Y2K 2.0?
07-13-2022 | 06:32 AM
#51
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,167
Likes: 803
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Sadly, this is true…Pinochet being the best example. We propped up many many others, from the Shah to Noriega to Thieu, whom foreign policy wonks deemed useful. The “Commie threat” argument was used to justify everything.
Even aside from the fact one would think we’d have learned the stupidity and futility of those practices, there isn’t a credible “Commie threat” anymore. The Chinese export capital and technology, not ideology, and their particularly nationalistic brand isn’t going to sell elsewhere, as demonstrated by the many countries who’ve taken the money, thanks, but changed nothing about their politics.
We should start acting in our own national interests and not propping up our enemies (we’ve still not punished the enablers and accomplices after the fact of the 9/11 attack) or favored industries or individuals. But I guess that the American Way now…wasn’t what I intended to spend a career defending though…
Even aside from the fact one would think we’d have learned the stupidity and futility of those practices, there isn’t a credible “Commie threat” anymore. The Chinese export capital and technology, not ideology, and their particularly nationalistic brand isn’t going to sell elsewhere, as demonstrated by the many countries who’ve taken the money, thanks, but changed nothing about their politics.
We should start acting in our own national interests and not propping up our enemies (we’ve still not punished the enablers and accomplices after the fact of the 9/11 attack) or favored industries or individuals. But I guess that the American Way now…wasn’t what I intended to spend a career defending though…
We do in some cases still cooperate with the least bad of the bad guys, in places like the middle east. That's realpolitik, which is always a component of anybody's foriegn policy, no matter how idealistic.
You can make the argument that it's better to keep them close and hopefully influence their behavior some, than to ostracize them and possibly create rogue regimes.
Someday we'll stop using oil (if for no other reason than it runs out) and the AG and SoH will no longer be vital chokepoints for global economics and stability. I don't see us being deeply involved with non-liberal regimes once the ME is no longer vital to global and national interests. For example while Africa is a hot mess, we have few economic or far-reaching stability interests there, so we are not deeply involved.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
