You described the late 70s relationship with Soviet as a relationship with a friendly neighbour, and choose not to mention the invasion of 1979 and subsequent war of immense brutality. When pressed on this, you used terms that clearly implied that the invasion was a necessity.

Rich people want stability because it creates new customers and massive investment opportunities. The canonical example is again the aforementioned post WWII Japanese economic miracle. Just imagine how much money could be made if you took a country like Afghanistan and had them consuming at American levels in a few decades.

This is a tricky debate, and to be honest the setting of this thread is not likely the best of it. It is true that Germany and Japan can be counted as success stories, but that success owes a lot to economic policy, foreign policy and private enterprise. And if we're honest, the media climate of the 40s and 50s probably plays a part too; we're still a good way off the Vietnam war and the media turning to more direct coverage of warfare.

But the sheer amount of proxy warfare from the 50s through the cold war is staggering, I'd be tempted to use the word "insane". It is as such a level that calling it a "cold war" might one day be thought of as an extreme mislabel (plus the amount of direct engagements is actually fairly high, but the parties would usually put themselves in a position of deniability). And if you start to study it, the rhyme and pattern makes little sense. Allies in one proxy war are enemies in the next, you can in some cases find the US and Soviets in somewhat of a political alliance against what we these days often think of as US allies, it is just... strange. I'm not sure if it is a tale with a lot of heroes in it, perhaps more that it was on such an enormous scale between such extremely powerful actors that a lot of nations and people worldwide had little choice and had to pick a side.

There are still a lot of leftovers from that period that has to be resolved before we count any success stories, especially when it comes to nuclear proliferation, but also in build-up of military power. We can actually use a "small scale" (but still grim) example of this effect when it comes to the subject of this thread: A lot of the losses incurred by ISAF and operations in Afghanistan is down to IEDs built from unexploded Soviet ordnance from artillery shelling and carpet bombing in the 80s.

I've heard Soviet in Afghanistan be described as "Soviet's Vietnam", and this amateur historian finds that description very apt (even though there are some big differences as well). It starts with strategic miscalculations, blunders into all the elements of war except the actual part of a way to victory and ends up with enormous casualties inflicted on civilians .

I actually was not expecting anyone to engage that question or post as I think most people in the West want to keep on purposeful blinders to that type of scenario where perhaps there are forces behind what they like to believe are desired 'good outcomes' who just want things to endure and the money to keep flowing.

I think willful blindness that there might be many with malintent has allowed those with good intent to be manipulated for ages.

Right. I think this is the main point. The Us has had successful interventions and terrible ones, but it's reductive and silly to pretend like the US somehow wants instability because that's what often happens. Instability can happen for so many reasons (difficult situation, blunders, lack of desire to bear the costs) other than it was the desired result. Especially given the success stories.

Well for sure. If you have a strategic presence you don't want to destabilize (but might end up doing it as you point out). Destabilization is for when the other guy has a strategic presence.

you are so close to getting it.

here, Ill give you a hint. why is it justified when the USA does it? but not when SU?

Yeah, I think we agree. Nobody can really deny that the 20+ year result of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions ended up destabilizing both. But of course stable doesn't mean good and both stable governments in 2000 were awful. I think given the totality of both situations, most people now would say the invasion of Afghanistan was justified (crappy situation wither way, but just not reasonable to leave al-qaeda protected by the Taliban) and the Iraq invasion was huge mistake; also crappy wither way but simply too much that can and did go wrong.

Sup Jen Psaki?

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. We're kind of arrogant and selfish even if we are benevolent at the same time

It's not like we're doing a great job at creating stability either. Did we not **** up Central America and now complain about the resulting desperation attempting to cross our borders for asylum?

Not saying I necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but you sound like you're veering into the land of apologia

Should probably note that sometimes the growth of a QB is sometimes a direct result of the organization's stability and competence too

Exhibit A: Ryan Tannehill

We're not exactly carrying a sterling reputation in any hypothetical draft, nor always fostering the environment for which success (or in this case, stability) sustains...

I have come to the conclusion that all Americans live in cognitive dissonance, even you. You're a citizen and pay taxes. We all are (the Americans itt obv). So long as we enjoy any semblance of comfort buffered by two oceans and the biggest gunz ever, it's unavoidable, the dissonance...

I just think that should be noted, even if agree with your take here and there

At least the bloodshed has lessened from century to century. I dunno how much better we can do, or faster the progression can be pushed...

Oh not at all. Criticism is fine. I'm just pushing back against the theory that because these places are unstable that must have been the goal, as if these guys can't just screw up in regions of the world they don't seem to know all that much about. I think the Watergate "the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand" applies perfectly to American foreign misadventures.

Oh for sure. QBs end up sucking because of a mix of their abilities and the organizations inability to maximize their potential. The US has become something like the Cowboys, the glory days of foreign policy are quite a long time ago.

...............


The U.S..............:




effed up in Vietnam

effed up in Afghanistan

effed up in Iraq

effed up in Lybia





where will the U.S. eff up next?








believe only half of what you see and none of what your hear
Edgar Allan Poe





*

Where will they?
Well they are effing up Mexico right now.
Effing up Haiti and Guatemala, effing up whole South America. They have a serious history of effing up countries and this hasn't stopped.

Good post, good question.

Well put. Nowadays they have to do it slightly differently because of serious questioning of motives.

Shuffle pm folder is full, I can't send him a pm. Can anyone let him know this? I hope shuffle reads this.

no it did not "eff up". they got exactly what they wanted in each of those wars.

What exactly did they get in each of them?

I can see in Libya Kadaffi was dead so may have been mission accomplished. In Afghanistan the original mission was to prevent it from being used as a base for attacks inside the US, so that could be another one. In Iraq and Vietnam, I'm failing to see what the upside was.

Ya libya a great example of mission accomplished. That place is a hell scape with open air slave markets- mission accomplished!

Don't forget about Syria

Also a great example of why you would never trust the USA if you negotiate a no nuke deal

...................





.


shazam..............surprise..........surprise.... ...........surprise


don't think the pols will be flapping their gums about this on July 4






https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...69b5cf9fe5e4e5


.

Pull the 'policing' out of any area where conflict exists and expect the 'gangs' who reside their to fight as they vie for who will control the new power structure.

This was known and is known for anywhere where such conditions exist so if anyone feigns shock, surprise or tries to use this a reason to stay they are being disingenuous.