8 ms·

That's probably false as you can see historically that ideological armies have far better morale and better effectiveness

by breppp 1mo ago

throw310822 1mo ago
"Bringing democracy" is a very weak ideological motivation. I would rather call it plausible deniability. As in "we're doing this to bring democracy" and people might be left with the doubt that it's true.
- breppp 1mo ago
  It is a very weak ideological motivation for people who would never enlist in the first place. However, I think people are generally too cynical towards a very real belief system. There are multiple examples of US pushing for democracy against its own interest. Bush with the Hamas Gaza elections, Obama with the Egypt Muslim Brotherhood government and Carter with pre-revolution Iran are such examples
  - yosefk 1mo ago
    Bush knew what he was doing - Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it. When Trump decided he wants them to release Israeli hostages he forced them to do it rather quickly, all things considered, showing who really controls Hamas. Restraining American "allies" is key to how America understands its interests and Hamas is an excellent lever to pressure Israel, or Hamas-controlled Gaza wouldn't be flooded with American and European money. Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did; in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup against the elected government (this is not to say that Russia's actions in Ukraine are "justified", it's just a fact.) Democracy has nothing to do with any of this
    - breppp 1mo ago
      > Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it I doubt this is backed by US intentions and actions historically > Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did That seems like a tautology to me, care to expand? I vividly remember Obama throwing his autocrat ally under the bus > in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement
      - leonidasrup 1mo ago
        "In the late 2010s and early 2020s, Israeli officials encouraged Qatar to support Hamas, especially by approving the transfer of large sums of financial aid by Qatar to the organization. Several Israeli intelligence officials have cited Qatari money as a contributing factor to the success of Hamas in leading the October 7 attacks in 2023; Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the notion that Israel strategically propped up Hamas "ridiculous", and stated that Qatar's aid transfers to the Hamas government had been approved for humanitarian reasons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
        breppp 1mo ago
        I'm not sure how is that related to the original topic. The events I am describing are a decade to two before the ones you are describing. Back in the early 2000s Qatar was already financing Hamas as well as Al Qaeda (including involvement in 9/11 financing) and Hezbollah in some extent. Saying Qatar needed Israel's request to start financing ideologically close Islamist terror organizations is certainly the Qatar government line for their involvement, but it's a very shallow analysis of what happened
      - scythe 1mo ago
        >The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement Most coups are organic. The US involvement in the Iran coup of 1953 was not very much, but the signal of support was meaningful. Ditto Chile in 1973. Ukraine's overthrow was not like those coups. It relied on popular support from the region near the capital. However, this support was not uniform across the country, and support for the protests hovered around 50% and never reached 60%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Public_opinion_about_Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Public_opinion_abou... >According to a January poll, 45% of Ukrainians supported the protests, and 48% of Ukrainians disapproved of Euromaidan. >In a March poll, 57% of Ukrainians said they supported the Euromaidan protests. The polling variation was large. The government was overthrown in February. But the western regions were massively in favor, and surrounded the capital, while the southeast was mostly opposed. Well-functioning states rely on political processes instead of simply overturning the government whenever a majority of citizens opposes it. Given the polling data and the division of public opinion, I don't support what happened in February 2014. But that doesn't make it a coup -- a coup is a transfer of power that originates specifically within the government, and Ukraine's protests weren't like that. Nor does it justify Russia's invasion. What happened was more like a feudal power struggle. It doesn't help that before new elections could be held, the interim government banned several political parties. Maybe they were "pro-Russian", but democracy means voters deserve a say in a country's geopolitical alignment, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to ban a political party to me. >but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement Now this sounds like a joke. US politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden and several senators, attended the protests. This makes American support pretty obvious. US media at the time also tended to minimize domestic opposition to the protests, even though this was a significant position within Ukraine.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]

That's probably false as you can see historically that ideological armies have far better morale and better effectiveness

by breppp 1mo ago

That's probably false as you can see historically that ideological armies have far better morale and better effectiveness

throw310822 1mo ago

"Bringing democracy" is a very weak ideological motivation. I would rather call it plausible deniability. As in "we're doing this to bring democracy" and people might be left with the doubt that it's true.

breppp 1mo ago
It is a very weak ideological motivation for people who would never enlist in the first place. However, I think people are generally too cynical towards a very real belief system. There are multiple examples of US pushing for democracy against its own interest. Bush with the Hamas Gaza elections, Obama with the Egypt Muslim Brotherhood government and Carter with pre-revolution Iran are such examples
- yosefk 1mo ago
  Bush knew what he was doing - Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it. When Trump decided he wants them to release Israeli hostages he forced them to do it rather quickly, all things considered, showing who really controls Hamas. Restraining American "allies" is key to how America understands its interests and Hamas is an excellent lever to pressure Israel, or Hamas-controlled Gaza wouldn't be flooded with American and European money. Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did; in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup against the elected government (this is not to say that Russia's actions in Ukraine are "justified", it's just a fact.) Democracy has nothing to do with any of this
  - breppp 1mo ago
    > Hamas has the influence it has because the US wants it to have it I doubt this is backed by US intentions and actions historically > Similarly, Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood because he did That seems like a tautology to me, care to expand? I vividly remember Obama throwing his autocrat ally under the bus > in Ukraine for instance the same admin supported a coup The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement
    - leonidasrup 1mo ago
      "In the late 2010s and early 2020s, Israeli officials encouraged Qatar to support Hamas, especially by approving the transfer of large sums of financial aid by Qatar to the organization. Several Israeli intelligence officials have cited Qatari money as a contributing factor to the success of Hamas in leading the October 7 attacks in 2023; Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the notion that Israel strategically propped up Hamas "ridiculous", and stated that Qatar's aid transfers to the Hamas government had been approved for humanitarian reasons." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
      - breppp 1mo ago
        I'm not sure how is that related to the original topic. The events I am describing are a decade to two before the ones you are describing. Back in the early 2000s Qatar was already financing Hamas as well as Al Qaeda (including involvement in 9/11 financing) and Hezbollah in some extent. Saying Qatar needed Israel's request to start financing ideologically close Islamist terror organizations is certainly the Qatar government line for their involvement, but it's a very shallow analysis of what happened
    - scythe 1mo ago
      >The protests in Ukraine hardly seem like a US coup and were organic according to my understanding, but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement Most coups are organic. The US involvement in the Iran coup of 1953 was not very much, but the signal of support was meaningful. Ditto Chile in 1973. Ukraine's overthrow was not like those coups. It relied on popular support from the region near the capital. However, this support was not uniform across the country, and support for the protests hovered around 50% and never reached 60%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Public_opinion_about_Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Public_opinion_abou... >According to a January poll, 45% of Ukrainians supported the protests, and 48% of Ukrainians disapproved of Euromaidan. >In a March poll, 57% of Ukrainians said they supported the Euromaidan protests. The polling variation was large. The government was overthrown in February. But the western regions were massively in favor, and surrounded the capital, while the southeast was mostly opposed. Well-functioning states rely on political processes instead of simply overturning the government whenever a majority of citizens opposes it. Given the polling data and the division of public opinion, I don't support what happened in February 2014. But that doesn't make it a coup -- a coup is a transfer of power that originates specifically within the government, and Ukraine's protests weren't like that. Nor does it justify Russia's invasion. What happened was more like a feudal power struggle. It doesn't help that before new elections could be held, the interim government banned several political parties. Maybe they were "pro-Russian", but democracy means voters deserve a say in a country's geopolitical alignment, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to ban a political party to me. >but maybe you can point exactly to the US involvement Now this sounds like a joke. US politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden and several senators, attended the protests. This makes American support pretty obvious. US media at the time also tended to minimize domestic opposition to the protests, even though this was a significant position within Ukraine.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]