Hello all,
I have recently seen several people on Twitter advocate a position that whatever US or any western country does is always evil and wrong and therefore all people from other countries rightly have unlimited grievances towards us.
Twitter is not a place for discussion, so I came here instead. What do you guys think, are interventions ever good? I am not asking whether or not they are always good, but are they ever justified?
Is the war in Afghanistan justified or should we just let Taliban and ISIS battle it out between themselves?
Is it good to help Iraqi army retake Mosul or should we just let ISIS keep it because air strikes kill innocent people?
So, what intervention do you think is justified or are they all bad? If you think they are all bad, what about when US is blamed for not intervening like in Rwanda?
I would be really interested to read some of your opinions, because we are a really diverse bunch here. :-)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I think there are times where intervention by the west could possibly be good, especially if it does not involve a military intervention. But US and europe's (colonization) track record is particularly poor.
I think some intervention programs has done some good, like foreign investment from a few charities that help lift some people/communities out of cycle of poverty and subsistence farming.
I think we can all agree US's wars in iraq and afghanistan as intervention went poorly (putting it nicely.) Big part of that was our intentions with this intervention were not purely good. (no wmd's.)
Another question is war torn and blood soaked iraq ever capable of peace? I definitely think religion is to blame at least in part.
I know of one case where Western intervention worked, although at a terrible price. A US-led alliance carpet bombed the country's cities and destroyed its industries, communications, and transportation. Several hundred thousand civilians were killed. Then two atomic weapons were dropped. The country surrendered, and US forces moved in to run the country for several years under a military occupation. US government lawyers wrote a new constitution that outlawed war and made everybody equal under the law. Supporters of the old regime were purged from public office and industry, and the war economy was dismantled. With massive US aid, the country rebuilt its cities and industries and became a stable democracy and major economic power. During the Cold War, the US used it as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" to contain Soviet ambitions in the Pacific. That was Japan.
Interventions since then have been progressively less successful. In Japan the Western allies completely destroyed the old fascist regime and supported the establishment of democratic government. In Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, they have supported corrupt, oppressive regimes, solely because they were the "enemies of our enemies." That's no way to intervene on behalf of the people of a country, and it's bad policy in terms of the long-term interests of the Western countries concerned.
I don't think there was a right side in Rwanda. All those deaths were caused by a toxic mix of tribalism and Christian religion. People were hacked to pieces by Methodist ladies and burned alive by Catholic nuns. Most Western countries have laws that allow the prosecution of pedophiles who commit crimes in Third World Countries. I think they should have similar laws prohibiting religious groups from spreading their lunacy to other countries. Religious intervention has always been bad, starting with Latin America.
Pijo,
In the case of Afghanistan we intervened because the Taliban was cutting off our opium supply. So we went in to restore it and now we are getting more than ever.
It's highly unlikely we will ever intervene in West and Central Africa because we simply don't want any of those people as refugees. It's a racist thing.
The Levant countries are being destabilized so that Israel can take them over. It's a biblical thing.
Thank you for providing a concrete example of the kind of dystopian nihilism I have also seen on Twitter. Not only do you think that anything western countries do is bad, but their/our intentions are also always evil. While many of these operations have been more harmful than good and some even had evil motivations (like overthrowing democratic movement in Iran), your view is still way too pessimistic in my opinion.
Pijo,
Sometimes the simple answer is the correct answer.
International conflicts are started by people who want to get rich from the rivers of blood. If you want to know who's behind it follow the money and trace the weapons and supplies.
Oh come on! Europe is the pinnacle of Civilizations, Western Ideals and Interventions brought the World to this day. Sure there are Wars all over, but look closely, every non-western society has assimilated much of Western Society. Of course Western Intervention is a good think, and just as stated by Logic, when it doesn't involve "the military" which doesn't always bring the good side of the people. But don't equate the West, with the US, Europe collaborates with the US but it has no responsibility from it's actions and it's actually quite right for Asian and Middle Eastern countries to criticize the US due it's arrogance in foreign diplomacy, creating more chaos that's ever been before. Even at the point of causing ISIS, in case you don't believe that, read the facts, they are all there.
Thank you for considering interventions to mean other things in addition to wars. That was my intention.
@Pijo: A silly question, Why do we call it intervention, when it's obvious that it's other thing? To soften the excessive and violent action?
Between 2014 and 2016 the total number of fighting civilian victims between US and Taliban forces in Afghanistan has been 22,452 people, the number of mutilated and injured is 15,389, 11,541 children. These amounts are from UNAMA, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.
I would like to recall that this war began to punish Bin Laden and the country that backed Al Qaeda after 11S.
Between 2003 and 2007, the total number of civilian casualties from fighting in Iraq is dancing from more than 400,000, the Iraqi Ministry of Health, 601,027, the Lancet survey, or 1,033,000, Opinion Research Business. Today, 2017, we could be talking about three million civilians.
I also want to remember that this war began because the United States falsified evidence, presented it to American public opinion with the acquiescence of the American press, and to the UN about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in hands of Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction that NEVER appeared.
If anyone wants I can also put a graph of military spending from 2003 to today, which companies have received those funds, which private security companies are earning money today and who have benefited from the death in combat of US soldiers, the immense mostly belonging to the most depressed social strata of American society.
I know, I'm not very objective, I'm European. From my point of view Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld should be in jail for life for crimes against humanity, my opinion about Bush Sr. and Bush Junior isn't better.
The question is no longer whether the United States should start, or not these two wars, the only truth is that did it, that has no solution. Now the question is whether the United States should abandon Afghanistan and Iraq, not intervene and leave it to the hands of what United States has created... Yes, yes, I said right, we remember that Al Qaida and the Taliban were reinforced by the United States during the Soviet Afghan war, and the Shia radicalization in Iraq is a direct cause of overthrowing the Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein... and would rather not have to talk about Syria.
Is there no way to end these wars? Is the only solution to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq and abandon their governments to get out of the rut alone? No, there's a very simple solution that NGOs have been asking since ten years ago -Medicus Mundi was the first to request, all the NGOs working in both countries joined and the UN has been asking timidly since 2009-, simple as removing all firearms from the civilian population.
Why don't US do? That would have to be asked who sells small arms in Afghanistan and Iraq, Does anyone know who's the largest supplier of small arms in Afghanistan and Iraq? https://youtu.be/_U10M6ruboA
And let me make a prediction, the next problem that the United States will have will be with Pakistan. The Pakistani secret service is funded by the CIA to stop the Taliban at the border. Why do I say this? More and more Pakistani terrorists are being seen, especially in the UK. The winter is coming.
P.S.
Nobody blames the United States for not intervening in Rwanda, the international community blames the UN, although it's true that the United States was the country most reluctant to intervene from the Security Council.
P.S.S.
I forgot, Why did all this happen? As in the case of Korea, because US intervention policy isn't dictated by the United States' foreign policy based on the common good, it's dictated by companies that make money by making and selling weapons, those that make money by killing of US soldiers on a lost mountain in Afghanistan because their helmets and bullet-proof vests are defective. The question is Why do you call it democracy when it's neoliberalism?
Thank you for your view on this! I used the word "intervention" (with quotes) so that it would contain all kinds of western operations, not just US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I tried to be intentionally vague.
I agree with you about Iraq - my question was: are any of these operations good or successful .. it is clear that some are not well intentioned and most are failures of one sort or another.
What do you think about starting the war in Afghanistan after 9/11? The reason for the war was clear enough: they were helping Bin Laden. While the war has been terrible for the civilians, the alternative of theocratic rule under Taliban would also be terrible - in a different way.
(When I was a child I lived in a republic. Also the US was called a republic. At some point people started using the word democracy, even though the demos does not rule. I guess we will call US a democracy as long as they hold elections.)
I travel a lot and spent a week in Rwanda about a decade ago. I can tell you Rwanda blame the Belgians, who took control from Germany that initially "colonized the area", The Belgium's picked the taller, more ones that were more Caucasian in manner and were the cattle herders, minority to help them rule the area, of the majority of Hutu's creating a divided where there wasn't one. Then fast froward to independence from colonization decades later and this divide boiled over to the Hutu majority taking power from the Tutsi's, that eventually led to the genocide.
I was also told UN and US special forces in the area that got visitors/dignitaries etc out of the country at the start of the genocide could of easily stopped the genocide as well in its early stages. But the UN and US did not want to get "involved."
In the case of Afghanistan we intervened because the Taliban hiding the 9/11 terrorist. The war in Iraq was started over oil by Bush. America has built schools and other buildings in both countries. As for fighting ISIS and Taliban it should be a worldwide intervention. Both of those terrorist group need taken down.
@xenoview: And here we start again. Who trained to ISIS, Daesh and EIIL in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya? Who armed and financed them to fight against Bashar al-Ásad and after against Iran? How to fight against those groups that are fighting in Syria when the CIA finances them and American companies sell arms to them? Solve the problem that you have created and which is now costing lives in Europe and then come to talk about coalitions to end terrorist groups.
P.S.
That image is from a type 341 military aircraft, a type of aircraft used only by Americans and NATO forces in Iraqi airspace, launching ammunition and weapons for Daesh... Haven't you seen it in the NY Times? ¬¬)-♫
America has an internal problem of democratic credibility and the rest of the world we suffer.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
What are you talking about. Not just the US has it's hands dirty with the middle east. I don't read the new york times, I get my news online from the BBC and France 24.
According to several middle eastern nations, Qatar is backing islamist extremist.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40205878
@xenoview: Qatar has the largest US air base in the region, man. Don't read your own links? ¬¬)-♫
Yes I read the article. So the US has an air base in Qatar. Still doesn't change the fact that Qatar is being accused by it's neighbors for supporting islamic extremist.
@xenoview: But a photo of a airplane belonging to the US Army throwing ammunition and guns to Daesh is... What did you call it? ¬¬)-♫
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@SBMontero
What is your source for the photo?
http://www.hispantv.com/noticias/irak/312714/coalicion-eeuu-entrega-arma...
http://alwaght.com/es/News/75866/%E2%80%9CEEUU-y-Arabia-Saud%C3%AD-entre...
http://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-ejercito-sirio-acusa-estados-unidos...
http://www.eldiario.es/zonacritica/crisis-refugiados-estalla-ahora-Europ...
http://espanol.almayadeen.net/news/pol%C3%ADtica/10451/aviones-de-ee-uu-...
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194921.html
http://www.hispantv.com/noticias/irak/334383/comandante-apoyo-eeuu-estad...
... I especially like the recording of John Kerry recognizing that the United States supports and arms Daesh, a recording that was published by The Last Refuge and censored by the New York Times, until pressure from the international media forced them to publish it... half.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/middleeast/john-ker...
I repeat, US has an internal problem of democratic credibility, the rest of the world suffer and we started to get tired of paying the shit out of a government that isn't ours.
What kind of assault rifle is the terrorist takes? Do you know it's american?
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Thank you for the links.
@xenoview: You're welcome. Take advantage, because none of this you can read in the Anglo-Saxon press.
US certainly has a problem with democratic credibility, but so does nearly ever other country. The US may be worse then most though, but it is also in the spotlight and unlike other countries everyone ends up knowing about it. Not really defending the US, just pointing out, that it is not a US only problem.
@LogicForTW: And I agree, but we will also have to agree that it isn't just America's problem precisely because the United States. You cannot arm and fund people who carry out attacks and kill people all over the world and then say that responsibility isn't only yours. YES, the responsibility is ONLY yours. When Taliban assassinate Australian soldiers in a Afghanistan lost mountain IS your responsibility, when British soldiers are ambushed outside an Iraqi town IS your responsibility, when French tourists are killed in Tunisia by Daesh IS your responsibility.
Do you know that the Islamic State has claimed the London attack and that son of a bitch in photo who has an Islamic State flag behind carries an american assault rifle in his hands?
Europe is undergoing terrorist attacks by people who have been trained in Syria, Pakistan and Libya in US-paid camps. I assure you, Europe knows very well it isn't a US only problem, because Europe is the only who is suffering by now.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?: