If you're not anti-war then you're neither fiscally conservative nor pro-life
Just saying
22-25, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BlueVeins · 22-25
I tend to agree with this, but I go back-and-forth with some wars. Like, obviously the Invasion of Iraq was incredibly stupid and corrupt, the War in Yemen is brutal beyond justification, and the War in Afghanistan has become a stalemate.
But there are some situations that are legitimately difficult now. For example, are we really able to withdraw from Iraq at the moment without causing more violence? Iran has a very strong inside-outside game in Iraq, and if Iran just takes over the country, that would be all the more power they could draw upon for conflicts moving forward (especially conflicts against Israel).
The Syrian Civil War is a bit of a toughie because it's an avenue for Iran to project power against Israel, and there's the issue of kinda punishing the Syrian government for gassing its people. Most foreign policy experts would agree that allowing a government to use gas bombs sets a bad precedent, but aiding the rebels in their resistance effort creates room for ISIS and Al-Qaeda to spring up. And ISIS, of course, will try to plot terror attacks against all kinds of nearby countries.
And then, there are issues with Islamist insurgencies in Africa and east Asia, and... don't even get me started on Pakistan.
For the most part, I think the best solution is to empower the UN Peacekeeping forces to take over some of these conflicts; it would eliminate the legitimate concerns about oil wars and American imperialism without allowing countries to spiral into instability and violence forever.
But there are some situations that are legitimately difficult now. For example, are we really able to withdraw from Iraq at the moment without causing more violence? Iran has a very strong inside-outside game in Iraq, and if Iran just takes over the country, that would be all the more power they could draw upon for conflicts moving forward (especially conflicts against Israel).
The Syrian Civil War is a bit of a toughie because it's an avenue for Iran to project power against Israel, and there's the issue of kinda punishing the Syrian government for gassing its people. Most foreign policy experts would agree that allowing a government to use gas bombs sets a bad precedent, but aiding the rebels in their resistance effort creates room for ISIS and Al-Qaeda to spring up. And ISIS, of course, will try to plot terror attacks against all kinds of nearby countries.
And then, there are issues with Islamist insurgencies in Africa and east Asia, and... don't even get me started on Pakistan.
For the most part, I think the best solution is to empower the UN Peacekeeping forces to take over some of these conflicts; it would eliminate the legitimate concerns about oil wars and American imperialism without allowing countries to spiral into instability and violence forever.