AdmiralPrune · 41-45, M
View 1 more replies »
beckyromero · 36-40, F
Ike 1956 Hungary
This is where it is heading.
As I told you. There's a saying in Texas, "All hat and no cattle."
Funny how Eisenhower was from Texas, too.
This is where it is heading.
As I told you. There's a saying in Texas, "All hat and no cattle."
Funny how Eisenhower was from Texas, too.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@beckyromero Well, first of all, this post is a guidance manual rather than a prediction.
Secondly, as I‘ve outlined in the post, the absence of a nuclear umbrella - which the Soviets at least theoretically extended to Hungary at the time of the uprising - is not a concern in the case of Iran today. But you‘re right, if the administration were disinclined to follow at least some of the recommendations mentioned above, the outcome in Iran is likely going to resemble the tragic failure of the Hungarian uprising.
Secondly, as I‘ve outlined in the post, the absence of a nuclear umbrella - which the Soviets at least theoretically extended to Hungary at the time of the uprising - is not a concern in the case of Iran today. But you‘re right, if the administration were disinclined to follow at least some of the recommendations mentioned above, the outcome in Iran is likely going to resemble the tragic failure of the Hungarian uprising.
MayorOfCrushtown · M
Persephonee · 26-30, F
The United States' history in successfully building up another country in the wake of military action (other than their own), is precisely zilch, nothing, and zero...with the possible exception of (West) Germany and that was because they were generally led by people capable of stringing more than one sentence together without lying or screwing up. So I suggest they stay well away from it.
Persephonee · 26-30, F
@CedricH
In other words let's ignore all the places where something else happened...
You absolutely can't separate direct military intervention from other kinds of intervention because it's the US and, at least until now, it's always had more resources to throw at something than any other nation since 1945. So sorry we have to include Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Iraq (several times and I'm not sure in 2025 it's exactly a place you'd want to take your girlfriend on holiday, not that Minnesota would be either right now), Iran, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Egypt, Libya, Syria (Asad is hardly missed but I don't think I'm inviting his successor to a drinking competition any time soon), etc.
Especially in the middle east, the United States doesn't have a bloody clue what it's doing. Which isn't a massive surprise from a country and culture that's a mere 250/350(ish) years old. (Pace native Americans but if you can influence Trump then I'll happily include you too. You do have first dibs on the land).
Let’s just focus on the military regime change efforts by the US that produced at least eventually democratic and stable governance free from tyranny.
In other words let's ignore all the places where something else happened...
You absolutely can't separate direct military intervention from other kinds of intervention because it's the US and, at least until now, it's always had more resources to throw at something than any other nation since 1945. So sorry we have to include Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Iraq (several times and I'm not sure in 2025 it's exactly a place you'd want to take your girlfriend on holiday, not that Minnesota would be either right now), Iran, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Egypt, Libya, Syria (Asad is hardly missed but I don't think I'm inviting his successor to a drinking competition any time soon), etc.
Especially in the middle east, the United States doesn't have a bloody clue what it's doing. Which isn't a massive surprise from a country and culture that's a mere 250/350(ish) years old. (Pace native Americans but if you can influence Trump then I'll happily include you too. You do have first dibs on the land).
CedricH · 22-25, M
@Persephonee I didn‘t say that regime change efforts that didn’t meet with unqualified success should be flat out ignored, I tried to narrow the focus because, as I‘ve said, success can be defined in myriad ways.
Before the US ignominiously withdrew its support for the Afghan national government in 2021, Afghanistan was still confronting an insurgency, it was not a stable country, nor was it the Sweden of the Hindukusch. The government controlled areas were, however, lightyears ahead of Afghanistan under the Taliban before the US toppled their caliphate in 2001.
The Vietnam War wasn’t about either regime change in South Vietnam or in North Vietnam. It was fought to (A) defeat the Viet Cong insurgency, aided and abetted by the North and (B) to stop a northern invasion of the South. Both goals were mostly achieved by the early 1970s but the US abandonment of its ally was soon exploited by the PAVN which marched down to Saigon which is why it’s now called Ho Chi Minh city.
As for more indirect efforts to effect regime change, the US has made mistakes. For instance, in Guatemala 1954.
Yet, in most Latin American cases, including Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador, the US did not actively install the anti-communist military juntas that took over. They mostly did that by themselves in the 1970s while Nixon and Kissinger simply gave them a green light through “benevolent” neglect.
What the US should’ve done was to intervene on behalf of the elected governments of the region and stop the string of coups all over Latin America.
Fortunately, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and their predecessors dramatically changed the US approach to right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Unlike Nixon, Kissinger, Ford, Johnson or Eisenhower, they were inspired by Kennedy‘s vision for a free hemisphere.
Reagan in particular promoted peaceful and orderly transitions from authoritarian military rule to democratic civilian governance in Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1982), Argentina (1983), El Salvador (1984), Uruguay (1985), Brazil (1985), Guatemala (1986), Chile (1989) Paraguay (1989).
In Libya, the Obama administration dropped the ball after helping to remove Gaddafi. They did not try to stabilize the country in the aftermath of the Nato intervention on behalf of the anti-Gaddafi rebels and demonstrators. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean the fall of his regime was an unfortunate turn of events.
In Syria, I have my fair share of doubts about Ahmad al Sharaa too and I think US pressure should be exerted now to ensure free and fair elections in Syria - the US and Israel do have enough leverage to coerce him after all.
But there‘s not a shadow of a doubt that his government is already an improvement to Bashar al Assad and his henchmen.
You can’t let perfect be the enemy of good in a world filled with imperfections. Sometimes the ouster of an intolerable regime is its own reward, even if it’s not succeeded by a government that manages to turn their country into a tourist paradise.
And if you‘re gonna ask me if I‘d rather take my girlfriend to the post-liberation Baghdad of 2026 or to Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad of 2001, I know what my answer would be.
Before the US ignominiously withdrew its support for the Afghan national government in 2021, Afghanistan was still confronting an insurgency, it was not a stable country, nor was it the Sweden of the Hindukusch. The government controlled areas were, however, lightyears ahead of Afghanistan under the Taliban before the US toppled their caliphate in 2001.
The Vietnam War wasn’t about either regime change in South Vietnam or in North Vietnam. It was fought to (A) defeat the Viet Cong insurgency, aided and abetted by the North and (B) to stop a northern invasion of the South. Both goals were mostly achieved by the early 1970s but the US abandonment of its ally was soon exploited by the PAVN which marched down to Saigon which is why it’s now called Ho Chi Minh city.
As for more indirect efforts to effect regime change, the US has made mistakes. For instance, in Guatemala 1954.
Yet, in most Latin American cases, including Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador, the US did not actively install the anti-communist military juntas that took over. They mostly did that by themselves in the 1970s while Nixon and Kissinger simply gave them a green light through “benevolent” neglect.
What the US should’ve done was to intervene on behalf of the elected governments of the region and stop the string of coups all over Latin America.
Fortunately, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and their predecessors dramatically changed the US approach to right-wing dictatorships in Latin America. Unlike Nixon, Kissinger, Ford, Johnson or Eisenhower, they were inspired by Kennedy‘s vision for a free hemisphere.
Reagan in particular promoted peaceful and orderly transitions from authoritarian military rule to democratic civilian governance in Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1982), Argentina (1983), El Salvador (1984), Uruguay (1985), Brazil (1985), Guatemala (1986), Chile (1989) Paraguay (1989).
In Libya, the Obama administration dropped the ball after helping to remove Gaddafi. They did not try to stabilize the country in the aftermath of the Nato intervention on behalf of the anti-Gaddafi rebels and demonstrators. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean the fall of his regime was an unfortunate turn of events.
In Syria, I have my fair share of doubts about Ahmad al Sharaa too and I think US pressure should be exerted now to ensure free and fair elections in Syria - the US and Israel do have enough leverage to coerce him after all.
But there‘s not a shadow of a doubt that his government is already an improvement to Bashar al Assad and his henchmen.
You can’t let perfect be the enemy of good in a world filled with imperfections. Sometimes the ouster of an intolerable regime is its own reward, even if it’s not succeeded by a government that manages to turn their country into a tourist paradise.
And if you‘re gonna ask me if I‘d rather take my girlfriend to the post-liberation Baghdad of 2026 or to Saddam Hussein’s Baghdad of 2001, I know what my answer would be.
SomeMichGuy · M
DJT can't learn anything, and this "administration" is "guided" by whim, hatred, destruction.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@SomeMichGuy That’s certainly a valid argument.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
Gee! Iran seems to have been a lot better off, economically and freedom wise, under the Shah.
Thing is, EVERYTHING the liberals have been whining about whenever someone in America mentions the Ten Commandments in classrooms has become a reality in Iran. That former free state has become an Islamic THEOCRACY and a terrorist state. It doesn't help that Ayatollah Obama helped ARM ISIS with billions of dollars of US military hardware and gave Iran BILLIONS in taxpayer cash for its illegal nuclear weapons program.
I'm getting the impression that the citizens of Iran are getting sick of this pseudo "religious" government is taking a huge shit on their individual liberties. They are protesting today. Maybe they have decided to grow a brain and realize that Islam belongs in the mosques and NOT in charge of their government.
Thing is, EVERYTHING the liberals have been whining about whenever someone in America mentions the Ten Commandments in classrooms has become a reality in Iran. That former free state has become an Islamic THEOCRACY and a terrorist state. It doesn't help that Ayatollah Obama helped ARM ISIS with billions of dollars of US military hardware and gave Iran BILLIONS in taxpayer cash for its illegal nuclear weapons program.
I'm getting the impression that the citizens of Iran are getting sick of this pseudo "religious" government is taking a huge shit on their individual liberties. They are protesting today. Maybe they have decided to grow a brain and realize that Islam belongs in the mosques and NOT in charge of their government.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.