Democrats Unveil Draft Foreign Policy Platform With Promises to End “Forever Wars”, “Regime Change"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama promised a lot of things too.

[coloradocowboi]

Here's the thing. We should be supporting regime change in Russia, if not out right trying to make it happen.

Everywhere else, Get the Hell Out!

We already tried that in Russia, and to disastrous effect I might add.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/701026/russians-life-better-soviet-union-ussr-sixty-four-percent

We only intervene to protect markets, not people. And that is increasingly an unpopular position abroad and at home. The Democrats are smart here. Hope they actually try to take this seriously this time.

[Gass3268]

No one will believe Biden of all people wants to end wars.

There is a difference between ending wars/military conflicts and ending forever wars.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

I hope Biden doesn't make the mistake of a non-interventionist platform.

If he doesn't, he will alienate the majority of Americans and Democrats who got him and Obama elected in the first place.  Neocons and liberal internationalists are a dying breed.

It shouldn't matter what's popular, it should matter what's right.

The alternative to liberal internationalism is an all-powerful China.

I think that's a false dilemma

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there can be a strong NATO, or its equivalent in the Pacific, while we still avoid doing things like bombing Syria, occupying Afghanistan for two decades, and wrecking  Libya.

[Ferguson97]

I hope Biden doesn't make the mistake of a non-interventionist platform.

If he doesn't, he will alienate the majority of Americans and Democrats who got him and Obama elected in the first place.  Neocons and liberal internationalists are a dying breed.

It shouldn't matter what's popular, it should matter what's right.

The alternative to liberal internationalism is an all-powerful China.

I think that's a false dilemma

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there can be a strong NATO, or its equivalent in the Pacific, while we still avoid doing things like bombing Syria, occupying Afghanistan for two decades, and wrecking  Libya.

I guess we're in a disagreement as to what liberal internationalism means then.

[GoTfan]

I hope Biden doesn't make the mistake of a non-interventionist platform.

If he doesn't, he will alienate the majority of Americans and Democrats who got him and Obama elected in the first place.  Neocons and liberal internationalists are a dying breed.

It shouldn't matter what's popular, it should matter what's right.

The alternative to liberal internationalism is an all-powerful China.

I think that's a false dilemma

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there can be a strong NATO, or its equivalent in the Pacific, while we still avoid doing things like bombing Syria, occupying Afghanistan for two decades, and wrecking  Libya.

I guess we're in a disagreement as to what liberal internationalism means then.

Well it involves favouring diplomacy and working within established institutions in order to achieve peaceful outcome and reserving the military for a last resort.

[LtNOWIS]

I hope Biden doesn't make the mistake of a non-interventionist platform.

If he doesn't, he will alienate the majority of Americans and Democrats who got him and Obama elected in the first place.  Neocons and liberal internationalists are a dying breed.

It shouldn't matter what's popular, it should matter what's right.

The alternative to liberal internationalism is an all-powerful China.

I think that's a false dilemma

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there can be a strong NATO, or its equivalent in the Pacific, while we still avoid doing things like bombing Syria, occupying Afghanistan for two decades, and wrecking  Libya.

Syria was not a regime change war. There were overtures towards that, but in the end there was no significant military action taken against Assad by the USA or other Western countries. We did bomb Syria extensively, but that was to oppose ISIS.

The counter-ISIS fight was justified for regional security concerns (protecting Iraq), humanitarian concerns (stopping genocide, sex slavery and other repression), and US counterterrorism concerns (as the ISIS territorial caliphate inspired attacks against the US). But it was not the unilateral foolish military adventure that people decry. We let our local partners take the lead, backing them up with special forces, airpower and other forms of aid. We built a broad coalition. By taking those steps, US casualties were much reduced, tensions were eased, and the local forces had a ton of legitimacy and buy-in.

So while invading Iraq was a colossal strategic blunder that you can rightly criticize the neo-cons for, it's vastly different than things like the anti-ISIS efforts in Syria, or the similar efforts to oppose violent extremist groups in parts of Africa.

[StateBoiler]

I will treat major party platforms with an ounce of respect when there's some level of binding on their elected Representatives, Senators, President, and cabinet members to follow them.

[Suburbia]

Biden should close most of the embassies in the Middle East.

No need to engage with lowlife countries.

Biden should not waste his time engaging with Israel or Palestine.

He should tell the neocons like Lieberman and Liz Cheney to pound sand. But he won't.

[Bootes Void]

No point in bringing up old threads and middle Eastern countries have already congratulated Biden. It's just Brazil, Russia and NK that haven't yet