Ivory Coast

[JMA]

It's not negligent, because it's not the responsibility or the obligation of the world, the UN, or Ecowas, or of any country, to prevent civil war in the Ivory Coast, or anywhere else. The world has never assigned anyone the role of Superman, nor would the world ever tolerate anyone being appointed to that role, because everyone knows that anyone appointed to that role would use the position to advance their own interests.

Is negligence and incompetence responsible for not freeing the North Koreans or Burmese or Zimbabweans from capricious tyranny? For allowing the anarchic destruction of Somalia or the mess in the DRC? Easy enough to go on... the world's probably in better shape now than it's been in my lifetime, but there's no shortage of merde floating around in the pool. If so, whose incompetence and negligence? Easy enough to point the finger and say that somebody (somebody else, naturally) ought to fix all the mess, and easy enough to accuse those who don't of negligence, incompetence, degeneracy, etc, but in real, practical terms, it is not anyone's responsibility to clean up the rest of the world, and any government that tried to take the job on would be betraying its responsibility to its own people.

Great powers and empires don't generllly crumble because they fail to assert themselves abroad. They crumble because they over assert themselves, try to do too much, waste their resources on fights that do not serve their interests. Whatever desire the US, France, and Britain have to play Superman and Save The World has to be balanced against the reality that intervening in other people's problems is not their responsibility, is expensive, quickly becomes unpopular with the voters and around the world, easily creates adverse unintended consequences, and in the past has generally not advanced their interests.

You don't have a clue do you.

We sit with the result of the US, France, Britain, Russia, China trying to exert themselves globally. Now we have the interesting phenomenon of the US having been a major part of screwing a lot of stuff are now wanting to walk away saying it is no longer their problem. The one voice of sense out of the US is from Stan who says that the US should at least try to fix what they have been part of creating.

The "OK so we screwed it all up but are still going to walk away" people are from this everything is negotiable mindset I speak about. Not nice people. While I am not surprised the Arabs are taking to the street to bring about change I remain amazed the US people are not taking to the streets.

It should be noted that it is the P5 (those with UNSC veto) that are the main culprits in all this. They screwed it all up and seem to want to keep it that way. The AU also wants to use its power to keep all the thugs and murderers (the heads of state of member countries) in power as a giant "crime ring" of sorts - the Mafia has nothing on this crowd.

[Dayuhan]

The "OK so we screwed it all up but are still going to walk away" people are from this everything is negotiable mindset I speak about. Not nice people. While I am not surprised the Arabs are taking to the street to bring about change I remain amazed the US people are not taking to the streets.

The US certainly has its share of responsibility for screwing things up, but we aren't the only ones by any means. The idea that the US can somehow "fix" any of this seems to me extremely unlikely: our attempts to "help" in the past (like our noble crusade to save the world from Communism) often managed to make things a good deal worse.

I don't see any great enthusiasm among the places we screwed up for salvation coming form the US (I live in a place where the US screwed up royally). For the most part people would rather see us stay away, for excellent reasons: they haven't had great experiences with US intervention.

Have you noticed that East Asia and Latin America, both of which saw more than their share of American screwups, managed to put themselves in much better order once the US backed off and stopped messing around in their internal affairs?

The solution to the problems created by to dumb intervention isn't smart intervention: intervention that seems smart today often seems excruciatingly stupid tomorrow (the "Kirkpatrick doctrine" is a classic example). The answer to the problems created by dumb intervention is less intervention, IMO.

Do you see any evidence that the world at large wants the US - or anyone - to put on a superhero suit and go charging around trying to solve everybody else's problems, even the problems it had a role in creating?

[JMA]

The US certainly has its share of responsibility for screwing things up, but we aren't the only ones by any means. The idea that the US can somehow "fix" any of this seems to me extremely unlikely: our attempts to "help" in the past (like our noble crusade to save the world from Communism) often managed to make things a good deal worse.

I don't see any great enthusiasm among the places we screwed up for salvation coming form the US (I live in a place where the US screwed up royally). For the most part people would rather see us stay away, for excellent reasons: they haven't had great experiences with US intervention.

Have you noticed that East Asia and Latin America, both of which saw more than their share of American screwups, managed to put themselves in much better order once the US backed off and stopped messing around in their internal affairs?

The solution to the problems created by to dumb intervention isn't smart intervention: intervention that seems smart today often seems excruciatingly stupid tomorrow (the "Kirkpatrick doctrine" is a classic example). The answer to the problems created by dumb intervention is less intervention, IMO.

Do you see any evidence that the world at large wants the US - or anyone - to put on a superhero suit and go charging around trying to solve everybody else's problems, even the problems it had a role in creating?

I am going to let this conversation go as I can see the anti-anti-communist undertones of your position coming through. If you want to be intellectually honest you need to place the collapse of the Soviet Union in your timeline and connect the dots accordingly.

[Dayuhan]

I am going to let this conversation go as I can see the anti-anti-communist undertones of your position coming through. If you want to be intellectually honest you need to place the collapse of the Soviet Union in your timeline and connect the dots accordingly.

I'm not anti-anti-Communist at all... anti-Communism was necessary, especially as applied to the Soviet Union. The suppression of democracy and the installation and maintenance of an entire generation of crackpot dictators in the name of anti-Communism was another story altogether: in many places that policy helped Communist movements more than it hurt them, and it did untold damage in many parts of the world. Ceding the moral high ground of opposition to fading empires and mad dictators to the left was one of the worst mistakes the US ever made...

IMO, as always.

[JMA]

I'm not anti-anti-Communist at all... anti-Communism was necessary, especially as applied to the Soviet Union. The suppression of democracy and the installation and maintenance of an entire generation of crackpot dictators in the name of anti-Communism was another story altogether: in many places that policy helped Communist movements more than it hurt them, and it did untold damage in many parts of the world. Ceding the moral high ground of opposition to fading empires and mad dictators to the left was one of the worst mistakes the US ever made...

IMO, as always.

And this damage was caused only by the US? It takes two to tango.

If you look at Africa it was the ability of crackpots to play the West off against the Soviets that has left the legacy of destruction.

Do try to be balanced.

[Dayuhan]

And this damage was caused only by the US? It takes two to tango.

If you look at Africa it was the ability of crackpots to play the West off against the Soviets that has left the legacy of destruction.

Do try to be balanced.

We didn't have to play that game, and in many places we initiated that game, and did a lot of damage in the process. We are not accountable for what the Soviets or their proxies did. We are accountable for what we and our proxies did, which was in many cases completely unnecessary. If we prop up every despot who calls his opponents "Communist" (as once seemed to be the case), we can always blame the despots for manipulating us... but we also have to wonder what made us so easy to manipulate, for so long. Yes, the crackpots played us, and that's their responsibility. We let ourselves be played, and that's ours.

It is entirely possible that I'm a bit biased from living in one of the more egregious examples of this sort of American malfeasance... but there's no shortage of other examples around. About 2/3 of Latin America, to start with.

[Stan]

If we prop up every despot who calls his opponents "Communist" (as once seemed to be the case), we can always blame the despots for manipulating us... but we also have to wonder what made us so easy to manipulate, for so long. Yes, the crackpots played us, and that's their responsibility. We let ourselves be played, and that's ours.

Makes me wonder why we wanted to save the Ivory Coast from the French in 99 when there was clearly a lack of commies. Maybe it was cocoa