Print

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

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[FearfulJesuit]

You can't just "send experts" or "leave the idiots to fend for themselves" in the Middle East. That would be nice. We're all extremely frustrated with the region, and of course America has made a real hash of its desert adventures over the past couple of decades.

But the fact is that the region is uneducated, unable to support a single truly advanced economy outside of Israel and Turkey (Iran will be able to, too, once it snaps out of its theocratic phase), wracked by sectarianism, trying to figure out what to do with all its misdrawn borders, and home to at least two countries with nuclear weapons (Israel, which might be tempted to use them against one of its neighbors but won't lose them, and Pakistan, which is much more dangerous since someone might get their hands on the nukes. As for Iran, that's anyone's guess). It's not ready for democracy; democracies need secular institutions that actually operate, countries that function as coherent units, and electorates with enough money to have something to lose if something goes south. The first two aren't true across most of the Middle East, and the third is mostly true in its absolute monarchies. The Middle East either has to deal with strongmen, who can be brutal but at least keep border stability, or it needs someone to babysit it. Do we really want Russia or China to be doing the babysitting?

Yes, the US really fucked up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, interventionism is expensive. Yes, it makes enemies. But we're now seeing what happens when we remove the threat of intervention: desperate strongmen using sarin gas on their own people to try and protect their own position while a nihilistic, terrorist ultra-theocracy springs up in the vacuum and creates a living nightmare. You cannot tell the Middle East to pull itself up by its bootstraps; it doesn't have any boots.

More broadly, the current world order, and geopolitical stability, actually rely on the US being able to project force worldwide, even if it's for the wrong reasons or done by dimwitted Dominionists who can't tell Sunnis from Shiites. We've tried isolationism before. That, I'll remind you, was in the 20s and 30s.

Yes, the US is the world police. No, that's not a perfect state of affairs. But geopolitics is about the least bad possible option, not the best theoretical one. Someone is going to be world police. The EU is probably the best candidate, but it's decentralized, too pacifist for its own good, and dealing with economic malaise. Those of you who think the US should knock it off and stop playing world cop: if the US doesn't, China or Russia will. Is that really the alternative you want?

(As for the UN: the UN hasn't got a tenth the power of the US, and its structure gives Russia and China veto power over any proposed intervention. This would be an improvement?)

[Frumple]

The Middle East either has to deal with strongmen, who can be brutal but at least keep border stability, or it needs someone to babysit it. Do we really want Russia or China to be doing the babysitting?

Is that white man's burden I smell? Even if it isn't -- you know what? Let Russia or China do the damned babysitting. What the states are doing isn't working, is generally making the situation worse, and is categorically making things worse for us. Fuck. It. If it takes one of the less subtle powers coming in and screwing the area even harder before the rest of the world pulls their heads out their asses and does something about it -- then: Fine. Whatever gets us less engaged in the area. Rest of the world wants to wring their hands about how much damage or what the hell ever results from that, the rest of the world can try their own damned hand at fixing it.

Yes, the US really fucked up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, interventionism is expensive. Yes, it makes enemies. But we're now seeing what happens when we remove the threat of intervention: desperate strongmen using sarin gas on their own people to try and protect their own position while a nihilistic, terrorist ultra-theocracy springs up in the vacuum and creates a living nightmare. You cannot tell the Middle East to pull itself up by its bootstraps; it doesn't have any boots.

But you can damn sure let everyone else know that if they don't start helping pull harder, the ME can just bloody burn -- and I'm well past the point of advocating doing just that. Because, you know what? Desperate strongmen and terrorist ultra-theocracies are either a global issue, that can receive a global response -- and no, not the half-assed non-response we've generally seen -- or they're not, it's not our freaking problem, and the whole area can just goddamn sink -- or swim, or whatever. I don't mind the US helping, but much of the shit going on over there is fundamentally someone else's problem and needs to be dealt with as such.

More broadly, the current world order, and geopolitical stability, actually rely on the US being able to project force worldwide, even if it's for the wrong reasons or done by dimwitted Dominionists who can't tell Sunnis from Shiites.

Time to either pull out the rug and let them stop relying on us or start working toward doing just that, then! Not the states' frakking place to play geopolitical linchpin.

[Zangi]

China has a strong non-interventionist policy don't it?  They are the least likely to mess with shit for ideological reasons...  Economical benefits though is another thing.  Which is probably a far better region stabilizing motivator then trying to force Democracy down the Middle East's collective throats.

* Zangi thinks China is better suited to mucking about in the Middle East rather then the US or Russia.

[TamerVirus]

The solution is to blow up the Middle East, duh

[smjjames]

Didn't we also try isolationism before WWI? Though I think that was more 'Europe is fighting among themselves again and it's not our problem' than isolationism. Up until Germany pissed us off with their antics (zimmerman telegram, among other things) and pretty much declared war on us, or something.

China has a strong non-interventionist policy don't it?  They are the least likely to mess with shit for ideological reasons...  Economical benefits though is another thing.  Which is probably a far better region stabilizing motivator then trying to force Democracy down the Middle East's collective throats.

* Zangi thinks China is better suited to mucking about in the Middle East rather then the US or Russia.

China is non-interventionist outside of East and SouthEast Asia.

As far as economy stuff in the ME, what resources do they have besides oil? I know theres tourism in a couple places, but that is mostly either extremely localized (Dubai for example) or is otherwise driven off by the violence and unrest.

Also, with 'white man's burden' thing, Africa was hit just as hard by the colonial drawing of borders, and if they can eventually settle their differences (not everywhere though) without major redrawing of borders, then the Middle East can.

[FearfulJesuit]

Time to either pull out the rug and let them stop relying on us or start working toward doing just that, then! Not the states' frakking place to play geopolitical linchpin.

Yes, it is, though! That's the problem!

Your point, I take it, is that there should be no "ruler of the free world", or undisputed superpower.

I don't disagree with you! Ideally, there should be no unidisputed superpower. Neither the US, nor Russia, nor China, nor the EU- should be able to throw their weight around any more than they have a mandate to, which is to say, beyond matters which directly concern their own internal stability.

Unfortunately, geopolitics contains few shoulds. It has no principles to which anyone must answer.

We know that somebody will throw their weight around in a brash and somewhat embarrassing manner. We know it won't be the EU, which is sensible enough to reject superpower-dom. But Russia and China are more than happy to take up that position, and they aren't going to stop just because open-minded Westerners say they shouldn't. "The US is the leader of the free world" isn't a good choice. It is the least bad choice, because the only other choice is "Russia and/or China play cop." Pick your poison.

@smjjames: yeah, we were isolationist until the last year of the First World War. We probably should have stuck with it, since World War One was a stupid, bullheaded war with neither side entirely good or evil, and World War Two might have been avoided if Germany had been able to sue for a less humiliating peace.

As for the Middle East's resources: no, it doesn't really have any resources other than oil, which means if we're lucky the money spigot will run out in a couple decades. If/when solar takes hold it might be able to parlay its vast swaths of desert into staying Eurasia's energy broker anyways, though.

[Helgoland]

Zangi: Your approach would've lead to a swift and brutal crushing of the Syrian rebellion, because Assad is better at keeping the oil flowing. Do you really want that?

Same question for Frumple, actually. Do you deny that foreign policy should have a moral component?

[smjjames]

Well, when the money spigot dries out, they'll be forced to develop alternate industries and diverstify resources.

That is, if the leaders there see it coming and it doesn't collapse into all out anarchy.

[Descan]

Anyone else find it *extremely* weird that we have a country in the middle east, a monarchy, that has it's damned family name in it's title, Saudi Arabia... And we just roll with it? We even call the citizens "Saudi's" or "Saud's" or "the Saudi army"!

It's damned weird. It'd be like calling citizens of America "Obama's"... Or better, calling the British under the queen, "Windsors." 

I mean, I *get* that they're an absolute monarchy so basically everything *is* the Saudi's property, and I *get* that calling them Arabians could be confused, since everyone else in the area are "Arabs"... But it's still damned weird.

[Il Palazzo]

Up until Germany pissed us off with their antics (zimmerman telegram, among other things) and pretty much declared war on us, or something.

Is this the kind of history they teach in US schools?

[Zangi]

Zangi: Your approach would've lead to a swift and brutal crushing of the Syrian rebellion, because Assad is better at keeping the oil flowing. Do you really want that?

Sure.  ISIS wouldn't be around now would it?

There are of course many other implications, depending on when the US stops mucking about in the Middle East and China decides to pick up the slack. 
(Though... minimally assuming the US will still continues to back/aid/support Israel and the US will still go on its kneejerk adventures in Afghanistan.)

[smjjames]

Blame Britian, and it's a name that simply stuck I guess.

I guess it'd be like how Qing dynasty china is called the Qing.

Up until Germany pissed us off with their antics (zimmerman telegram, among other things) and pretty much declared war on us, or something.

Is this the kind of history they teach in US schools?

I was summarizing it, I know theres a good deal more to it than just the zimmerman telegram.

[Angle]

The solution is to blow up the Middle East, duh

That does seem like the likely ending.

And yeah, we don't seem to be accomplishing much in the middle east. I'm not too worried about China or Russia, though- both countries have about 40 to 50 years before they suffer demographic crashes, and after that they'll be too busy dealing with their own problems to trouble the rest of the world.

[Frumple]

Same question for Frumple, actually. Do you deny that foreign policy should have a moral component?

Not really, no. But if you can point to a single thing the US has done in the last couple decades in the ME that has anything that could be positively identified as having a moral component worth any note whatsoever, I will be incredibly surprised.* With rare exception, every intervention the US has participated in for the last ever has gone tits up with full capitals involved -- at this point, I'd say we have a stronger moral burden to stay the fuck out, because we've repeatedly proven we can't make things better.

Beyond that, if there is a moral component, then it's a universal one -- as I said, it's either global (something goddamn everyone should do something about), and should have a global response, or it's not, and shouldn't. Which is to say if it's not, the moral component needs to be left to the folks on the ground (note: Incredibly damned difficult when you're on the other side of an ocean!).

But it's long reached the point for me where I'll say it bluntly: If the rest of the world doesn't consider the moral component reason enough to pitch in evenly to a solution, neither do I. States have way too many civil issues for an economy of its strength to be shitting it down some third world sump with no sign of it doing a bloody thing, especially when everyone else seems damned and determined to not give a damn. If that makes me an immoral bastard, well. Okay. Foreign policy moral burden is fully subsided by domestic policy moral burden -- can't fix neighbor's tire when back yard is on fire, doubly so when the rest of the neighbors are just watching and maybe cheering a little.

*Yes, this is somewhat hyperbolic. I'm sure we've managed to not completely screw the pooch a few times. Can't really recall any, but they've got to be out there somewhere.

Pick your poison.

Yup, my poison is: Let them suck it up. They want the middle east, at this point, they can bloody well have it. Couple decades of that and maybe everyone-but-the-US will be horrified enough to actually chip in worth a damn. Or maybe nothing will happen or the whole place will go up in fire or rainbows will spout from ISIS's ass and there'll be peace and happiness and equality and goddamn ponies. I'm beyond the point of caring so long as it gets the US out of the leadership position (and, more importantly, primary/major bankroller) of that mess.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Power vacuums are a scenario easily wished for and easier regretted.