The West is a Basket Case Maker

[GentleGeorge]

There are consequences for every action. Afghanistan was really not necessary

What pisses me off about it all is not just that it was not necessary, but that it was obvious ahead of time that the nation building in Afghanistan part of the brief would fail, because the same thing had been tried so many times by so many people over the last couple of centuries, always with identical results.

I get that America's blood was up at the time about Osama Bin Laden and they wanted to get him. If they had called it a revenge mission and finished up on the day they caught him in Pakistan, it wouldn't really have made it right but at least they could have called it successful.

[euless]

You're citing Iran in support of China's non interventionist policy?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...072609CB67C773

So you are using NK in support of China's non interventionist policy?

Just saying...
Intervention for peace, then good.
Intervention to overthrown regime you dont like, then bad.

The Tailiban were not so nice. But i think think they could be worked with. They were our Allies against the Soviets. Going into Afghanistan with guns blazing was simply bad idea.

[hullexile]

Just saying...
Intervention for peace, then good.
Intervention to overthrown regime you dont like, then bad.

The Tailiban were not so nice. But i think think they could be worked with. They were our Allies against the Soviets. Going into Afghanistan with guns blazing was simply bad idea.

Two wrongs do not make a right. "America is bad as well" or "America is worse" does not make China good.

[euless]

As i understand, China's "non-intervenist" policy is based on its history of being weak and diasterous resilts when it does intervene. intervening might draw themselves into direct conflict with vastly more powerful countries. the fear is another 100 years of subjectgation by foreigh powers. China was poor, isolated and fearful. Their enemies on all sides--remember even the USSR become an enemy. Better to stay out of trouble. But if its core interest is under attack (Vietnam, North Korea, etc), then it will intervene for the survival of the regime. In Syria, China stayed silent...because It is not China's core interest. When it did interven during the Sino-Viet war, it was a disaster. China could not project power hardly. So being smart leaders, China official policy remains non-intervention.

As China become stronger, it will be less non-intervenist...because it is better at projecting power and is less afraid. and the international community expects a world power to intervene in some cases. Being big brother has responsibilities.

Of course China is not in Africa to be in charity. They want to trade. They made vast investment there. They want to protect investment. But they not there to push religion or push theri moral or ethics or impose thier system on the Africans. So, maybe China will do a better job than the West...i dont know. Maybe China will do better because it has been under the receiving end of colonization for so long.

[hullexile]

As i understand, China's "non-intervenist" policy is based on its history of being weak and diasterous resilts when it does intervene. Even if it wanted to intervene, intervening might draw themselves into conflict with vastly more powerful countries. if they lose, the fear is another 100 years of subjectgation by foreigh powers. China was poor, isolated and fearful. Their enemies on all sides--remember even the USSR become an enemy. But if its core interest is under attack (Xingjing, North Korea, etc), then it will intervene for the survival of the regime. In Syria, China stayed silent...because It is not China's core interest. When it did interven during the Sino-Viet war, it was a disaster. China could not project any power hardly.

As China become stronger, it will be less non-intervenist...because it is less afraid...and the international community expects a world power to intervene in some cases.

So now they are more powerful they can act the bully. Then go "why does everyone hate us"?

[euless]

bug

[East_coast]

Just saying...
Intervention for peace, then good.
Intervention to overthrown regime you dont like, then bad.

The Tailiban were not so nice. But i think think they could be worked with. They were our Allies against the Soviets. Going into Afghanistan with guns blazing was simply bad idea.

Yes you're right China has been interveening in Afganistan since the 1970's in various ways inclusing supplying arms to insurgents.

[GentleGeorge]

Yes you're right China has been interveening in Afganistan since the 1970's in various ways inclusing supplying arms to insurgents.

Them and literally everybody else

[East_coast]

Them and literally everybody else

But the thread was started suggesting China somehow wasn't when they were and are.

Some would suggest China are currently backing religious extremists to overthrow the elected government. Is that a good thing?

[GentleGeorge]

But the thread was started suggesting China somehow wasn't when they were and are.

In terms of weapons exports to militant groups in Afghanistan over the last couple of centuries, I would be surprised if China even made the top 5 (or top 20th on a per capita basis).

They are a rounding error in terms of stirring up armed insurgency abroad.