Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jace]

It would be nice.

Rome didn't decide upon empire.  It sought to defend its borders and trade interest.

A stable Mexico, South America, etc helps keep the United States stable (borders).
A stable Balkans, MidEast, Eastern Europe, etc helps keep Western Europe stable (borders & trade).
A stable Korean Peninsula, China Sea helps keep the region stable (trade).

There is a reason we are not as involved in sub-Saharan Africa: lack of borders/trade.

On the contrary, our history of foreign policy is riddled with us making regions less stable - sometimes intentionally (See: Central America, Middle East, Sudan) and other time unintentionally (Everywhere else).

[orange]

It would be nice.

Rome didn't decide upon empire.  It sought to defend its borders and trade interest.

A stable Mexico, South America, etc helps keep the United States stable (borders).
A stable Balkans, MidEast, Eastern Europe, etc helps keep Western Europe stable (borders & trade).
A stable Korean Peninsula, China Sea helps keep the region stable (trade).

There is a reason we are not as involved in sub-Saharan Africa: lack of borders/trade.

On the contrary, our history of foreign policy is riddled with us making regions less stable - sometimes intentionally (See: Central America, Middle East, Sudan) and other time unintentionally (Everywhere else).

On reflection, I wrote that poorly.

"Stable" a loose term and really should be maintain status quo.  The above is the theory of why to get involved, seeking to maintain the status quo in a region.  It does not work well, especially when we go against our own ideals.

[Jace]

It would be nice.

Rome didn't decide upon empire.  It sought to defend its borders and trade interest.

A stable Mexico, South America, etc helps keep the United States stable (borders).
A stable Balkans, MidEast, Eastern Europe, etc helps keep Western Europe stable (borders & trade).
A stable Korean Peninsula, China Sea helps keep the region stable (trade).

There is a reason we are not as involved in sub-Saharan Africa: lack of borders/trade.

On the contrary, our history of foreign policy is riddled with us making regions less stable - sometimes intentionally (See: Central America, Middle East, Sudan) and other time unintentionally (Everywhere else).

On reflection, I wrote that poorly.

"Stable" a loose term and really should be maintain status quo.  The above is the theory of why to get involved, seeking to maintain the status quo in a region.  It does not work well, especially when we go against our own ideals.

Yes, with status quo being a euphemism for "Pro-US". This is why the Cold War was so useful for US foreign policy, it provided an excuse for our rapid and widespread involvement all over the world to "maintain the status quo" - which in reality, often meant forcibly reversing democratic ideals in favor of Pro-US leaders and policies. I am aware of why we do what we do, I am just in favor of ceasing doing it.

[Saede Riordan]

We defend our trade interests, and lose more than those interests are worth. Let's be honest: Putin could take Paris, but we'd be the only major market to sell to.

We should, in my opinion, withdraw from NATO, and from almost every other treaty. Let China, Russia, and etc., try their hand at empire. It's worth less than the cost of maintaining it. And those countries have crippled their population growth by one-child policies and social nihilism, not to mention by authoritarian regimes that are very unpleasant to live under. Let them try for regional domination, and let them die in the attempt, while we, the United States, continue to grow by immigration and assimilation. Do that, and India and the U.S. will inherit the earth.

We've got a lot of our own domestic issues to deal with before we inherit anything.

[Lyn Farel]

The EU does not have a military.  When Europe goes to war, it is dependent on its ally the United States for a variety of reasons.  Libya and Mali both show this. Armed European intervention will be US-supported intervention, quickly followed by US intervention (because invasions of the Baltic states triggers Article 5).

While I agree that EU's countries still lack a global military cohesion, the EU has in fact a military. The Eurocorp is certainly not nothing and growing everyday. It's not so much that the EU has no military (which is wrong), but that EU lacks guts to do anything everytime.

Also; there are all those common military programs between member countries, especially the UK-Italy-France group.

It is none of our business, just like Iraq wasn't, North Korea isn't, repeat ad nauseum. The US needs to stop being the world police, whether it is for arguably legitimate reasons or the past imperial reasons. From Central America to Bosnia to Sudan, we get involved over and over when we should not. It has to stop sometime, if it is to stop at all.

It would be nice.

Rome didn't decide upon empire.  It sought to defend its borders and trade interest.

A stable Mexico, South America, etc helps keep the United States stable (borders).
A stable Balkans, MidEast, Eastern Europe, etc helps keep Western Europe stable (borders & trade).
A stable Korean Peninsula, China Sea helps keep the region stable (trade).

There is a reason we are not as involved in sub-Saharan Africa: lack of borders/trade.

Exactly.

The same way that France is heavily involved in sub-Saharan Africa for the same reasons. Mali was also maybe a threat since it was a step closer to Maghreb and mediterranean areas, but it was also double a threat to all those Areva strategic mines located in the north or in the neighbor countries.

But honestly, I can understand Jace's point of view, sometimes it just feels that the US are trying a bit too much. It doesn't help them at all in terms of image. Also, there is the factor that the US are the big one, so it tends to attract all the flak in the world as well.

[orange]

While I agree that EU's countries still lack a global military cohesion, the EU has in fact a military. The Eurocorp is certainly not nothing and growing everyday. It's not so much that the EU has no military (which is wrong), but that EU lacks guts to do anything everytime.

Also; there are all those common military programs between member countries, especially the UK-Italy-France group.

The European Union's Eurocorps is a Corps-scale unit consisting of Brigades and Divisions from supporting Nations.  A ground component does not a military make.  Where is its Air & Naval components?  How does the Eurocorps deploy from its garrison in the middle of the western Europe? 

Looks like France and Germany wanted to have a separate command from (yet subordinate to) SHAPE.

Based its activities, it looks like an unneeded command layer within the NATO structure.

The reason all those common military programs exist is because the countries are individually unwilling to fund the Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation of new systems, but recognize a need to develop new/replacements systems for those developed in the 1970s and earlier.

[Desiderya]

'The EU' is also not as homogenous as, say, the United States and usually member states decide on their own wether to join or start a conflict or not. I'm, for example, not unhappy that Germany had the guts to say no to Iraq war MK2. Or lacked the guts to make the world a better place, depending on what viewpoint you'd prefer. So yes, the EU is not really set up to export freedom and liberty through its armies.

[Jace]

'The EU' is also not as homogenous as, say, the United States and usually member states decide on their own wether to join or start a conflict or not. I'm, for example, not unhappy that Germany had the guts to say no to Iraq war MK2. Or lacked the guts to make the world a better place, depending on what viewpoint you'd prefer. So yes, the EU is not really set up to export freedom and liberty through its armies.

Nobody is. This is the problem. Freedom, democracy, liberty, and other such notions cannot be "exported" forcefully.

[Gaven Lok ri]

So from the normally anti-imperialist point of view:

I didn't think either the invasion of Iraq *or* the invasion of Afganistan were justified, because in both cases they were offensive wars that were unlikely to actually make the world safer. And, especially in Iraq, we didn't have a leg to stand on when trying to justify the need to invade. As Jace says, you can't actually use force to export democracy.

I have a somewhat different opinion when it comes to allies under attack. If anything, I think that "we signed an agreement saying we would support this country and we are going to stick to it" is one of the only morally justifiable reasons for war.

Whether we should have signed that agreement is an extremely different question. But it seems to me that when push comes to shove is a bad time to rethink whether or not we keep our word on agreements we made in peacetime.

[Desiderya]

I'm not aware of any defensive pact with the Ukraine. Also, we might've been better off with keeping the agreement between the EU, Russia and the post-revolution government before high-fiving a coup d'etat, then crying out loud when the situation miraculously continues to boil.

[Aldrith Shutaq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Technically if we wanted to honor this we'd already be at war.

[Makoto Priano]

Re: Iraq, Afghanistan, coups, etc.

Iraq was a farce. We lacked cassus belli, and so manufactured one, aided by Saddam's intransigence. His crime was being belligerent in the face of a painfully hawkish, self-interested administration. Sure, he wasn't a good person, and indeed had committed crimes against his people-- but we've ignored far worse when we didn't have other interests.

Afghanistan-- well, there the Afghan government was harboring an organization that had just executed a major terrorist attack, and refusing to cooperate in turning them in. We supported an existing resistance movement in achieving the collapse of the established government. Not unlike Libya, I think that was well-executed. The issue, much like any prior Afghan entanglement (going back to the British mission in 18-whatever), is that the country is an exceptionally hostile environment for an occupation, and we shouldn't be in the occupation business anyway.

The Ukraine-- well, here's the thing. We certainly recognized the new government quickly, but this has all the hallmarks of a popular uprising after public opinion turned against the existing government. While international bodies naturally have an interest in the inviolability of governments and the maintenance of the status quo, one could argue that so long as an outside power didn't foment the uprising, then it has validity insofar as any popular action has validity. This is hair-splitting, of course? But a coup is de facto antidemocratic, where in this case it is a popular movement overturning prior democratic action.

So. Really, when you get down to it, the issue now isn't the validity of the interim Ukrainian government. The issue is that Russia perceives a threat to its interests (in the guise of 'violence against ethnic Russians,' which I've read no reports confirming), and so is using the unrest as grounds to seize territory.

Consider, if you will, that Latvia and Estonia also have large Russian-speaking populations. If at any point there's unrest there, will this justification be used for annexation of another state?

[Lyn Farel]

While I agree that EU's countries still lack a global military cohesion, the EU has in fact a military. The Eurocorp is certainly not nothing and growing everyday. It's not so much that the EU has no military (which is wrong), but that EU lacks guts to do anything everytime.

Also; there are all those common military programs between member countries, especially the UK-Italy-France group.

The European Union's Eurocorps is a Corps-scale unit consisting of Brigades and Divisions from supporting Nations.  A ground component does not a military make.  Where is its Air & Naval components?  How does the Eurocorps deploy from its garrison in the middle of the western Europe? 

Looks like France and Germany wanted to have a separate command from (yet subordinate to) SHAPE.

Based its activities, it looks like an unneeded command layer within the NATO structure.

The reason all those common military programs exist is because the countries are individually unwilling to fund the Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation of new systems, but recognize a need to develop new/replacements systems for those developed in the 1970s and earlier.

Well yes, I'm on the same page on that. But it's still military stuff, and 60k personnel is not nothing, navy/air or not. I was probably not taking the word military as you did, but I understand your point.

I'm not aware of any defensive pact with the Ukraine. Also, we might've been better off with keeping the agreement between the EU, Russia and the post-revolution government before high-fiving a coup d'etat, then crying out loud when the situation miraculously continues to boil.

What makes you say that's a coup d'état ?

Consider, if you will, that Latvia and Estonia also have large Russian-speaking populations. If at any point there's unrest there, will this justification be used for annexation of another state?

In the past perhaps, who knows.

But now I highly doubt it considering they are part of the EU, unlike Ukraine.

[Lyn Farel]

Derp

[Desiderya]

What makes you say that's a coup d'état ?

Going above interim government and (appointed) head of parliament to call yourself president, enact reforms, call in new ministers prior to any form of re-election as agreed 24 hours prior with the EU and Russia? Then you got EU saying 'cool, we accept your new goverment' and suddenly everyone's acting surprised at the russians being not cool with this. That's going beyond a need for change and including the people straight into the territory of setting up a new reality for everyone to suck it up or bust, and apparently not everyone was cool with the euromaidan protests, and not everyone is cool with not getting a vote in the current government, hence people feeling left out and being a lot less accepting of current ukrainian politics.