Wow!
Amazing on the intl gen discussion thread there is no discussion about massive US military response against Iranian backed militias in Iraq & Syria, let alone another major UK-US assault against Houthi targets in Yemen.
So we might guess that the bulk of the posters here are supporters of US-Exceptionalism, that don’t give a f**k about international law, human rights, or people in the “global south” – but stick to the view that the “west” are the good guys, and their lackeys with them, whatever they do…
So, bombing alleged “Iranian proxies” seems fine with them, while their would be massive outcries if Russia would bomb anyone (besides Ukraine) because they are declared “US-Proxies” – and China doing something similar seems even beyond their imagination…
Both aggressions are, of course, entirely pointless – unless the US really wants to trigger a global war – they can’t be won with air-bombardments alone, and sending in sufficient “boots on the ground” to “secure” Syria, Iraq and Yemen – not to talk of Iran – yet – would definitely require a draft.
If the counterfactual where the US would like to have peace in the region, it would have to disengage from Iraq and Syria (withdraw) and recognize the Houthi as the de-facto government of Yemen, including putting some pressure on their “allies” like Saudi-Arabia or the UAE to follow suite…
And they would have to lean heavily on Israel to force them to a “fair” solution – the most realistic – although very difficult – being a one state solution with equal rights for all residents of the former mandate… (I’m looking forward for the “grand coalition” between Likud and Hamas – (well – not so much)…
As we don’t see anything of that, but more escalation, there only can be two explanations…
A) The US leadership is made out of completely delusional morons, that are blinded by their view of the US as the “natural rulers of the word”.. – or –
B) There really is a hidden agenda to trigger a wider war – may be some people near Biden feel that the only way to preserve US-dominance and prevent Trumps return to power is declare an all-out war, so that they can move to a permanent state of emergency – like In Orwell’s 1984 – with “Oceania” finally taking roots… (You would have to find a younger face than Biden for “Big Brother” – but may be an AI can make him look younger….
(BTW, I don’t think scenario B) is likely at all – if the US-Government would go for it, it would just be plain EVIL – but not MORONIC…) But non-moronic governments rarely exist…
are the Brits, Dutch and Canadians armed forces members I work with on US soil part of an "occupational force"?
Well, as the US-is by far the strongest of those countries, none of those forces are there to effectively intimidate the US-Government under the pre-text of “defending” the US. So its more likely a sign that their governments are trying to suck up to the US, so that they can share the eventual spoils of imperialist acts of aggression. OTOH, it might also be seen as backup for those governments against domestic turbulence – so they send people to connect to the US to back them up if the local population would try to restore real sovereignty… So, the role of those people might be more like a potential fifth column against their home countries, or a bit similar to the role of the Waffen-SS.
So Kim Il Sung should have been allowed to conquer South Korea and Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to annex Kuwait?
Mostly correct –
Korea: The Soviets favored the Communist fraction of the domestic anti-Japanese resistance, so they emerged on top in the Soviet area of occupation. OTOH, the US completely sidelined the local resistance, and built authorities based on long term exiles like Syng Man-Rhee and people that had already served as collaborators to the Japanese Colonial power. So an inherent weakness of the ROK government was to be expected.
So the Korean War started as a civil war of two governments claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire peninsula.
A foreign intervention in to a civil war is always an act of aggression against the nation concerned – what would have happened if Korea would have been united for the last 73 years would make a nice Alt-History – but is very difficult to tell..,
(And, BTW – the Chinese intervention after the US-forces approached the Yalu was justified as forward self defense – if a openly hostile power moves massive forces near your border, striking first can become a reasonable option..)
Kuweit: Well, what’s the difference between Kuweit and places like Port Arthur, Wei-Hei-Wei, Kwei-Chou, Kwang-Chou-Wan, Hong-Kong, Macao, Goa, Diu, Damao, Pondicherry, the Panama Canal Zone or Guantanamo?
In all these cases, a dominant imperial power took control of a coastal outpost, sometimes developed it, settling more people from the Hinterland or elsewhere there.
But most of those territories were finally handed back to the power controlling the Hinterland (or taken by force like India did with Goa, Diu and Damao.) Only Guantanamo remains still under US occupation, although the 99 years lease is clearly up..
Only in Kuweit, Katar, Bahrein, Abu Dhabi, Dubai et all.. did local elites with the help of the colonial power declare “independence”, thus prolonging the de-facto imperialist control… (And all those places are mostly populated by a majority of recent immigrants without a path to citizenship, many of them living in conditions similar to slavery…)
Before the occupation of Kuweit, the US had supported Saddam large scale in his war against Iran, and neighbors like Kuweit and Saudi-Arabia, that were afraid of the Iranian Revolution, were largely funding this war effort – but the Kuwaitis considered this a loan, wanted the money back after the war, and were starting to drill along the border, pumping oil in fields crossing the border. AFAIK – Saddam had asked for a green light from Washington for the invasion, and got the impression that they wouldn’t care. – This was a big miscalculation on his side, that should teach you “never trust the perfidious Yanks”..
To the strongest, the spoils.
Can't see any possible drawbacks with this worldview, at all.
Obviously not.. (Referring to that you can’t see the drawbacks) – because its exactly the world we living in, with the US (and it’s vassals) being the strongest, claiming all the spoils (as in raw materials, domination of the seas, control of the financial system, Dollar-hegemony in trade asf..) while in leaving just crumbs to the non members of their Western Bubble. This has got worse since the demise of the Soviet-Union, because they at least offered a counterweight to unchecked US-Hegemony. Of course, the fall from the high horse would be huge, if ever a true Multi-Polar World Order would emerge… (Not that I’m calling Xi, Putin, Modi, Khamenei – or Erdogan, MBS et. all – nice guys – far from it – they are the same evil breed than their western opponents/partners – but it would be a more balanced world if the US-dominated could finally end…)
I'm waiting for you to write the exact same thing, word for word, about Iran's presence in foreign countries. Or is that part of their "sphere of influence"?
Basically agree, that Iran should not put forces in to foreign countries – and no – countries are not entitled to a sphere of influence – but they deserve security from direct threats – so if the US is sending ships near Irans territorial waters OR deploys troops (illegally) in neighboring countries, it clearly has the right to support local groups that demand the removal of said US-Forces – and if they would come in really threatening numbers, the right to forward defense…
But I would also grant the
right to forward defense to any other nations – Israels attacks in the 6 days war was justified under that perspective – or an US intervention in Cuba would have been justified if they would have learned timely enough from the Soviet plan to deploy nuclear weapons there.
(And of course, under the same pre-text, a potential US-invasion of Canada would be justified if China would be allowed to base a few 100k troops in that country, as would a Russian invasion of Ukraine, if large numbers of NATO troops would be based there, including nuclear missiles… - but NOT under the existing conditions.)
(And – BTW – if Iran (or Ukraine) (like North Korea) would build their own nuclear arsenal, that would be unfortunate, but it should be an undeniable right of every sovereign Nation to have all the means for it’s defense at it’s disposal that are permitted to other nations – all nations should be considered equal – none better / none worse – everything else is obviously racism.
