President Bush The Smarter Has Passed Away

[Cherub786]

In my view, as long as it is feasible and practical, the US should overthrow every dangerous and evil regime. Does anyone doubt that North Korea is an Orwellian state? Wouldn't it be great to overthrow the Communists in China and return that territory to the legitimate China (Taiwan)? Why shouldn't the civilized world help Ukraine retake Crimea? Why shouldn't they force out Russia from Syria and overthrow the Baathists?

These things aren't done because at present they are not feasible. But should the situation change, a true statesman wouldn't hesitate to overthrow these loathsome regimes. Don't tell me immoral, it is completely moral and justified.

[Brian37]

Not all nations, only those regimes that themselves should be overthrown.

Which gives the whole premise of international moot and reduces it to a countries personnel sense of righteousness.

---

Every evil regime thinks their the good guys

Humans evolved to group, that was happening long before the human invented artificial constructs of borders, nations, political/economic or religious ideology. Those artificial labels are merely the excuses humans make to keep groups and or to gain access to resources. 

But there still are regardless, bad ideas sold in the world that end up leading to atrocities.

[Amarok]

In my view, as long as it is feasible and practical, the US should overthrow every dangerous and evil regime.

Which is a fucking dangerous mentality 

 Does anyone doubt that North Korea is an Orwellian state? Wouldn't it be great to overthrow the Communists in China and return that territory to the legitimate China (Taiwan)? Why shouldn't the civilized world help Ukraine retake Crimea? Why shouldn't they force out Russia from Syria and overthrow the Baathists?

Because again it's dangerous mentality 

These things aren't done because at present they are not feasible. But should the situation change, a true statesman wouldn't hesitate to overthrow these loathsome regimes. Don't tell me immoral, it is completely moral and justified.

No it's fucking not moral

[Brian37]

In a world of nuclear weapons, to stupidly say we should overthrow any nation we don't like is FUCKING STUPID. As I said in my prior post, it isn't an either/or thing, because BOTH have risks. Regardless of going in or staying out, the biggest risk is a global nuclear war, and if you are not taking that into account either way, then all you are doing is falling for you own damned emotions.

[Cherub786]

In a world of nuclear weapons, to stupidly say we should overthrow any nation we don't like is FUCKING STUPID.

First of all, overthrowing doesn't always require a full on military invasion. Intelligence and stealth can do a lot too. Remember how the CIA overthrew a leftist govt. in Iran circa 1953. And similarly, the CIA did great work in Mesoamerica in containing leftist militias from taking over several states there. The greatest adversaries are Russia and China. As long as these 2 states are relatively stable at home they will pose a threat and expand their influence. You need a new project to destabilize them both from the inside eventually leading to the collapse of those regimes like how the USSR collapsed.

[Angrboda]

The simple problem with blaming Bush, Sr. with not taking out Iraq is that doing so would not have been a just war and would have compromised our aims in the region and elsewhere by setting a precedent that the U.S. was willing to shamelessly engage in conquest and imperialism for unjustifiable reasons. A precedent that would have had far reaching and damaging consequences. Bush, Jr. realized this. That's why he manufactured the charge of harboring WMDs in violation of UN agreements and violating the no-fly zone. Bush, Jr. attempted to give a war on Iraq the legitimacy that it would have lacked under Bush, Sr. To say that Bush, Sr. was a failure for not engaging in an unjust war is simply short sighted thinking, concentrating only on the immediate goal of regime change in Iraq, and ignoring the consequences of engaging in such without adequate moral justification. It is not only immoral, it is bad policy.

[Brian37]

In a world of nuclear weapons, to stupidly say we should overthrow any nation we don't like is FUCKING STUPID.

First of all, overthrowing doesn't always require a full on military invasion. Intelligence and stealth can do a lot too. Remember how the CIA overthrew a leftist govt. in Iran circa 1953. And similarly, the CIA did great work in Mesoamerica in containing leftist militias from taking over several states there. The greatest adversaries are Russia and China. As long as these 2 states are relatively stable at home they will pose a threat and expand their influence. You need a new project to destabilize them both from the inside eventually leading to the collapse of those regimes like how the USSR collapsed.

There is no such thing as a "leftist" government. I am a liberal, I value the protection of pluralism. I am sick of the bullshit slur that all closed societies are "leftist". No, they are conservative. Iran does not value political or religious pluralism. They are a one party CONSERVATIVE theocracy.

China is also A CONSERVATIVE STATE. It values blind loyalty to ONE PARTY. That is hardly a value of openness and pluralism.

And what Reagan did with "tear down that wall" had nothing to do with the GOP starting the age of failed trickle down economics. From a social perspective in pushing an open society in Germany and Russia, he was right. But that does not mean what he did locally here with economics worked. 

"Capitalism" is not a form of government. China allows the private sector too, it is why when you go to Walmart you see 99% of the labels on products "made in China". They are a one party conservative AUTHORITARIAN capitalist country. The Saudi Royal Family also are a RICH family who owns banks and oil companies. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in General Electric. Fidel Castro died with an estimated personal wealth of $800 million.

What failed with Iran ending up in a theocracy, was our miscalculation that by busting them up it would lead towards a more open society. But that does not make the Iran we have now a liberal country, to claim it is is absolute bullshit.

Again, "liberal" does not mean closed, it means "open".

[Cherub786]

The simple problem with blaming Bush, Sr. with not taking out Iraq is that doing so would not have been a just war and would have compromised our aims in the region and elsewhere by setting a precedent that the U.S. was willing to shamelessly engage in conquest and imperialism for unjustifiable reasons.  A precedent that would have had far reaching and damaging consequences.  Bush, Jr. realized this.  That's why he manufactured the charge of harboring WMDs in violation of UN agreements and violating the no-fly zone.  Bush, Jr. attempted to give a war on Iraq the legitimacy that it would have lacked under Bush, Sr.  To say that Bush, Sr. was a failure for not engaging in an unjust war is simply short sighted thinking, concentrating  only on the immediate goal of regime change in Iraq, and ignoring the consequences of engaging in such without adequate moral justification.  It is not only immoral, it is bad policy.

Why did the US, under Bush Sr., encourage an internal revolt in Iraq with the aim of overthrowing Saddam?
It has nothing to do with imperialism or conquest. Once free, Iraq auctioned and contracted its oil to the Chinese.
WMDs and oil were just a pretext. The real reason was to get rid of a dictator like Saddam. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters and that's all the justification needed.
When troops were already on the ground in Kuwait, it was just a matter of crossing the border and heading north a few miles to Baghdad. Bush Senior made a blunder just admit it.
Instead, we allowed Iraq a full decade to regroup and try to recover. That partly explains why the insurgency during the Second Gulf War was so intense. The Baathists were preparing for it and had increasingly militarized the Sunni triangle. They knew they could never defend against the Americans in a conventional war, which is why they didn't even try in 2003.

---

First of all, overthrowing doesn't always require a full on military invasion. Intelligence and stealth can do a lot too. Remember how the CIA overthrew a leftist govt. in Iran circa 1953. And similarly, the CIA did great work in Mesoamerica in containing leftist militias from taking over several states there. The greatest adversaries are Russia and China. As long as these 2 states are relatively stable at home they will pose a threat and expand their influence. You need a new project to destabilize them both from the inside eventually leading to the collapse of those regimes like how the USSR collapsed.

There is no such thing as a "leftist" government. I am a liberal, I value the protection of pluralism. I am sick of the bullshit slur that all closed societies are "leftist". No, they are conservative. Iran does not value political or religious pluralism. They are a one party CONSERVATIVE theocracy.

China is also A CONSERVATIVE STATE. It values blind loyalty to ONE PARTY. That is hardly a value of openness and pluralism.

And what Reagan did with "tear down that wall" had nothing to do with the GOP starting the age of failed trickle down economics. From a social perspective in pushing an open society in Germany and Russia, he was right. But that does not mean what he did locally here with economics worked. 

"Capitalism" is not a form of government. China allows the private sector too, it is why when you go to Walmart you see 99% of the labels on products "made in China". They are a one party conservative AUTHORITARIAN capitalist country. The Saudi Royal Family also are a RICH family who owns banks and oil companies. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in General Electric. Fidel Castro died with an estimated personal wealth of $800 million.

What failed with Iran ending up in a theocracy, was our miscalculation that by busting them up it would lead towards a more open society. But that does not make the Iran we have now a liberal country, to claim it is is absolute bullshit.

Again, "liberal" does not mean closed, it means "open".

Dude stop trying to redefine political terms. This isn't about the liberal conservative binary. That binary is for people with a simple minded approach to politics.

[Brian37]

The simple problem with blaming Bush, Sr. with not taking out Iraq is that doing so would not have been a just war and would have compromised our aims in the region and elsewhere by setting a precedent that the U.S. was willing to shamelessly engage in conquest and imperialism for unjustifiable reasons.  A precedent that would have had far reaching and damaging consequences.  Bush, Jr. realized this.  That's why he manufactured the charge of harboring WMDs in violation of UN agreements and violating the no-fly zone.  Bush, Jr. attempted to give a war on Iraq the legitimacy that it would have lacked under Bush, Sr.  To say that Bush, Sr. was a failure for not engaging in an unjust war is simply short sighted thinking, concentrating  only on the immediate goal of regime change in Iraq, and ignoring the consequences of engaging in such without adequate moral justification.  It is not only immoral, it is bad policy.

Why did the US, under Bush Sr., encourage an internal revolt in Iraq with the aim of overthrowing Saddam?
It has nothing to do with imperialism or conquest. Once free, Iraq auctioned and contracted its oil to the Chinese.
WMDs and oil were just a pretext. The real reason was to get rid of a dictator like Saddam. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters and that's all the justification needed.
When troops were already on the ground in Kuwait, it was just a matter of crossing the border and heading north a few miles to Baghdad. Bush Senior made a blunder just admit it.
Instead, we allowed Iraq a full decade to regroup and try to recover. That partly explains why the insurgency during the Second Gulf War was so intense. The Baathists were preparing for it and had increasingly militarized the Sunni triangle. They knew they could never defend against the Americans in a conventional war, which is why they didn't even try in 2003.

Bush Sr took a calculated risk in letting Iraqi citizens finish the job, that was a blunder, yes. But that did not justify what his son did 12 years later basing the second on a lie. I might have supported it if he had left out the WMD bullshit, and simply pointed out the atrocities between. Throwing in that lie made America lose credibility on the global stage. 

I have been on line since 01 and have had conversations with citizens of both Iran and Iraq and Israelis too. It is possible to value an individual without liking everything a government one might live under does.

In the end all 7 billion of us are the same species. And again, it may sound easy to play the what ifs and we should or could, but those small fries have bigger friends who can do damage with nukes if pushed too far. Nobody wins in a global nuclear war. If that were to happen, you wont' have to worry about nation vs nation, at that point, in that aftermath if anyone is left over, you will be killing your literal neighbor for food, and still dealing with the radiation poisoning even with food and water supplies.

So going in, or staying out of something, still has to be based on the risk of mutual destruction.

[Anomalocaris]

In a world of nuclear weapons, to stupidly say we should overthrow any nation we don't like is FUCKING STUPID.

First of all, overthrowing doesn't always require a full on military invasion. Intelligence and stealth can do a lot too. Remember how the CIA overthrew a leftist govt. in Iran circa 1953. And similarly, the CIA did great work in Mesoamerica in containing leftist militias from taking over several states there. The greatest adversaries are Russia and China. As long as these 2 states are relatively stable at home they will pose a threat and expand their influence. You need a new project to destabilize them both from the inside eventually leading to the collapse of those regimes like how the USSR collapsed.

Ah yes.  

The US attempted to do precisely what you wanted, but yet Putin is still here, Russia is stronger than any time since 1990.  Russia is still in Syria, Russia is still in Ukraine.    For the first time since 1918, traditionally Russophobia conservative Eastern European government in the former Soviet sphere of influence now works hand in glove with Putin to undermine the EU.

In response to what the US attempted to do, and the fact that by trying to do it the US legitimized the action in Russian eyes, the Russians decided to do the same things back to the US.  As a direct result trump is in the whitehouse.  The US is weaker than anytime since 1990.  The pillars of American global influences are all piles of rubble, american domestic conflicts of region, demographics, and face it, flaky ideological political alignments, boiled to the surface as it hasn’t done since the civil war.  There is no prospect of the US returning to the leadership position of any of the global organizations and institutions that underpinned its global influence hitherto.  For the first time since 1918, the main governments in Western Europe that shared America mainstream outlook for the last century decided american is not to be trusted.

So, it appears the course of Overthrowning noxious regime in the world out of a sense of righteousness does not seem to cause the noxious regimes too much inconvenience, but it does seem to put the righteous regime onto a path of isolation, collapse and self immolation.