Print

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

[WealthyRadish]

I think people are underestimating the United States' responsibility for the state of the region today, only looking at very recent events like the gulf wars and Iraq wars.

Spoiler: Same old rant (click to show/hide)

When the initial post-colonial nationalist movements across the region resulted almost universally in authoritarian dictatorships, the United States backed these governments out of fear of communism spreading and Soviet influence taking hold (provided the leader didn't have any "dangerous" leftist leanings). Even in cases where the US didn't actively intervene like they did in Persia (the responsibility for modern Iran rests completely on the US and Britain's shoulders after what they did to Mosaddegh), the perceived need to "protect" the region from soviet influence outweighed any consideration whatsoever for the people in the region and the increasingly totalitarian governments they languished under. The modern radical Islamist political movements and insurgencies we're now dealing with are for the most part not primarily concerned with terrorism against the west (though there are of course groups like Al-Qaeda), they're really fighting the repressive governments that we've propped up for the last 60 years, and it's the conditions these governments created that allowed extremism to develop and flourish in the first place.

How long ago was it that you could pick up a US article about how stylish and progressive Assad is? Why are we still allied with Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive hellholes on the planet? When the "Arab Spring" happened and was promptly crushed in most places, why didn't we do anything then, if we actually care about helping the region? How thoroughly you blame the US for the situation depends largely on how you view our complacency and long term covert involvement as guilt, if the more obvious disasters we're responsible for like what happened in Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq aren't enough.

[Flying Dice]

Well, yes--that's the staple of U.S. Cold War foreign policy in minor countries, propping up right-wing dictators and disrupting leftist revolutions was our bread and butter. Stating that that had a large hand in the current instability in a lot of places in the Third World is like stating that bears are Catholic and that the Pope shits in the woods, or something to that effect. Pretty much the only success case (that I can remember, anyways) is South Korea, and that's down to internal factors like the June Democratic Uprising and the protectionist policies that allowed them to develop their industrial base, not anything that the U.S. did.

[mainiac]

Why are we still allied with Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive hellholes on the planet?

Because the alternative is worse?

The modern radical Islamist political movements and insurgencies we're now dealing with are for the most part not primarily concerned with terrorism against the west (though there are of course groups like Al-Qaeda), they're really fighting the repressive governments that we've propped up for the last 60 years, and it's the conditions these governments created that allowed extremism to develop and flourish in the first place.

The 90s called, they want their geopolitics back.  Cuz this stuff is 20 years out of date, if that.  Here's a little event that happened not terribly recently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon attacked a US ally.  Ain't it weird how regimes we were "propping up" could act directly against American aims?  Ain't it weird how they had so much Soviet equipment?

Acting like the US was ever in control of all those middle eastern dictatorship is the same one sided crap that makes people say the China controls the US because it owns a bunch of debt.  It's turning a complicated political environment into a ridiculous caricature.

Pretty much the only success case (that I can remember, anyways) is South Korea

Taiwan, Japan, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Kuwait.  Either they are successful "illiberal democracies" or they transitioned from dictatorship to democracy during the cold war.

[Flying Dice]

Taiwan, Japan, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Kuwait.  Either they are successful "illiberal democracies" or they transitioned from dictatorship to democracy during the cold war.

Respectively: Democratic from Sept. 1945 onward; democratic from May 1949 until reunification; democratic from 1946 onward; the only one on your list that could feasibly be included, though its current political and economic situation makes one question whether it's a success story at all; democracy from 1946 onward, barring the three-ish short lived coups; became a democracy two years after it gained independence from the British protectorate established back in 1899.

In short: Excepting Greece, every single one of those states transitioned to democratic government purely under their own inertia with little or no foreign intervention in their internal politics. The Greek civil war I'll grant you, but Greece isn't exactly a prime example of successful democratization and industrialization in the way South Korea is.

[penguinofhonor]

You have one less response than mainiac had countries, so I'm not sure exactly how those are supposed to line up.

[Culise]

I'm not sure, but I think he skipped Japan.  Which is an odd one to include in the original list of examples, because it transitioned from dictatorship into democracy explicitly under US aegis - a US imposed constitution under US military occupation.  I mean, I'm not fond of LDP dominance, but it wasn't really undemocratic.  The US didn't prop up right-wing dictators there or in West Germany.

EDIT:
That said, they *did* support dictators in Taiwan.  Taiwan didn't leave the KMT-dominated autocracy and institute democratic reforms until after Chiang Kai-shek died, with the reforms taking place over the course of the 70s and 80s.  So, actually, he might have skipped Taiwan.  It's also worth noting that the beginning of democratic reforms in Korea is very...suspicious.  The motivations of the person who killed Park Chung-hee have been ascribed to everything from personal revenge to greed to idealism to a CIA plot. 

[RedKing]

Kuwait is democratic-ish, but still a monarchy. And it owes that more to Britain and its own leaders than the US.

[Culise]

EDIT: Scratch that, I conflated two arguments by accident.  ^_^

[Reelya]

Regardless of the 6-day war, the Egyptian dictatorship under Mubarak was the second-largest recipient of US military aid worldwide (excluding NATO countries). So, maniac, the early 1970's wants their geopolitics back. You might as well cite Charlemagnes campaigns for how relevant the 6 day war is to the alliances that existed in the modern period leading up to and following 9/11.

The three big allies of the USA (until the Arab Spring messed things up) were Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This can completely explain why the 9/11 hijackers came from the countries they did, and did not in fact include any Syrians, Iranians or Iraqis.

Saudi Arabia: big US ally, brutal dictatorship, and the bulk of the 911 terrorists targeting America
Egypt: big US ally, brutal dictatorship, and an Egyptian joined the 911 attack
Lebanon: under Israeli occupation for many decades (and an occupation=dictatorship) and one of them joined the terrorists in 911
UAE: although smaller, they are a brutal dictatorship, strong US ally (they were a major US base location in gulf war 1), and provided another two terrorists in 911

It's not fanciful at all, and none of the stuff mainaic mentioned such as us not propping up Syria or other anti-US countries is relevant whatsoever, since those people weren't involved in planning any of this. Everyone involved was from a country where it was well known that the US was backing the dictators.

[mainiac]

Regardless of the 6-day war, the Egyptian dictatorship under Mubarak was the second-largest recipient of US military aid worldwide (excluding NATO countries). So, maniac, the early 1970's wants their geopolitics back.

Kinda my point?

a complicated political environment

[Reelya]

The 90s called, they want their geopolitics back.  Cuz this stuff is 20 years out of date, if that.  Here's a little event that happened not terribly recently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon attacked a US ally.  Ain't it weird how regimes we were "propping up" could act directly against American aims?  Ain't it weird how they had so much Soviet equipment?

No, you said this, and it's bullshit. Because USA was in fact propping up Egypt in the 80's and 90's and 2000's. So whether the previous government was soviet-backed is a complete red herring. It's about as relevant as asking about Kaiser Willhelms direct involvement in WWII.

And it's not 90's geopolitics, because USA propped up Mubarak even more under Bush than they did before. This propping up goes right up to the Arab Spring.

[mainiac]

So whether the previous government was soviet-backed is a complete red herring.

Well then it's a good thing that wasn't my argument.  My argument was that it was a complicated political situation where the US no more unilaterally dictated their foreign policy then China unilaterally dictates American foreign policy.

[Reelya]

When you give one faction $20 billion worth of weapons you're making a political statement, even if you state it's just about stability.

Add to that the $30 billion of additional aid for Egypt, and tell me that they weren't dependent on the USA to the point that it would affect their foreign relations. You don't just pump $50 billion into a poor country and not expect this to totally shape their political and economic outlook.

[mainiac]

When you give one faction $20 billion worth of weapons you're making a political statement, even if you state it's just about stability.

Yes, yes you do.  And we should judge US on that 20 billion without acting like the US is responsible for everything Egypt did in the past fifty years.

[Sheb]

Wow, the stupid is strong in this thread. Also, apparently I become very blunt when drunk.


P.S. I <3 mainiac