New answers tagged

1

No super power has ever attacked a country that has a nuclear arsenal. In the light of what happened to all the countries that were and still are being attacked by superpowers, to Kim that could be a compelling reason to have such an arsenal. Even if it is just to make sure that everybody understands, Kim is not going down as easily as Qaddhafi or Hussein. ...


2

One of the few things Obama and Trump had in common was that they were not interested in starting new foreign military adventures. I think there is not much point in protesting war if those in power are not actively seeking it.


0

Most of this never shows in the mainstream media. After the failed coup in Turkey the US both removed spoused of diplomats as if it was no longer a safe country and also moved neuclear missiles to Bulgaria. So I think the answer to your question is yes, but it isn't a public thing.


18

I think this is another issue that could do with a Special Providence analysis. According to Mead there are 4 competing schools of US Foreign Policy, basically divided via what their international goals are (trade, security, ideals, or US independence), which ultimately means they have different standards for when they want things ignored, when they want ...


20

There's nothing in the treaty that prevents Turkey from doing what it's doing. First and foremost, NATO is a defense alliance that's aimed at attacks against its member states. While the Kurds in Syria are an ad-hoc ally of some NATO members, Turkey views them as enemies. Allies of NATO members are not protected by NATO, so there is no article 5 obligation ...


13

That is not the generally accepted meaning of a proxy war, where one country uses surrogate forces to fight another. For example, North Vietnam was a proxy for Soviet-bloc aggression against US interests. While Afghanistan saw the US back the Mujahideen to serve as proxies to hurt the USSR. If Turkey was a close German ally (it is not) and if the Kurds were ...


13

You may not remember it, but the Iraq war was new horrors each month for years, and the government was in favor of keeping it going. It was very protestable and very newsworthy. Whereas today there's no war and everyone in power is against war. There's not much to protest or cover. At first in the Iraq war, buildings with civilians got bombed. Later road-...


17

Obama got elected. Long story short, you'll notice that the anti-war Left got really quiet right around the time that Obama got elected. With a Democrat in power, it was no longer in the interests of the Democratic Party to fund or organize rallies protesting the President, and as a result, the anti-war protests rapidly died away. Unfortunately, I don't have ...


43

The "anti-war" rubric is mainly a conservative conflation of a lot of different Centrist, Leftist, and (non-authoritarian) Rightist positions. I mean, it is often blithely applied to wide ranging movements like: Pacifism, which opposes mass violence for moral and/or religious reasons Anti-draft movements, which oppose forcing young people to risk ...


Top 50 recent answers are included