Print

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

[FearfulJesuit]

Probably smack Pakistan around diplomatically and make them cough up Bin Laden.

Yeah, Pakistan is a longer-term problem. They knew where Bin Laden was, they've been harboring and funding insurgents to fight a proxy war against us, and they shouldn't be allowed to have nukes any more than your average twelve-year-old should be allowed to own a gun.

Backing Reelya's post, too. It wasn't the intervention that was the problem. It was the execution. We could have done things much better and didn't.

[Reelya]

I think you're reading too much into it to believe Pakistan is fighting a proxy war "against us".

Pakistan's interest in Afghanistan was about securing their regional influence against other regional actors such as India and Iran. They don't really give a shit about USA.

If they were hiding bin laden it was probably because they didn't want him captured and talking about ISI operations in Afghanistan from the 1980s onwards, but they were equally scared that they'd come under terrorist attacks if they tried to kill him. Osama's main goals were always the destruction of the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. USA was provoked into starting wars in hope of dragging USA allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt to their destruction (it worked for Egypt).

[smjjames]

It was 'against us' in the sense of 'working against our goals'.

Anyhow, Teneb would probably like the Latin American politics thread back....

[Magistrum]

Ah... It was so nice making fun of Americans, it doesn't seem so fun now.

[misko27]

ITT: American Imperialism in Latinthread. When will Ameripol respect the sovereignty and independence of Latinthread?


OTT: The NY Times has a little compilation of a few quotes from the new president. I'm going to refrain from directly quoting the article here, but there are some... "interesting" quotes from Brazil's new leader. He may well give Trump, and Duterte, a run for their money.

[Reelya]

Yeah, probably a good call, that. It would be hard to summarize that in a way that did it justice.

[Kagus]

ITT: American Imperialism in Latinthread. When will Ameripol respect the sovereignty and independence of Latinthread?

Because, when you get down to it, we're all Americans.

Yeah, probably a good call, that. It would be hard to summarize that in a way that did it justice.

Looks like we've finally ended up in Bolsonaro World.

[ChairmanPoo]

What if we'd engaged in a campaign of detalibanization and enforced liberalism outside of Kabul?

"be liberal or die" that sort of thing? What an oxymoron.

"Forced liberalism" in Afghanistan would entail bringing in enough westerners to enact a complete martial-law government, with massive amounts of security personnel, and a surveillance state. The end result isn't "forced liberalism" at all despite whatever intentions were in place, the end result would be a technocratic surveillance police state with capitalism.

The US has the power to protect the weak and innocent from the capricious use of state power by evil men.

Get off your high horse. The US doesnt have the power to protect the weak and innocent from the capricious (crapicious?) use of state power by evil men in the US, let alone elsewhere in the world.  All your examples are based on selective and  interested readings of history. And you vastly overrate your contry's capabilities, but I'm guessing this one is standard on anyone letting patriotism cloud his judgement (which unfortunately is not rare in current international politics)

[Loud Whispers]

Counterpoint: Germany after the war.

After the war the German state ceased to exist and its leadership was dead, missing, suicided or executed. There was no choice regarding a dissolution of the German state; it was already dead. You can't compare destabilising a state in peace time with killing most of their men, their leadership, partitioning them between France, UK, USA, Russia and later themselves, with a continued military garrison by aforementioned powers - and expect success from two wildly different scenarios. Germany lost in total war; subsequently it meant that their country suffered the consequences gravely. 25-50% of their houses were destroyed by allied bombing campaigns, their transportation infrastructure and factories were ruined beyond function, they were suffering from rampant inflation, acute food shortages and communist occupation. West Germany could be made in the image of the Western Democracies because all opposition to such proposals died in the Second World War and West Germany was economically, politically and militarily in the hands of allied powers, later, in the hands of German institutions aligned with the West, with a supportive academia willing to instill a national guilt so potent they became synonymous with the origin of primeval evil in the new international mythology. This is not an example you should desire to replicate in Brazil, or anywhere else for that matter lmao.

I agree that we've tended to make a mess of things recently, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I think the experience of postwar Europe should tell us that the real problem wasn't that we intervened too much but that we were unwilling to commit to the intervention. Liberalism won in Germany, in large part, because we enforced liberalism and engaged in ruthless denazification of the country's institutions. We didn't let Germany try Nazism again after the war. That's a good thing.

Please for the love of God do not contribute to the plague of idiots using such rhetoric to justify telling people how to think

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It makes me want to yell fuck off you mangy dinosaurs, back to the hell pits of buzzfeed morgoth you soulless invertebrate potassium-deficient supine mongrels, dare you tell me what to think before I've even read your harvard decay? Lord knows if it's just something they do for search engine optimisation or if the titles are made by algorithms but it's getting out of control. And that's a good thing fucking crime against humanity

What if we'd engaged in a campaign of detalibanization and enforced liberalism outside of Kabul?
(And of course, we poured vast amounts of money into Germany after the war, too. We should have done that in Afghanistan. Nothing makes people like you more than free money; a $200/month welfare check per Afghan household in villages that don't harbor insurgents and treat their women fairly would have been a cheaper, and more lasting, way of getting people to like us than trying to wage a guerilla campaign.)

Failed in Iraq and the US did pour vast amounts of money into Afghanistan.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Forcing people to be liberals at gunpoint makes no fucking sense, it's just an obvious excuse to maintain hegemony over the lesser races. 120 years ago as today, spreading freedom and liberty by the bayonet everyday until they like it. But how can one have liberty if it is only the choice to vote for American approved candidates? This really activates my almonds, old habits do die hard it seems

ITT: American Imperialism in Latinthread. When will Ameripol respect the sovereignty and independence of Latinthread?

It is the fate of all politics threads to eventually become Ameripol threads

[Kagus]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ignorance so nice they viced it twice.


What's the one in the upper left? It almost looks like another "Oppression" or "Superstition" or maybe even "Corruption", but it's too small for me to make out.

I'm gonna go with "Crustacean", another ill of the developing world.

[Loud Whispers]

It's another corruption, or else the menace of crusteaceanism

[SaberToothTiger]

We're not your fucking monkeys, FJ. It's our way of life and you've no inherent right to tell us what to do so kindly fuck right off.

[misko27]

Guys, this is important enough that it shouldn't be derailed by a one-off comment on interventionism which is completely irrelevant given the particular circumstances of the case (namely, no intervention is coming).

Again, I really must re-suggest this article, especially for anyone unsure of who this Bolsanaro fellow is: it's short, but it has a lot of very interesting quotes from the man himself. And as I said, i could easily quote just one of the snippets from the article in order to shock the thread into being on-topic, but given the article I'd rather not... But I will just quote the entire thing if people won't get on topic. 

The NY Times has a little compilation of a few quotes from the new president. I'm going to refrain from directly quoting the article here, but there are some... "interesting" quotes from Brazil's new leader. He may well give Trump, and Duterte, a run for their money.

The outrage at a purely hypothetical American intervention is misdirected when a much more relevant - and arguably, much more concerning - situation is already a reality.

I've heard suggestions that this is the most right-wing leader to be democratically elected in South America; certainly in the modern period, but perhaps even "ever".

[SaberToothTiger]

This is not some "one off comment". Wer're dealing with a prolonged argument in which one person kindly suggests subjugating every other until they learn to be a good obedient slave and the other kindly disagrees. Is Bolsonaro filth? Yes. However, Brazilians elected him and unless democracy is only cool when it's your motherfucker who wins, then you might want to drop the hypocrisy and work around the wannabe dictator. Is it good that he won? No! But unless you want to finally drop the act of pretending you give a shit about the people you claim you want to liberate then you should watch what you're saying.

[misko27]

This is not some "one off comment".

Yes it is.

Wer're dealing with a prolonged argument in which one person kindly suggests subjugating every other until they learn to be a good obedient slave and the other kindly disagrees.

Indeed, and that person suggesting subjugation is named Bolsonaro. Did you read the article? About the purging? I really sugest reading the article.

Is Bolsonaro filth? Yes. However, Brazilians elected him and unless democracy is only cool when it's your motherfucker who wins, then you might want to drop the hypocrisy and work around the wannabe dictator.

My hypocrisy? Are you confusing me with FearfulJesuit? I'm not saying that the results should be invalidated, and only one person here suggested intervention; even he suggested it in a way that you would agree with and in a way that shows that it's not a real consideration (i.e. "The US doesn't have the moral authority", the only disagreement is whether the US ever has the moral authority).

Is it good that he won? No! But unless you want to finally drop the act of pretending you give a shit about the people you claim you want to liberate then you should watch what you're saying.

Let's compare some things here, shall we? I want to move away from intervention-talk, and I can give many reasons as to why:

• It gives autocrats an excuse to dp as they please, so long as they claim they are defending against "American Imperialism", imagined or not
• Related to the former, any American Imperialism in this situation is clearly imagined at best, meaning the discussion serves no purpose.
• Trump is pro-Bolsonaro, so there is somehow even less likelihood of intervention than with other states, adding even more evidence to the claim that it is irrelevant here. American conservatives, who are the interventionists, are pro-Bolsonaro. Edit: There's an editorial from the WSJ endorsing him. Same WSJ who endorses invasion of the middle east to spread American values. So, you know, intervention: not very likely.
• Bolsonaro should be discussed with regards to reality on the ground as opposed to hypotheticals, which I had attempted to draw attention to in the interests of talking about Brazil
• The discussion of America is tangential at best in this thread even when it is relevant, and discussion of state-building in Germany has no relevance to the current situation.
• The reification of all Latin American issues into American Foreign Policy does quite a lot to diminsh the importance and relevance of Latin America. Bringing up intervention when it's not relevant only serves to hinder the cause of Latin American independence from US influence, since it makes the US the primary topic of discussion when it isn't warranted, and furthers the claim that "Latin American issues are American issues".
• You're at war with a strawman, since even the most inteventionist person in this thread declared his position by saying that it was never going to happen, and he was against it in this circumstance regardless.
• I will continue to harp on this point, but Bolsonaro was democratically elected without US intervention: The US has not involved itself at all. Yet here you stand, yelling at me over American Imperialism, while I try to drag to topic back to the actual issues involved. You can't fight American-centrism by just being angrily against it, since you're still focusing on the US as the center of things. You have to stand for something, namely South America. Which means you have to discuss the issues.

In conclusion: this is the equivalent of going into a thread on Syria and loudly denouncing US involvement when the US is one of the least involved sides in the region, far-less involved than Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Lebanon (through Hezbollah), Iraq, and others. It indicates that the speaker doesn't actually care much about Syria and its sovereignty (since they are discussing the least offender among many), but cares a lot about the US. This is the Latin American Politics thread, so if for only that reason alone, you are off-topic. It's a valuable discussion to have, but not to have here. I tried to jumpstart the conversation in Ameripol so that the discussion, (which I think is an important one!), can have its space, but all it does here is distract from the actual election to what is an indefensible digression. Real people in the real world will have to live with Bolsonaro, so prosecuting an intervention which will not come is bizarre. Let me rephrase: can you explain to me why you are privileging discussion of historical and hypothetical American Intervention in Latin America over discussion of what is actually happening in South America today? And how can you claim that I "don't give a shit about the people" of South America when you only seem to want to complain about the North?

I mean I just want to discuss Bolsonaro here! Is that too much to ask? I want to hear reactions to those quotes by Brazil's newest President! I know Reelya read the article, who else? Are you telling me no one else in this thread has an opinion on “I would not rape you because you are not worthy of it.”? Or “In memory of Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, the terror of Dilma Rousseff … I vote YES.”? Or "I am in favor of torture — you know that. And the people are in favor of it, too." Quotes that are even worse in context! Someone, please, work with me here.