippyhead

Eh to be fair many people have either said or thought that about their own governments at one time or another. Why do I have to pay taxes? Why do I have to go to jail for such and such? I've said it before, and though this quote isn't mine: "the utopia some wish for is actually a dystopia of the worst kind".

the Islamic State was then effectively crushed. — Hippyhead

Any such group was always irrelevant if you're concerned about religion and statehood,. The entire ME and yes now even parts of Europe is and has always been an effective "Islamic state", that grows in territory, wealth, and power with each passing day. I'm not one to say if that's good or bad- shoot who knows, maybe they were right and we were wrong. Personally I subscribe to there being a possibility where "no ones wrong", of course not everyone will get behind that and the money and pride sure isn't there. Especially when people from alleged groups or sides do things to one another, forgiveness seems easy in theory- til you're actually on the receiving end of a major grievance. Either way, former Christians (whose ancestors swore their successes/conquests and future ability [or inability] to hold onto them were contingent on their faith in God) are becoming less and less religious and globally aware, becoming more atheist, while others become the opposite. It's just what's happening.

If anything, I think IP and tech is where Biden is going to make his push against China. He flagged IP in particular in his FP proposals, and he's got every reason to try and maintain the supremacy of US tech. Exactly how I'm not sure. Perhaps banning Chinese tech, especially for public services (like Australia did with Chinese 5G tech). That seems to make more sense than Trump's disastrous trade wars. As for the neocons, they always wanted to wipe Iran off the face of the earth, but I don't yet see how that would fit into Biden's announced policy plans, which looks, once again, to renormalize and renegotiate nuclear treaties with them. I wonder which arena, exactly, they'd be pushing for action for (making South America a US plaything again?). I really don't know. In general Biden's FP strikes me as nostalgic and promissory, rather than concrete. Alot of it seems centred around repair and not vision - like the rest of his domestic 'policies'. — StreetlightX

I was under the impression the political elite has been trying to extricate themselves from the ME as it definitely is turning to costly. They were fine with the JCPAO after the IAEA greenlighted it.

The causal chain is that the US reneged on the deal and then the Iranians breached some terms of the agreement. My guess is what Biden would want is agetting Iran to abide to the JCPAO again with the offer to sign up again to it from the US side. I'm not sure to what extent it is feasible though after 1+ year of Iran enriching uranium above agreed limits.

I'm not sure who you're referring to here — jamalrob

European critics of American involvement around the world.

I was looking for some serious analysis from people who know more than me. — jamalrob

Ok, cool, you've certainly succeeded in generating stimulating conversation.

I've read that discussion. To me it's a very unattractive, rather deluded and unhinged vision. — jamalrob

I disagreed with Paul's tactics, but he's the only person I've read on this forum so far (best I can recall) that has the morality right. Gangster regimes are our enemy. Simple! But how to confront them, not so simple. Like I keep saying, I'm very open to a tactical debate. But people who don't understand who the enemy is are mostly a waste of time.

aside from all of that, the US has done some good things, but it still doesn't follow that US liberal interventionism is, currently, a wise way forward that will make things better on the whole. — jamalrob

1) I agree with Paul that it is the moral responsibility of those who are free to help others to also be free. This part is very clear and very simple.

2) What is the best method of helping imprisoned people in various circumstances? This part is very complicated and tricky.

By "liberal interventionism" I'm referring to efforts ostensibly to spread democracy or help suffering populations by means of interference in sovereign states: meddling in elections, imposing sanctions and other economic punishments, sponsoring opposition groups, regime change by direct military force, and so on. — jamalrob

Yes, I understand. How would your perspective relate to cases such as the allied invasion of Normandy, or resistance to Soviet expansionism? What should our relationship with despots be?

Even if that's true, it doesn't mean they want the US to do it for them. — jamalrob

As Paul correctly pointed out in the Iraq war thread, it's asking a bit much for unarmed civilians to overthrow determined psychopaths with armies at their disposal all on their own. The thing is, we have no way of knowing what the Iranian people really want because the Iranian regime has stolen their right to speak, to vote.

What led me to this stuff in the first place was my narrow focus on Biden's aggressive attitude to Russia. — jamalrob

I honestly think the focus on Russia has largely been played for the domestic audience: It's Russia which 'explains Trump', and not the fact that the democratic party is a hollow waste of space that no one cares for if it wasn't for the even larger unmitigated disaster that is Trump. Also Trump is friendly to Big Bad Russian Tyrant, and Democrats are not, so please vote for us. That's not the whole story of course - Russian support for Iran no doubt plays into it, especially if the neocons are trying to weasel their way into democratic FP decision making. The animosity to Russia makes very little strategic sense for me otherwise. Any clues?

Erm, isn't that all politics- anywhere? Lol. It's not funny it's really rather tragic but yeah. — Outlander

Not really no. Dutch politics, while certainly not perfect, is pretty vibrant. Last time they tried to sell out to corporations on taxes all hell broke lose. There's of course a direction in which the Netherlands is moving, which isn't pretty but there are active counterveiling political forces that don't result in rich people/corporation get what they want all the time. But in any case, the example was given because the possibility of Saddam starting a war was just another ex post facto justification warmongers like to bandy about.

Another dodge.

The animosity to Russia makes very little strategic sense for me otherwise. — StreetlightX

There is no animosity to Russia from anybody that I've heard. There is animosity by many to the Russian regime.

The Russian regime is basically a high level Mafia organization which exists for the purpose of sucking as much money as possible out of the Russian people for deposit in secret off shore bank accounts. Where are your posts screaming snotty outraged rants about such a ruthlessly large scale theft, one wonders.

All of these regimes are basically just very smart criminal gangs who have progressed from robbing banks to stealing entire countries. They are, if you will, the elites of the criminal world.

Another dodge. — Benkei

Show me you are as outraged by psychopathic regimes shooting their own people down in the streets as you are by legally elected Western politicians, and then maybe we could have a useful discussion. Until then, I can only spend so much time in this thread.

My guess is what Biden would want is getting Iran to abide to the JCPAO again with the offer to sign up again to it from the US side. I'm not sure to what extent it is feasible though after 1+ year of Iran enriching uranium above agreed limits. — Benkei

Yeah that's the vibe I'm getting too. I also wonder where Israel stands on this - is a treaty too passive for them? I really dunno.

Please stop talking to me (like, in general) you're a moron and beneath response and it would save us both time.

Please stop talking to me — StreetlightX

You can ban me when ever you wish, no problem. This thread is just another example of why I have no fear of such a decision on your part.

I honestly think the focus on Russia has largely been played for the domestic audience: It's Russia which 'explains Trump', and not the fact that the democratic party is a hollow waste of space that no one cares for if it wasn't for the even larger unmitigated disaster that is Trump. Also Trump is friendly to Big Bad Russian Tyrant, and Democrats are not, so please vote for us. That's not the whole story of course - Russian support for Iran no doubt plays into it, especially if the neocons are trying to weasel their way into democratic FP decision making. The animosity to Russia makes very little strategic sense for me otherwise. Any clues? — StreetlightX

That's what I was thinking, but I think there's more to it. I think that Biden sincerely believes in doing everything he can to undermine Russian influence and power, partly to enhance American legitimacy and moral authority, but partly because he has delusions that the Russian people want American help. If we look at Biden's track record and that of the Obama/Clinton administration that he was a part of (Ukraine 2013/2014), his currently stated position on Russia is totally consistent with that, in which case he might be seeking to continue and intensify the cold war against Russia.

I just realized I may have to clarify something for suspicious readers: my criticism of liberal imperialism here is not in any way connected with the criticisms of liberalism that have occasionally been heard from the Russian government and leadership over the past few years, and my opposition to American cold warriors should not be seen as support for authoritarian rule.

Hm, I must be paranoid about being seen as a Putin apologist.

From my point of view, this seems like it will only strengthen Biden's liberal imperialist agenda. Am I wrong? Was the neoconservative flavour of Biden's rhetoric just a reflection of his need to oppose everything Trump was seen to stand for, in this case realism and isolationism in international relations? Or will we really see the US aggressively attempting to reassert its role as world policeman? Is that even a bad thing? — jamalrob

I had to think about this. A part of this also has to do with the face of war in these times. If we're talking about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria then I think the first two are now low intensity conflicts (LICs) and the latter fluctuate between war and LICs with many non-state actors involved.

We see that since Obama, US presidents are capable of initiating LICs or involving themselves in existing LICs (for Trump see Yemen and Iran) without any congressional oversight. Presumably, Biden will use this option as well and will have the support of the neocons and thereby won't be challenged when doing so despite the War Powers Resolution. In a way, this seems to be answering to the fact that enemies tend to be non-state actors more regularly than State actors.

My guess is, increase of LICs in relation to the fight against terrorism and geopolitical theatres that require some measure of control because of real politik considerations.

I don't expect more convential wars because I'm not convinced that US military capabilities or budget can be stretched to support another (decades?) long occupation or at least, I don't think there's political appetite for it. Another reason I'd expect de-escalation with Iran.

Not really no. — Benkei

Well, how so? Leaders are dealers in hope, which of course isn't or doesn't have to be some kind of material gain be it better infrastructure of just more money in your pocket at the end of the week. Unity and faith in one's own life and being to instill a sense of purpose is great- crucial even. But it only goes so far? Would you vote for a leader where you stand to lose something or otherwise cut established gains or would you vote for one who declares the opposite? It's about who can do what's best for the people and unless he or she is going to be a motivational speaker every day, it usually revolves around some sort of benefit or gain. The idea or possibility, at least.

but partly because he has delusions that the Russian people want American help. — jamalrob

Ugh, there are few more hell-paved paths than Americans with good intentions. I guess I also wonder about how the world's coming pivot on oil and coal is going to affect Russia (and consequently US relations to them). I mean, that's the literal power-house of the Russian economy, and if demand begins to wane - coupled with overproduction - I wonder if a resurgent Russian imperialism might reassert itself as compensation and (domestic) distraction. That, I imagine, would give cause for the US to play white knight and Biden - or Biden-adjacents - to play out his fantasies.

It's not about what I vote for. It's about whether policies that a majority of people support get implemented or not or whether policies that benefit a majority of people are implemented; hedged with respect for minority rights and such.

There are plenty of European democracies that manage to do this to an adequate degree. I suppose it's a win if there's at least not an inverse correlation between the number of people wanting a specific policy and the likelihood of that policy being enacted as law.

The US and Russia are already engaged in software warfare where they try to control one another's power grids and so forth. The US caused a Russian pipeline to blow up in retaliation for some attempt at infiltration.

I think that if the US looks weak, it invites more of that kind of thing. I'm pretty sure nobody in the US government cares about real Russians and their political challenges. If they're starving, we'll send food, otherwise, no.

So you're looking for an echo chamber where everybody virtue signals how much they hate Kim Jong-Un? Maybe just deal with the arguments instead of coming up with weird excuses not to deal with them? Just like this issue you have about nuclear weapons and how everybody is clueless (except the grand hippy head of course). But of course I'm the one with the moral superiority complex for pointing out that it doesn't matter whether a candidate talks about nuclear weapons because you live in a plutocracy and nobody in the US political classes gives a shit about what US citizens think.

in which case he might be seeking to continue and intensify the cold war against Russia. — jamalrob

May I please renew a call for a bit more precision in our language? Nobody wants any kind of war with Russia. Some people do seek a higher level of opposition to the Russian regime.

The reason I keep quibbling about what may seem a small point is that when we refer to conflict with "Russia" or "Iran" implicit in such language is an assumption that the regimes of these countries are legitimate representatives of the populations which they dominate.

Putin is not Russia. Putin is a gangster who is robbing the Russian people. Do a google search. Many sources speculate that Putin may be one of the richest people in the world. Whatever his net worth, where do you think all that money came from? It came from the Russian people. They didn't donate this vast wealth, or willingly pay Putin a super generous salary. Putin stole the money through the elaborate patronage scheme which is the Russian government. It's just like the mob, everybody in the system steals whatever they can, and then kicks money up to whoever is above them on the totem pole. And Putin sits on top of the pole.

The Russians are very intelligent people. So why does their economy always suck? The answer is that the wealth of the Russian people is being systematically stolen on a massive scale by a very highly organized criminal gang headed by Putin.

The Russian people are one thing, the prey.

The Russian government is something else altogether, the predator.

We should use language which makes the distinction between the two clear.

The US caused a Russian pipeline to blow up in retaliation for some attempt at infiltration. — frank

Is this Alex Jones talk or do you have a link to this? I can say I'm whoever from wherever acting under whatever, and do something to make people turn against one another, doesn't mean it was so.

I'm pretty sure nobody in the US government cares about real Russians and their political challenges. — frank

Look at it this way, if they don't, somebody else will. So, it makes sense to be considerate. Such as said scenario would be. When you devalue empathy and compassion toward one, you devalue it for all.

I just realized I may have to clarify something for suspicious readers: my criticism of liberal imperialism here is not in any way connected with the criticisms of liberalism that have occasionally been heard from the Russian government and leadership over the past few years, and my opposition to American cold warriors should not be seen as support for authoritarian rule. — jamalrob

I was also suspecting that it would be necessary to clarify that you mean “liberal” in the historical and current international sense, which is closer in meaning to the American sense of “libertarian”, or perhaps just “capitalist”, and is generally a right-wing position contrasted with labor parties, socialism, and other leftist movements.

Not in the modern American sense of “liberal” as opposed to “conservative”, meaning roughly “left” and “right”.

Thankfully it looks like nobody has assumed you were attacking the American left from a right-wing point of view.

We should use language which makes the distinction between the two clear. — Hippyhead

It's good that you want to be careful with your language, so I applaud you for that. But the language you use when you're trying to use language carefully, as in this last post of yours, is not much better. You have a cartoonish view of the Russian state.

Yes, good point. In fact, I was just thinking that I'm not quite clear on what the "liberal" in liberal imperialism and liberal intervention actually means.

That Trump is an isolationist is newspeak just as much as saying that all the previous American meddling had as an aim to spread democracy and save oppressed populations.

You have a cartoonish view of the Russian state. — jamalrob

Could you then please explain how Putin became so rich?

And it's not just Putin as a single person. Putin stays in power by allowing those under him to also steal a piece of the pie. So if the guy at the top is worth some number of billions, and there are god knows how many people under him doing his dirty work, and the theft goes on year after year, decade after decade, the total haul may be in the trillions. All sucked out of the Russian people.

Anyway, good try, but this thread is pointless. It's just another reminder of how bankrupt philosophy really is.

It's just another reminder of how bankrupt philosophy really is. — Hippyhead

Political pseudo-philosophy at least. :P

When it comes to anything political, we're all just really playing game of thrones and want to rule the world. Take it from someone who lost it all- just be open with it. Or.. perhaps not, eh? Ha. "All warfare is based on deception". It's an ugly game, with no real winners. Not for long anyway. Eager to return to actual philosophy as well.

Is this Alex Jones talk or do you have a link to this? I can say I'm whoever from wherever acting under whatever, and do something to make people turn against one another, doesn't mean it was so. — Outlander

See the book Russian Cyber Warfare, Charles River edition.

Look at it this way, if they don't, somebody else will. So, it makes sense to be considerate. Such as said scenario would be. When you devalue empathy and compassion toward one, you devalue it for all. — Outlander

Unless you're actually in Russia, my country is more ethnically Russian than yours. We love Russians, but we don't have responsibility for running Russia.

Even if that's true, it doesn't mean they want the US to do it for them. — jamalrob

The Iranian people don't speak with one voice. We now know that 87% of Afghans and about 50% of Iraqis wanted the US to liberate them. The figure was probably above 90% for the Libyans who had risen up in Benghazi and now faced being mowed down by automatic weapons.

Regardless, x% of Iranians would welcome a US military intervention. Those x% are my ideological allies (ie I would want a US intervention if I was an iranian), and I believe in supporting my ideological allies. So it's a no-brainer for me to support a coalition of democracies to go and liberate Iran.

What's the alternative? Keep 85 million people enslaved indefinitely? How would you feel if you were one of those enslaved people? Do you expect to have your own human rights protected to the nth degree?

And that's before we get into the strategic reasons for replacing a hostile dictator with a (likely allied) democracy.

Oh look, someone disagrees with you and the discussion is immediately pointless. Why don't you just leave if we're all so clueless? Maybe start a website with Paul or something.