Is Our Interventionist History Coming Back to Haunt us?

[TheDemSocialist]

Throughout our history, and mostly more directly, our recent history we have been very interventionist. We direclty invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We were in Iraq for 8 years, and are currently still directly involved in Afghanistan. We have also been directly involved in Libya with a bombing campaign recently, and have been given support to the FSA in Syria. MY question to you is this: With all the recent interventionist policies the US has undertaken, is our interventionist history coming back to haunt us in light with the current Russian actions?

 

[ecofarm]

Is there anything that you do not consider to be "intervention coming back to haunt the US"?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Is there anything that you do not consider to be "intervention coming back to haunt the US"?

Thanks for asking for my opinion, ecofarm! But in this case.. NO I DONT CONSIDER THIS to be "intervention coming back to haunt the US".....

 

[ecofarm]

Thanks for asking for my opinion, ecofarm! But in this case.. NO I DONT CONSIDER THIS to be "intervention coming back to haunt the US".....

Ah, c'mon, you're gonna blame the US. Just do it, quit pullin' my leg.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Ah, c'mon, you're gonna blame the US. Just do it, quit pullin' my leg.

Ummmm... I dont. I have stated several times and started 2 threads conveying this position.

 

[joG]

Throughout our history, and mostly more directly, our recent history we have been very interventionist. We direclty invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We were in Iraq for 8 years, and are currently still directly involved in Afghanistan. We have also been directly involved in Libya with a bombing campaign recently, and have been given support to the FSA in Syria. MY question to you is this: With all the recent interventionist policies the US has undertaken, is our interventionist history coming back to haunt us in light with the current Russian actions?

Had you not narrowed the question to the present Ukraine, I would have tended to say that yes, there are later costs to intervention, even if they were reasonabl, just or necessary. These costs can be high and are one reason why the US must retire the job of sole provider of international security to be underwritten by all members of the community.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Had you not narrowed the question to the present Ukraine, I would have tended to say that yes, there are later costs to intervention, even if they were reasonabl, just or necessary. These costs can be high and are one reason why the US must retire the job of sole provider of international security to be underwritten by all members of the community.

I narrowed it because i watched a interview about the issue and this question came up.

 

[joG]

I narrowed it because i watched a interview about the issue and this question came up.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I wasn't criticizing . I only wanted to clarify my answer.

 

[NoC_T]

Not with respect to Ukraine it's not, unless we'll interpret recent events in terms of Cold War fallout which could be argued for any number of international phenomena. Otherwise, no. This is Russia's baby. Were we discussing international terrorism, there might be an argument.

 

[Rainman05]

How big must your EGO be to think that happens in Ukraine is because of the USA?

If anything, this is the resurrection of russian imperialism.

 

[DaveFagan]

How big must your EGO be to think that happens in Ukraine is because of the USA?

If anything, this is the resurrection of russian imperialism.

You seem to have overlooked CORPORATISM and USA Big Energy businessmen increasing market share by creating an instability in the supply of Natural Gas and Oil to the EU. Any competent level of executive management can clearly define the profitability of this maneuver if you can influence some moronic government or intelligence agency to intervene. If Big Energy profits, so will big banking. Just looks like business, CORPORATISM style, to me.

 

[DaveFagan]

I was just reading the EU $15 billion proposal for the Ukraine. They want to devalue the Ukrainian currency and that will mean Ukrainians will pay more for everything. They also want to double the price of Natural Gas to the people because it is subsidized. They want to upgrade the pipeline infrastructure with foreign funds and that leads to foreign ownership. Great bunch of guys just wanting to help out, don't you think. Now Russia had reduced the price of Natural Gas well below World Market prices to the Ukraine and that reduced the costs to the people. The EU wants to do the opposite and increase the price to the people. Russia agreed to take Ukrainian bonds to the tune of $15 billion to assist Ukraine and the EU wants pipeline deals, concessions, etc, to include devaluation of the Ukrainian currency and the Ukrainians will have to pay back with a devalued currency, costing them even more. Business per usual. A lot of pockets gonna be lined with gold in Kiev, methinks.

 

[DVSentinel]

No.

If anything, this is due to a lack of intervention. The economic conditions that allowed Putin to rise to power were a predictable result of the Russians not allowing foreign intervention. The Soviet Union failed and was bankrupt. After the fall, their economy needed huge infusion of capital in order to build the businesses and infrastructure needed. However, Russia acted in a protectionist manor and blocked a lot of foreign investment and development.

Any country trying to emerge from the destruction wrought by a socialist economy is too bankrupt to have the capital necessary to rebuild in a short period of time. Protectionist minded economies, even those based upon capitalism, fail almost as much as socialized economies, because they do not have the capital to invest to build and become competitive in the world market.

 

[Gardener]

People with a tenuous grip on the notion of causality may suffer under the missaprehension that events in the Middle East somehow precipitate actions in faraway Ukraine, but those of us with a more logical bent realize that human events are never quite so benightedly simplistic.

Certainly that old nugget of "the chickens coming home to roost" has been done to death by those idiot children at Couterpunch, but is there not a single event that can ever happen for reasons that have to do with those actually involved?

 

[The Mark]

I think our interventionist PRESENT is...not exactly haunting us because that doesn't work....

But I'm not sure it applies to the situation in Ukraine, however.

Or it might, but if WE'RE intervening, it is seemingly only in response to Russia intervening first. But with the amount of intervening going on these days, who knows?