Debate:Why doesn't the US liberate people in oppressive regimes?

Proposition
In North Korea, 3.5 million people died because of the policies of a crazy government. LGBT people are facing inhuman tratment in a number of countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. Women's oppression is an integral part of some governments like Saudi Arabia. Shah's Iran was a beautiful country which was ravaged by a fanatic government.

Sovereignty comes with responsiblity. A state which does not protect the rights of its citizens loses its sovereignty. Why doesn't the US act to overthrow these oppressive regimes? Promotion of human rights is an integral part of US foreign policy. --LobPo (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The US has no claim of sovereignty over North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran, & also has human rights problems of its own to sort out. 14:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. The US has no legal mandate or right to do such things.
 * 2. When Bush in fact tried to do something like this the present outcome is arguably worse that the initial problem.
 * 3. The US political system is hardly a shining model for the rest of the world. It would be a good idea if it removed political corruption and prevented white policemen killing black citizens before it tries to start fixing the rest of the world.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's turn it around and suppose that, say, Lichtenstein invaded the US over their appalling human rights record with regard to their prison systems.... Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The human rights violations that takes place in a liberal country like the US are miniscule compared to those take place in a Stalinist regime like DPRK or religious regime Saudi Arabia. --LobPo (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And who made you moral arbitrator of the world? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then who will protect those people languishing in North Korean labor camps for no fault of their own? Or people being hanged publicly for blasphemy? Stoned to death for adultery? When massive amount of human rights violations take place in an illiberal country, a liberal country has moral responsibility to act. In fact, liberalism is the dominant ideology of 21st century. --LobPo (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is moral to invade North Korea due to labor camps that will kill thousands, and maybe tens of thousands, of military and civilians (like Iraq) as well as likely causing a nuclear strike on nearby nations not even involved in the conflict? I am all for helping people out, but you need to think through your ideals.  Also, what happens if the US does harm to civil rights at home or in their occupied country like blackwater in Iraq were allowed to do?    EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to remember the vast number of American deaths which LobPo's cunning scheme would inflict as well.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I always thought they would be hawks like LobPo who would be willing to fight for a conflict they want to instigate. Their lives would be happily laid down in the defense of fellow human beings and not be chickenhawks wanting others to do the same :-p  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For an ideological viewpoint, a good argument is liberal internationalism. --LobPo (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Our of curiosity - how would you finance this mad scheme?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in theory, we should liberate people and promote rational/liberal values in oppressed nations. If we could snap our collective fingers and free the world, then we would be obligated to do so. The arguments from postmodernism (stuff about sovereignty and "self-determination") are pretty silly. But it never seems to work out the way we say we planned it (though it may well have worked out the way Dick Cheney planned it). We always seem to screw it up. In Iraq, we set out to remove a brutal, torturing, murdering dictator and ended up with our mercenaries shooting civilians in squares, Abu Ghraib, burned libraries, Daesh, and torturers all of our own. And don't forget the dead Americans. I had ancestors who were Mr. Boot's "self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets", and I sure as hell wouldn't trade places with them. So it fall to us to promote democracy and human rights in less six-shooter-y ways (which we, admittedly, aren't doing enough of, even in our own nation).(Agrajag (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC))
 * I don't know where you're getting that sovereignty or self-determination has anything to do with postmodernism. These are well established concepts and are a big deal for people, a lot less "silly" than this nonsense about one nation "liberating" others by forcibly occupying them.  18:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that might have been a little over the top. My point was that using the argument "this country can do whatever they like because they're sovereign" is silly. I associated that argument with postmodernism because it is an argument that strongly implies that there are no absolutes regarding a nation's treatment of its people - that no nation can tell another what to do, that no nation can be "righter" than another. Sovereignty and self-determination are useful so that a nation can celebrate its culture - have its own flag, its own holidays, etc.. But sovereignty is no excuse to deny people their rights. There are moral constants, and they must be respected. People do not choose the nation of their birth, and should not be denied rights simply because of an accident. The right to deprive others of rights is no right. I agree that forcible occupation is, in practice, never the way to go about obtaining justice.(Agrajag (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Who does a nation belong to if not its own people? Why should the USA have any special remit to revoke other nations' sovereignty?  21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Who does a nation belong to if not its own people?" Exactly. Unfortunately, in this world, we have nations stolen by autocrats, despots, mobs, and theocrats. Do you think that Saudi homosexuals want to be stoned to death? Do you think that North Koreans, provided with the education and information to make an informed decision, would choose to live as they do? Ownership is wrested from the people, and should be returned. People must be guaranteed certain rights (speech, voting, education, health care etc.) from birth. The right of the people to dictate the course of a nation is, of course, limited by the necessity to not infringe on other people's rights, just as personal rights are limited by the interests of society (expressed through democracy). As to the USA as the international paragon of these values with the right to invade other countries to promote them: I'm with you here. We are not as civilized as we pretend to be. Our nation abuses rights. We torture. We're rapidly falling out of love with the whole "due process" idea. Large portions of our education system are unworthy of the name. We do not have universal health care. When we go in guns blazing, we end up making things worse (as I have said). However, the sane among us can still at least try to use the power of our government to peacefully promote human rights overseas.(Agrajag (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC))

Why?
Because the US isn't governed by people who care particularly much about what happens to foreign people. Also, the US army is full of bigots, so I wouldn't trust them to treat a foreign population respectfully when they're occupying their territory while constructing a democratic government there from scratch.

I wouldn't be opposed to an international armed force that protects people's rights around the world, but I sure as hell wouldn't want the US to lead it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. The US doesn't kill and torture people after all.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

US prisons
Now go and invade someone to keep people's attention off it! Scream!! (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The USA is the country with the second largest percentage of its population in prison (after the Seychelles!).
 * 2) Under current law, all physically able inmates who are not a security risk or have a health exception are required to work, either for UNICOR or at some other prison job. Inmates earn from US$0.23 per hour up to a maximum of US$1.15 per hour, and all inmates with court-ordered financial obligations must use at least 50% of this UNICOR income to satisfy those debts.

a liberal country has moral responsibility to act
Really? Does any country ever have a "moral responsibility" to interfere in another country. Isn't this exactly the same argument that religious fanatics use - that they have a "moral responsibility" to impose their religion on others. Don't other countries have a right to self determination? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What are the guidlines for moral responsibility as well? Every country can likely point to every another to say they are doing something not the way they should.  It would be a global free for all war for moral superiority till we kill ourselves.  US likely has as many moral failings in the eyes of another country so the US would not be immune from being invaded to correct something they are doing wrong.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I said sovereignty comes with responsibilities. Modern liberal national states are based on the concept of social contract, and the state has to protect the rights of its citizens. A state that fails to protect the rights of its citizens loses its legtimacy. --LobPo (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What defines the rights threshold required to be invaded? The US has failed to protect the rights of its citizens and non-citizens, according to UN conventions, for years.  When do we invade ourselves?  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you want to send soldiers from a country which recently admitted to carrying out torture to civilise the rest of the world. From the Us experience in Iraq hundreds of thousands of people would die along with tens of thousands of American troops.  Countries wound be devastated for generations and would be ripe for takeover by ISIS type regimes.  Furthermore the US would be totally broke as it would have no way to pay for a series of was on such a massive scale.  This is one of the most insanely counter-productive ideas I have ever heard.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What does sovereignity have to do with it when the people you want the US to liberate aren't US citizens? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Two words: Mission civilisatrice... ScepticWombat (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Blowback
Read it. wp:Blowback (intelligence). Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It did not happen with Germany and Japan after World War II. --LobPo (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, it happened with the USSR. Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget that, the blowback in WWII was from bombing pearl harbor. Ikanreed (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Hipocrite miss the point about blowback in that it refers to covert action, while LobPo is suggesting quite overt military action (as far as I can see). Conversely, Germany and Japan can't be used as examples of "non-blowback" in the way LobPo does since both were quite overtly invaded and directly run by the U.S. (and allies in the case of Germany) for a number of years. If we use blowback to refer to any sort of interference (incl. outright invasion and occupation), then yes, Germany and Japan are counter-examples - however, both had nowhere to turn but the U.S. and both had a common border with and lost territory to either the USSR, or, in the case of the Federal Republic, a Soviet satellite/puppet regime. Oh, and remember how, prior to the Iraq War, Germany and Japan were trotted out as examples of how Iraq might turn out? Curiously, there were less appealing examples, such as the U.S. supported juntas of South Korea and South Vietnam which were conveniently forgotten (the democratisation of the former in the late 1980s was certainly not due to U.S. support). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not in our interest
If anything, the US has a long history of supporting oppressive regimes. Ask the people of Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, Greece, South Africa during Apartheid, current day Saudi Arabia, Egypt and numerous other nations I'm not getting into.

Even if we could, we would probably cause more issues than we fix. When we invaded Iraq, we made the stupid decision of completely destroying the Ba'athist party instead of simply removing Saddam. The Ba'athist Party was salvageable, but we destroyed it. Now we have an obvious shill for Iran in power who uses the Iraqi military to openly beat and oppress Sunni Muslims for being Sunni.BlackProg (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Found a good article
"If the world’s leading liberal-democratic nation doesn’t assume its role as world policeman, the world’s rogues will try to fill the breach, often in league with one another." --LobPo (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be awesome if the world's leading liberal-democratic nations worked together to try and bring peace and fair treatment to all human beings. I wouldn't count the US as a particularly liberal or democratic nation, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Cause might makes right
 * until they see the light,
 * they've got to be protected
 * all their rights respected
 * until someone we like can be elected
 * Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That Wall Street Journal article sounds like Max Boot's infamous Case for American Empire, in which "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets," but necessarily "respun" by the less than optimal results the "Bootish" approach yielded in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
 * Contrary to the claims made by WSJ, it is highly dubious if the "broken windows" approach was actually central to, or even that influential in, changing the crime rate and patterns in the U.S. One provocative alternative, presented by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner in Freakonomics (2005), is that abortion is among the more influential contributors to lower crime rates. However, that doesn't have the nice (if you're a Wall Street Journal columnist) prospect of strict social control of the plebs to prevent even "the mere appearance of disorder".
 * WSJ also neglects to address one glaring aspect of a "broken windows"-style U.S. foreign policy that I doubt the WSJ would countenance, namely punishing Israel, as its behaviour (and the current lack of U.S. response to it) is a clear example of "Rules are invoked but not enforced. Principles are idealized but not defended. The moment the world begins to notice that rules won’t be enforced, the rules will begin to be flouted. One window breaks, then all the others."
 * It is also telling that the WSJ pundit is seemingly unable to imagine any alternatives to military force to batter down those criminals (again: Social control of those unruly plebs - not trying to actually fix any social problems).
 * Furthermore, claiming that the U.S. in a time of already tight budgets needs to increase its already astronomic military spending, especially from a paper so dedicated to cutting social expenditure, is simply obscene. The columnist, Bret Stephens, is really a clear-cut example of the kind of creeping militarism in the U.S. described by Chalmers Johnson in his "Blowback trilogy", since Stephens completely fails to acknowledge that there might be alternatives to armed intervention, that there are valid reasons why the U.S. ought to be able to spend less on its military than it did under Reagan (hint: the Cold War is long over), not to mention that Stephens also conveniently forgets Ronnie Raygun's most wasteful, futile and useless money sink or the gigantic deficits it contributed to.
 * WSJ's/Stephens' claim that the U.S. Army is returning "to its pre-World War II size" is pure and simple B.S. The suggested personnel cutbacks would reduce the Army to "only" ca. 450,000 men on the active rosters (i.e. only including National Guards and reservists actually recalled for active service), while a quick web search put the size of the U.S. Army in 1939 at 200,000 with an additional 200,000 in the National Guard. If you look at the long-term graph of the size of the U.S. Army since 1940 provided by NPR, not only are the cutbacks minimal as a proportion of the U.S. Army's size since the end of the Cold War, but the reduced army will not be much smaller than at the ebb between the end of WWII and the Korean War, and clearly far above the size of the Army in 1940. Stephens also seems oblivious to the fact that while the Cold War at least theoretically justified a huge U.S. Army to deter a Soviet invasion of Europe followed by a "red nuclear fait accompli", it is both dubious in theory and in practice whether a huge U.S. Army would even serve his purpose of a "broken windows" strategy. For instance, all of the "nice" cases of either real of hypothetical scenarios Stephens mentions of "preventing tragedy" involves nice "cheap" (at least in terms of U.S. lives and treasure) air strikes, making his whining about a minor reduction in the manpower of the U.S. Army utterly irrelevant.
 * In short, Stephens strikes me as something of a scaremongering militarist who is repackaging the Bush doctrine in more currently palatable window dressing (to mix metaphors). Even worse, Stephens repeats Bush claims that we live in "Hitler'esque times" to make his outrageous demands for more U.S. military spending in a time of tightened U.S. budgets seem like a necessary, even moral, priority. Bascially, political punditry at its glib worst. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stephens would also do well to remember the consequences of earlier eras in which something very like his "broken windows" approach was the U.S. foreign policy of choice, namely the aforementioned Banana Wars (which at best kept in power U.S. friendly elites and today would almost certainly lead to an even more pronounced anti-Americanism) and how the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, which was presented exactly as the sort of paternal liberalist intervention that Bret Stephens seems to be advocating, shaded into Philippine-American War.
 * I also can't help wonder what exactly Stephens is suggesting by emphasising "the borders that divide the free countries of Asia from China and North Korea; the free countries of central Europe from Russia; and allies such as Israel and Jordan from many of their neighbors." What exactly is the "broken windows" strategy towards North Korea and especially China and Russia? Is Stephens really advocating military strikes on, respectively, the power with world's second largest nuclear arsenal, and the one with the second or third largest economy? What about North Korea? How exactly is military sabre rattling going to "deter" a nation already so dysfunctional that it has experienced outright famine? Has Stephens forgotten the reason why South Korea, while accepting a U.S. presence, is certainly not keen on an outright military confrontation with the North (hint: look at a map to see the distance between the border and Seoul)? Hell, does Stephens even realise why neither South Korea nor China is keen on seeing North Korea collapse (the former could expect an even more extreme version of the East/West German unification problems, the latter a potentially strong and nuclear armed unified Korea on its borders, and both the immediate problem of hordes of refugees)? Such rather obvious questions makes me wonder how low the bar is for becoming a foreign policy pundit for the WSJ...
 * If I had to characterise the foreign policy ideology that comes out of Bret Stephens' WSJ piece, then it's one which seems to combine some of the worst aspects of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It marries the gunboat diplomacy and Banana Wars style of interventionism of the former with the global reach and paternalistic control of "less civilised" nations (e.g. the League of Nations "mandates") of the latter.
 * However, Stephens' foreign policy completely lacks mitigating aspects of the open self-interest and limited scope of Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy in practice (even if Roosevelt might have wanted to join the imperialist bandwagon), as well as the (albeit flawed and debatable) idealism of Wilsonianism, which at least suggested that democracy and liberty wasn't a luxury that by definition was limited to Americans and Western Europeans (even if in practice only (some) people of Central and Eastern Europe, i.e. in the European territories of the losers of WWI, was actually granted self-determination and even then tempered by geostrategical compromises). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So you are not able to ...
r Are we to take it that you are not able to give an answer to a single one of the reasonable objections which people have made to your silly suggestion?--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not likely. Some people don't think through the justifications for their beliefs to the point where even the most basic and reasonable objections can be addressed.  The sad thing is this does not stop the belief; it just makes the person leave in frustration to find a place where objections don’t happen.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will come back with detailed counter-arguments. --LobPo (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you addressed the concern about paying for it...and nothing else. Except to extol a return to imperialism or colonialism.  Given occupying oil producing countries I would say colonialism.  Plus the US should unilaterally attack and invade countries for things the US is still guilty of themselves.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

World is divided between pro-liberty and anti-liberty camp
The liberal world is in an existential struggle with the illiberal world. The illiberal ideologues are in a quest for world domination. In the 20th century, we have seen the world being divided between fascism and liberal democracy, and later between communism and liberal democracy.

The 21st century world is divided between liberalism and illiberalism. While one side on humanity is progressing towards human freedom, the other side is going in the opposite dierection.

In such a world, the United States faces the risk of becoming a pariah state in an increasingly illiberal world. If the liberal world does not act soon, the very concept of enlightenment liberalism may become extinct within a few centuries.

Morality of intervention by liberal countries
A lot of states are increasingly justifying acts like persecution of LGBT people, oppression of women, violation of civil rights on the pretext that LGBT rights, human rights or feminism are western concepts that goes against the cultural identity of those countries. The “leaders” in these countries continue to view the very concept of human rights as “western cultural imperialism”. There is a systematic and silent genocide going on in these regimes.

At the same time, these regimes, through propaganda in the education system, are promoting systematic hatred and generations of people with distorted worldview.

Proper use of oil reserves
Major oil reserves are located in undemocratic, illiberal, theocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia (18% of global reserves), Iran (9%), Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Libya (largest oil reserve in Africa) etc.

How these regimes use their oil money? As per this, a large amount of oil money is channelled to fund extremist activities. The elites in these countries use their oil revenue to fund oppression of its citizens in the name of preserving their ideology. Also, a lot of petrodollar is coming into liberal countries to promote hate.

If the US appropriate major oil reserves, no power in the world can challenge the US. The planet's natural resources should be at good hands.

United Nations is a failed institution
One of the objectives of the United Nations is promotion of human rights. The UN has miserably failed in this objective. The UN has failed to prevent large scale genocide like Rwandan Genocide, 9/11 attack etc. It has failed to promote human rights across the globe.
 * That is because in reality the actual job of the United Nations is not to be or provide authority, but rather, to give the illusion of authority (which every now and again turns out not to be an illusion as found out). Hence when compared to its  the UN is almost certainly a success. Alsto003 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

US acts too late
From history we have seen the US always acts when it is too late. In World War II, the US entered war only after being bombed by Japan. US took action against the Taliban government in Afghanistan only after the 9/11 attack.

US need to be more aggressive in defeating anti-freedom ideologies.
 * Remind me again when France and Britain entered WWII. They may have declared war in 1939, but they didn't do anything until, what, 4 weeks before Paris was overrun?  As for being too late, everyone complains when the US is too soon.  Hey, maybe the US really did need to go into Iraq!  Maybe they were right in Vietnam!  Hindsight is 20/20 after all...CorruptUser (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

American military deaths
As a concern expressed above, I will like to point out that there is no possibility of large number of American deaths. From the experience in Iraq War, we have seen more than 96% of coalition causalities occurred during the post-invasion occupation phase, not during the invasion phase. The invasion of Iraq lasted a little more than a month.

US firepower is far more superior in terms of technology and number, compared to the firepower of the Middle Eastern nations. So an invasion, say against Iran, is not going to last more than a month. The country can be easily liberated.

In Iraq, the post-invasion deaths should be attributed to the post-invasion insurgency and the failure of the administration to liquidate the radical extremists and establish a liberal pro-America government. Wikipedia has a good analysis why did the insurgency in Iraq build up.

Who will finance the war?
The initial cost of the war will be borne by the US government. But once a country is liberated, the US government will take a percentage of the national income of the country for a period of time until the cost of war is recovered.

World needs social engineering
World needs social engineering for the establishment of a free world. Like de-Nazification in post-war Germany, a post-liberation US administration needs to de-fanaticise the liberated country. If necessary, a radical social engineering is needed.

Like the Occupation of Japan, there should be Occupation of the liberated country for at least 5 years during which the US should sponsor large scale social engineering to de-fanaticize and liberalize the society. Its main objective will be, 1. Eliminating the country’s war potential, 2. Eliminating any possibility of anti-liberal fanaticism and anti-American insurrection, 3. Turning the country into a free trade-respecting, human rights-respecting, liberal nation with pro-American orientation. Liberty is only for those who advocate liberty.

The social engineering could also include large-scale immigration of people from the US to the liberated country. For this purpose, the US can send illegal immigrants living in the US to the liberated country. This way, the country will turn into a modern western style country as happened with Australia.


 * "Liberty is only for those who advocate liberty" - and freedom is, of course, slavery. Seriously, this bit really reminds me of the title of part 3 of Adam Curtis' documentary series The Trap (2007): "We Will Force You To Be Free". ScepticWombat (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * LobPo, posting pictures of radicals and claim that this is the necessary consequence of "giving liberty to the enemires of liberty" is hardly convincing, when your alternative is pretty much guaranteed to generate even greater amounts of enemies. Or do you think that U.S. invasions will magically become bloodless affairs, or that occupied liberated people will be so grateful that they'll ignore the kind of civilian casualties that the usual U.S. bombing campaigns in preparation for an invasion (not to mention the invasion itself) will cause? Hell, have you even considered that your idea of an "Occupation of the liberated country for at least 5 years" runs a high risk of leading to exactly the kind of " post-invasion deaths" that you claim can be avoided by simply being even more ham- iron-fisted. The irony is that it was because of U.S. efforts to thoroughly "to liquidate the radical extremists" and "de-fanaticize" Iraq by dissolving the Baath Party and barring its former members from public employment that the insurrection received a further boost. You're basically still ignoring that you can't force people to be liberal - it's an oxymoron. I've already explained in an earlier section why references to Japan and (West) Germany are problematic, not to mention the hosts of counter-examples (of which I mentioned South Korea and South Vietnam). ScepticWombat (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you bring up Iran, since the reason we got a theocracy there now is because of Western tampering. If the CIA hadn't orchestrated the coup in 1953, it probably would've still been a secular constitutional monarchy. And the reason for the coup? Iran was gonna nationalize its oil industry. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In short
The US turned up late to the last two world wars so lets make sure we're right there for the start of the next one. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing the list above, LobPo seems to have merely repackaged old-style imperialism under a slightly more palatable slogan ("liberation from oppressive regimes"). All the points are straight out of late 19th/early 20th century "liberal imperialism" or what the French called their mission civilisatrice (as I've already mentioned):
 * One rehashed argument is that "uncivilised" (LobPo's "oppressed") people requiring the rule of benign paternalistic imperialists - at least until they become "civilised"/"liberal" enough to rule themselves (something which curiously wasn't seen as happening at any point during the more than 30 years of European stewardship of the League of Nations "mandates"...). This is classic "White Man's Burden" rhetoric.
 * Then there's the claim that those "illiberal"/"oppressive" regimes are inefficient users of their natural wealth, which is also exactly the argument made by old-school imperialists of the jodhpurs & pith helmet variety.
 * Also the demands for settlement of the imperialist liberating power's population on the colonised liberated territory is straight out of old-school imperialism.
 * And finally the claim that the empire liberation will pay for itself through looting exploitation repayment of war costs to the invader (how or why any "liberated" nation would assent to paying such mafia-style retroactive protection money without being subject to some very strong gunboat diplomacy coercion by the U.S. is also a serious flaw in this scenario, not to mention that it hardly sounds very "liberal" in any sense of the word).
 * However, the "backwards" or "uncivilised" peoples weren't happy with imperialism back in the pith helmeted age, and I doubt they'd be any more thrilled today - despite what LobPo or his slightly more brazen advocate of U.S. imperialism, Max Boot, seems to think...
 * Oh, and LobPo apparently forgets that the reason the U.N. "failed" in Rwanda was because its member states (incl. the U.S.) failed to give a flying fuck about the slaughter before it was too late. It was certainly not the U.N. which prevented the U.S. (or any other state) to intervene in Rwanda. Not to mention why or how the hell the U.N. should have been able to "prevent" 9/11, a truly bizarre suggestion - especially considering that the main power responsible for yet failing in "preventing" 9/11 is the very same U.S. government that LobPo suggests should go on a rampage against "illiberal, oppressive regimes". Hardly a very thought through argument that one. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ScepticWombat, an ordinary person want a good stardard of living and freedom, they does not care under which flag they are living. --LobPo (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, what alternative are you suggesting? --LobPo (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "::an ordinary person want a good stardard of living and freedom, they does not care under which flag they are living." I think you're grossly mistaken here. Arguably the only more potent idea(l) than capitalism that Europe has bequeathed to the world is nationalism and the nation state. That's why I'm suggesting that it's likely to generate even more enemies of the U.S. if it starts to invade, occupy and then recoup its costs from the "liberated" nations. The whole idea that you can combat vaguely defined "enemies of liberty" by military force is a dubious one, to put it mildly. How do you think Muslims, and not just those in Saudi Arabia, would react if U.S. troops occupied Mecca and Medina? Do you think they would be any more thrilled than, say, Catholics would be if the Marines occupied that well-known illiberal theocracy and opponent of capitalism and free trade The Vatican? My alternative can be summed up in the adage "it won't get better if you pick at it". Yes, military action against ISIS makes sense, but that's because it's being done in collaboration with on by request of the various governments involved. Finally, it seems quite unclear how "illiberal" a regime needs to be before it merits a visit from a well-armed Uncle Sam under your scenario. Perhaps you could present a Top 10 or some other (literal) hitlist? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, you don't need to have a perfect solution to point out a bad idea. Pointing out that shooting yourself in the head as a solution to cancer can be shown to be a bad idea without needing to cure it.  This return to colonialism would be the equivilent of shooting ourselves in the head politically, economically, and militarily.  EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

None of these statements is objectively true. They're all perceptions, and pretty questionable ones. The struggle between liberal & illiberal ideologies is much more significant within countries (including USA) than in international relations between countries. As for "a quest for world domination", none of the countries you've mentioned are doing that - but that's exactly what you're suggesting the USA should do.

Again, neither of these statements are true. The US has no right to just take oil away from other countries, & why the hell wouldn't they challenge it? & What's so great about America's big oil corporations anyway? You're just promoting rampant American imperialism

Yes, because in both cases the US was provoked by acts of aggression. This is why countries go to war: to promote, defend or pursue their interests; not for ideologically-motivated interference with each other.

The picture you're painting really doesn't sound like a "free world" to me. The US arbitrarily acts like it's in charge of the world, invades & occupies a bunch of countries, confiscates their resources & weapons, taxes their citizens & "socially engineers" them to abandon their culture, as well as sending over boatloads of US settlers, and of course you expect these people to welcome their invaders as "liberators". How could any of this possibly work? 18:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (irony fun fact: this is now the longest subsection of this discussion) Ikanreed (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really in short: "Take up the White Man’s burden/Send forth the best ye breed" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you missed ScepticWombat's huge blocks of texts in the "Found a good article" section. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that one, but the article was just a grab bag of really stupid ideas and internally inconsistent arguments. Still, I guess I did go a bit overboard on the fisking (even though I didn't even go through the entire amount of stupidity in the article). ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually agree somewhat on this point, on a global scale democracy is in retreat. The only nation to emerge democratic out of Arab Spring was Tunisia and that was because the secular, democrats were pretty brilliant in their ability to outmaneuver the Islamic Extremist parties. Internet and press freedom continue to drop world-wide, Putinism is spreading slowly but surely, especially in Europe where in Hungary, France and Germany the far-right parties are gaining much more power and prestige. Turkey is slowly but surely becoming more and more like Iran in terms of politics and freedoms, we have a military take over of Thailand that is "supposed" to end in 2016, the only real hope for Democracy is being made in Latin America, India and parts of sub-Sahara Africa. BlackProg (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the claim that "on a global scale democracy is in retreat" may be overdoing it a bit, considering the examples given:
 * Putinism has simply gotten more overtly authoritarian, and Putin's predecessor actually dissolved the Duma and ruled by decree - something that Putin hasn't done (due to his obsequious support there). So, I think it's at least debatable whether Russia is becoming less democratic, though Putin's legislation targeting civil society organisations receiving money from abroad is not exactly a paragon of enlightened pluralistic democratic-mindedness.
 * That the Arab Spring didn't lead to democratic rule except in Tunisia is actually and advance, since none of the countries were democratic prior to the Arab Spring anyway (though you could call it a draw, considering the Egypt debacle, and here I'm mainly referring to the military coup). If none of the Arab Spring countries were particularly democratic before and Tunisia at least has become so, that's a +1 result for democracy.
 * It's hard to claim that in "Germany the far-right parties are gaining much more power and prestige", unless you consider Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) a far right party. If the reference is to the single MEP from the NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands), then he was elected due to the removal of the German EP electoral threshold by the German Federal Court. Actually, in getting 1.03% of the vote, the NPD received less votes than both the Freie Wähler, Piraten and the Tierschutzpartei.
 * That right-wingers are on the rampage in Hungary and France is clear, but not anti-democratic, since in both cases these parties are making these gains democratically. However,some of the initiatives by Fidesz in Hungary are not exactly models of democratic governance, so I'll partly agree with the assessment in the case of Hungary.
 * Turkey is nowhere near "slowly but surely becoming more and more like Iran in terms of politics and freedoms", however much I dislike the conservative semi-authoritarian political Islam of the AKP. And again, remember the background where the army played a large role in Turkish politics (incl. the 1980 coup), the "deep state", and the dissolution of AKP's predecessors; once this is factored in, it's hard to claim that Turkey is markedly less democratic now than previously.
 * Thailand, by contrast, is a good case, even if the military coup simply formalised/made explicit the kind of anti-Thaksin, anti-populism, conservative initiatives that the "Yellow" wing has been advocating and practising (through at least formally democratic means) for years.
 * I think the allegation is conflating "democracy" with progressive/left-wing/liberal politics and policy. As long as right wingers don't actually resort to anti-democratic means, their electoral success can't simply be called a retreat for democracy. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Children in solitary confinement
And who is going to invade this awful oppressive state that keeps children, some as young as ten, in solitary confinement for months on end. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Europe, hopefully. It's time we reclaimed those colonies anyway. :P 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In this scenario the US is perfect though and doesn't do anything wrong, or even has the capacity to do wrong, ever. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Blueprint for a free world
The entire Middle East (except Israel) and Africa (except South Africa) should be annexed by the US. All countries in these two places are ruled by corrupt, theocratic, authoritarian regimes. This will give the US access to world's major oil reserves too. The annexed countries will be divided into states which will be analogous to US state.

Points need to be addressed.


 * Ethnic nationalism: Nationalism grows due to ethnic supermacism and a sense of ethinic victimhood. To prevent growth of nationalist movements in near and distant future in the newly annexed countries, the size of the entire native population will be reduced to zero in a hundred year timescale through compulsory sterilization of the native population and enforcing ban of child bearing by native people. The children born at the day of US annexation are expected to live a productive life of 100 years maximum. This children will also be required to undergo compulsory sterilization after they become adult.


 * Liquidating the former rulling class: The former rulling class will be investigated for human rights violations and and death penalty should be imposed on them if found guilty of state-sponsered murder. The rest of the rulling elite will be send to life imprisonment.


 * New identity of the native population: The native population will be given American national citizenship as well as state citizenship (as the newly annexed country will be divided among states which will be newly formed US states), but they will be unable to permanently settle in mainland America. People holding state citizenship in an annexed country will also be forbidden from marrying people from mainland America.


 * Property: With the annexation of a country by the US, all its public property will become US government property some of which will remain public, others will be sold to mainland American citizens. A new law will make sure a mainland American citizen purchasing property in the annexed territory can sell his property only to a mainland American citizens, not natives. Natives will not be eligible to buy residential and commercial property in mainland America. After the death of a native property owner, his property will become US government property which will be sold to people from mainland America.


 * Prevention of native rebellion: To prevent rebellion by natives, salaries and other benefits for the native administrative class and the native military commanders will be raised.


 * New American administration: The heads of the newly formed government, its judiciary and its military will be people from mainland America. The constituion of the annexed territory will be replaced by American constitution, but secessionism and native nationalist activities will be a crime punishable by death.


 * Oil reserves: US economy will be greatly benefited from the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE etc.


 * Increasing mainland American population: Mainland Americans will be encouraged to migrate to newly annexed countries and have as many children as possible. Human reproduction will be commercialized and industrialized to make sure growth of mainland American population in the newly annexed country. After 100 years, the entire native population will be replaced by people from mainland America.


 * Promoting American nationalism, liberal social policies and atheism: The new administration will promote American nationalism, liberal social policies and atheism. Children growing up in the newly annexed countries will be exposed to these values through the education system.

After 100 years, most the world will be under the US flag devoid of authoritarian regimes. --LobPo (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1. Are you saying Israel isn't any of those things? 2. In response to your closing statement, if the US does any of this, it is an authoritarian regime (and oppressive in similar magnitude as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia under Stalin were). Making it all the more ludicrous is that you titled this section "Blueprint for a free world". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this even comparable to Nazi Germany or USSR? --LobPo (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nationwide propaganda, liberal use of the death penalty and holy fucking shit you want to drive the whole native population into extinction. Seriously LobPo, how dense can you be? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I found it is the only practical way to prevent growth of ethnic nationalism. Chidren born out of the native population may turn nationalists with a sense that they have the blood of original people of that country. Is there any other way to prevent nationalism? --LobPo (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This might surprise you, but have you considered that ethnic nationalism wouldn't be the only problem for your imperialist American-supremacist regime because any sane person would be opposed to it? Also, cultural and ethnic identities aren't carried by blood, ya know. Exactly how racist are you? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps LobPo is seizing the day and engaging in a little Anyway, Poe's Law applies all-day all-year. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Methinks that SW has the right of it. Scream!! (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not joke, I'm serious. --LobPo (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And people wonder why Americans aren't trusted. Are you clinically insane? Scream!! (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what promotes freedom? A single worldview dictated by a single individual.  It's been wrong-headed since Plato's republic, and it's still wrong-headed now.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know how the new american regime is going to keep ethnic-wide rebellions from taking place across a continent and a half were the natives only benefit is if you work in the government you get $9 instead of 7.25 while a eugenics program is conducted. Also "american atheism". Even as a joke that's the most widely unrealistic thing in here.-- Mie kal  14:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) Not sure that's believable. Restarting colonialism, committing slow genocide of nearly an entire continent, executing men/women/children due to their class...these are crimes against humanity that even went farther than the Axis did in WW2 (i.e. Pacification of Manchukuo).  In the name of "freedom" and "liberty" of the native population that don't get any say because America knows best.  Till the natives die out from being forcibly sterilized or get executed for disagreeing.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not colonialism, this is Liberal internationalism. I am open to new ideas that will help counter secessionist nationalist movement without resorting to sterilization. --LobPo (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's commonly referred to as fascism, actually: imposing your ideology on others without their agreement. Scream!! (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Liberalism is freeing people from ideologies such as sharia system. --LobPo (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * liberalism: feeeing people from sharia so we can instead commit cultural and ethnic genocide and force them to either be sterilized or get put against a wall. -- Mie kal  17:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Lobpo knows what liberal internationalism is... And it's a particularly warped idea that you "free" people from sharia by either killing them outright or make sure they have no descendents. That's a mindset so effed up that even a grand inquisitor would have to facepalm. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I abandon that idea completely. Sorry. But I still believe annexing those countries is the only practical solution. --LobPo (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * how would that change anything?-- Mie kal  17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggest we leave this (9 year old?) dimwit to his own devices - he's obviously on a planet of his own imagination. Scream!! (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder myself. By any name one calls it this is pretty well imperialism in its most vile form, and shows an ignorance about the history of the world from the 1700's to present.  It also shows a psychopathic tendency to treat genocide and crimes against humanity like it was no big deal.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, LobPo's "arguments" illustrate perfectly why viewed what he called  with such fear and scepsis due to the tendency to employ an extreme "the end justifies the means" approach. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see where it might fit in removing oppression to foster positive liberty of those in that country. That doesn't apply when those intended to be liberated are slowly exterminated, executed if they are inconvenient (wealthy or high social standing), and shot if they complain as the invading country profits by exploiting their natural resources.  It also is worrying when people start dehumanizing others by judging their "productive life" as they are a deprecating asset like a tractor.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In a Nutshell
So your argument Lobpo, in a nutshell, is that nationalism is bad, and therefore imperialism is good? I am inclined to view this idea with skepticism as I see it as being too simplistic. Nevertheless in the spirit of cooperation allow me to propose names for one particular area of the territory you wish for us to conquer: Syria. It is clear that France the United States should divide Syria into four new states: the, the , the , and the. Sarcasm aside, do you see where I'm going with this? Conquering the Middle East is an overly simplistic, crazy and extreme solution to a problem that can be solved in ways that don't require sending millions of soldiers to their deaths for the purpose of reinstating outright western imperialism in the Middle East. Alsto003 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

Foreign Policy and Strategic interests
The US has strategic interests in the Middle East and wants to prevent Iranian hegemony. Since the end of World War II, the US has supported regimes that crush Arab secular nationalism/socialism (Nasserism) and Arab nationalism in the form of Islamic fundamentalism/Islamism. That is why the US sends weapons to strength regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, etc.
 * Yeah, that's the realpolitik explanation and that still reads like an excuse to me. "Oh yeah, we totally meant violent Islamic fundamentalism too, not just communism" still seems like a excuse appearing out of thin air in 1991.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He went way beyond realpolitik when he expressed a desire for the US to actually conquer the whole Middle East. Alsto003 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * I was answering this particular user, ChrisAmiss, who I forgot to tag with unsig, not the entire debate topic. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't see that, the comment wasn't signed so I just assumed it was from Lobpo. Alsto003 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Alex

Invalid
How is it valid to say, "The United States has human rights abuses. Ergo, it shouldn't intervene."? Does a nation have to be 100% humane to do a good action? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Matthew 7:3-5 Scream!! (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It may not help your case to quote the most contradictory of the four gospels. Alsto003 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * Great, the Bible says "fix yourself before you fix others". Too bad the Bible provides no reason that said statements is valid. *cough*. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh! 'Twas a tad tongue-in-cheek. Wot wiv me bein' the most atheist atheist yu ever met. Seriously though I think the US should fuck off from other folks stuff, as should the UK. That's what the UN is supposed to be for, innit? Scream!! (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The UN's almost completely impotent. Supporting the UN is effectively the same as supporting the status quo. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then beef up the UN! Oh sorry, I forgot the US won't do that will it, scheisse. Scream!! (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's beef up the UN. Who controls the new United Nations Army? The Security Council, controlled by the largest nations, all with veto power? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as illiberal countries have any vote at all as to how the International Army of Sunshine and Blowjobs is deployed, no, don't give them an army. CorruptUser (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And we're back to "impotent UN" status. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So... why is a UN with a powerful army better than, say, an EU with a powerful army? I'd rather have an EU army. CorruptUser (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How'd an EU army be superior to a US army, or an army of any other (do they exist?) large democratic nation? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely because the EU isn't a nation, it's a democracy of democratic nations. That means that it won't be too quick to do crazy stuff with a powerful military, because each nation has to be able to justify itself to all the others in the bunch. And it's better than a UN army because that has Russia and the PR o' China firmly in positions of influence. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic, the US military would perform better if each of the 50 states had control in the army and had to be able to justify itself to the others in the bunch, kinda like the US under the Articles of Confederation. Seems like a recipe for indecision and inaction. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, but it might help that EU governments generally aren't as crazy or corrupt as some US states are. Also, I never said their army would perform better, just that it's a better entity to enthrust a powerful military to than some of the other options on the table. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You really want to claim that Italy is less corrupt than Florida?  Ireland, the country that was using rape victims as slave labor until the 90's?  Switzerland too, though they aren't EU.  And fucking Monaco; I'm counting it as EU because it's French but it's so corrupt that rich French pretend it's another country just so they can hide their money away there.CorruptUser (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And here you go proving me right by having to shoehorn stuff into the EU just to have enough examples. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And here you go ignoring his other examples. Should Greece, if its nationalist party got power, be able to run part of the EU's army? Authoritarian Turkey, if it got in? France, if Pen wins, or Britain, if UKIP grows? The various neoreactionary parties of Scandinavia? The EU might be less crazy, but is it sufficiently less crazy? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be morally pure in order to be able to do good things or be allowed to do good things, but when we're talking about a nation taking out an immoral regime and possibly taking over the terroritory, it's certainly preferable that the nation in question isn't an immoral regime as well. After all, the intervention wouldn't be particularly justified if it doesn't manage to significantly improve the situation, would it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) LobPo is probably right that the US, even with its flaws, is vastly more liberal than many of the nations under discussion. In much of the Middle East, apostasy, adultery, and other sins are punishable by death, for example. The U.S. doesn't come close to said authoritarianism and intolerance.
 * (2) Why would intervention create a mirror of the United States, with similar policies? The best-case scenario would be Germany or Japan -- taking control and changing the culture to a broadly liberal one, then letting independent development. Germany has outpaced the US in liberalism, almost certainly, and the same may occur in other nations. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion in (2) is a very, very simplistic (and largely incorrect) picture of what actually occurred in post-war Germany and Japan. - Grant (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do elaborate. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For unrelated reasons, West Germany and Japan were both in relatively good positions to accept democratization after the war ended. Economic conditions in both countries were ripe for the economic revivals that both countries experienced post-occupation, and cultural conditions allowed a relatively smooth transition. It's also worth noting that the Cold War was already starting to brew at the time, so the countries involved (the U.S. for Japan, and the coalition of Allied powers for West Germany) had a vested interest in ensuring that both countries got back on their feet pretty quickly. None of these "perfect" conditions really exist in the Middle East. - Grant (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Economic conditions, such as what?
 * In what ways is Middle Eastern culture more antidemocratic than, say, Japanese culture was?
 * And yes, no more Cold War with a singular enemy exists. But many nations recently have looked to the US because of Russia, China, or jihadism, if not to the degree that the Cold War encouraged polarization. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, both countries had a thriving export market for finished goods, which is handy, as opposed to much of the Middle East's heavy reliance on natural resources (we've already seen the drop in oil prices do a number on quite a few economies in the area). Middle Eastern culture is not more antidemocratic, and that's not what I said. However, do you think all of the current cultural and religious tensions across the Middle East will disappear if occupied by the U.S.? As someone else mentioned above, that worked oh so well for Iraq. Which nations would those be, and what did they look to the U.S. for? Many nations have looked to the international community for help with these issues, but how many of them so far have been amenable to restricting their sovereignty to do so? - Grant (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does reliance on natural resources preclude democratization?
 * Alright, then what do you mean by "cultural conditions allowed a relatively smooth transition"?
 * U.S. invasion wouldn't necessarily solve the tensions in the Middle East at all, though it would remove the ability to use national resources for cultural causes. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor economic conditions increase unrest. This doesn't preclude democratization, but it certainly makes managing an occupation much more difficult.
 * Well, the kinds of severe cultural and religious tensions that exist now in the Middle East were not such major players in post-war Germany and Japan.
 * How do you figure? Because the U.S. would take them all? So what? How would that stop the parties currently fighting each other from acquiring weapons? - Grant (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Practical aspect
I don't understand why many people here call annexation of middle east impractical. Will not US benefit from the oil reserves and the infrastructure? --LobPo (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The impracticality isn't about whether it could be theoretically profitable, but about shit hitting the fan if the US tried to annex a bunch of Middle Eastern nations. Really, how do you think the international community and the local population would react? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, before invasion, the US need to organize opposition movement first. For example, we have National Council of Resistance of Iran. I believe informed people in oprressive countries will definitely support the US invasion because of the newly found freedom. See how Russian people supported Nazis who were fed up with Stalin. Nazi Germany even did not organize any opposition movement in the USSR before invading the country, but they found support from a section of the population. People living freely in a free country will not be sympathetic to an invading country, but people living in an unfree country who are dissatisfied with the government will view the invading country as liberator. The new US administration should very first find out people opposed to the previous regime, free all prisoners and give them amnesty. --LobPo (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that totally worked in Iraq. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 08:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the practicality is the major objection. The sheer batshit insanity probably wins that race. 'Will not US benefit' - depends on how you measure 'benefit'. Worm (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom Lehrer says it all Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well first of all despite several Empires ruling in the Middle East over the course of history the last one which succeeded in uniting the entire area which you describe was the Abbasid Caliphate. So it has been quite some time since the area you're describing has been united. The second reason is that a non-Muslim nation conquering Mecca and Medina would not just infuriate the Middle Eastern Muslims, but all Muslims everywhere. Non-Muslims aren't even allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, what on earth makes you think Muslims would accept the US conquering those two cities? We would make enemies with a seventh of the world population instantly. Thirdly as I mentioned earlier, the imperial endeavors of western powers in the Middle East have often ended badly, the British and French mandates, the 1953 Iranian Coup, and the Iraq War all come to mind. The invasion would be unfathomably large, it and the resultant occupation would require literally millions of troops, all there in the name of conquering a territory whose people have quite clearly shown us that they want us to stay out of the region. Additionally the rest of the world that isn't Muslim (and thoroughly annoyed with Neoconservatives) can and will declare the USA to be a pariah like pre-apartheid South Africa, since even invading (let alone conquering) countries like its the 18th and 19th centuries all over again is not considered acceptable behavior on the world stage. And lastly given the cost of the Iraq War I'm curious to find out how you would pay for the gargantuan army we would have to keep in the Middle East (to prevent an outright rebellion). Alsto003 (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * Depends what you mean by annexing as well. If the annexing is the blueprints above I don't see how you can get any native group to support the annexation when the first three steps are forcibly sterilizing the natives, executing upper social classes and murdering anyone who fusses till the conquerors repopulate their country.  Annexing another country to use its resources is still colonialism/imperialism..."the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically."  Ignorance of these centuries of history is baffling in these proposals.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I went back and reread those parts, and just wow. Stuff like this: "Ethnic nationalism: Nationalism grows due to ethnic supermacism and a sense of ethinic victimhood. To prevent growth of nationalist movements in near and distant future in the newly annexed countries, the size of the entire native population will be reduced to zero in a hundred year timescale through compulsory sterilization of the native population and enforcing ban of child bearing by native people. The children born at the day of US annexation are expected to live a productive life of 100 years maximum. This children will also be required to undergo compulsory sterilization after they become adult." almost leaves me completely speechless; what the quoted passage advocates is quite literally nothing short of a genocide. After reading Lobpo's grand eugenics plan the only political philosopher to which I can equate Lobpo's political philosophies with are those of the Qing Dynasty political philosopher, whose name I added to the To Do List. I noted on his entry on the To Do List that his political philosophy was proof of the correctness of the Horseshoe theory which while not a popular thing for me to write is true. While Youwei was basically a proto-communist he also advocated a program of eugenics to get rid of dark skinned people. I say that he and by extension Lobpo, are proof of the Horseshoe theory because they clearly are. The Khmer Rouge believed that by shooting all of the minroities in Cambodia they would ensure that there would be no more ethnic conflict in Cambodia. Kang Youwei believed that it was necessary to eliminate brown people if we were to eliminate racial divisions. And Lobpo believes that that we should get rid of the all the Middle Easterners so as to prevent there from being any more Middle Eastern wars. Alsto003 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Alex
 * It's particularly discomforting seeing how LobPo went from "the US should take out oppressive regimes for the sake of those regimes' citizens" (warhawkish but not totally unreasonable) to "the US should annex oppressive regimes' territories for the good of those regimes' citizens" (patronizing and imperialistic) to "the US should annex countries so it can benefit from those territories' resources (also, let's kill all the natives so they don't revolt or something)" (holy shit WTF). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Annexation of the Middle East? Really? In case you missed the last hundred-odd years of history, countries just annexing or colonising each other really doesn't go down well in international relations these days. Russia's annexation or the Crimea - a relatively small territory on its border which shares a similar culture & which it does have a historical claim to (albeit a questionable and contested one) - has caused quite a substantial international controversy and been condemned by a lot of countries which don't have direct territorial interests in the region. So how are you going to just walk over & "annex" a huge, wealthy region on the other side of the world made up of many independent countries with major international trade interests and very little cultural connection with the USA, and expect everyone to just stand back & watch it happen? 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Israel's annexation of the occupied territories doesn't seem to be going as smoothly as perhaps planned.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   20:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is likely because should Israel outright annex the West Bank they will get put into the awkward position of having to justify denying citizenship and suffrage to the people living there. What eludes the Israeli right wing is that Israel only has three options: a two state solution, a one state solution, or a (partially) nationality based apartheid. There are no other options, and the sooner they stop sticking their heads where the sun don't shine the better off Israel and Palestine will both be. Alsto003 (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Alex