We need more Regime Change

[Conserative Morality]

Afghanistan and Iraq were major successes,

what

Afghanistan has a government that is still heavily reliant on foreign aid to stave off the Taliban (who, admittedly, are in turn reliant on foreign aid) and still doesn't control the whole of their own country. They're still in a state of civil war, essentially.

Iraq has a government so corrupt, incompetent, and divided that even billions in aid couldn't stop them from losing half of their country to a small group of fanatics. It took the Iranians to bail them out.

I often point out that the governments in these places are not as bad as what preceded them. But they are in no way success stories.

and Libya may look like it was bad but it wasn't us who started a civil war and prevented any nation building from happening.

It was us, however, who failed to step in after the government was overthrown in order to preserve stability instead of just knocking down the pillars and letting happen what may.

[Ascysia]

Let's just take Myanmar for example:
A big part of the problem there is that the government doesn't seem to actually control the military.

So you can get rid of the government, and install a new one. But your new government is going to be less legitimate, being the puppet regime of a foreign nation. Which means that the problem you have, that the government isn't really in control, is just going to get worse.

Regime change might be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It isn't a catchall solution.

We need to invade Myanmar and completely save the country. Aung San Suu Kyi is allowing genocide to happen.

Or y'know, we could stop shovelling the lives of young adults into the meat grinder of interventionist wars. Not to mention the untold billions wasted on making Iraq and Afghanistan such trash heaps.

People are always willing to throw young soldiers into the meat grinder when they aren't one of those soldiers.

I would be happy to fight on the frontlines, however the loss of someone of my intellect regarding military and foreign policy could change the course of the war, so I'm much better suited to planning.

Done gently and not all at once, it could work. But a sudden and forced change in regime can cause chaos on the government.

Sometimes chaos is a good thing.

Millions may need to die to ensure peace. You need to look at the bigger picture.

You need to consider your math. Starting a war preemptively is more costly than the status quo, because the authoritarian regimes aren't killing people as fast as a war would.

You also falsely assume that one war would be the end of it, and wouldn't create other issues. Long term economic failure, long term refugee crises, instability that leads to further violence, overextension of national resources to deal with a non-native issue.

Bad idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

Its more costly, but its still a small price to pay to end any future conflict.

[Austria-Latvia]

So, forcing democracy on those who don't want it is completely fine. Is that what you are trying to tell me? Never knew bombing and destroying countries is all in the name of freedom.

[Kernen]

I would be happy to fight on the frontlines, however the loss of someone of my intellect regarding military and foreign policy could change the course of the war, so I'm much better suited to planning.

Its ironic how that always seems to be the case with people who advocate war.

Its more costly, but its still a small price to pay to end any future conflict.

What is the wisdom in doing something that is more costly rather than something less costly? Especially when it comes to lives? It is more efficient by far to preserve the lives by not engaging in unending military conflict and economic depression.

[The East Marches II]

The goal is to cut off their allies, then we can deal with China and Russia straight on. We can't attack Russia directly right now, that's prime opportunity for China and the DPRK to invade Asia, and for Iran to attack Israel. All we need to do is bomb these ethnic militias until they submit, peace through strength. We need to stop being weak just because there's a threat of starting another war.

Do a cost benefit take. Is it worth a trillion dollars to topple a skrub who can be bullied or would that trillion be better spent on a new fleet, more tanks or perhaps giving our allies free shit? Shit even burning a trillion dollars, literally burning it, gets us more for our money.

[Dogmeat]

Let's just take Myanmar for example:
A big part of the problem there is that the government doesn't seem to actually control the military.

So you can get rid of the government, and install a new one. But your new government is going to be less legitimate, being the puppet regime of a foreign nation. Which means that the problem you have, that the government isn't really in control, is just going to get worse.

Regime change might be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It isn't a catchall solution.

We need to invade Myanmar and completely save the country. Aung San Suu Kyi is allowing genocide to happen.

I put it to you that this simply is not a meaningful response to what I wrote.

[Ascysia]

Afghanistan and Iraq were major successes,

what

Afghanistan has a government that is still heavily reliant on foreign aid to stave off the Taliban (who, admittedly, are in turn reliant on foreign aid) and still doesn't control the whole of their own country. They're still in a state of civil war, essentially.

Iraq has a government so corrupt, incompetent, and divided that even billions in aid couldn't stop them from losing half of their country to a small group of fanatics. It took the Iranians to bail them out.

I often point out that the governments in these places are not as bad as what preceded them. But they are in no way success stories.

and Libya may look like it was bad but it wasn't us who started a civil war and prevented any nation building from happening.

It was us, however, who failed to step in after the government was overthrown in order to preserve stability instead of just knocking down the pillars and letting happen what may.

Afghanistan can be solved easily, however the problem is liberal millennials being too scared to go to war and protesting over drone usage.
It doesn't matter if a government is corrupt or not.

The civil war in Libya prevents a new opportunity. Eventually the two sides will whittle each other down to nothing, and then we can swoop in and install a new government. Hopefully our administrations have acknowledged the simplicity of this.

[Yymea]

Man two pages in this thread is already starting to look like a dumpster fire, I think I'm out

[Telconi]

Let's just take Myanmar for example:
A big part of the problem there is that the government doesn't seem to actually control the military.

So you can get rid of the government, and install a new one. But your new government is going to be less legitimate, being the puppet regime of a foreign nation. Which means that the problem you have, that the government isn't really in control, is just going to get worse.

Regime change might be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It isn't a catchall solution.

We need to invade Myanmar and completely save the country. Aung San Suu Kyi is allowing genocide to happen.

People are always willing to throw young soldiers into the meat grinder when they aren't one of those soldiers.

I would be happy to fight on the frontlines, however the loss of someone of my intellect regarding military and foreign policy could change the course of the war, so I'm much better suited to planning.

Done gently and not all at once, it could work. But a sudden and forced change in regime can cause chaos on the government.

Sometimes chaos is a good thing.

You need to consider your math. Starting a war preemptively is more costly than the status quo, because the authoritarian regimes aren't killing people as fast as a war would.

You also falsely assume that one war would be the end of it, and wouldn't create other issues. Long term economic failure, long term refugee crises, instability that leads to further violence, overextension of national resources to deal with a non-native issue.

Bad idea is bad, and you should feel bad.

Its more costly, but its still a small price to pay to end any future conflict.

>I'm too smart and insightful to die in the trenches.
>We should invade loads of foreign nations to force regime changes and establish puppet governments.

... ... ...

[Trumptonium1]

We need regime change in the US.

Out with the deep state, drain the swamp. Anyone on CIA payroll longer than 15 years considered for capital punishment.

[Kernen]

The civil war in Libya prevents a new opportunity. Eventually the two sides will whittle each other down to nothing, and then we can swoop in and install a new government. Hopefully our administrations have acknowledged the simplicity of this.

We swoop in just in time to piss off the battle-hardened survivors and ensure a new resistance movement once the dust settles.

[Ascysia]

I would be happy to fight on the frontlines, however the loss of someone of my intellect regarding military and foreign policy could change the course of the war, so I'm much better suited to planning.

Its ironic how that always seems to be the case with people who advocate war.

Its more costly, but its still a small price to pay to end any future conflict.

What is the wisdom in doing something that is more costly rather than something less costly? Especially when it comes to lives? It is more efficient by far to preserve the lives by not engaging in unending military conflict and economic depression.

If necessary I will fight. However there will always be people who want to fight more than me.

So you think economic prosperity and peace for some people for a short while is better than eternal peace and eternal prosperity for everybody forever??

So, forcing democracy on those who don't want it is completely fine. Is that what you are trying to tell me? Never knew bombing and destroying countries is all in the name of freedom.

Yup. You're spot on.

The goal is to cut off their allies, then we can deal with China and Russia straight on. We can't attack Russia directly right now, that's prime opportunity for China and the DPRK to invade Asia, and for Iran to attack Israel. All we need to do is bomb these ethnic militias until they submit, peace through strength. We need to stop being weak just because there's a threat of starting another war.

Do a cost benefit take. Is it worth a trillion dollars to topple a skrub who can be bullied or would that trillion be better spent on a new fleet, more tanks or perhaps giving our allies free shit? Shit even burning a trillion dollars, literally burning it, gets us more for our money.

$1 Trillion is a tiny number. Most of our wars shouldn't even be that expensive. But yes, it is worth a trillion dollars to topple a dictator who murders his own people.

[Kernen]

Its ironic how that always seems to be the case with people who advocate war.

What is the wisdom in doing something that is more costly rather than something less costly? Especially when it comes to lives? It is more efficient by far to preserve the lives by not engaging in unending military conflict and economic depression.

If necessary I will fight. However there will always be people who want to fight more than me.

So you think economic prosperity and peace for some people for a short while is better than eternal peace and eternal prosperity for everybody forever??

I think there is no evidence that you can manage eternal peace and prosperity from your approach.

[Ascysia]

Man two pages in this thread is already starting to look like a dumpster fire, I think I'm out

If you want me to teach you about foreign policy just shoot me a TG.

We need regime change in the US.

Out with the deep state, drain the swamp. Anyone on CIA payroll longer than 15 years considered for capital punishment.

Uh no. The CIA are good and so is the deep state/"swamp". Stop being so contrarian. The establishment know whats best for us.

[The East Marches II]

$1 Trillion is a tiny number. Most of our wars shouldn't even be that expensive. But yes, it is worth a trillion dollars to topple a dictator who murders his own people.

Thats some Tupac is alive in Serbia shit right there. I'm calling it a day amigo, if you need me, you can discuss stuff in RWDT.

[Telconi]

Its ironic how that always seems to be the case with people who advocate war.

What is the wisdom in doing something that is more costly rather than something less costly? Especially when it comes to lives? It is more efficient by far to preserve the lives by not engaging in unending military conflict and economic depression.

If necessary I will fight. However there will always be people who want to fight more than me.

So you think economic prosperity and peace for some people for a short while is better than eternal peace and eternal prosperity for everybody forever??

So, forcing democracy on those who don't want it is completely fine. Is that what you are trying to tell me? Never knew bombing and destroying countries is all in the name of freedom.

Yup. You're spot on.

Do a cost benefit take. Is it worth a trillion dollars to topple a skrub who can be bullied or would that trillion be better spent on a new fleet, more tanks or perhaps giving our allies free shit? Shit even burning a trillion dollars, literally burning it, gets us more for our money.

$1 Trillion is a tiny number. Most of our wars shouldn't even be that expensive. But yes, it is worth a trillion dollars to topple a dictator who murders his own people.

Two points.

One, if the "some people" include me, my wife, and my daughter, then yes.

Secondly starting a half a dozen + wars is a far cry from eternal peace and prosperity.

[Ascysia]

If necessary I will fight. However there will always be people who want to fight more than me.

So you think economic prosperity and peace for some people for a short while is better than eternal peace and eternal prosperity for everybody forever??

I think there is no evidence that you can manage eternal peace and prosperity from your approach.

1) Democratic Peace Theory
2) The free movement of people and capital enabled by such an undertaking would create an economic boom that would last for years and years and years.

Source 1
Source 2

[Kernen]

Uh no. The CIA are good and so is the deep state/"swamp". Stop being so contrarian. The establishment know whats best for us.

Establishment knows what is best for the establishment. That is not the same thing as being best for us.

[Ascysia]

If necessary I will fight. However there will always be people who want to fight more than me.

So you think economic prosperity and peace for some people for a short while is better than eternal peace and eternal prosperity for everybody forever??


Yup. You're spot on.


$1 Trillion is a tiny number. Most of our wars shouldn't even be that expensive. But yes, it is worth a trillion dollars to topple a dictator who murders his own people.

Two points.

One, if the "some people" include me, my wife, and my daughter, then yes.

Secondly starting a half a dozen + wars is a far cry from eternal peace and prosperity.

Its called peace through war.

[Kernen]

I think there is no evidence that you can manage eternal peace and prosperity from your approach.

1) Democratic Peace Theory
2) The free movement of people and capital enabled by such an undertaking would create an economic boom that would last for years and years and years.

Source 1
Source 2

I see a theory that hasn't faced any kind of rigorous testing and a claim that has no basis in establishing democratic government. Democratic =/= free trade and open borders.

[Firaxin]

Man two pages in this thread is already starting to look like a dumpster fire, I think I'm out

If you want me to teach you about foreign policy just shoot me a TG.

We need regime change in the US.

Out with the deep state, drain the swamp. Anyone on CIA payroll longer than 15 years considered for capital punishment.

Uh no. The CIA are good and so is the deep state/"swamp". Stop being so contrarian. The establishment know whats best for us.

You just lost every intelligent person. Even authoritarians know that the establishment isn't always right.

[Trumptonium1]

Uh no. The CIA are good and so is the deep state/"swamp".

Yeah, no.

Stop being so contrarian. The establishment know whats best for us.

The establishment can't run a bath.

Anyone with two brain cells and up has avoided political office since at least the 1980s, resulting in a drastic decline in the number of people in payroll politics who aren't mentally deficient.

[Ascysia]

Uh no. The CIA are good and so is the deep state/"swamp". Stop being so contrarian. The establishment know whats best for us.

Establishment knows what is best for the establishment. That is not the same thing as being best for us.

The establishment is made up of intellectuals with years of experience. They know whats better for the world and us than we do. Hopefully one day I'll be able to join them!

[Ascysia]

1) Democratic Peace Theory
2) The free movement of people and capital enabled by such an undertaking would create an economic boom that would last for years and years and years.

Source 1
Source 2

I see a theory that hasn't faced any kind of rigorous testing and a claim that has no basis in establishing democratic government. Democratic =/= free trade and open borders.

Um excuse me? How many wars have happened between EU member-states in recent years? You know the organisation where you have to be a democracy to join? Didn't the French-German rivalry end because they both ended up as functioning liberal democracies under the guidance of two pragmatic experienced democrats? Yup that's right!

Uh no. The CIA are good and so is the deep state/"swamp".

Yeah, no.

Stop being so contrarian. The establishment know whats best for us.

The establishment can't run a bath.

Anyone with two brain cells and up has avoided political office since at least the 1980s, resulting in a drastic decline in the number of people in payroll politics who aren't mentally deficient.

That's why they run almost the entire world isn't it

[Kernen]

Establishment knows what is best for the establishment. That is not the same thing as being best for us.

The establishment is made up of intellectuals with years of experience. They know whats better for the world and us than we do. Hopefully one day I'll be able to join them!

Sure. Years of experience benefiting the Establishment. Not necessarily the individuals underfoot. Having been one of those establishment intellectuals, I might know a thing or two about it.