-
@nzzp said in US Politics:
@snowy said in US Politics:
Dunno, but they rarely seem to help matters.
yep, but leaving crazy religious extremists to oppress and run a country is hard to watch. Note I"m talking about Afghanistan here, and not the Republican party (tongue only slightly in cheek).
It really hammers home how much of a sense of perspective we ahve lost of how good life is though. We're calling for people to be cancelled over holding the wrong views here, but if you're in Afghanistan and female or not sufficiently bearded, you're in big trouble right now.
If the yanks had stepped in to properly rebuild the country after the Russian occupation, would we be in this situation? Real question, not rhetorical
-
@tim said in US Politics:
Quick reality check:
Have any americans died during this stage of the withdrawal?
As long as they American people are safe, let's not worry about the 1000s of people associated with opposition to the Taliban !!!!!!!!!!
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@nzzp said in US Politics:
@snowy said in US Politics:
Dunno, but they rarely seem to help matters.
yep, but leaving crazy religious extremists to oppress and run a country is hard to watch. Note I"m talking about Afghanistan here, and not the Republican party (tongue only slightly in cheek).
It really hammers home how much of a sense of perspective we ahve lost of how good life is though. We're calling for people to be cancelled over holding the wrong views here, but if you're in Afghanistan and female or not sufficiently bearded, you're in big trouble right now.
If the yanks had stepped in to properly rebuild the country after the Russian occupation, would we be in this situation? Real question, not rhetorical
Possibly, but the probability is the funding and assistance would've been tied to a leadership acceptable to the political powers in the USA, which has been a fundamental failure of policy everywhere. Rather than engaging in seriously soft power of encouragement and letting the populace determine for themselves the regime they'd prefer to live under.
Witness Iran. A policy failure that has had decades of ramifications. Repeated endlessly in other theatres because people in power clearly don't learn from their predecessors, are advised by people with no experience, compounded by expectation or ignorance around culture.
If only the USA had two great examples following WW2...
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@nzzp said in US Politics:
@snowy said in US Politics:
Dunno, but they rarely seem to help matters.
yep, but leaving crazy religious extremists to oppress and run a country is hard to watch. Note I"m talking about Afghanistan here, and not the Republican party (tongue only slightly in cheek).
It really hammers home how much of a sense of perspective we ahve lost of how good life is though. We're calling for people to be cancelled over holding the wrong views here, but if you're in Afghanistan and female or not sufficiently bearded, you're in big trouble right now.
If the yanks had stepped in to properly rebuild the country after the Russian occupation, would we be in this situation? Real question, not rhetorical
Possibly, but the probability is the funding and assistance would've been tied to a leadership acceptable to the political powers in the USA, which has been a fundamental failure of policy everywhere. Rather than engaging in seriously soft power of encouragement and letting the populace determine for themselves the regime they'd prefer to live under.
Witness Iran. A policy failure that has had decades of ramifications. Repeated endlessly in other theatres because people in power clearly don't learn from their predecessors, are advised by people with no experience, compounded by expectation or ignorance around culture.
If only the USA had two great examples following WW2...
The aid always comes with strings. There is no such thing as payibg it forward as a policy choice. As you say, I'm struggling to think of one place where the US have been successful. Their choice of front person does generally not work out well for the country
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@nzzp said in US Politics:
@snowy said in US Politics:
Dunno, but they rarely seem to help matters.
yep, but leaving crazy religious extremists to oppress and run a country is hard to watch. Note I"m talking about Afghanistan here, and not the Republican party (tongue only slightly in cheek).
It really hammers home how much of a sense of perspective we ahve lost of how good life is though. We're calling for people to be cancelled over holding the wrong views here, but if you're in Afghanistan and female or not sufficiently bearded, you're in big trouble right now.
If the yanks had stepped in to properly rebuild the country after the Russian occupation, would we be in this situation? Real question, not rhetorical
Possibly, but the probability is the funding and assistance would've been tied to a leadership acceptable to the political powers in the USA, which has been a fundamental failure of policy everywhere. Rather than engaging in seriously soft power of encouragement and letting the populace determine for themselves the regime they'd prefer to live under.
Witness Iran. A policy failure that has had decades of ramifications. Repeated endlessly in other theatres because people in power clearly don't learn from their predecessors, are advised by people with no experience, compounded by expectation or ignorance around culture.
If only the USA had two great examples following WW2...
The aid always comes with strings. There is no such thing as payibg it forward as a policy choice. As you say, I'm struggling to think of one place where the US have been successful. Their choice of front person does generally not work out well for the country
Japan, South Korea, first two that spring to mind.
-
@kirwan said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@nzzp said in US Politics:
@snowy said in US Politics:
Dunno, but they rarely seem to help matters.
yep, but leaving crazy religious extremists to oppress and run a country is hard to watch. Note I"m talking about Afghanistan here, and not the Republican party (tongue only slightly in cheek).
It really hammers home how much of a sense of perspective we ahve lost of how good life is though. We're calling for people to be cancelled over holding the wrong views here, but if you're in Afghanistan and female or not sufficiently bearded, you're in big trouble right now.
If the yanks had stepped in to properly rebuild the country after the Russian occupation, would we be in this situation? Real question, not rhetorical
Possibly, but the probability is the funding and assistance would've been tied to a leadership acceptable to the political powers in the USA, which has been a fundamental failure of policy everywhere. Rather than engaging in seriously soft power of encouragement and letting the populace determine for themselves the regime they'd prefer to live under.
Witness Iran. A policy failure that has had decades of ramifications. Repeated endlessly in other theatres because people in power clearly don't learn from their predecessors, are advised by people with no experience, compounded by expectation or ignorance around culture.
If only the USA had two great examples following WW2...
The aid always comes with strings. There is no such thing as payibg it forward as a policy choice. As you say, I'm struggling to think of one place where the US have been successful. Their choice of front person does generally not work out well for the country
Japan, South Korea, first two that spring to mind.
Thank you š. They are in the minority though
-
It would be interesting to see Biden face a press conference where he can't just stare down a camera and pretend that the only decision of any consequence was whether or not to leave Afghanistan.
The How being about as important as the What....
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@rapido said in US Politics:
I think he meant Japan and West Germany, though. As the examples.
None of those were 3rd world countries to start with
I need to do some re-reading, but my memory is that Japan wasn't as extensively (or relatively) modernised pre/during WWII as we might have expected - given their general military performance. West Germany was significant parts rubble, if highly skilled at getting things up and running again quickly...
-
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
West Germany was significant parts rubble, if highly skilled at getting things up and running again quickly...
Yes, and nobody wanted them doing it a third time.
They probably wouldn't have a second time if Versailles hadn't crippled them economically.
-
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@rapido said in US Politics:
I think he meant Japan and West Germany, though. As the examples.
None of those were 3rd world countries to start with
I need to do some re-reading, but my memory is that Japan wasn't as extensively (or relatively) modernised pre/during WWII as we might have expected - given their general military performance. West Germany was significant parts rubble, if highly skilled at getting things up and running again quickly...
They were both world powers at the time
-
@snowy said in US Politics:
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
West Germany was significant parts rubble, if highly skilled at getting things up and running again quickly...
Yes, and nobody wanted them doing it a third time.
They probably wouldn't have a second time if Versailles hadn't crippled them economically.
That created the ill feeling that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to flourish
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@snowy said in US Politics:
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
West Germany was significant parts rubble, if highly skilled at getting things up and running again quickly...
Yes, and nobody wanted them doing it a third time.
They probably wouldn't have a second time if Versailles hadn't crippled them economically.
That created the ill feeling that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to flourish
Yep.
-
@snowy said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@snowy said in US Politics:
@donsteppa said in US Politics:
West Germany was significant parts rubble, if highly skilled at getting things up and running again quickly...
Yes, and nobody wanted them doing it a third time.
They probably wouldn't have a second time if Versailles hadn't crippled them economically.
That created the ill feeling that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to flourish
Yep.
Just like the US leaving Afghanistan in ruins allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to flourish...
-
@duluth said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
I don't want to defend him, and I won't
You'll just talk about anything but the execution of the withdrawal
No. The execution has been farcical. Happy?
-
I dunno. But maybe his point was they provided the funding and support, but stepped back and tolerated parts of the power structure that domestic American politics found distasteful.
" tied to a leadership acceptable to the political powers in the USA, which has been a fundamental failure of policy everywhere. Rather than engaging in seriously soft power of encouragement and letting the populace determine for themselves the regime they'd prefer to live under."
E.g. Emperor Hirohito.
Ex Nazis in West German government and beaurocracy.However, in saying that. What America tolerated, or propped up, in South Vietnam wasn't rosey. When did soft power morph into inteference, or imposition of harder power.
This was a good read from GPF I saw yesterday.
US Politics