Re: Seld-defeating US foreign policy
Will Morton wrote...
In addition, the whole of Indochina was (and is) a clusterfuck of rivalries and feuds going back centuries. The (relatively) sudden appearance of a bunch of new regimes, all with revolutionary mindsets through which to apply their old vendettas, probably made the bloodshed inevitable - although US intervention undoubtedly made it worse.
Basically the way I see it. I've felt for a long time that the US (even while pursuing it's questionable goals) should have jumped all over the chance to buddy-up with China after the Sino-Soviet split, and knowing Mao's practicality I'd bet he could have been pursuaded (hell, not long after it was Mao and Zhou who initated contact with the US). Relations with Vietnam and Cambodia could have proceeded very differently in that environment. Would the cultural revolution still have happened? Probably. Would the Khmers have gotten into power...possibly but I actually doubt it. But of course, we were still in the middle of McCarthy-ism, so way too ideologically blind to see the obvious. As a result we continued to mindlessly pursue ideology rather than practicality and so ended really making things worse in SE Asia, in a place where Marxism was really a useful but temporary veneer over local politics (again we were too blind to see that Marxism was a western transplant that wasn't going to do too well in Asia). And we're doing it again...(eg, we had some chances with Iran recently that we passed up...that was really stupid, and the Iranians seem to know it). -TD _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
-- On 21 Oct 2004 at 12:19, Tyler Durden wrote:
Basically the way I see it. I've felt for a long time that the US (even while pursuing it's questionable goals) should have jumped all over the chance to buddy-up with China after the Sino-Soviet split, and knowing Mao's practicality I'd bet he could have been pursuaded
But the US did try (enventually somewhat successfully) to buddy up with China after the Sino Soviet split.
But of course, we were still in the middle of McCarthy-ism, so way too ideologically blind to see the obvious
The Sino Soviet split occurred long, long, long after McCarthy-ism, and the McCarthyism you imagine never existed.
As a result we continued to mindlessly pursue ideology rather than practicality and so ended really making things worse in SE Asia, in a place where Marxism was really a useful but temporary veneer over local politics (again we were too blind to see that Marxism was a western transplant that wasn't going to do too well in Asia)
Marxism collapsed in IndoChina when the Soviet Union collapsed. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG tZmcZdj//R58tp4DiAG0IC4pOHohzacYZQvAALA8 4giYjxVqF5lKWmPpdSglZvGiAEMgB4qWZL08Rt4LN
Tyler Durden wrote:
But of course, we were still in the middle of McCarthy-ism, so way too ideologically blind to see the obvious. As a result we continued to mindlessly pursue ideology rather than practicality and so ended really making things worse in SE Asia, in a place where Marxism was really a useful but temporary veneer over local politics (again we were too blind to see that Marxism was a western transplant that wasn't going to do too well in Asia). And we're doing it again...(eg, we had some chances with Iran recently that we passed up...that was really stupid, and the Iranians seem to know it).
The US missed a real trick when Khatami got into power in 1997; he had a huge swell of popular support behind him, and with significant US backing he could probably have outmaneuvered the conservatives and made some real changes. A truly democratic Persian state would be a huge boost to stability in the Middle East, not to mention the psyops benefits of having a poster-child for moderate, tolerant Islam. Instead, we had the 'axis of evil' hogwash, and lo: the conservatives marginalise Khatami, and we're back to abayas, beards and jihad. Of course the more cynical might think that this lack of stability is entirely deliberate on the part of the US. Better to have pet tyrants who require American military aid to suppress dissent, and hence ensure ongoing access to oil fields, or else loonies who spit vitriol about The Great Satan and ensure their own irrelevance (in which case the oil stays underground, waiting for a more economically realistic owner). Stable regimes with the ability to sell oil on the world stage might start throwing their geopolitical weight around. Venezuela, anyone? W
-- On 21 Oct 2004 at 18:33, Will Morton wrote:
The US missed a real trick when Khatami got into power in 1997; he had a huge swell of popular support behind him, and with significant US backing he could probably have outmaneuvered the conservatives and made some real changes. A truly democratic Persian state would be a huge boost to stability in the Middle East
How could the US have given him support, short of violent means, such as bombing Tehran, which he was reluctant to accept?
Instead, we had the 'axis of evil' hogwash, and lo: the conservatives marginalise Khatami, and we're back to abayas, beards and jihad.
You have this back to front. Khatami was marginalized by the mullahs, and BECAUSE he was marginalized, because democracy in Iran was suppressed, the US government THEN included Iran in the axis of evil. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG bOnKco+tbdVSGb2A96fIOzqUlk5hPdfyqVii+Kw6 4n8dzssBv4gYRUzzCUZUGZRnJ7jaPM6R5ewts5h7t
James A. Donald wrote:
How could the US have given him support, short of violent means, such as bombing Tehran, which he was reluctant to accept?
Money. Push it through your favourite UN department. Schools and hospitals == goodwill.
You have this back to front. Khatami was marginalized by the mullahs, and BECAUSE he was marginalized, because democracy in Iran was suppressed, the US government THEN included Iran in the axis of evil.
June 2001: Khatami re-elected January 2002: Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech February 2004: Rigged parliamentary elections lead to conservative majority Where do you source your data? W
-- James A. Donald wrote:
How could the US have given him support, short of violent means, such as bombing Tehran, which he was reluctant to accept?
Will Morton
Money. Push it through your favourite UN department. Schools and hospitals == goodwill.
But Khatami was knackered shortly after being elected, so any aid would be aiding the terrorists. We saw how well that worked in Fallujah and Sadr city.
You have this back to front. Khatami was marginalized by the mullahs, and BECAUSE he was marginalized, because democracy in Iran was suppressed, the US government THEN included Iran in the axis of evil.
June 2001: Khatami re-elected
A few months or weeks thereafter, Khatami knackered.
January 2002: Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech February 2004: Rigged parliamentary elections lead to conservative majority
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG awTWa50VppXAeloD/WWVz2J1joqO+pSreygahZBW 4jOiLYK/ThEv65/df4FnAeG1XfpolTTv2+g9uXCPU
James A. Donald wrote:
But Khatami was knackered shortly after being elected, so any aid would be aiding the terrorists. We saw how well that worked in Fallujah and Sadr city.
<snip>
June 2001: Khatami re-elected
A few months or weeks thereafter, Khatami knackered.
Hmm. Either you're trolling, in which case I salute you as a master of your art, or you are wilfully ignorant. *plonk* W
-- James A. Donald:
But Khatami was knackered shortly after being elected, so any aid would be aiding the terrorists. We saw how well that worked in Fallujah and Sadr city.
June 2001: Khatami re-elected
A few months or weeks thereafter, Khatami knackered.
Will Morton
Either you're trolling, in which case I salute you as a master of your art, or you are wilfully ignorant.
BBC June 6 2001, a few days after Khatami's election http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1373476.stm : : Much of the press that backs Mr Khatami's reforms : : has been silenced, and many of the president's : : supporters have been jailed or face charges Had the US "supported Khatami", it would have in fact been supporting not Khatami, but rather those who imprison his supporters, and who seek to murder people like me. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG q7pyxdArlCfDAnZE5d3/+IxkWI7iTjT8piFY8Z9P 4EqVTUwRFAWA5KaO8hX5bsicPYMeirjqN7jA2dTqy
participants (3)
-
James A. Donald -
Tyler Durden -
Will Morton