6 votes

Why I Gave A Buck To Mike Gravel - Currentaffairs.org

3 comments

  1. [3]
    LiberHomo Link
    Ugh, he's worse than Gabbard. I'm a liberal, so YMMV, but I really detest the mindless dovism of these types, as if standing by and allowing dictators to brutalize their own citizens was not only...

    Ugh, he's worse than Gabbard. I'm a liberal, so YMMV, but I really detest the mindless dovism of these types, as if standing by and allowing dictators to brutalize their own citizens was not only morally superior to interventions, but as if it were obviously superior. As if blaming the US for murders of Iraqi citizens commited by insurgents was itself not implicitly denying the agency of those in the Global South. As if working to prop up brutal dictators like Assad (who has committed more war crimes in the last 20 yearsthan IS and the US combined) wasn't itself a different form of imperialism.

    3 votes
    1. alyaza (edited ) Link Parent
      just because i'm curious: can you name a single time in recent history that the united states intervening to prevent dictators from brutalizing their citizens has gone well at all for the country...

      as if standing by and allowing dictators to brutalize their own citizens was not only morally superior to interventions, but as if it were obviously superior

      just because i'm curious: can you name a single time in recent history that the united states intervening to prevent dictators from brutalizing their citizens has gone well at all for the country we intervened in, or resulted in more stability for the country? because i honestly cannot. (also, why exactly is it our moral duty to oust other countries' dictators? and why do we mostly empower other dictators/governments with our interests in mind over the people's interests when we do help a lot of these countries engage in regime change?)

      As if blaming the US for murders of Iraqi citizens commited by insurgents was itself not implicitly denying the agency of those in the Global South.

      implying that most of the deaths in iraq are the direct results of insurgency is at best disingenuous and at worst actively ridiculous, considering that we literally glassed most of their infrastructure and left a gigantic ass power vacuum because we put up a regime with no political backing or ability to effectively police its borders (and toppled one which had both capabilities) over weapons that were never proven to conclusively exist. you can maybe argue conflict deaths are mostly insurgent related, but conflict deaths are generously probably less than 50% of the total number of deaths in iraq since we ousted saddam, and the conditions which have produced such deaths are mostly on the coalition, not the insurgents.

      As if working to prop up brutal dictators like Assad (who has committed more war crimes in the last 20 yearsthan IS and the US combined) wasn't itself a different form of imperialism.

      firstly: [citation needed]. secondly, i hate to break it to you, but given that most of syria is in ruins and that there is basically no syrian opposition at this point, assad is probably the best hope for actually unifying syria, unless you want to start another massive regional war by empowering the kurds.

      most importantly though, i think what you're not recognizing is that dictators in a lot of places are by and large necessary evils, and you can mostly thank idiotic europeans and americans for that. when you draw a bunch of lines in the sand that are arbitrary even by the standard of borders with no respect for the peoples and cultures of an area (and also install people who do not represent the people at all), you can't really be surprised when violence ensues. there are a lot of countries in the world--particularly in the MENA region--that are or were pretty much only held together by their supreme leaders or dictators, and the moment you remove them the country collapses because it contains a bunch of diametrically opposed groups. this happened in libya post-gaddafi, this happened in iraq post-saddam, this happened in yemen post-saleh, etc. in fact, pretty much the only stable regime (with the exception of like, bahrain and the UAE) in the MENA region is iran--and that's only because (1) westerners didn't draw iran's borders; and (2) western influence was basically forced out with the revolution. were it not for that, i suspect iran would be just as unstable as most of its neighbors.

      9 votes
    2. Sahasrahla Link Parent
      In the spirit of considering the agency of those in Iraq, you might find it interesting to read through this blog. It's an online diary kept by a young Iraqi woman in Baghdad during the occupation...

      As if blaming the US for murders of Iraqi citizens commited by insurgents was itself not implicitly denying the agency of those in the Global South.

      In the spirit of considering the agency of those in Iraq, you might find it interesting to read through this blog. It's an online diary kept by a young Iraqi woman in Baghdad during the occupation and it gives invaluable insight into the thoughts and experiences of someone who had to live with the practical consequences of American interventionism.

      6 votes